Everything about Inverse Copula totally explained
== The unified theory of copular sentences ==
Copular sentences are sentences containing the
copula. A copular sentence may contain a
noun phrase, the
copula and another
phrase. A subfield of research which has been particularly studied is the case of the copula cooccurring with two
noun phrases. Along with copular sentences. for example sentences containing the
copula (
to be, in English) where the canonical order of predication is displayed - that is, the
subject precedes the
predicate - as in
a picture of the wall is the cause of the riot there can also be "inverse copular sentences" where this order is mirrored as in
the cause of the riot is a picture of the wall (cf. Moro 1997, Everaert et al 2006 and references cited there). Although these two sentences are superficially very similar it can be shown that they embody very different properties. So, for example it's possible to form a sentence like
which riot do you think that a picture of the wall is the cause of but not
which wall do you think that the cause of the riot was a picture of. The distinction between canonical and inverse copular sentences - and the unified theory of copular sentences associated to it - has been proved to be valid across-languages and has led to some refinement of the theory of clause structure. In particular it challenges one of the major dogmas of the theory of
clause or
sentence structure, for example that the two basic constituents of a sentence - the Noun Phrase and the Verb Phrase - are associated with the logical/grammatical functions of
subject and predicate (cf.
phrase structure rules and
sentence). In fact, copular sentences show that this axiom isn't adquate on empirical grounds since the Noun Phrase that cooccurs with the Verb Phrase in a copular sentence can be the predicate and the
subject be contained in the Verb Phrase such as in
the cause of the riot is a picture of the wall.
Inverse copula and language acquisition
Interestingly, it has been suggested that inverse copular sentences appear to play a sharp role in setting the
pro-drop parameter. In a Romance language like Italian, for example, in sentences of the type Noun Phrase Verb Noun Phrase, the verb generally agrees with the Noun Phrase on the left with one exception: inverse copular setences. One can construe minimal pairs like t
he cause of the riot is/*are these pictures of the wall vs.
la causa della rivolta sono/*è queste foto del muro. These two sentences are one the gloss of the other with only one difference: the
copula is plural in Italian and singular in English. If one doesn't want to give up the idea that agreement is on the left as in all other sentences, then the only option is to assume that a
null pronoun, technically called "pro", occurs between the
copula and the Noun Phrase on the left. This could provide a positive piece of evidence to the children learning Italian that a
null pronoun exist. That a
null pronoun can occur as a predicate and not only as a
subject must be in fact independently assumed to assign a proper structure to sentences like
sono io (is me: "it's me") which can by no means be considered a transformation of *io sono, which has no meaning. This casts a sharp difference with respect to other sentences where the
subject appears on the right, such as telefono io (telephone I: "I telephone"), which have been traditionally analyzed as a transformation from io telefono involving a
null subject pro on the right.
Inverse copula and other constructions
The analysis involving the raising of a predicate phrase as in inverse copular sentences has been extended - mutatis mutandis - to other domain of syntax, such as for example, noun phrases. Cases like,
this idiot of John have been analyzed as a transformation from an underlying structure where
John is the
subject and
this idiot is the predicate. Crucially, this analysis suggests that there can be other "copula" outside the verbal domain (realized by
of, in the cited example) which can play the role of a hub for the predicate to be displaced (see Kayne 1994, Zamparelli 1995, Bennis et al. 1998).
The idea of a propredicate has also been extended to other types of constructions, such as for example sentences of the type
it seems that John left or sentences of the type
what I think it's a mystery is numbers (see Moro 1997, Den Dikken 2006 and references cited there). So, for example, it seems that John left would be analyzed on a par with sentences of the type it's that John left, for example involving the occurrence of a pronoun it playing the role of a predicate rather than the
subject as traditionally assumed.
Further Information
Get more info on 'Inverse Copula'.
|
External Link Exchanges
Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:
<a href="http://inverse_copula.totallyexplained.com">Inverse copula Totally Explained</a>
Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned. |
