Ad hoc properties and locations in Maltese
Gréte Dalmi
Jan Kochanowski University in Kielce , PolandAbstract
This paper aims to show that the four-way BE-system of Maltese can best be accommodated in a theory of non-verbal predication that builds on alternative states, without making any reference to the Davidsonian spatio-temporal event variable. The existing theories of non-verbal predicates put the burden of explaining the difference between the ad hoc vs. habitual interpretations either solely on the non-verbal predicate, by postulating an event variable in their lexical layer (see Kratzer 1995; Adger and Ramchand 2003; Magri 2009; Roy 2013), or solely on the copular or non-copular primary predicate, which contains an aspectual operator or an incorporated abstract preposition, responsible for such interpretive differences (Schmitt 2005, Schmitt and Miller 2007, Gallego and Uriagereka 2009, 2011, Marín 2010, Camacho 2012).
The present proposal combines Maienborn’s (2003, 2005a,b, 2011) discourse-semantic theory of copular sentences with Richardson’s (2001, 2007) analysis of non-verbal adjunct predicates in Russian, based on alternative states. Under this combined account, variation between the ad hoc vs. habitual interpretations of non-verbal predicates is derived from the presence or absence of a modal OPalt operator that can bind the temporal variable of non-verbal predicates in accessible worlds, in the sense of Kratzer (1991). In the absence of this operator, the temporal variable is bound by the T0 head in the standard way. The proposal extends to non-verbal predicates in copular sentences as well as to argument and adjunct non-verbal predicates in non-copular sentences.
Keywords:
ad hoc vs. habitual properties, alternative states, accessible worlds, rich structure small clauses, cyclic AgreeReferences
Adger, D., and Ramchand G. 2003. Predication and equation. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 325-360.
Akmajian, A. 1977. The complement structure of perception verbs in an Autonomous Syntax Framework. In P. Culicover, T. Wasow, and A. Akmajian (eds.), Formal Syntax, 427-460. New York: Academic Press.
Al-Balushi, R. 2012. Why verbless sentences in Standard Arabic are verbless? Canadian Journal of Linguistics 57(1): 1-30.
Al-Horais, N. 2006. Arabic verbless sentences: Is there a null VP? Pragmalinguistica 14: 101-116.
Bailyn, J. 2011. The syntax of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beck, S. 2007. The grammar of focus interpretation. In H-M. Gärtner, and U. Sauerland (eds.), Interfaces+Recursion=Language?Chomsky’s Minimalism and the view from syntax/semantics, 255-280. Berlin: Mouton.
Bèjar, S., and M. Rezac. 2009. Cyclic Agree. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 35-73.
Bennamoun, E. 2000. The featural structure of functional categories: A comparative study of Arabic dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Błaszczak, J., and L. Geist. 2001. Zur Rolle des Pronomens to/eto in specificierenden Kopulakonstruktionen im Polnishen und Russischen [To the role of to/eto in specificational copular constructions in Polish and Russian]. In G. Zybatow, U. Junghanns, G. Mehlhorn, and Szucsich (eds.), Current Issues in Formal Slavic Linguistics (= Linguistik International 5). 247-257. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Bondaruk, A. 2013. Copular clauses in English and Polish. Structure, derivation and interpretation. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.
Borg, A. J. 1987. To be or not to be a copula in Maltese? Journal of Maltese Linguistics 17/18: 54-71.
Bowers, J. 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 591-656.
Bowers, J. 2001. Predication. In M. Baltin, and C. Collins (eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, 299-333. Oxford: Blackwell.
Carlson, G. 1980. Reference to kinds in English. New York: Garland.
Camacho, J. 2012. Ser and Estar: The individual/stage level distinction and aspectual predication. In J.I. Hualde, A. Olarrea, and E. O’Rourk. (eds.), The handbook of Hispanic linguistics, 453-475. Oxford: Blackwell.
Citko, B. 2007. Small clauses: Not so small and not all alike. Ms. www.ling.auf.net
Citko, B. 2008. Small clauses: Not so small and not all alike. Lingua 118: 261-295.
Dalmi, G. 1994. Hungarian infinitival constructions. M.Phil. diss., Sydney, The University of Sydney.
Dalmi, G. 2002. The role of AgrP in non-finite predication. Ph.D. diss. Budapest, Eötvös Loránd University.
Dalmi, G. 2005. The role of agreement in non-finite predication. Linguistik Aktuell 90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dalmi, G. 2010a. Copular sentences, K-states and secondary predication. Talk given at STALDAC. Cambridge, Newnham College.
Dalmi, G. 2010b. Copular sentences, predication and cyclic Agree. A comparative approach. Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing (VDM).
Dalmi, G. 2010c. Copular sentences, predication and cyclic Agree. Habilitation Treatise, Budapest, Eötvös Loránd University.
Dalmi, G. 2012. Copular sentences expressing Kimian states in Irish and Russian. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 57(3): 341-358.
Dalmi, G. 2013. The meaning of the zero copula in multiple BE-system languages. In A. Bondaruk and A. Malicka-Kleparska (eds.), Ambiguity. Multifaceted structures in syntax, morphology and phonology. Studies in Linguistics and Methodology (SLAM) Vol. 5, 169-201. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.
Dalmi, G. 2015. What does it take to be a copula? Talk given at PLM 45 Poznań.
Davidson, D. 1980. The logical form of action sentences: Criticism, comment, and defence. In D. Davidson (ed.), Essays on Actions and Events, 101-148. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Dikken den, M. 2006. Relators and Linkers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Doherty, C. 1996. Clausal structure and the Modern Irish copula. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14:1-46.
Doron, E. 1983. Verbless predicates in Hebrew. Ph.D. diss., Austin, University of Texas.
Doron, E. 1986. The pronominal copula as agreement clitic. In H. Borer (ed.), The syntax of pronominal clitics, 313-332. New York: Academic Press.
Eid, M.1991. Verbless sentences in Arabic and Hebrew. In B. Comrie, and M. Eid (eds.), Perspectives on Arabic linguistics. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 80. 31-61. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fassi-Fehri, A. 1993. Issues in the structure of Arabic clauses and words. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Fong, V. 2003. Resultatives and depictives in Finnish. In S. Manninen, and D. Nelson (eds.), Generative approaches to Finnic and Saami linguistics. 201-235. Stanford: CSLI.
Franks, S. 2014. The overgeneration problem and the case of semipredicatives in Russian. In A. Bondaruk, G. Dalmi, and A. Grosu (eds.), Advances in the Syntax of DPs. Structure, agreement, and case. Linguistik Aktuell 217, 13-60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gallego, A., and J. Uriagereka. 2009. Estar = Ser + P. Paper presented at the XIXth Colloquium on Generative Grammar. Vitoria-Gasteiz. Basque Country.
Gallego, A., and J. Uriagereka. 2011. The lexical syntax of ser and estar. Ms. Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona and University of Maryland.
Geist, L. 2014. Review of “Non-Verbal Predication: Copular Sentences and the Syntax/Semantics Interface” by I. Roy. Journal of Linguistics 50: 255-260.
Heycock, C. 1994. The internal structure of small clauses: New evidence from inversion. Proceedings of NELS 25: 222-238.
Heycock C. 2012. Specification, equation and agreement in copular sentences. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 57.2: 209-240.
Heycock, C., and A. Kroch. 1998. Inversion and equation in copular sentences. In A. Alexiadou, N. Fuhrhop, U. Kleinhenz, and P. Law (eds.), ZAS Papers In Linguistics 10: 71-87. Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.
Kratzer, A.1991. Modality. In A.von Stechow, and D. Wunderlich (eds.), Semantics. An international handbook of contemporary research, 639-650. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kratzer, A. 1995. Stage-level and individual level predicates. In G. Carlson, and F. Pelletier (eds.), The generic book, 125-176. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kratzer, A. 2012. What must and can must and can mean. In A. Kratzer (ed.), Modals and conditionals. New and revised perspectives, 1-21. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Magri, G. 2009. A theory of individual level predicates based on blind mandatory scalar implicatures. Natural Language Semantics 17: 245-297.
Maienborn, C. 2001. On the position and interpretation of locative modifiers. Natural Language Semantics 9: 191-240.
Maienborn, C. 2003. Against a Davidsonian analysis of copular sentences. In M. Kadowaki, and S. Kadahara (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 33: 167-186.
Maienborn, C. 2005a. On the limits of the Davidsonian approach: The case of copular sentences. Theoretical Linguistics 31.3: 275-316.
Maienborn, C. 2005b. A discourse-based account of Spanish ser/estar. Linguistics 43(1):155-180.
Maienborn, C. 2011. Event semantics. In C. Maienborn, K.von Heusinger, and P. Portner (eds.), An international handbook of natural language meaning. Volume 1, 803-829. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Marín, R. 2010. Spanish adjectives within bounds. In P. Cabredo-Hoffher, and O, Matushansky (eds.), Adjectives: Formal analyses in syntax and semantics. Linguistik Aktuell 153, 307-332. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Moltmann, F. 2013. On the distinction between abstract states, concrete states and tropes. In C. Beyssade, A. Mari, and F. del Prete (eds.), Genericity, 293-312. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Partee, B. 1998. Copular inversion puzzles in English and Russian. In K. Dziwirek, H. Coats, and C. Vakareliyska (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, 361-395. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.
Partee, B., and Borschev, V. 2007. Existential sentences, BE and GEN NEG in Russian. In I. Comorowski, and Karl von Heusinger (eds.), Existence: Semantics and syntax, 147-191. New York: Springer.
Pereltsvaig, A. 2007. Copular sentences in Russian. A theory of intra-clausal relations. New York: Springer.
Querido, A. 1976. The semantics of copular constructions in Portuguese. In M. Lujan, and F. Hensey (eds.), Current studies in RomancelLinguistics, 343-366. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Richardson, K. 2001. What secondary predicates in Russian tell us about the link between Tense, Aspect and Case. In Niina Zhang (ed.), ZAS Papers in Linguistics 26: 1-25.
Richardson, K. 2007. Case and Aspect in Slavic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar, 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Rizzi, L. 2004. On the cartography of syntactic structures. In L. Rizzi (ed.), The Structure of CP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structures, volume 2, 3-17. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rizzi, L. 2013. Topic, focus and the cartography of the left periphery. In S. Luragi, and C. Parodi (eds.), The Bloomsbury companion to syntax, 436-451. London: Bloomsbury.
Roy, I. 2013. Non-verbal predication: Copular sentences at the syntax/semantics interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rooth, M. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75-116.
Rothstein, S. 2000. Fine-grained structure in the eventuality domain: The semantics of predicative adjectival phrases and BE. Natural Language Semantics 7: 347-420.
Rothstein, S. 2001. Predicates and their Subjects. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Schmitt, C. 2005. Semi-copulas. Event and aspectual composition. In I. Kempchinsky, and R. Slabakova (eds.), Aspectual Inquiries, 121-145. New York: Springer.
Schmitt, C., and K. Miller. 2007. Making discourse-dependent decisions: The case of the copulas ser and estar in Spanish. Lingua 117: 1907-1929.
Shlonsky, U. 2000. Subject positions and copular constructions. In H. Bennis, M. Everaert, and E. Reuland (eds.), Interface strategies, 325-347. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Shlonsky, U. 2011. Hebrew as a partial null subject language. Studia Linguistica 63(1): 133-157.
Stassen, L. 1996. The switcher’s paradise: Nonverbal predication in Maltese. Rivista di Linguistica 8(1): 275-300.
Stassen, L. 2008. Zero copula for predicate nominals. In M. Haspelmath, M. Dryer, D. Gil, and B. Comrie (eds.), World atlas of language structures online. Chapter 120. Munich: Max Plank Digital Library. http://www.wals.info
Stowell, T. 1981. The origin of phrase structure. Ph.D. diss., Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stowell, T. 1983. Subjects across categories. The Linguistic Review 2: 285-312.
Stowell, T. 1991. Small clause restructuring. In R. Freidin (ed.), Principles and parameters in comparative grammar, 183-218. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
