Non-Verbal Predication: Theory, Typology, Diachrony 9783110883282, 9783110137132

Citation preview

Non-verbal Predication

Functional Grammar Series 15

Editors

A. Machtelt Bolkestein Simon C. Dik Casper de Groot J. Lachlan Mackenzie

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

Non-verbal Predication Theory, Typology, Diachrony

by

Kees Hengeveld

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York 1992

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin.

® Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hengeveld, Kees, 1957Non-verbal prediction : theory, typology, diachrony / Kees Hengeveld. p. cm. — (Functional grammar series ; 15) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 3-11-013713-5 (acid-free paper) 1. Grammar, Comparative and general—Verb phrase. 2. Functionalism (Linguistics) I. Title. II. Series. P281.H46 1992 415-dc20 92-22942 CIP

Die Deutsche Bibliothek — Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hengeveld, Kees:

Non-verbal predication : theory, typology, diachrony / by Kees Hengeveld. — Berlin ; New York : Mouton de Gruyter, 1992 (Functional grammar series ; 15) ISBN 3-11-013713-5 NE: GT

© Copyright 1992 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., D-1000 Berlin 30. All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printing: Arthur Collignon GmbH, Berlin. — Binding: Lüderitz & Bauer, Berlin. — Printed in Germany.

To Matty and Anna

Acknowledgements

This book is the result of several years of research into the intricacies of non-verbal predication. During this period, and well before that, Simon Dik has played an important role in its coming into being. He not only introduced me into the basic principles of general linguistics when I had just arrived at the University of Amsterdam, but also taught me the basic principles of Functional Grammar, recognized and materialized my interest for academic research, and supervised the research project which led to this study. His inspiration, guidance, and criticism have greatly influenced the final shape of this book. I would like to express my deep gratitude to him for his invaluable help in all stages of my formation as a linguist. The general spirit in which this book was written is partly due to many discussions within the workgroup on Functional Grammar at the University of Amsterdam. From among the members of this group I would like to single out Machtelt Bolkestein, Casper de Groot, and Jan Rijkhoff, the discussions with whom at different stages of the preparation of this book have been particularly fruitful. Hotze Mulder corrected my English, as so many times before. I am most grateful to him for his help. For their help in the collection and interpretation of data on individual languages I would like to thank Ionic Beck (Jamaican Creole), Martine Cuvalay-Haak (Arabic), Michael Fortescue (West Greenlandic), Casper de Groot (Hungarian), Lars Kristoffersen (West Greenlandic), Igor Nedjalkov (Gilyak), Vladimir Nedjalkov (Chukchee), Gerjan van Schaaik (Turkish), Jan Snyman (!Xu), Arie Spruit (Abkhaz), and Tonjes Veenstra (Jamaican Creole).

Table of contents

List of maps, tables, and figures

xvii

Abbreviations

xxi

0. Introduction

1

1. Some basic principles of Functional Grammar

3

1.0. 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 1.5. 1.6. 1.7. 1.8. 1.9. 1.10. 1.11.

Introduction Predicate frames Term formation The representation of states of affairs Syntactic and pragmatic functions The representation of utterances Terms and entities Operators Satellites Clause structure Subordination Expression rules

2. The sample 2.0. 2.1. 2.2. 2.3.

Introduction Sampling method Description of the sample Matters of presentation

3. Non-verbal predication 3.0. 3.1. 3.2. 3.3.

Introduction Predication Non-verbal predication Non-verbal predicates

3 3 4 4 5 6 8 8 10 11 12 13 15 15 15 18 23 25 25 25 26 27

χ Ν on - verba I predication

3.4.

3.5.

Copula, semi-copula, pseudo-copula 3.4.0. Introduction 3.4.1. The copula 3.4.2. The semi-copula 3.4.3. The pseudo-copula 3.4.3.0. Introduction 3.4.3.1. Reduced complements 3.4.3.2. Predicative adjuncts 3.4.3.3. Predicative arguments 3.4.3.4. Quotative arguments Summary

4. Parts of speech 4.0. 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5.

4.6.

Introduction Previous approaches Variables for predicates New definitions The identification of classes of predicates Parts-of-speech systems 4.5.0. Introduction 4.5.1. Flexible versus rigid languages 4.5.2. The parts-of-speech hierarchy 4.5.3. Explaining the parts-of-speech hierarchy Preview

5. A classification of non-verbal predications 5.0. 5.1.

Introduction Predicate types 5.1.0. Introduction 5.1.1. Bare predicates 5.1.2. Referential predicates 5.1.2.0. Introduction 5.1.2.1. Term predicates 5.1.2.1.1. General properties 5.1.2.1.2. Definiteness and indefiniteness 5.1.2.1.3. Specification and characterization 5.1.2.2. Other referential predicates

30 30 32 34 39 39 39 40 42 43 45 47 47 48 51 55 60 62 62 63 68 71 72 73 73 74 74 75 77 77 77 77 80 . . . 82 89

Table of contents xi

5.2.

5.3.

5.4. 5.5.

5.6. 5.7. 5.8.

5.1.3. Relational predicates 5.1.3.1. General properties 5.1.3.2. Localizing predicates 5.1.3.2.0. Introduction 5.1.3.2.1. Locative predicates 5.1.3.2.2. Existential predicates 5.1.3.4. Possessive predicates 5.1.3.5. Summary 5.1.4. Major non-verbal predication types 5.1.4.1. Equative, ascriptive, and existential predication 5.1.4.2. The identification of major non-verbal predication types 5.1.5. Summary Argument types 5.2.0. Introduction 5.2.1. Entities 5.2.2. Arguments 5.2.3. Arguments of non-verbal predicates Predicability 5.3.0. Introduction 5.3.1. Ontological predicability 5.3.2. Linguistic predicability Semantic relations in non-verbal predication Presentativity 5.5.1. Presentative and non-presentative arguments 5.5.2. Major non-verbal predication types—continued Control Summary Key examples

6. Non-verbal predicability 6.0. 6.1.

6.2.

Introduction Predicability and predicate type 6.1.0. Introduction 6.1.1. Ascriptive predications 6.1.1.1. Non-presentative predications 6.1.1.2. Explanations 6.1.1.3. Presentative predications 6.1.2. Equative predications Predicability and predication type 6.2.0. Introduction

91 91 94 94 94 96 100 101 101 101 104 105 106 106 108 109 Ill 112 112 112 113 115 118 118 121 122 123 125 127 127 130 130 130 130 135 139 141 145 145

xii Non-verbal predication

6.3. 6.4. 6.5.

6.2.1. Ascriptive predications 6.2.2. Ascriptive and equative predications Predicability and deixis Predicability and quantification Summary

7. Alternatives for non-verbal predications 7.0. 7.1.

7.2.

7.3.

Introduction Alternative predication types 7.1.1. The lexical predication type 7.1.1.1. The true lexical predication type 7.1.1.2. The pseudo-transitive predication type 7.1.2. The equative predication type 7.1.3. The locative predication type 7.1.4. The existential predication type 7.1.4.0. Introduction 7.1.4.1. Possessor as experiencer 7.1.4.2. Possessor as restrictor 7.1.4.3. Possessor as theme 7.1.5. The proprietive/privative predication type 7.1.5.0. Introduction 7.1.5.1. Adjectival/nominal 7.1.5.2. Adverbial 7.1.6. The predicative quantifier predication type The distribution of alternative predication types 7.2.0. Introduction 7.2.1. Alternatives for non-presentative predications 7.2.2. Alternatives for presentative predications Summary

8. The expression of non-verbal predications 8.0. 8.1.

Introduction Expression formats 8.1.0. Introduction 8.1.1. Expression formats lacking a copula 8.1.2. Copulas 8.1.2.0. Introduction 8.1.2.1. Predicativizing copulas 8.1.2.2. Discriminating copulas 8.1.3. A classification of expression formats

145 150 152 153 154 157 157 157 157 157 159 160 162 163 163 163 164 164 165 165 165 166 167 169 169 170 174 182 185 185 185 185 185 188 188 188 190 192

Table of contents xiii

8.2.

8.3.

The distribution of expression formats 8.2.0. Introduction 8.2.1. Expression formats across languages 8.2.2. Expression formats across predication types 8.2.2.0. Introduction 8.2.2.1. The zero-1 strategy 8.2.2.2. The zero-2 strategy 8.2.2.3. The discriminating strategy Copula triggers 8.3.0. Introduction 8.3.1. Tense, mood, aspect, and person 8.3.1.0. Introduction 8.3.1.1. Conditions 8.3.1.2. Optional and obligatory absence 8.3.2. Deixis 8.3.3. Tense and deixis 8.3.4. Ambiguity

9. Systems of non-verbal predication 9.0. 9.1.

9.2.

9.3. 9.4.

Introduction Expression patterns 9.1.0. Introduction 9.1.1. Relational versus non-relational 9.1.2. Equative versus localizing 9.1.3. Presentative versus non-presentative 9.1.4. All alike 9.1.5. Localizing versus non-localizing 9.1.6. Equative versus non-equative 9.1.7. Identifying versus non-identifying Discussion 9.2.0. Introduction 9.2.1. Rigid languages 9.2.2. Flexible languages 9.2.3. Specialized languages The status of adjectives Summary

194 194 194 198 198 199 201 204 205 205 205 205 206 207 208 210 211 213 213 213 213 216 219 221 224 225 227 229 230 230 231 233 233 234 236

xiv Non-verbal predication

10. Copularization 10.0. Introduction 10.1. Positional verbs and localizing copulas 10.1.0. Introduction 10.1.1. Positional verbs 10.1.2. Localizing copulas 10.1.3. Synthesis 10.1.3.0. Introduction 10.1.3.1. Specialized languages 10.1.3.2. Rigid languages 10.1.3.3. Summary 10.2. Pronouns 10.3. Semi-copulas 10.4. Existential verbs 10.5. Summary 11. Auxiliarization 11.0. Introduction 11.1. Auxiliary predication types 11.1.1. Property assignment 11.1.1.0. Introduction 11.1.1.1. Aspect 11.1.1.2. Mood 11.1.2. Classification 11.1.2.0. Introduction 11.1.2.1. Aspect 11.1.2.2. Mood 11.1.3. Localization 11.1.3.0. Introduction 11.1.3.1. Aspect 11.1.3.2. Mood 11.1.3.3. Negation 11.1.4. Metaphorical extension of the locative predication type 11.1.5. Reality 11.1.5.0. Introduction 11.1.5.1. Mood 11.1.5.2. Negation 11.1.6. Instantiation and factuality 11.1.7. Discussion

237 237 238 238 238 240 243 243 243 248 249 249 253 254 256 257 257 258 258 258 258 263 265 265 265 268 268 268 268 271 273 . 274 276 276 277 278 279 283

Table of contents xv

11.2. Basic and auxiliary predication 11.2.0. Introduction 11.2.1. Property assignment, classification, localization 11.2.2. Instantiation and reality 11.2.3. Metaphorical extension of the locative predication type 11.3. Summary

286 286 288 289 . 289 290

12. Conclusion

291

References

293

Index of languages

307

Index of names

311

Index of subjects

315

List of maps, tables, and figures

Map Approximate locations of the languages in the sample

20

Figures 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

The representation of utterances Operators Satellites The structure of the clause Sample clause structure The Uralic-Yukaghir phylum Predication and sentence Noun and term phrase Verb and predicate phrase—version 1 Verb and predicate phrase—version 2 Noun and predicate phrase Adjective and predicate phrase Adverb and predicate phrase The representation of utterances—version 2 Predicate frame, predicate, stem Predicate, stem, term The status of adjectives The status of adverbs The status of nouns Parts-of-speech systems Cross-classification of predications based on term-predicates Equative, ascriptive, and existential predication Discrepancies in predicability systems Major non-verbal predication types Semantic space for four relationships Semantic space for four relationships in Mandarin Chinese The predicability of four predication types in Mandarin Chinese Predicate hierarchy 1 and degrees of abstractness Stassen's revised time-stability scale and predicate hierarchy 1A— version 1 30. Stassen's revised time-stability scale and predicate hierarchy 1A— version 2 31. The re-revised time-stability scale

7 9 10 11 12 16 27 51 52 52 52 53 53 55 56 57 64 65 68 69 84 102 113 121 127 128 129 136 137 138 138

xviii Non-verbal predication

32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64.

Predicate and predication hierarchy—version 1 Predicate and predication hierarchy—version 2 Non-presentative predication types Alternatives for non-presentative ascriptive predications Presentative predications Alternatives for presentative predications Alternatives for non-verbal predications Copulas Expression formats—version 1 Expression formats—version 2 Deictic centre, tense, and deixis Relational versus non-relational Sketch: Hungarian Sketch: Bambara Equative versus localizing Sketch: Tamil Presentative versus non-presentative Sketch: Turkish All alike Sketch: Burushaski Localizing versus non-localizing Sketch: Jamaican Creole Equative versus non-equative Sketch: Yessan-Mayo Identifying versus non-identifying Sketch: Egyptian Arabic Parts-of-speech systems The expression of adjectival predications From positional verb to copula The development of expression patterns in specialized languages From positional verb and pronoun to copula The distribution of some auxiliary predication types Non-verbal predication and parts of speech

149 151 170 173 174 182 183 188 192 194 210 216 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 226 228 228 229 230 231 235 247 . . . . 248 252 289 291

Tables 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

A 40-language sample Genetic affiliations of the languages in the sample Sources of information on the languages in the sample Auxiliaries Functions of adjectives in English conversation

17 19 22 31 59

List of maps, tables, and figures xix

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.

Parts-of-speech systems of the languages of the sample Bare non-verbal predicates Term-predicates Term-predicates—version 2 Referential predicates Relational predicates Non-verbal predicates A classification of entities Realizations of argument types Semantic relations in non-verbal predication Presentative and non-presentative predications Controlled and non-controlled predications A classification of non-verbal predications Predicability of non-presentative ascriptive predications Predicability of non-presentative ascriptive predications— some examples Predicability and parts-of-speech systems Predicability of presentative ascriptive predications Predicability of presentative ascriptive predications—some examples Predicability of equative predications—some examples Predicability of equative predications Predicability of localizing predications Predicability of possessive predications Predicability of localizing predications—some examples Predicability of possessive predications—some examples Predicability and deixis Predicability and quantification Alternatives for non-presentative predications The equative predication type as an alternative for non-presentative predications—some examples Alternatives for presentative predications The nominal/adjectival proprietive/privative predication type as an alternative for presentative predications—some examples The adverbial proprietive/privative predication type as an alternative for presentative predications—some examples The predicative quantifier predication type as an alternative for presentative predications—some examples Expression formats used in the languages of the sample Expression formats across languages The use of the zero-1 strategy The zero-2 strategy Absence of copula and zero-strategy

70 77 82 89 91 101 106 108 110 116 120 123 124 131 132 134 140 . 141 143 144 146 147 148 148 153 154 171 172 175 176 176 176 195 196 199 202 207

xx Non-verbal predication

43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50.

Expression formats used in the languages of the sample Parts-of-speech systems, zero-strategies, and expression patterns Stare in the Ibero-Romance languages Distribution of pronominal copulas—some illustrations Auxiliary uses of non-verbal predication types Auxiliary predications with a first order argument Auxiliary predications with a second order argument Auxiliary predications in the languages of the sample

214 232 . 245 251 283 284 286 287

Abbreviations

In glosses

ι 2 3 ABS ACC ADJR ADVR ART ATTR AUX CL CLFR CMPLR COND CONN CONT COP DAT DECL DEF DEM DES DU DUR EX EXCL EXCLM EMPH F FIN PUT GEN H HAB HON IMP IMPF IMPRS INDV

first person second person third person absolutive accusative adjectivalizer adverbializer article attributive auxiliary noun-class classifier complementizer conditional connective continuative copula dative declarative definite demonstrative desiderative dual durative existential exclusive exclamation emphatic feminine finite future genitive human habitual honorific imperative imperfective impersonal indicative

INDEF INF INFR INGR INT LOC M N NEG NFIN NH NOM NPAST NR NSG OBJ OBLIG OPT PART PAST PF PL PNCT POS POSS POT PRED PRES PREV PRIV PROPR PROSP PROX PTT PURP QUOT RDP REAL REL

indefinite infinitive inferential ingressive interrogative locative masculine neuter negative non-finite non-human nominative non-past nominal izer non-singular object obligative optative participle past perfective plural punctual positive possessive potential predicative present preverb privative proprietive prospective proximate partitive purposive quotative reduplication realized relative

xxii Non-verbal predication

REM RSLT SBJ SG SS STAT

remote resultative subject singular same subject stative

TOP TR VAL VOL VR

topic transitive validator volitional verbalizer

In representations1 Word classes

Pragmatic functions

β

Pragm Foe Pres Top

A Adv Ν Pro Quant V Vaux

any word class adjective adverb noun pronoun quantifier verb auxiliary verb

Illocutionary predicates ILL DECL IMP

any illocutionary predicate declarative imperative

Syntactic functions Synt Obj Subj

any syntactic function object subject

1. See also figure 4 on page 11.

any pragmatic function focus presentative topic

Semantic functions

Sem 0 Ag Circ Exp Go Loc Po Poss Propr Rec Ref So Temp

any semantic function zero agent circumstance experiencer goal (patient) location positioner possessor proprietive recipient reference source time

Abbreviations xxiii

Π-operators

Term operators

ant cond ingr irr mit neg poss post pres progr sim

Ω 1 A d g i m prox R rem

anterior conditional ingressive unrealized mitigation negative possibility posterior present progressive simultaneous

any term operator singular anaphoric definite generic indefinite plural proximate relative remote

0. Introduction

This study of theoretical, typological, and diachronic aspects of non-verbal predication starts from the hypothesis, brought forward in Dik (1980, 1983, 1987), that all constructions containing a form of the (equivalent of the) verb to be on the one hand, and those containing no verb at all on the other, are members of a single class of non-verbal predications. This approach allows for a unified treatment of nominal, copula, locative, existential, and possessive constructions and makes it possible to generalize across languages that do and those that do not make use of one or more copulas in the expression of non-verbal predications. The main constituents of the constructions that I will be concerned with are (i) a main predicate of a category other than verb and (ii) its argument(s). These constituents may or may not be accompanied by (iii) a copula. The intended construction types thus have the following general format, where the actual order in which the constituents are presented is irrelevant: (1)

Argument(s)

(Copula)

Predicate•-v

Constructions conforming to this general format will be termed non-verbal predications. Any auxiliary element occurring in such constructions, including pronominal copula morphemes, existential particles, and the like will be termed copula. Some (pseudo-) English examples are given in (2):

(2)

a. b. c. d.

Argument John Peter the dog a meeting

(Copula) 0 he is there.is

Predicate.v ill my best friend in the garden at ten o'clock

The construction types illustrated in (2) differ with respect to the type of the main predicate (an adjective in (2a), a noun phrase in (2b), a prepositional phrase in (2c2d)) and with respect to the type of copula (no copula in (2a), a pronominal copula in (2b), a verbal copula in (2c), an existential copula in (2d)). They have in common that their main predicate is of a category other than verb, and this is what makes them qualify as instances of non-verbal predication. The theoretical part of this study is written within the framework of Functional Grammar. This theory not only provides the hypothesis that is at the heart of this study, but will also serve as the framework for the analysis of the typological data. The Functional Grammar formalism will thus serve as a metalanguage within which the linguistic observations made are reformulated. The need for such a metalanguage is particularly felt in the investigation of language universals, since this type of research requires the possibility to generalize over typologically highly divergent languages.

2 Non-verbal predication The organization of the material is as follows: Chapters 1 and 2 contain preliminary information necessary for a proper understanding of later chapters. A brief outline of some relevant aspects of Functional Grammar is given in chapter 1. Chapter 2 gives an account of the method used to arrive at the language sample from which the data for this study are taken. Chapters 3, 4, and 5 investigate non-verbal predication from a primarily theoretical perspective. Chapter 3 defines and delimits some notions crucial to the field of non-verbal predication. In chapter 4 the categorial differences between verbal and non-verbal predicates are investigated and a new typology of parts-ofspeech systems is developed. Chapter 5 then presents a full classification of nonverbal predication types, building on the results of the preceding chapters. Chapters 6, 7, 8 are of a primarily typological nature. Chapter 6 investigates the degree of non-verbal predicability of the languages of the sample, i.e. the extent to which they make use of the non-verbal predication types distinguished in chapter 5. Chapter 7 deals with the alternatives languages use for non-predicable non-verbal predication types. Chapter 8 studies the expression formats languages use for predicable non-verbal predication types, including the extent to which they require the presence of copulas of different types. In all three chapters the variation found across languages is shown to be highly systematic. Chapters 9 and 10 put the typological data in a wider typological and diachronic perspective. Chapter 9 shows that there is a systematic correlation between the system of non-verbal predication displayed by a language on the one hand, and its parts-of-speech system on the other. Chapter 10 looks at systems of non-verbal predication, as emerging from chapter 9, from a diachronic perspective. Chapter 11 is a chapter in its own right, in that it investigates theoretical, typological, and diachronic aspects of the use of non-verbal predication in the expression of tense, mood, aspect, and polarity distinctions. The auxiliary uses of non-verbal predication types are described in relation to their basic uses. Chapter 12 brings together the findings of the previous chapters in terms of a general typology, based on the major parameters determining the way in which and the extent to which languages make use of non-verbal predication.

1. Some basic principles of Functional Grammar

1.0. Introduction Functional Grammar, full descriptions of which can be found in Dik (1989) and Siewierska (1991), is a theory of grammar which aims at providing a model for describing language in terms of its communicative function, i.e. as an instrument of social interaction, and tries to do so in a typologically, pragmatically, and psychologically adequate way. Functional Grammar starts with the construction of underlying semantic structures, which are converted into linguistic expressions through expression rules. The basic mechanisms of Functional Grammar, in so far as relevant for the ensuing chapters, are explained step by step in the following sections. More detailed descriptions of crucial aspects of Functional Grammar will be given at the relevant places.

1.1. Predicate frames All basic lexical elements of a language are stored in the lexicon in the form of predicate frames, which, apart from a predicate, contain a number of argument positions, representing the participants that obligatorily1 take part in the state of affairs designated by the predicate. The predicate is provided with an indication of its categorial status. Each argument position is provided with a semantic function, indicating a participant role. Some examples: (1) (2) (3) (4)

readv (x^ (x2)Go oldA (x,)0 manN (xjg brother^ (x^0 (x2)Rrf

The verbal (V) predicate read in (1) has two argument positions (x„) with the semantic functions Agent (Ag) and Goal (Go). The adjectival (A) predicate old in (2) and the nominal (N) predicate man in (3) have one argument position with the semantic function Zero (0), which is used for participants carrying the property designated by the predicate. The nominal predicate brother in (4) has two argument positions with the semantic functions Zero and Reference (Ref). The latter is used for participants with reference to which the relation designated by the predicate holds (Mackenzie 1983: 38).

1. Note that under certain restricted conditions, in particular recoverability from the context, these participants may remain unexpressed.

4 Some basic principles of Functional Grammar

Besides basic predicate frames such as those in (l)-(4) there are derived predicate frames. These are created by means of predicate formation rules which have predicates as their input and derived predicates as their output. Predicate formation rules thus take care of derivational morphology but may also yield combinations of words which function as unified predicates. Both basic and derived predicates are contained in the fund, which, apart from predicates, also contains terms.

1.2. Term formation In the argument positions of a predicate frame terms can be inserted. Terms are referring expressions of the following general format:

(5)

(χ,: Φ,ί^): Φ^): ... :Φη(χ,))

in which Χ; is a term variable which represents the referent set of the term and each Φ(χ;) constitutes an open predication in xf which further restricts the set of potential referents of the term. The predicates necessary for the construction of these open predications are taken from the fund. Consider the following example: (6)

the old man reading a book (xj: manN (χ^0: oldA (xJ0: [sim readv (x;)^ (Xj: book (Xj)0)Go]) sim = simultaneity operator

Three different qualities are predicated of the referent of the term in (6) by means of the open predications listed in (7): (7)

a. b. c.

manN Χ is a man' oldA (x;)0 Χ is old' [sim readv (x^ (x^: book (Xj)0)GJ Χ is reading a book'

1.3. The representation of states of affairs In order to arrive at a predication, which designates a state of affairs, terms are inserted into the argument slots of a predicate frame. The resulting structure is applied to a variable (e) which represents the particular state of affairs towards which the speaker wants to direct the addressee's attention (Vet 1986: 2-3), as in the following example:

Syntactic and pragmatic functions

(8)

5

The old man reads a book. (e;: [readv (x^: manN (x;)0: oldA (x^)^ (Xji bookN (χ}

In (8) the intended state of affairs e{ is defined as one which concerns the reading of a book Xj by an old man Xj. The part between square brackets is called a nuclear predication, the structure as a whole an extended predication.2

1.4. Syntactic and pragmatic functions Apart from semantic functions, arguments may carry syntactic and pragmatic functions. Syntactic functions specify the (grammatical) perspective from which a state of affairs is presented. The syntactic function Subject is assigned to the term which serves as the primary vantage point from which the state of affairs is presented. The syntactic function Object is assigned to the term which serves as the secondary vantage point from which the state of affairs is presented. This can be illustrated by means of the following sentences: (9) (10) (11) (12)

John (AgSubj) read the book (Go). The book (GoSubj) was read by John (Ag). John (AgSubj) gave the book (GoObj) to Mary (Rec). John (AgSubj) gave Mary (RecObj) the book (Go).

The difference between (9) and (10) can be seen as conditioned by the fact that the syntactic function Subject is assigned to the Agent argument John in (9) and to the Goal argument the book in (10). The difference between (1 1) and (12) can be seen as conditioned by the fact that the syntactic function Object is assigned to the Goal argument the book in (11) and the Recipient argument Mary in (12). Pragmatic functions specify the informational status of constituents. Constituents with Topic function refer to "entities "about" which information is provided or requested in the discourse" (Dik 1989: 266), constituents with Focus function constitute "the most important or salient parts of what we say about the topical things" (Dik 1989: 264). This is illustrated in the following sentences, in which capitalization indicates emphasis: (13) (14)

JOHN (AgSubjFoc) read the book (GoTop). John (AgSubjTop) read THE BOOK (GoFoc).

2. Dik (1989:57) furthermore recognizes a core predication consisting of a nuclear predication together with predicate operators and predicate satellites (see below).

6 Some basic principles of Functional Grammar

The pragmatic function Focus, in this case expressed by intonational means, is assigned to John in (13) and to the book in (14). Apart from the clause-internal pragmatic functions just illustrated, there are clause-external pragmatic functions. A constituent with the pragmatic function Theme presents an entity with respect to which it is relevant to pronounce the following clause. A constituent with pragmatic function Tail represents an afterthought. The following sentences illustrate these functions: (15) (16)

John (Theme), he didn 't read the book. He didn't read the book, John (Tail).

1.5. The representation of utterances A theory of language which wishes to take into account the instrumental nature of language cannot content itself with a system which accounts for representational aspects of language only. Descriptions of states of affairs are put to use in utterances, in which the speaker offers these descriptions to an addressee. Utterances may contain, apart from a description of a state of affairs, linguistic elements through which the speaker indicates his attitude towards the information he is presenting, as well as his intention in producing the utterance. In order to account for these linguistic elements I propose in Hengeveld (1988, 1989, 1990a) to represent utterances by means of a multi-layered hierarchical structure, inspired by Foley—Van Valin (1984). The general format of this model is given in Figure 1. The structure in Figure 1 as a whole gives a representation of the speech act (EL). Within this speech act a prepositional content (Xj) is communicated. This prepositional content contains a description of a state of affairs (e^ which involves one or more individuals (x^ ... (xj. The highest level of this structure is called, following Halliday (1970: 325), the interpersonal level. It is structured on the basis of an abstract illocutionary frame (ILL), such as DECL (declarative) or INT (interrogative), which has the speaker (S), the addressee (A) and the prepositional content (Xj) as its arguments. The lowest level is called the representational level, following Bühler (1934: 28). This level is structured on the basis of a predicate frame, which has one or more individuals (xj) ... (x„) as its arguments. Within the hierarchical structure presented in Figure 1 four layers, each provided with its own variable, can be distinguished. All variables are followed by restrictors of decreasing complexity, which contain the main information on their respective layers. The four layers are listed in (17):

The representation of utterances 7

(17)

Layers (general format) Clause: (E,: [ILL (S) (A) (X,: etc. (X^)] (E,)) Proposition: (X,: [(e,: etc. (e,))] (Xj)) Predication: (et: [Prede ( ,)"] (ei))3 Term: (x,: PredN (x,))

Each of these four layers represents an entity of a different order (Lyons 1977: 442447). A term (xj) represents an individual, a first order entity, which can be located in space and can be evaluated in terms of its existence. A predication (e,) represents a state of affairs, a second order entity, which can be located in space and time and can be evaluated in terms of its reality. A proposition (X,) represents a propositional content, a third order entity, which can be located neither in space nor in time and can be evaluated in terms of its truth. A clause (Ej) represents a speech act, a fourth order entity, which locates itself in space and time and can be evaluated in terms of its felicity. Clause Proposition

(E,: [ILL (S) (A) (X,: [-

-] (X,))] (E,))

(e,: [predß (x,) ... (xj] (e,))

Terms Predication

Figure 1. The representation of utterances

3. The n in this formula indicates that a predication may contain more than one term.

8 Some basic principles of Functional Grammar 1.6. Terms and entities So far it has been tacitly assumed that terms, i.e. referential expressions with a nominal head, refer to first order entities. There are, however, also terms that refer to second, third, and fourth order entities, i.e. the entity types that play an important role in the hierarchical organization of the clause as well. These terms are based on head nouns that designate non-first order entities. Nouns such as departure, mistake, and visit designate second order entities and may therefore be called, following Lyons (1977: 446), second order nouns. Similarly, nouns such as idea and reason designate third order entities and may be called third order nouns, and nouns such as order and question designate fourth order entities and may be called fourth order nouns. The differences between these nouns and the terms based on them may be accounted for using the different variables distinguished in the previous sections. Thus, the following representations may be used for first (18), second (19), third (20), and fourth order nouns and the terms based upon them: (18) (19) (20) (21)

manN (x^ mistake^ (e])0 ί^ΛΝ(Χ1)0 orderN (E^

-> -> -> ->

(jq: manN (e;: mistake^ (e;)0) (X,: ideaN (E,: orderN

Whenever a statement applies to terms regardless of the particular type of entity to which they refer, the variable a, which ranges over x, e, X, and E, will be used. For instance, the general representation of a predication should be as in (22): (22)

(e,: [pred (α,) ... (oj] (e,))

The two argument positions within this predication are provided with an α-variable since in principle terms referring to entities of any order may fill these positions.

1.7. Operators Each of the relevant units of clause structure discussed so far can be modified by operators. Operators are abstract elements representing semantic distinctions expressed by grammatical means. In Figure 2 the different types of operator are located in the model of the clause. All operator types have functions which are characteristic of the level at which they operate. Term operators (Ω) represent grammatical distinctions which specify additional properties of (sets of) entities, such as number and definiteness. Predicate operators (π^ represent grammatical distinctions which specify additional properties

Operators 9

of states of affairs. Many aspectual distinctions are captured by this type of operator. Predication operators (π2) represent grammatical distinctions which specify the setting of a state of affairs. They take care of e.g. tense distinctions. Proposition operators Gtj) represent grammatical distinctions which specify the prepositional attitude of the speaker, as in the case of evidential modality. Illocution operators OiJ represent grammatical distinctions which modify the force of a speech act, and thus take care of e.g. the reinforcing use of emphatic morphemes.

(E,: k,ILL (S) (A) (jt3Xi: [

] (X,))] (E,))

: Kpred (Ωχ,) ... (xj] (e,)) Ω: Term operate»« jtp Predicate operators π2: Predication operators Jt3: Proposition operators XA: Illocution operators Figure 2. Operators

The example in (23) illustrates the functions of the different classes of operators: (23)

The croupier might have been cheating.

The individual the croupier is characterized as singular and definite. These properties are taken care of by term operators (Ω). The main predicate cheat is accompanied by several auxiliaries. The auxiliary be and the participial form of the predicate together express progressive aspect, an additional property of the state of affairs. This is taken care of by a predicate operator (jtj). The temporal setting of the state of affairs as a whole is given by means of the auxiliary have, which is taken care of by a predication operator (π2). The speaker's attitude towards the information he is presenting is signalled by a form of the modal auxiliary may, the expression of a proposition operator (π3). By putting this modal in the past tense the speaker expresses some reservations concerning his statement, which is the expression of an il locution operator (π4).

10 Some basic principles of Functional Grammar

1.8. Satellites Just as every layer may be modified by operators, so it may be further extended by satellites (Dik et al. 1990: 27-30; Hengeveld 1990a: 12-14), which represent adverbial constructions. In Figure 3 the different types of satellite are located in the model of the clause, in which they are represented following the method proposed in Vet (1986).

(E,: [ILL:o-< (S) (A) (X,: [

) (Χ,):σ3 (Χ,))] (EJ:a5 (Et))

(e,: [pred^ (x,) ... (x„)] (e,):o2 (e,)) σ,: Predicate satellites σ3: Proposition satellites σ5: Clause satellites

σ2: Predication satellites o~4: Illocution satellites

Figure 3. Satellites

The functions of these satellites are comparable to those of the corresponding operators. Predicate satellites (ΟΊ) specify additional properties of the SoA (e.g. Manner, Direction), predication satellites (σ,) specify the spatial, temporal, and cognitive setting of the SoA (e.g. Location, Time, Reason), proposition satellites are concerned with the validity of the prepositional content (e.g. Attitude), and illocution satellites (σ4) have to do with the speaker's communicative strategy (e.g. Manner (of speech act)). Finally, in order to account for textual relations, there is a class of clause satellites (σ5). Satellites of this class capture the lexical means through which the speaker locates his utterance within the context of the discourse and thus restricts the set of potential perlocutions of this utterance. The example in (24) illustrates these functions: (24)

Honestly (a^,you certainly (σ3) danced beautifully (σλ) yesterday (σ2), if I may say so (σ5).

In this sentence the manner satellite (σ,) beautifully specifies an additional property of the SoA. The temporal satellite (σ2) yesterday specifies the setting of the SoA. Through the attitudinal satellite (σ3) certainly the speaker expresses his commitment

Clause structure 11

with respect to the prepositional content. Through the manner satellite (σ4) honestly the speaker reinforces the basic illocution of the utterance. Through the conditional satellite (σ5) if I may say so the speaker contemplates the felicity of the speech act within the actual communicative setting.

1.9. Clause structure In Figure 4 the full structure of the clause, including operators and satellites, is given.

(E,: [*4ILL:a4 (S) (A) (π3Χ,: [-

-] (Χ,):σ, (Χ,))] (Ε,):σ5 (Ε,))

σ, (Ωχ,: pred«, (χ,)) ... (xj] (β,):σ2 (e,)) Layers and frames

Operators

Satellites

E,: ILL: Χ,: e,: Predfl: χ.:

jt4: Jt3: K2: π,: Ω:

a4 σ3 σ2 σ,

Clause Illocution Proposition Predication Predicate Term

Illocution operators Proposition operators Predication operators Predicate operators Term operators

Clause satellites Illocution satellites Proposition satellites Predication satellites Predicate satellites

Figure 4. The structure of the clause

In following chapters only those parts of this structure which are relevant to the points made will be given. By way of illustration one full representation is given in Figure 5, which is the clause structure underlying sentence (25).

(25)

The croupier might have been cheating yesterday.

The semantic function Ag (agent) in Figure 5 has been discussed in 1.1, the operators mit (mitigation), poss (possibility), past, and progr (progressive) in 1.7, the satellite yesterday in 1.8. No attention is paid here to syntactic and pragmatic functions.

12 Some basic principles of Functional Grammar

(E,: [mit DECL (S) (A) (poss X,: [

(past e^Iprogr cheatv (dl^: croupier^

] (X,))] (E,))

(χ)^^)yesterdayMy(e))

Figure 5. Sample clause structure

1.10. Subordination Within the representations of clause structure given so far terms and predicates have been the main building blocks. To these should be added more complex constructions, in particular subordinate constructions in argument, satellite or restrictor position. These can be subclassified according to their internal complexity using the model that has been applied to main clauses (Hengeveld 1989: 144-150, 1990a: 14-19; Dik—Hengeveld 1990: 234-237). For instance, each of the layers in this model may not only be modified by operators and satellites, but may also be turned into the argument of a higher predicate. Consider the following examples: (26) (27)

Hopefully you will pass the exam. I hope you will pass the exam.

In both sentences the proposition you will pass the exam is characterized as being a fulfillable wish of the speaker. In (26) this is achieved by providing it with the modal adverb hopefully, in (27) by turning it into the complement of the verb hope, as is represented in (28)-(29), respectively: (28) (29)

(X,: [you will pass the exam] (X,): hopefully^ (X,)) hopev (l.sg)Exp (X,: [you will pass the exam] (Xi))Go

Just as a proposition may be turned into the argument of a higher predicate, so may all other layers be governed by a higher predicate. Consider the following examples: (30) (31) (32) (33)

He He He He

said: "John is leaving". believed that John was leaving. saw John leave. hit John.

Expression rules 13

Utterance predicates used for direct speech reports have a fourth order argument, the quoted speech act (30); believe predicates have a third order argument, the believed prepositional content (31); immediate perception predicates have a second order argument, the witnessed SoA (32). Predicates with first order arguments only, such as hit in (33) conclude the scale. The arguments of these predicates are of decreasing internal complexity, as is shown in (34): (34)

sayv believe^

(x^ (x,)^

(Ej)^ (X,)Go

hitv A comparable subclassification could be made for subordinate constructions occupying satellite and restrictor positions, although the possibilities are somewhat more restricted here.

1.11. Expression rules Underlying Functional Grammar representations are translated into natural language expressions by means of expression rules, which take care of (i) the form of constituents, (ii) the order of the constituents in the natural language expression and (iii) the prosodic contour of the natural language expression (Dik 1989: 289). Here I will be concerned with rules of the first type only. Expression rules determining the form of constituents are basically of two types. Rules of the first type, which may be termed replacive rules, turn some abstract element of underlying structure into a formal element of linguistic structure. In (35) this abstract element is the Neg operator in English, which is expressed by means of the element not in the context of an auxiliary verb: (35)

(neg e;: [predVaux predv (x;) ... (xj] (β;: [predvau* not predv (x;) ... (xj] (β;))

The replacive nature of this type of rule is apparent. The abstract element neg in the input is replaced by the formal element not in the output. Rules of the second type may be termed support rules. In many cases these create the conditions for rules of the first type to apply. English do -support is a clear example of this type of rule. In the absence of other auxiliary verbs English do is inserted in several circumstances, including that in which a negative operator has to be expressed. This is (partially) taken care of by a rule like the following:

14 Some basic principles of Functional Grammar

(36)

(neg e,: [predv (x.) ... (x„)] (e;))

->

(neg e;: [doVaia predv (Xj) ... (x„)] (e)) Characteristic of support rules is their non-replacive character: no abstract element from the input of (36) is absent from its output. A formal element is added, which creates the circumstances under which it is possible for the replacive rule (35) to apply. Of particular importance in the present context are copula support rules (Dik 1980: 94-98, 1983: 128-132). These insert a copula into non-verbal predications under certain specified conditions. Copula support will be treated more extensively in chapter 3, since it is this rule that allows for a unified treatment of copular and verbless sentences.

2. The sample

2.0. Introduction The sample on which the typological part of this study is based was created using the method proposed in Rijkhoff et al. (in press). A brief description of this method is given in 2.1. The resulting sample is presented in 2.2. Some presentational matters are dealt with in 2.3.

2.1. Sampling method Rijkhoff et al. (in press) proposes a (computerized) sampling method, the primary aim of which is to create samples in which the differences between individual sample languages are maximal. In order to achieve this, pride of place is given to a genetic criterion, rather than to a geographic or typological one. It is assumed that the quality of a language sample is affected worst if languages are too closely related genetically. The genetic classification used is Ruhlen (1987). Note that although aspects of this classification might itself be questioned, it is here taken for granted. In order to create maximal genetic diversity within samples the method consists of two components, which together account for variation both across and within phyla. The first component makes sure that every major phylum is represented by at least one member. This step is fully in line with the major objective of the sampling method: creating diversity within the sample, since a major phylum is posited only in those cases in which it is supposed not to have any genetic affiliations with another major phylum. Notice that as a consequence of this approach every language isolate, constituting a phylum by itself, will be represented in the sample. The second component makes sure that the number of languages by which a phylum is represented correlates proportionally with the linguistic diversity within that phylum. Bell (1978) was probably the first to draw attention to the problem of the different degrees of internal complexity of phyla. He notes that, for instance, one expects "to learn more from the 200 or so AFROASIATIC languages than from the much more homogeneous BANTU languages, though they number over 300" (Bell 1978:146). In order to tackle this problem one needs a technique that measures the diversity within a group of genetically related languages. The technique proposed in Rijkhoff et al. (in press) is based on the assumption that the algebraic structure of a genetic language tree reflects the linguistic diversity within the phylum it represents. It consists of the computation of a factor, called Diversity Value (DV), which takes into consideration both depth and width of a genetic language tree. Consider the representation of the Uralic-Yukaghir sample in Figure 6.

16 The sample

W i d t

Depth -> 1

2

3

4

5

Yukaghir Uralic

» Samoyed

· North South Ugric

• • • Hungarian Ob-Ugric Permic Volgaic North

• • • • • • •

Finno-Ugric

h Finnic

I

Saamic Baltic-Finnic

Figure 6. The Uralic-Yukaghir phylum.

Figure 6 gives the internal structure of the genetic language tree of the UralicYukaghir phylum, ignoring the top node as well as the terminal nodes (the individual languages). It shows that every separate branch adds to the width of the phylum as a whole. The width of every level can be calculated, as has been done in Figure 6. The resulting figures may then be used to calculate the DV of the phylum as a whole, yielding an objective measure of the linguistic diversity within the Uralic-Yukaghir phylum, which may be compared with the DV values of other phyla. The actual procedure by means of which the DV values of phyla are calculated is described extensively in Rijkhoff et al. (in press). Here it may suffice to say that, since the distinguishing power of levels diminishes when going down the genetic language tree, a decreasing weight is assigned to the contribution (in terms of nodes) of deeper levels. A 40-language sample construed on the basis of this twostep procedure is given in Table 1. In this table the following information between brackets follows each (sub)phylum name: (i) the DV of the (sub)phylum, (ii) the number of daughter nodes of the (sub)phylum, and (iii) the number of languages within the (sub)phylum. Branching of the genetic tree is shown by means of indentation. As Table 1 shows, in some cases the two-step procedure has to be applied more than once. This situation occurs when the sample languages assigned to a phylum outnumber the primary branches of that phylum, as, for instance, in the case of Niger-Kordofanian. Three sample languages should be selected from this phylum, which has only two primary branches. In order to determine the number of

Sampling method 17

languages to be selected from each primary branch the procedure described above is repeated: each subphylum is represented by at least one member, and the remaining languages are distributed over the subphyla according to their DV.

Table 1. A 40-language sample

Afro-Asiatic (55.53/6/258) Altaic (14.79/2/66) Amerind (178.44/6/854) Australian (67.58/30/262) Austric (137.41/3/1186) Austro-Tai (106.03/2/1027) Daic (4.67/2/57) Austronesian (118.17/4/970) Austroasiatic (28.08/2/155) Miao-Yao (2.00/2/4) Basque (0.00/0/1) Burushaski (0.00/0/1) Caucasian (8.54/2/38) Chukchi-Kamchatkan (2.47/2/5) Elamo-Dravidian (7.43/2/29) Eskimo-Aleut (3.34/2/9) Etruscan (0.00/0/1) Gilyak (0.00/0/1) Human (0.00/0/1) Indo-Hittite (39.71/2/180) Indo-Pacific (124.79/13/748) Ket (0.00/0/1) Khoisan (6.97/3/33) Meroitic (0.00/0/1) Na-Dene (9.44/2/41) Nahali (0.00/0/1) Niger-Kordofanian (90.38/2/1068) Niger-Congo (90.07/2/1036) Niger-Congo Proper (89.68/2/1007) Mande (9.30/3/29) Kordofanian (9.51/2/32) Nilo-Saharan (42.18/9/138) Pidgins and Creoles (13.47/13/38) Sino-Tibetan (38.52/2/268) Sumerian (0.00/0/1) Uralic-Yukaghir (4.93/2/27)

2 1 5 2 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

18 The sample

In other cases the primary branches of a phylum outnumber the sample languages to be selected from that phylum. For instance, five languages have to be selected from the Amerindian phylum, which has six primary branches. Here the five sample languages can simply be chosen from five different primary branches. Although this whole procedure is based on a genetic criterion, additional care should be taken to avoid geographic bias. The geographic restriction proposed in Rijkhoff et al. is that no two languages that are spoken in contiguous regions be included in a sample. In cases in which the genetic and geographic criterion are in conflict, precedence is given to the genetic one. It is important to note that Table 1 represents an ideal sample. The actual sample may be different from this ideal one due to bibliographic restrictions. For instance, a 40-language sample should contain the extinct isolates Etruscan and Meroitic, but too little is known about these languages to allow for their inclusion in any sample, and too little is known about the system of non-verbal predication of Human, another extinct isolate, to allow for its inclusion in the present sample. The gaps resulting from the absence of these three languages from the sample are not filled with other languages, since this would distort the proportions within the sample. Thus, an ideal 40-language sample corresponds to an actual 37-language sample in this study.

2.2. Description of the sample The languages in the sample on which this study is based are distributed over the phyla as indicated in Table 1. The languages selected are listed in Table 2. These languages were selected non-randomly, the major criteria for their inclusion being the availability of reliable descriptions on the one hand, and an acceptable geographic distribution on the other. The sources of information on the sample languages are listed in Table 3, and their geographic distribution is shown in the map on pages 20-21. A serious problem with respect to the geographic distribution occurs in South-East Asia. The Miao-Yao languages are spoken in small regions scattered all over Northern Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, and Southern China. It is virtually impossible to select a language from this family without its being in contact with another language that has to be included in the sample on the basis of the genetic criterion. Two other languages spoken in contiguous regions are Abkhaz and Turkish. I included these two languages in the sample for bibliographic reasons.

Description of the sample 19

Table 2. Genetic affiliations of the languages in the sample

Afro-Asiatic (2) Altaic (1) Amerind (5)

Australian (2) Austric (4)

Chadic (1) Semitic (1) Northern (1) Andean (1) Equatorial-Tucanoan (1) Ge-Pano-Carib (1) Central Amerind (1) Gunwinyguan (1) Pama-nyungan (1) Austro-Tai (2) Daic (1) Austronesian (1) Austroasiatic (1) Miao-Yao (1)

Basque (1) Burushaski (1) Caucasian (1) Chukchi-Kamchatkan (1) Elamo-Dravidian (1) Eskimo-Aleut (1) Etruscan (1) Gilyak (1) Human (1) Indo-Hittite (1) Trans New Guinea (1) Indo-Pacific (3) Sepik-Ramu (1) East Papuan (1) Ket (1) Khoisan (1) Meroitic (1) Na-Dene (1) Nahali (1) Niger-Kordofanian (3) Niger-Congo (2) N.-C. Proper (1) Mande (1) Kordofanian (1) Nilo-Saharan (1) Pidgins and Creoles (1) Sino-Tibetan (1) Sumerian (1) Uralic-Yukaghir (1)

Hausa Arabic. Egyptian Turkish Mam Quechua Guarani Hixkaryana Pipil Ngalakan Ngiyambaa Thai Tagalog Vietnamese Miao Basque Burushaski Abkhaz Chukchee Tamil West Greenlandic Gilyak Dutch Yagaria Yessan-Mayo Nasioi Ket !Xu Navaho Nahali Babungo Bambara Krongo Lango Jamaican Creole Mandarin Chinese Sumerian Hungarian

20 The sample

Map. Approximate location of the languages in the sample

1. !Xu (Namibia) 2. Abkhaz (Caucasus) 3. Arabic, Eg. (Egypt) 4. Babungo (Cameroon) 5. Basque (S France, N Spain) 6. Bambara (Mali, Gambia, Senegal) 7. Burushaski (N Pakistan) 8. Chinese, Mandarin (China) 9. Chukchcc (NE Siberia) 10. Dutch (Netherlands, Belgium)

11. Gilyak (E Siberia, N Japan) 12. Guarani (Paraguay) 13. Hausa (Nigeria, Niger) 14. Hixkaryana (N Brasil) 15. Hungarian (Hungary) 16. Jamaican Creole (Jamaica) 17. Ket (C Siberia) 18. Krongo (N Sudan) 19. Lango (Uganda)

Description of the sample 21

20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.

Mam (Guatemala, Mexico) Miao (China, Laos, Vietnam) Nahali (NE India) Nasioi (Bougainville Isl.) Navaho (SW United States) Ngalakan (N Australia) Ngiyambaa (SE Australia) Pipil (El Salvador) Quechua, Imb. (Ecuador)

29. Sumerian (Mesopotamia) 30. Tagalog (Philippines) 31. Tamil (S India, Sri Lanka) 32. Thai (Thailand) 33. Turkish (Turkey) 34. Vietnamese (Vietnam) 35. W.-Greenlandic (Greenland) 36. Yagaria (NE New Guinea) 37. Yessan-Mayo (N New Guinea)

22 The sample

Table 3. Sources of information on the languages in the sample

!Xu Abkhaz Arabic, Egyptian

Babungo Bambara Basque Burushaski Chinese, Mandarin Chukchee Dutch Gilyak Guarani Hausa Hixkaryana Hungarian Jamaican Creole Ket Krongo Lango Mam Miao Nahali Nasioi Navaho Ngalakan Ngiyambaa Pipil Quechua, Imbabura Sumerian Tagalog Tamil Thai Turkish

Vietnamese West Greenlandic Yagaria Yessan-Mayo

Snyman (1970, personal communication), Köhler (1981). Hewitt (1979), Spruit (1986, personal communication). Anwar (1979), Olmstedt Gary—Gamal-Eldin (1982), Eid (1983), Cuvalay-Haak (personal communication). Schaub (1985). Brauner (1974). Lafitte (1944), Saltarelli (1988). Lorimer (1935-1938), Berger (1974). Li—Thompson (1977, 1981), van den Berg (1989). Bogoras (1922), Nedjalkov, V. (personal communication). Author. Nakanome (1927), Nedjalkov, I. (personal communication). Gregores—Suarez (1967). Kraft—Kraft (1973), Cowan—Schuh (1976). Derbyshire (1979). Kiefer (1968), de Groot (1989, personal communication). Bailey (1966), Beck (personal communication), Veenstra (personal communication). Castren (1858). Reh (1985). Noonan (1981). England (1983). Miao Language Team (1972), Lyman (1979). Kuiper (1962). Rausch (1912), Hurd—Hurd (1966). Schauber (1979), Young—Morgan (1987). Merlan (1983). Donaldson (1980). Campbell (1985). Cole (1982). Thomsen (1984). Schachter—Otanes (1972). Asher (1982). Noss (1964), Kuno—Wongkhomthong (1981). Lewis (1967), Lees (1972), Ersen-Rasch (1980), van Schaaik (1983, personal communication), Tura (1986). Le-van-Ly (1948), Thompson (1965), Nguyen Dang Liem (1969, 1975). Fortescue (1984, personal communication), Kristoffersen (personal communication). Renck (1975), Haiman (1980). Foreman (1974)

Description of the sample 23

2.3. Matters of presentation In following chapters sample languages will be referred to as belonging to the (sub)phylum that triggered their inclusion in the sample. Thus, Miao will be referred to as a Miao-Yao language rather than as an Austric language, Dutch will be referred to as an Indo-Hittite language rather than as a Germanic language. Languages from singleton phyla will be referred to as Isolates. In the course of this study reference will be made to languages other than those included in the sample. These will be referred to as if they were sample languages. Thus, Spanish will be referred to as an Indo-Hittite rather than as a Romance language, and Tongan as an Austronesian rather than Austric one. Example sentences are preceded by a line giving the following information: Language name ((Sub-)phylum-name; Source references). For the interlinear morphemic translations I largely follow the directions given in Lehmann (1982b). An exception concerns the use of a dot to separate parts of the interlinear morphemic translations, which covers Lehmann's semi-colon, which separates distinct parts of an interlinear morphemic translation in those cases in which the exact morpheme boundaries are not or cannot be established in the original text, and his dot, which separates distinct parts of multi-word translations of a single morpheme in the original text. Literal translations between double qotation marks precede free translations between single quotation marks in those cases in which this may facilitate the processing of the sentence under consideration.

3. Non-verbal predication

3.0. Introduction In this chapter I give basic definitions of some notions central to this study, while at the same time providing a first approximation of the subject matter. In 3.1 I define the concept of predication, in 3.2 the concept of non-verbal predication. In 3.3 I go into the question of how the main predicate status of non-verbal predicates can be established. In 3.4 I study two kinds of auxiliary element regularly used in non-verbal predications, copulas and semi-copulas, and distinguish them from pseudo-copulas, i.e. verbs which are easily mistaken for copulas or semi-copulas. The chapter is summarized in 3.5.

3.1. Predication The noun predication has two different readings. Under the first reading it designates the application of a predicate to an appropriate number of arguments, where the predicate specifies a relation or a property.1 This reading is prevalent in the philosophical literature. Under the second reading it designates an instance of predication-under-the-first-reading. This reading is prevalent in the linguistic literature. Predication is an action noun under the first reading, and a common noun under the second one. It takes articles and/or plural marking under the second reading only. The two readings may thus be related by stating that a predication is an instance of predication or, alternatively, that predications are instances of predication. This grammatical reflection of the ambiguity of the noun will disambiguate the two readings in what follows. Of the two readings of the noun predication, one has a formal equivalent in Functional Grammar. As indicated in chapter 1, a predication can be represented by means of the following formula: (1)

(e,: [predß (aj ... (an)] (e,))

where Prede is a predicate, ß represents the category of the predicate (V, A, etc.), and (ttj) ... (an) are the arguments required by that predicate. An example in which values are assigned to these variables is given in (2):

1. The first reading may also be defined in ontological terms as the attribution of a property or relation to one or more entities (see chapter 5), in which case there is no corresponding second reading.

26 Non-verbal predication (2)

(e;: [ready (dlx^ manN (x^)^ (ilXj: bookN (Xj)0)GJ (β;)) 'The man read- a book.'

The predication in (2) can be conceived of as the product of the application of the verbal predicate read to the two arguments it requires, the first order (x) Agent (Ag) argument the man and the first order (x) Goal (Go) argument a book. The structure in (2) thus represents a predication as the product of predication. Predication in its action noun reading has no direct formal equivalent. It will be useful to have a way to represent the predicating relation expressed by the noun under this reading in what follows. This will be achieved in the following way:

(3)

(e,: [pred (α,) ... (αη)] (e))

3.2. Non-verbal predication Non-verbal predication can now be defined as the application of a non-verbal predicate to an appropriate number of arguments. Any instance of non-verbal predication is called a non-verbal predication. This term is used to refer to all constructions with a non-verbal main predicate regardless of whether or not this predicate is accompanied by a copula. The overall abstract structure of non-verbal predications may thus be represented as in (4): (4)

(ej: [pred

(a,) ... (an)] (e;))

A non-verbal predication is not the same as a nominal or verbless sentence. A predication, as e.g. represented in (4), is a unit of semantic analysis, whereas a sentence is a unit of morpho-syntactic analysis. Thus, a non-verbal predication can be expressed by means of a verbal sentence, i.e. a copula construction. The relevant relations between predications and sentences are shown in Figure 7. It follows from the definition of non-verbal predications as units of semantic analysis which may be expressed by either verbal or nominal sentences that the non-verbal predicate should be considered the main predicate of a non-verbal predication, even in those cases in which it is accompanied by a copula. In the following section I provide some arguments for this view.

Non-verbal predicates 27 Predication

based on verbal predicate

based on non-verbal predicate

Verbal predication

Non-verbal predication

with verbal copula

Verbal sentence

without verbal copula

Nominal sentence

Figure 7. Predication and sentence

3.3. Non-verbal predicates For the purposes of this section a non-verbal predicate may be defined negatively as a predicate that is not a verb. A verb may be defined as a predicate which, without further measures being taken, has a predicative use only. A verb can assume a non-predicative function only after undergoing a further measure such as nominalization or participialization, whereas a non-verbal predicate can be put to some non-predicative use without any of these measures being taken. The differences between classes of predicates will be dealt with in chapter 4, in which generally applicable definitions of the parts of speech are given. A full classification of basic and derived non-verbal predicates is given in chapter 5. For many languages all the elements necessary for arriving at a proper non-verbal predication are, under certain conditions, (i) a non-verbal predicate and (ii) one or more arguments. One of these languages is Turkish. In (5) the non-verbal predicate i§siz 'unemployed* is applied to a first person singular argument without the intervention of a copula:

28 Non-verbal predication

Turkish (Altaic; Ersen-Rasch 1980: 203) (5) I§siz-0-im. unemployed-PRES-1 .SG 4 1 am unemployed.' In some tenses, such as the present tense illustrated in (5), Turkish does not require a copula to appear in non-verbal predications. In others a copula is obligatory or optional. The following examples illustrate the different possibilities: Turkish (Altaic; Ersen-Rasch 1980: 203) (6) a. l§siz ol-acag-im. unemployed COP-FUT-l.SG 4 1 will be unemployed.' b. *I§siz-eceg-im. unemployed-FUT-1 .SG 4 1 will be unemployed.' (7) a. I§siz i-di-m. unemployed COP-PAST-l.SG 4 1 was unemployed.' b. I§siz-di-m. unemployed-PAST-1 .SG 4 I was unemployed.' (8) a. *I§siz ol-0-umli-0-yim. unemployed COP-PRES-1 .SG/COP-PRES-1 .SG 4 1 am unemployed.' b. I§siz-0-im. unemployed-PRES-l.SG Ί am unemployed.' In the future tense Turkish requires the copula ol-, as is illustrated in (6). In the past tense the copula /'- appears optionally, as is illustrated in (7). In the present tense neither of these auxiliaries is allowed, as is illustrated in (8). In the English translations a copula is obligatory in all cases. The fact that, both from an intra-linguistic and an inter-linguistic point of view, the same type of semantic relation can be expressed in non-verbal predications with or without a copula may be taken as an indication that, from a typological perspective, the non-verbal predicate is the main predicate of these constructions, and that therefore those constructions in which a copula accompanies a non-verbal predicate can be seen as non-verbal predications, i.e. constructions with a main predicate of the non-verbal category.

Non-verbal predicates 29 But even for those languages which always require a copula to appear in constructions comparable to (6)-(8) there are some generally applicable criteria to demonstrate the main predicate status of the non-verbal predicate. The first criterion concerns the operation of selection restrictions. In constructions based on a non-verbal predicate it is this predicate that imposes the selection restrictions on the argument terms, not the copula (Falk 1979: 19). This can be demonstrated by means of the following examples: (9) (10)

a. b. a. b.

Sheila is ill. *This table is ill *Sheila is round. This table is round

The property ill in (9) cannot be predicated of inanimate arguments, the property round in (10) cannot be predicated of animate arguments. Each of the sentence pairs (9)-(10) shows different possibilities, yet each pair contains a form of the copula be. This shows that the selection restrictions which are at stake in (9)-(10) are imposed by the non-verbal predicates, not by the verbal copula. The second criterion concerns the valency of non-verbal predicates. In constructions based on a non-verbal predicate it is this predicate that determines the number of obligatory constituents, i.e. arguments, in the predication. Compare the following sentences: (11) (12)

a. b.

This book is fascinating. This book is identical to that one. *This book is identical

The adjective fascinating requires one argument, the adjective identical requires two. Both adjectives combine with the copula be, which shows that the number of arguments is determined by the non-verbal predicate, not by the verbal copula. Given that (i) in many languages a non-verbal predicate does not have to be accompanied by a copula, (ii) the non-verbal predicate imposes the selection restrictions, and (iii) the non-verbal predicate determines the number of arguments, it may be concluded that the non-verbal predicate is the main predicate in nonverbal predications, and that a copula used in non-verbal predications is not (part of) the main predicate of those predications. In order to account for these facts, non-verbal predicates are represented in Functional Grammar in the same way as verbal predicates, as in the following examples: (13) (14)

intelligentA (x^ carpenter^ (x,)0

30 Non-verbal predication

In this form, these predicates can be applied directly in the formation of terms, as in: (15)

(ilx;: carpenter^ (Xj)0: intelligentA (x^g) 'an intelligent carpenter.'

Within the term structure given in (15) the properties carpenter and intelligent are predicated of the variable (xj), representing the indefinite (i) singular (1) individual towards which the speaker wants to direct the addressee's attention. The underlying structure of a predication based on the predicate given in (13) would be as in (16): (16)

(β;: [intelligent^ (dlxj: carpenter^ (Xj)0)0] (e·)) 'The carpenter (is) intelligent.'

This predication describes a state of affairs concerning a definite (d) singular (1) carpenter's being intelligent. A similar representation can be given to predications based on a two-place non-verbal predicate, as is illustrated in (17)-(18): (17) (18)

identicalA (xj)0 (x2)Ref (ej: [identicalA (dlprox x^ bookN (χ;)0)0 (dlrem xf. bookN (χ)0)Μ] "This book (is) identical to that book.'

(e{))

Representations such as those given in (16) and (18) contain all the necessary elements for those languages which do not make use of a copula in the specified contexts, but are also used for those languages which do make use of a copula, as will be explained in the next section.

3.4. Copula, semi-copula, pseudo-copula 3.4.0. Introduction The facts presented in the previous section led to the conclusion that the non-verbal predicate is the main predicate in non-verbal predications, and that a copula used in non-verbal predications is not (part of) the main predicate of those predications. This raises the question of what the status of the copula in non-verbal predications is, and requires a method to distinguish between non-verbal predications with a verbal copula and constructions in which the verbal element is the main predicate. Copulas form a subclass of the class of auxiliaries. Auxiliaries are recognized by the fact that they do not show the features characterizing lexical predicates, such

Copula, semi-copula, pseudo-copula 31

as selection restrictions and valency. As long as a word shows any of these features it cannot be considered a true auxiliary. Auxiliaries can be of two major types. The first type is used in combination with verbal predicates only and is referred to here as Auxv. The second type is used in combination with non-verbal predicates only and is referred to here as Aux v. In some cases one and the same auxiliary can be used with both types of predicate, and may be referred to as Auxv/'v. Note that the superscripts used here do not give an indication of the word class of the auxiliary itself, but only of the word class of the predicate with which it may be combined, i.e. the superscript of the auxiliary corresponds with the subscript of the main predicate, as shown in the following examples: Auxv Predv: Aux"v Pred.v:

(19)

have gone become ill

The categorial status of the auxiliary itself is indicated by means of a subscript. For instance, an Auxv~v is an auxiliary of the major class of verbs which may be combined with non-verbal predicates only. The auxiliary types listed in Table 4 can be accounted for by means of this notational system.

Table 4. Auxiliaries

Word class of auxiliary

Word class of main predicate V

-V

V

a. Auxv

b. Auxv

-V

c. Auxvv

d. Aux.y v

The following examples illustrate the possibilities: (20)

a. b. c. d.

John hasvv gone. Peter becamev'v ill. Peter PAST / speaks David he.v'v the thief.

32 Non-verbal predication

The pseudo-English examples (20c-d) are literal translations of the following examples from Tongan and Hebrew: Tongan (Austronesian; Churchward 1953: 37) (21) Na'e lea 'a Pita PAST speak ABS Peter 'Peter spoke' Hebrew (Semitic; Junger 1981: 129) (22) David hu ha-ganav. David he DEF-thief 'David is the thief.' Sentence (21) is an illustration of the use of particles to express tense and aspect distinctions in Tongan. As illustrated in (22), Hebrew uses a pronominal copula in the present tense. Thus, Tongan and Hebrew make use of non-verbal auxiliaries in combination with verbal and non-verbal predicates, respectively. So far I have used the term copula in a rather loose way for auxiliaries of the type Aux"v. In what follows I will use it in a more restricted sense for those members of the Aux'v class which are semantically empty, i.e. which have no independent contribution to make to the meaning of the sentence. The term semicopula is reserved for all other members of the Aux"v class. Thus, the Aux"v class has two subclasses, which are treated more extensively in sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2.

3.4.1. The copula The most salient feature of the copula is that it makes no independent contribution to the meaning of the sentence. This feature is reflected in the fact that in some languages and under varying circumstances the copula can be left out without affecting the meaning of the sentence, as illustrated in 3.3. In chapter 5 it will be demonstrated that the shades of meaning often attributed to a copula can be traced back to other characteristics of the sentence, such as the nature of the non-verbal predicate and its arguments. The fact that a copula is semantically empty immediately raises the question of what its function in the sentence is. Here this function may be broadly defined as a supportive one. A copula enables a non-verbal predicate to act as a main predicate in those languages and under those circumstances in which this non-verbal predicate could not fulfil this function on its own. In chapter 8 the nature of these circumstances will be further specified. From its supportive function it follows that the copula itself is not a (part of the) predicate, but an auxiliary accompanying a non-verbal predicate and its argument(s).

Copula, semi-copula, pseudo-copula 33 This supportive function is not confined to verbal copulas, but may also be exerted by elements other than verbal, such as particles and pronouns, as will be illustrated in chapter 8. A construction containing a copula may thus be represented as in (23): (23)

(e,: [copula, pred (c^) ... (aj] (e,))

where represents the category of the predicate (A, N, etc.) and t the category of the copula (V, Pro, etc.). Within the context of Functional Grammar, Dik (1980: chapter 4) proposes to introduce the copula by means of a copula support rule, which, following Dik (1989: 167) may be formulated informally for English in the following way: (24)

#e-support input: conditions: output:

π prede (a,) (a2) ... (an) π = any specified π-operator β*V π bev pred (c^) (c^) ... (an)

Since in English π-operators can be expressed on verbal predicates only, a verbal copula has to be introduced as soon as an operator is specified in a clause structure based on a non-verbal predicate. Rule (24) introduces the copula be under these conditions. The structure given in (25) matches the conditions of rule (24): (25)

(pres e^ [intelligentA (dlx^ carpenter^ (Xj)0)0] (e;)) 'The carpenter (is) intelligent.'

Application of rule (24) to (25) leads to (26): (26)

(pres e{:[bev intelligent^ (dlx^ carpenter^ 'The carpenter is intelligent.'

Once a copula has been introduced, the operator, in this case the present tense operator (Pres), can be expressed on this copula. Thus, the copula support rule treats the copula as a semantically empty supportive device, functioning as a carrier for tense, mood, aspect, and possibly other distinctions. A clear advantage of this approach is that no deletion rules are needed in those contexts in which the copula does not actually appear. The approach furthermore allows for a unified treatment of the predicative and non-predicative uses of non-verbal predicates. Compare in this connection once again the following representations:

34 Non-verbal predication

(27)

(dlxji carpenter^ (xj)0: intelligent^ 'the intelligent carpenter.' (pres e^ [intelligentA (dlx;: carpenter^ (xj)0)0] (β;)) 'The carpenter (is) intelligent.'

(28)

The term (27) and the predication (28) make use of the same predicates, carpenter and intelligent. Only in (28) is a copula necessary. The absence of a π-operator in (27) and the presence of such an operator in (28) are sufficient to account for this. Languages differ with respect to the conditions under which the copula must be inserted. A full account of these differences will be given in chapter 8. Here it may suffice to refer to the Turkish examples given in 3.3. Turkish requires the copula ol- in certain tenses, allows the copula z- in other tenses, and disallows either of these copulas in all other tenses. It follows from these facts that at least two copula support rules have to be formulated for Turkish, an ol support rule and an /-support rule, and that the conditions to be specified in these rules are far more specific than those in the fe-support rule given above.

3.4.2. The semi-copula The following examples contain a semi-copula: (29) (30)

Sheila became ill. Peter remained healthy.

The constructions in (29)-(30) share a number of properties with the copulaconstructions discussed in the preceding section: (i) The non-verbal predicate imposes the selection restrictions on the arguments: (31) (32)

a. b. a. b.

This person became happy. *This table became happy. *This person became round. This table became round.

(ii) The valency of the non-verbal predicate determines the number of arguments within the construction: (33) (34)

a. b.

Sheila became ill Sheila became fond of chocolate. *Sheila became fond.

Copula, semi-copula, pseudo-copula 35

(iii) To some extent, copula and semi-copula show the same distribution as regards the non-verbal predicate that may follow them: (35)

Sheila was/became ill/a doctor.

A further illustration of this is given by the following examples: (36) (37) (38)

John is/became president. *John is/became carpenter. John is/became a carpenter.

In English only words designating a unique role, such aspresident in (36), may be used predicatively in their bare form. Other nouns, such as carpenter in (37)-(38), have to be provided with an article. These nouns show this behaviour both when following a copula and when following a semi-copula, as illustrated by (36)-(38). (iv) In languages in which there is agreement between a non-verbal predicate and its first argument in a copula construction this type of agreement also occurs in semi-copula constructions: Spanish (Indo-Hittite) (39) Es-a-s chica-s son muy orgullos-a-s. DEM-F-PL girl-PL COP.PRES.3.PL very haughty-F-PL 'Those girls are very haughty.' (40) Es-a-s chica-s se han DEM-F-PL girl-PL REFL.3 AUX.PRES.3.PL vuel-to muy orgullos-a-s. tum-PAST.PART very haughty-F-PL "Those girls have become very haughty.' The main difference between constructions containing a copula and those containing a semi-copula is that the semi-copula can never be left out without changing or affecting the meaning of the resulting construction. In other words, the semi-copula adds an element of meaning to the construction in which it occurs, whereas the copula does not. Although this difference is significant, it should not obscure the fact that semicopulas to a large extent may fulfil the same function as copulas, namely to enable a non-verbal predicate to act as the main predicate of a predication. The main predicate status of the non-verbal predicate in this construction can be demonstrated by the fact that the non-verbal predicate imposes the selection restrictions and determines the number of arguments in the construction, as illustrated above.

36 Non-verbal predication The elements of meaning that semi-copulas contribute to the final interpretation of the constructions in which they appear are often of an aspectual nature (Goossens 1990: 182-183). The most frequent values are illustrated by English become, which has an ingressive value, and remain, which has a continuative value. If compared with copula-constructions, which describe a state as such, semi-copula constructions add elements of meaning which might be called aspects of being. The ingressive construction describes a change, the coming about of a state, the continuative construction describes a lack of change, the continuation of a state. Another element of meaning which may be found in a semi-copula is a distinction of positive versus negative polarity, which is particularly frequent in the case of existential copulas, as in the following Turkish examples: Turkish (Altaic; van Schaaik, personal communication) (41) Bahge-de kopek \ar-di-0lyok-tu-0. garden-LOC dog COP-PAST-3.SG/COP.NEG-PAST-3.SG 'There was/wasn't a dog in the garden." The negative semi-copulayok in (41) cannot be considered a negative particle since it may be inflected for tense and person in the same manner as var. The relation between copulas and semi-copulas can be made more explicit by looking at a language which uses inflectional means to express the elements of meaning which in another language are expressed by means of semi-copulas. Consider, for instance, the following examples from !Xu: !Xu (Khoisan; Snyman 1970: 134, 135) (42) G!hei ο mi ga. tree COP l.SG one 'The tree is mine' (43) Ha φχαβ g/e-o mi ma. 3.SG daughter INGR-COP l.SG one 'His daughter becomes mine.' Sentences (42)-(43) are examples of the regular way in which possession of a definite entity is expressed in !Xu. Both contain the copula o. Ingressive aspect can be marked on this copula, as in (43), the resulting meaning being 'become'. Thus, !Xu uses separate morphemes for the two functions of the semi-copula become in English: one to express ingressive aspect, and one to provide verbal support for the non-verbal predicate. A similar example can be given for the expression of continuative aspect in nonverbal predications. In English the semi-copula remain expresses continuative aspect, but in Yessan-Mayo the continuative aspect marker -men is added to the regular copula //, as in:

Copula, semi-copula, pseudo-copula 37 Yessan-Mqyo (Sepik-Ramu; Foreman 1974: 39) (44) ΛΥ gwatek ti-men. 2.SG here COP-CONT 'You stay here.' A final example concerns the expression of progressive aspect. The possibility of expressing this aspectual value in a non-verbal predication is limited, but not excluded. Compare the following Spanish examples: Spanish (Indo-Hittite; Hengeveld 1986: 396) (45) Antonio es loco. Antonio COP.PRES.3.SG crazy 'Antonio is crazy.' (46) Antonio esta loco. Antonio COP.PRES.3.SG crazy 'Antonio is being silly.' In Spanish both the copula ser and the semi-copula estar can be used with adjectival predicates. In the latter case the property expressed by the non-verbal predicate is presented as temporarily relevant, a feature which in English can be expressed by means of the progressive form of the regular copula be, but in Spanish is part of the meaning of the semi-copula estar. Apart from showing the relation between copulas and semi-copulas, these examples show that languages may differ in the extent to which they make use of true copulas. In non-verbal predications in English progressive aspect is expressed on a verbal copula, as in the translation of (46). In Spanish progressive aspect is itself expressed by means of a semi-copula, thus precluding the necessity for copula insertion to obtain. In Functional Grammar semi-copulas cannot be treated in the same way as copulas. In 1.10 two types of expression rule affecting the form of constituents were recognized, support rules and replacive rules. Copula support, as formulated in the preceding section, is of the first type. Rules introducing semi-copulas have to be of the second type, since semi-copulas contribute an element of meaning to the sentences in which they occur. This element of meaning is represented in the structure of the clause by means of an operator. Semi-copulas replace this operator in the expression of the underlying structure. The elements of meaning expressed by semi-copulas can be seen as pertaining to the domain of predicate operators (ingressive, continuous, progressive) and predication operators (negative), as discussed in 1.6. Semi-copulas are the expression of these operators when applied to non-verbal predicates, the result being a construction containing an auxiliary verb, on which operators present at higher levels can be expressed. This is illustrated in the derivation of (47) given in (48).

38 Non-verbal predication Here application of the ingressive operator to the adjectival predicate /'// by means of rule 1 yields become ill. Application of the past operator to become ill by means of rule 2 yields became ill. This approach accounts both for the main predicate status of the non-verbal predicate and for the element of meaning provided by the semi-copula.

(47)

Sheila became ill

(48)

Derivation of (47) Representation: (past et: [ingr ///A (dl^: Sheila^ (χ^0)β] (e·)) Expression of ingressive aspect: ingr pred.y —> become^ pred.v Result: (past e·: [become^ illA (dl^: Sheila^ (Xi)0)0] (e))

If one compares this derivation with the one that would be needed for the derivation of a comparable sentence in a language such as !Xu, which expresses ingressive aspect by means of an affix, the essential differences in the treatment of copulas and semi-copulas can be illustrated. A derivation of the !Xu example (49) is given in (50). For the sake of simplicity, I treat the constituents mi ma 'my one' and ha fxae 'his daughter' as if they were basic non-verbal predicates. !Xu (Khoisan; Snyman 1970: 135) (49) Ha φχαβ g/e-o mi ma. 3.SG daughter INGR-COP l.SG one 'His daughter becomes mine.' (50)

Derivation of (49) Representation: (pres q: [ingr mi_maN (dlx^ haj^xae^ (xi)0)0] Copula support (partial formulation): π pred.v —> π ov pred.v Result: (pres e;: [ingr ov mi_maN (dlxj: ha_£xaeN (χί)0)0] Expression of ingressive aspect: ingr predv —> g/e-predv Result: (pres e;: \g/e-ov mi_maN (dlx^: ha_£xaeN (χ^0)0] (β;))

As this derivation shows, !Xu uses two different rules for the expression of ingressive aspect on non-verbal predicates: one to introduce the copula o- and one to express ingressive aspect on this copula. In English these two steps are combined

Copula, semi-copula, pseudo-copula 39 into one, as shown in (47)-(48). Thus, the copula support rule in !Xu has a wider application than its equivalent in English.

3.4.3. The pseudo-copula 3.4.3.0. Introduction. Copulas and semi-copulas should be distinguished from pseudo-copulas. Pseudo-copulas are lexical predicates which are easily mistaken for (semi-)copulas. This situation arises in at least the following cases, to be illustrated below: (i) the pseudo-copula occurs with a reduced complement based on a nonverbal predicate; (ii) the pseudo-copula occurs with a predicative adjunct based on a non-verbal predicate; (iii) the pseudo-copula occurs with a predicative argument based on a non-verbal predicate; (iv) the pseudo-copula has a non-verbal quotative argument. These constructions show similarities with (semi-)copula constructions in their actual appearance, but at the same time they show important differences in behaviour. 3.4.3.1. Reduced complements. The first construction type can be illustrated by means of the following examples (Kahn 1973: 201-205):

(51)

Sheila seems ill.

(52)

It proved true.

The difference between these constructions and semi-copula constructions can be brought out by means of a paraphrase: (53) (54) (55) (56)

Sheila seems to be illllt seems that Sheila is ill. It proved to be true. *Sheila became to be ill. *Peter remained to be healthy.

The verbs seem and prove do not link a non-verbal predicate with its argument (s). The predicative relation between Sheila and ill in (51) and it and true in (52) obtains in the complements of these predicates, as the paraphrases show. Semicopulas, on the other hand, cannot operate as complement-taking predicates. They take the place of a copula, as the ungrammaticality of the paraphrases (55)-(56) shows.2 This first type of pseudo-copula construction may be represented as in (57):

2. Kahn (1973:203-205) uses the label 'be'-modifier for verbs like seem and 'be'replacer for verbs like become.

40 Non-verbal predication

(57)

[seemv (X,: ... [i//A (x,: Sheila^ (χ,)0)0] ... (X,)0)0J a. 'It seems that Sheila is ill.' b. 'Sheila seems to be ill.' c. 'Sheila seems ill.'

The verb seem is represented here as a one-place predicate taking a prepositional argument (see 1.10). This proposition contains a predication (see 1.5), within which a non-verbal predicative relation obtains between /// and Sheila, as indicated in (58):

(58)

(e,: [seemv (X,: .... [i//A (jq: SheilaN (x^U ... (X,)^«,] (e;))

Thus, examples such as (51)-(52) do contain instances of non-verbal predication, but these are not supported but governed by verbs like seem, which can therefore not be considered to be copulative verbs. The possible expressions of the underlying structure are related through a rule of subject raising3 ((57a) versus (57b-c)) and optionality of be-support ((57b) versus (57c)). 3.4.3.2. Predicative adjuncts. The second construction type that semi-copula constructions should be distinguished from can be illustrated by means of the following examples, again taken from Kahn (1973: 202-203): (59) (60)

He died a beggar. He married young.

The feature which distinguishes these constructions from semi-copula constructions is that in the former the non-verbal predicate can be left out without rendering the resulting constructions ungrammatical, whereas in the latter it cannot be left out, at least not in the intended reading: (61) (62) (63) (64)

He died. He married. *Sheila became. *Peter remained.

The constituents a beggar in (59) and young in (60) can thus be seen as optional constituents added to the predications in (61)-(62). The verbal predicates in these

3. See Dik (1979) for the treatment of raising constructions in Functional Grammar.

Copula, semi-copula, pseudo-copula 41 constructions are therefore not copulative verbs, but independent lexical predicates, to which a predicative adjunct is added. This predicative adjunct itself can be paraphrased by means of a non-verbal predication, as in: (65) (66)

He died while he was a beggar. He married while he was young.

This second type of pseudo-copula construction may be represented as in (67) :4 (67)

(e;: [marryv (x^. he (\)0)0] (e;): [youngA (x)0] (e·)) 'He married young.'

In (67) a situation e; is characterized as concerning the marriage of a third person in the circumstance of that person being young. The predicative adjunct itself has the internal structure of a non-verbal predication, i.e. there is a predicative relation between the non-verbal predicate young and its coreferential argument xi, as indicated in (68):

(68)

(e;: [marryv (x^: he (x)0)0] (e·): \youngA (χ;)0] (e·))

Thus, examples such as (59)-(60) do contain instances of non-verbal predication, but these are not supported by the matrix verb, but simply added to the main predication. Note that there are many cases in which the difference between semi-copula constructions and constructions involving a lexical predicate with a predicative adjunct is not as clear-cut as in the examples discussed above. Take, for instance, the following examples: (69) (70)

John stood alone. Sheila stood in need of help.

Although in these cases too the constructions remain acceptable if the italicized constituent is left out, it is not correct to paraphrase them as 'John stood while he was alone' and 'Sheila stood while she was in need of help', respectively. The unacceptability of the latter points in the direction of the interpretation of stand as a semi-copula. The predicative adjunct seems to provide the crucial information. On the other hand, the verb stand, although it cannot be taken literally here, retains

4. This representation for predicative adjuncts was first proposed in Vester (1983).

42 Non-verbal predication some relations to its original meaning. For instance, the predicative adjunct should be such that it is not in conflict with an upright position of the subject, as is illustrated by the ungrammaticality of (71): (71)

*Peter stood ill

Thus, the verb stand in constructions such as (69) -(70) shares characteristics with both semi-copulas and lexical predicates. In chapter 10 I will show that this reinterpretation of a positional verb as a (semi-)copular verb is a common phenomenon in some systems of non-verbal predication. 3.4.3.3. Predicative arguments. The third construction-type that is easily mistaken for a semi-copula construction is illustrated in (72): (72)

Mary looked ill

Perceptual impression verbs such as look, smell, and taste may be followed by a non-verbal predicate, such as /// in (72). This constituent is neither a reduced complement, nor a predicative adjunct, witness the ungrammaticality of (73)-(74): (73) (74)

*Mary looked to be ill *Mary looked.

The difference between perceptual impression verbs and semi-copulas is that the former cannot be considered auxiliaries expressing a modification of a non-verbal main predicate, since they are clearly lexical in nature, witness the fact that they impose selection restrictions, the most important one being that their first argument should be perceivable through one of the senses. This means that the non-verbal predicate should be considered an argument, albeit not a very prototypical one, of the perceptual impression verb. Anticipating on a proposal to be made in chapter 4, this fact may be accounted for by assuming that perceptual impression verbs have an argument position for a (non-verbal) predicate. This non-verbal predicate has one or more arguments which it shares with the perceptual impression verb. In a formalization of this account the verb look has the predicate frame given in (75): (75)

lookv (fj

where (f t ) is an argument position that may be filled with a predicate, as illustrated in (76): (76)

lookv (I· illA (f.)) (x,)0

Copula, semi-copula, pseudo-copula 43 The predicate (f;) inserted in the argument position of look brings along its own term position (x,). After insertion of a term the representation of (72) given in (77) is arrived at: (77)

(6;: [looky (if i//A (fs)) (xf Mary (x^J (e,))

This representation correctly represents Mary as an argument of both look and /'//. A similar account is proposed in Hengeveld (1992a) for several other classes of predicates which impose the Like-subject constraint.5 This third type of pseudo-copula construction shows some interesting correlations with the two previous ones. With the first type, which involves a reduced complement, it shares the argument-status of the non-verbal constituent. With the second type, which involves a predicative adjunct, it shares the predicative nature of the non-verbal constituent. 3.4.3.4. Quotative arguments. A final construction type that should be distinguished from the semi-copula construction is illustrated by the following Dutch examples: Dutch (Indo-Hittite) (78) Die jongen heet-0 Peter. DEM boy be.called-PRES.SG Peter 'That boy is called Peter.' (79) We noem-en die jongen Peter. l.PL call-PRES.PL DEM boy Peter 'We call that boy Peter.' Here again the constituent Peter is obligatory, as in the case of semi-copula constructions. Yet it does not seem right to state that heten 'be called' and noemen 'call' specify certain aspects of 'being Peter', as a semi-copula would do. A simple typographical correction may point out the nature of the constructions illustrated in (78)-(79) and the way in which they differ from copula constructions: Dutch (Indo-Hittite) (80) Die jongen is DEM boy COP.PRES.3.SG "That boy is Peter.'

Peter. Peter

5. This approach is an alternative to the predicate formation rules that would otherwise be necessary to account for this construction type.

44 Non-verbal predication (81) (82)

Diejongen heet-0 "Peter". DEM boy be.called-PRES.SG "Peter" "That boy is called "Peter".' We noem-en die jongen "Peter". l.PL call-PRES.PL DEM boy "Peter" 'We call that boy "Peter".'

As the quotation marks suggest, the verbs heten 'be called' and noemen 'call' have in fact more in common with speech act verbs6 used in direct speech reports than with copular verbs. The particular speech act described is one of naming or calling. "Peter" (the name) is the word one utters when calling Peter (the person). The quotative nature of the second argument of this type of predicate can be made visible by looking at languages which make use of a quote particle for introducing reported speech. One such language is Krongo. The same quote particle, άηί, is used in Krongo to introduce the second argument of verbs of naming (83) and of speech act verbs (84): Krongo (Kordofanian; Reh 1985: 325, 384) (83) Π-άηά yaari άηί Luwaala. CONN.M-have name QUOT Luwaala 'And he has the name "Luwaala".' (84) Π-άα t-ikki άηί oomuno-q katu. CONN.M-COP INF-say QUOT IMP.PL.call-TR people 'And he says: "Call the people".' A similar phenomenon may be observed in Nama, where the quote particle ti is used for the second arguments of both classes of verbs: Nama (Khoisan; Hagman 1973: 255) (85) 11'Up ke pitap ti ra ±aihe. 3.SG DECL Peter QUOT IMPF call 'He is called "Peter".' (86) Oo-s ke ll'ilsa llxaapa ke mil then-3.SG DECL she again REM.PAST say / 'uu-ta 'a ti. not.know-l.SG COP.PRES QUOTE 'She said again "I don't know".'

6. For the position of naming verbs within a typology of speech act verbs, see Verschueren (1989).

Summary 45

It may be concluded, then, that verbs like Dutch heten are not semi-copulas but belong to a class of predicates of naming, which may be considered a subclass of the class of speech act verbs. These predicates take a quotative second argument. A Functional Grammar representation of the Dutch example (78) is given in (87): (87)

(βί: [hetenv (x,: 3.sg (xje)0 (E,: [Peter] (E,)^] (6i))

The use of different variables in the structure of the clause allows for different levels of analysis. One of these levels is the speech act as a whole. In 1.5. this level has been provided with the variable E. This same variable is used in (87) to indicate the speech act nature of the Goal argument of heten 'be.called', just as in (57) the variable X was used to indicate the prepositional nature of the Zero argument of seem. In (87) it is furthermore indicated that there is no non-verbal predicative relation between Peter and hij 'he'. Both are arguments of the lexical verb heten 'be called'.

3.5. Summary In this chapter non-verbal predications are analyzed as the product of the application of a non-verbal predicate to an appropriate number of arguments. Accordingly, they have the underlying structure given in (88): (88)

(e,: [pred,, (a,) ... (an)] (e;)) β*V

Copulas and semi-copulas are defined as auxiliary elements accompanying a nonverbal predicate, the main predicate status of which can be deduced from the valency and selection restrictions it imposes on the construction as a whole. Following the hypothesis put forward in Dik (1980: chapter 4), copula constructions are assumed to have the same underlying structure as nominal sentences, i.e. (semi-)copulas are claimed to be elements introduced by the expression component of the grammar. This approach allows for a unified analysis of constructions based on a non-verbal predicate with and without an auxiliary. The potential expression structures of non-verbal predications can thus be represented as in (89): (89)

(e,: [((semi-) copula,) pred (α,) ... (αη)] (e;))

where is the category of the predicate and τ the category of the (semi-)copula, which may or may not be present. Due to the fact that the data available do not

46 Non-verbal predication

allow a systematic treatment of semi-copulas, they will receive little attention in following chapters. An exhaustive classification of the construction types that conform to the format given in (89) will be given in chapter 5. Before this classification can be given it is necessary to study the defining characteristics of non-verbal predicates, the most central element of non-verbal predications. In the following chapter these defining characteristics will be studied in some detail.

4. Parts of speech

4.0. Introduction In this chapter I try to arrive at adequate definitions of word classes. I will restrict myself to classes of lexemes, i.e. predicates (verbs, nouns, adjectives, and adverbs), and will not be concerned with classes of grammatical elements (articles, prepositions, conjunctions, etc.). Since non-verbal predications have been defined as constructions with a main predicate of the non-verbal category, it is important to determine what exactly is a non-verbal predicate, how it differs from a verbal predicate, and what subclasses of non-verbal predicates can be distinguished, before going more deeply into several aspects of non-verbal predication in the following chapters. This is even more important in an approach which tries to generalize over nonverbal predications with and without a copula, as can be illustrated by means of the following examples: Mojave (Northern Amerind; Schachter 1985: 19) (1) ?i:pa-c homi:-k. man-SBJ tall-PRES "The man is tall.' (2) ?i:pa-c su:paw-k. man-SBJ know-PRES 'The man knows.' On the basis of these examples one would be inclined to conclude that Mojave does not make a distinction between adjectives and verbs. Within the approach to nonverbal predication followed in this study, however, the predicative use of a predicate can never be taken as decisive for its inclusion in a certain class. Since the non-verbal predicate is taken to be the main predicate of a non-verbal predication, and since this predicate may or may not be accompanied by a copula, homi: 'tall' in (1) might be a verb, but it might equally well be an adjective not accompanied by a copula. In order to find out whether a predicate is an adjective, its attributive use should be studied. Compare the following sentences: Mojave (Northern Amerind; Schachter 1985: 19) (3) ?i:pa homi:-rf-c iva:-k. man tall-DEM-SBJ be.here-PRES 'The tall man is here.' (4) ?i:pa kw-su:paw-n)'-c iva:-k. man REL-know-DEM-SBJ be.here-PRES 'The man who knows is here.'

48 Parts of speech

Examples (3) and (4) show that Mojave does make a distinction between adjectives and verbs. The predicate homi: 'tall' does not require relativization when used attributively, whereas su:paw 'know' does. The adjective homi: 'tall' can also be turned into the matrix predicate of a relative clause, in which case relativization is required, but this is not in conflict with its adjectival status. The point is that there is a class of predicates in Mojave which, unlike verbs, can be put to attributive use without further measures being taken. The fact that this same class of predicates can also be used predicatively is in itself an interesting feature, which will be studied in more detail in chapters 7 and 8, but it is immaterial in connection with the establishment of predicate classes in an approach in which the presence of a copula is not a necessary correlate of the predicative use of a non-verbal predicate. In this respect the line of reasoning followed here differs from many existing approaches to the problem of the parts of speech. In these approaches the predicative use of predicates is given major importance. Thus, Schachter (1985: 1920) and Wetzer (1992), in discussing the Mojave examples (l)-(4), tend to consider predicates like homi: 'tall' as members of a subclass of verbs, rather than as adjectives. Given the fact that the predicative use of classes of predicates cannot be taken as a criterion for the definition of parts of speech in the approach followed here, other criteria have to be established. This is one of the main purposes of this chapter, which is organized as follows. In 4.1 I briefly look at previous approaches to the problem. In 4.21 present an extension of the Functional Grammar framework which may help to solve some of the problems to be dealt with. In 4.3 I give definitions for verbs, nouns, adjectives, and adverbs which are primarily based on their nonpredicative uses. In 4.4 I go into the ways in which the four classes of predicates recognized in 4.3 may be identified. In 4.5 I look at some languages which make use of fewer than these four classes of predicates. This leads to a classification of these languages in two main categories. The first consists of those languages which combine the functions of two or more parts of speech in a single part of speech. The second consists of those languages which simply lack one or more parts of speech, and have to use alternative constructions instead. Finally, in 4.6 I indicate what the relevance of the findings of this chapter is for the chapters that will follow.

4.1. Previous approaches In defining the differences between classes of predicates several points of view have been taken. In a discourse approach (Hopper—Thompson 1984) the differences between predicates are defined in terms of their discourse functions. Thus, Hopper—Thompson (1984: 708) claim that a prototypical verb asserts the

Previous approaches 49 occurrence of an event of the discourse, whereas a prototypical noun introduces a participant into the discourse.1 These authors show that there are important correlations between word class membership, discourse function, and morphosyntactic facts, but they do not make a clear distinction between verbs and main predicates on the one hand, and nouns and term phrases on the other. Consider in this respect the following Tongan examples: Tongan (Austronesian; Tchekhoff 1981: 4) (5) Na'e ako si'i 'ae tamasi'i. PAST study little ABS child-DEF2 'The child studied little.' (6) Na'e si'i 'ae ako. PAST small ABS schooLDEF "The school was small.' Many Tongan words can be put to all kinds of uses. The word ako translates as a verb in (5) and as a noun in (6). Similarly, the word si'i translates as an adverb in (5) and as an adjective in (6). Notwithstanding these translations, these words "correspond to no set part of speech" (Tchekhoff 1981: 5). The word ako is used to assert the occurrence of an event in the discourse in (5), whereas it is used to introduce a participant into the discourse in (6). This shows that not verbs as such but main predicates assert events, and that not nouns as such but term phrases introduce participants. That verbs often figure as main predicates and nouns as the single element of term phrases should not disguise the important distinction between lexical and syntactic units. In a notional approach the differences between classes of predicates are defined in terms of the entities (e.g. individuals, events) they designate (Lyons 1977: 441). As signalled by Lehmann (1990: 166) and Dik (1989: 161), among others, a problem for this approach is that the same entity, property, or relation may be referred to by means of different parts of speech in different languages or even within the same language. To illustrate the latter point consider the following examples:

1. In Thompson (1988: 181) adjectives are furthermore characterized as words sharing their predicating functions with verbs, and their referent-introducing function with nouns. 2. Definiteness is signalled through accentuation of the last syllable of a word.

50 Parts of speech

Latin (Indo-Hittite; Lehmann 1990: 166) (7) Nix cand-et, snow.NOM.SG white-PRESJ.SG 'The snow is white.' (8) Nivis cand-or. snow.GEN.SG white-NR 'The whiteness of the snow.' (9) Nix cand-ida. snow.NOM.SG white-ADJR.NOM.SG 'The white snow.' These examples show that the concept 'white' can be expressed through words belonging to different classes, even within a single language. Such facts would be hard to deal with in any notional approach to the parts of speech. In order to save the semantic approach definitions have been restricted in different ways so as to apply to the prototypical members of classes of predicates only (e.g. Givon 1984). Against this it may be argued, however, that such an approach leaves us with a large number of non-prototypical members. In a morpho-syntactic approach the differences between predicates are defined in terms of the morphological categories for which they may be specified. This approach has the disadvantage of not allowing for crosslinguistic generalization (Dik 1989: 162). It may furthermore be overruled by factors which are of a semantic rather than morphological nature. Both disadvantages may be illustrated by means of the following Dutch examples. Dutch (Indo-Hittite) (10) Ik ben erg ziek. l.SG COP.PRES.1.SG very ill Ί am very ill.' (11) Ik schrok erg. 1.SG take.fright.PAST.SG very Ί was startled.' (12) *Hij is erg sterfelijk. 3.SG COP.PRES.3.SG very mortal 'He is very mortal.' Combinability with a degree adverb is often claimed to be a distinguishing feature of adjectives in descriptions of individual languages. This is, first of all, not a crosslinguistically generalizable property, since in languages such as Dutch there are verbs which may combine with a degree adverb too. Thus, the verb schrikken 'take fright' in (11) may be combined with the degree adverb erg 'very', just as the adjective ziek 'ill' in (10). Semantic factors also play a part in the combinability of

Variables for predicates 51

adjectives with degree adverbs. Only gradable adjectives can be specified for degree, absolute adjectives cannot. Thus, the gradable adjective ziek 'ill' in (10) may be combined with the degree adverb erg 'very', whereas the absolute adjective sterfelijk 'mortal' in (12) may not. In afonctional approach the differences between predicates are defined "in terms of the prototypical functions they fulfil in the construction of predications" (Dik 1989: 162), where a verb prototypically has a predicative function, an adjective an attributive function, and a noun the function of head of a term phrase. The functions to which reference is made in these definitions may be assumed to be universally recognizable, which makes this approach particularly useful for typological research. Since the only other approach that allows for cross-linguistic generalization, the discourse approach, defines syntactic rather than lexical units, I will further explore the functional approach in what follows. For the purposes of this study, however, the functional definitions of Dik (1989: 162) should be adapted in such a way that they cover not only the prototypical uses of classes of predicates, but also the nonprototypical ones, in particular the predicative use of nouns, adjectives, and adverbs.

4.2. Variables for predicates In order to solve the problem mentioned in connection with the discourse approach to the parts of speech, one should be able to make a clear distinction between lexical and syntactic units. A way in which this can be achieved is illustrated in Figure 8. term phrase noun (a,: predicate

(a,))

Figure 8. Noun and term phrase

The distinction between the lexical unit noun and the syntactic unit term phrase can easily be drawn using the Functional Grammar formalism, as Figure 8 shows. But when one compares Figure 8 with Figure 9, it becomes apparent that it is much less obvious how the distinction between the lexical unit verb and the syntactic unit predicate phrase should be drawn. The representation in Figure 9 does not make clear that there is a difference between being a verb on the one hand, and being a

52 Parts of speech

predicate phrase on the other. There is not, as in the case of nouns and terms, a way to distinguish formally between the lexical and the syntactic unit. predicate phrase verb predicatev (a,) ... (a„)

Figure 9. Verb and predicate phrase—version 1

To solve this problem I propose in Hengeveld (1992a) to provide predicates with variables. Consider the revised general format for predications in (13): (13)

(π2 e,: [(π, f t : predp (f,)) (a,) ... (ajl (e,))

Here the main predicate restricts a variable f lt just as a nominal predicate restricts a term variable c^ and a nuclear predication restricts a state of affairs variable et. Using this predicate variable Figure 9 may be rewritten as Figure 10. predicate phrase verb (f,:

predicatev

(f,)) (at) ... (aj

Figure 10. Verb and predicate phrase—version 2

The predicative use of non-verbal predicates may now be accounted for by substituting a noun, adjective, or adverb for the verb in Figure 10. predicate phrase noun (f,:

predicateN

(f,)) (at) ... (a„)

Figure 11. Noun and predicate phrase

Variables for predicates 53

Figures 11-13 show that the presence of a predicate variable allows for a formal distinction between the syntactic unit predicate phrase on the one hand, and the lexical units verb, noun, adjective, and adverb on the other. predicate phrase adjective (f,:

predicateA

(f,)) (a,) ... (aj

Figure 12. Adjective and predicate phrase

predicate phrase adverb (f,:

predicate^

(f,)) (a,) ... (a„)

Figure 13. Adverb and predicate phrase

The usefulness of a predicate variable is furthermore shown by at least two phenomena. First, the predicate may serve as an antecedent for anaphoric reference, as in (14) and (15), represented in (16) and (17):3 (14) (15) (16) (17)

John is intelligent, and so are you. John fell down, and so did I. (pres e;: [(f;: intelligentA (f;)) (χ;: Λ>Λ/ιΝ (xi)0)0] (e·)), (pres β;: [(Af;) (χ}: 2.sg (Xj)0)0] (6j)) (past e;: [(fs: fall_downv (f;)) (x;: JohnN (x^pj (e;)), (past e·: [(Af;) (Xj: l.Sg (X^rnj

(6j))

Second, the predicate may serve as an antecedent for relativization, as demonstrated by (18), represented in (19):

3. For an alternative solution see Van der Auwera (1990,1992). For the treatment of socalled verb phrase anaphora within the present approach see Hengeveld (1992a).

54 Parts of speech

(18)

John is intelligent, which you are not,

(19)

(e,: [(f;: intelligent^ ({.)) (x,: JohnN (x,)^] (e5)), (neg 6j: [(Rfs) (xj: 2.sg (Xj)0)0] (6j))

The fact that a predicate may serve as an antecedent for an anaphoric or relative pronoun demonstrates the need for a predicate variable. Without such a variable there would be no way to single out the antecedent from the underlying structure. Not only main predicates should be provided with variables. In Functional Grammar every predicate predicates, whatever its position in underlying structure. For instance, nominal heads predicate a property of the referent of the term variable, and so do adjectival restrictors. For this reason predicate variables should be applied wherever a new predicate shows up, as in the representation of a nuclear predication in (20): (20)

[(f\: verb (f t )) (ttj: (f2: noun (f2)) (a^: (f3: adjective (f3)) (cc,)^]

The need to provide predicates at term level with a variable is shown in Keizer (1992).4 Such a variable allows for an explanation of anaphora like that in (21), partially represented in (22): (21) (22)

John has bought a blue car and I will buy a green one. (ilxj: (f,: carN (Q) (χ.)0: (f,: blueA (ty) (x^) 'a blue car' (ilx,: (Af,) (Xj)0: (fk: greenA (f k )) (xj)0) 'a green one'

For the sake of completeness it should be added that when variables are assigned to concrete predicates, there is no reason not to assign them to illocutionary predicates as well, as in the revised format for the interpersonal level given in (23), in which the illocutionary predicate restricts the variable Fj:

(23)

(E,: [(F,: ILL (F,)) (S) (A) (X^J (Et))

The need for this variable is shown by the fact that illocutionary predicates, too, may serve as an antecedent for anaphoric reference, as illustrated in (24), partially represented in (25):

4. An earlier attempt to account for this phenomenon may be found in de Groot (1983: 111).

New definitions

(24) (25)

A: B: A: B:

55

Shut up! Don't talk to me like that. (E,: [(F,: IMP (F,)) (S) (A) (shut_upv (2-sg)^) (E,)) (neg βϊ: [(f;: talkv (f.): (AF,)^ (Q) (2-sg)^ (l.sg)TllfJ (e;))

Here the pronoun that refers anaphorically to the illocutionary strategy selected by speaker A. Incorporation of the different predicate variables into the hierarchical model of the utterance leads to a situation in which all layers conform to a uniform format, as shown in the revised model given in Figure 14.

(EL: [(F,: ILL (F,)) (S) (A) (X,: [

] (X,))] (EL))

(e,: [(f,: pred (f,)) (a,: (f2: predN (f2)) (a,))] (e,)) (a,) (fj (e,)

Term Predicate Predication

(X,) (F,) (E,)

Proposition Illocution Clause

Figure 14. The representation of utterances—version 2

4.3. New definitions Using the variables just presented, the distinguishing uses of verbal, nominal, adjectival, and adverbial predicates may be represented as in (26). Note that I restrict myself here to adverbs modifying the main predicate, roughly speaking manner adverbs. For the treatment of other classes of adverbs see Hengeveld (1992a).

(26)

(f,: (a,:

Head verb (f3: noun (f3))

Modifier (f,): (fz: adverb (f 2 )) (a,): (f4: adjective (f 4 ))

(f,)) (c^))

In (26) f is a predicate and α a term. The adverbial predicate is represented as a modifier of a verbal head, just as the adjectival predicate is represented as a modifier of a nominal head.

56 Parts of speech An illustration of (26) is given in (27):5 (27) (28)

The nice president sings well. (f,: ίΐι^ν (f.): (I· wellMy (φ ({·)) (xji (fk: president^ (fj) (x;)0: (f,: niceA (f,))

The representation of (27) in (28) shows that, as a consequence of the approach in which every predicate is provided with a variable, every part of speech can be characterized as the head of a predicate phrase. It is this predicate phrase that has a particular function in the predication, not the lexical item as such. Thus, the noun president in (28) is not the head of a term but rather the head of a predicate phrase which is the head of a term. In order to avoid this terminological complication, I will use the term predicate for a lexical item together with its variable, and the term stem will be used for the lexical item as such, as indicated in Figure 15. Predicate frame (f,: steme (f L )) (a,) ... (an) Predicate

Figure 15. Predicate frame, predicate, stem

Application of the terminology given in Figure 15 to (26) leads to Figure 16, which once again shows that the introduction of a predicate variable leads to a system of representation in which stems, predicates, and terms can be systematically distinguished.

5. The parallelism between term phrases and predicate phrases illustrated here is nicely reflected in Lango. where modifiers of verbal and nominal heads are preceded by the same 'attributive particle'. Compare the following examples: Lango (Nilo-Saharan, Noonan 1981: 57, 90) (1) dyangng a dw ng cow ATTR.PRT big 'the big cow' (2) Loca otiyo a man 3s.work.PF ATTR.PRT "The man worked briefly'

cecek short

New definitions 57 Sentence (27) illustrates the functions which uniquely characterize the classes of predicates involved, but these are not necessarily their only functions. The different possibilities are listed in (29)-(32): (29) (30) (31) (32)

Predicative use John sings. (f;: singv (f;)) John is president. (fk: president^ (fj) John is nice. (f,: wceA (f,)) —

Non-predicative use — The president sings. (x^ (fk: president^ (f k )) (χ;)0) The nice president sings. (x;: ... (χ;)0: (f,: niceA (f,))(x;)0) Tlie nice president sings well. (f,: ... (t): (f.- wellMv (f^Xf,))

At least some members of three of the four classes of predicate under consideration here may be used predicatively in English. The nominal and adjectival predicates in (30) and (31) require a copula, but from a typological perspective this is not a necessary correlate of their occurrence in predicative position. Manner adverbs do not have a predicative use. Note that the representations for the main predicates in the left hand column are the same as those for the restricting predicates in the right hand column.

Predicate Stem (f,: (aL:

verb (f3: noun (fj)) Stem Predicate

Predicate (f,): (a,):

(f2: adverb (f„: adjective

(f2)) (f

A

3 >

N

4 >

Predicability and predicate type 131

Table 19. Predicability of non-presentative ascriptive predications

Language

(^LOC

A

N

(xjpo«

!Xu Abkhaz Arabic, Egyptian Babungo Bambara Basque Burushaski Chinese, Mandarin Chukchee Dutch Gilyak Guarani Hausa Hixkaryana Hungarian Jamaican Creole Ket Krongo Lango Mam Miao Nahali Nasioi Navaho Ngalakan Ngiyambaa Pipil Quechua, Imbabura Sumerian Tagalog Tamil Thai Turkish Vietnamese West Greenlandic Yagaria Yessan-Mayo

+ + + + + + + + + +/+ + + + + -+· + + + + + + + + +/+/+ + + + + + + -f + +

_ + + +/+ +

_

_

+

-

+ + + + irr + irr in+ + -»-— + ----irr + + irr + + irr + + + + + + + in+ irr irr +

+

+ + +

. + +

+ + + + + + +

-

132 Non-verbal predicability

Table 20. Piredicability of non-presentative ascriptive predications—some examples

Language

WLOC

A

N

Yagaria Tamil Babungo Hungarian English Basque Dutch

. + + + + + +

.

.

+/+ + + +

+/+ +

typo* .

+

The hierarchy in (5) seems to be partly contradicted by the fact that in some languages (Dutch, Ngalakan, and Ngiyambaa), the locative predication type is nonpredicable under certain circumstances. In these cases a construction with a lexical positional verb (see 7.1.1) is used instead of the locative non-verbal predication type. In chapter 10 I will show that this is a result of the fact that positional verbs may come to be used as copular verbs in a process of grammaticalization, the first stage of which is reflected in their regular use in locative predications. For many languages the data concerning the predicative use of bare nominal predicates could not be obtained. In most cases this is a result of the fact that in languages which do not make use of articles it is hardly possible to decide whether a noun in predicative position is the head of a term phrase or a bare nominal predicate. In the former case the construction would have to be analyzed as an equative predication, in the latter as an ascriptive one. Only in those cases in which a distinction between the two readings could be made on the basis of other formal means did I include that information in the table. Examples of the way the two predication types can be distinguished have been given in section 5.1.2.1.1. Tables 19 and 20 not only show that languages can be arranged according to their degree of predicability in the domain of non-presentative predications, but also contain some illustrations of another feature of hierarchies: variation around the cutoff point. For a simple illustration of this kind of variation consider the English examples (6)-(7): (6) (7)

John is chairman. *John is carpenter.

In English a nominal predicate can be used predicatively only if the function it designates is unique, as in (6), but not if this function is non-unique, as in (7).

Predicability and predicate type 133 For another illustration of variation around the cut-off point consider the following examples: Babungo (Niger-Congo Proper; Schaub 1985: 51, 256) (8) Yi-bi nyd luu yi-jte. CL-colanut this COP CL-good 'This colanut is good.' (9) Nu kS luu nu k\vi. thing this COP thing important "This thing is an important thing." 'This thing is important.' In Babungo there are very few basic adjectives. Most adjectives are derived from verbs. Some of the basic adjectives, such as/3a 'good' in (8), can be used predicatively, others, such as kwf important' in (9), can be used attributively only. In order to predicate the property 'important* of an object the adjective has to be applied to a repeated head noun in an equative predication. The degree of predicability along the predicate hierarchy in the languages of the sample, as reflected in Tables 19 and 20, strongly correlates with the degree of flexibility or rigidity they exhibit in their parts-of-speech system: flexible languages show a high degree, rigid languages a low degree of predicability. This can be illustrated by means of Table 21, combining the data of Table 6, which lists the parts-of-speech systems of the languages of the sample, with the data presented in Table 19 above. Degrees of predicability are indicated by means of a number, which corresponds with the category highest on the predicate hierarchy found to be predicable in the language concerned. The values of these numbers are given in (5), which shows that a high value corresponds with a high degree of predicability, and the other way round. Thus, a 4 indicates that all non-presentative non-verbal predication types up to and including possessive ones are predicable in the language, a 1 that locative predications are the only predicable ones. It should be kept in mind that for many languages the predicability of predications based on bare nominal predicates could not be determined, so that a predicability of degree 2 might in some cases actually be of degree 3. The parts-of-speech (PoS) systems are identified in the same way as in 4.5.2. A low number corresponds with a high degree of flexibility within the parts-of-speech system, a high number with a high degree of rigidity.

134 Non-verbal predicability

Table 21. Predicability and parts-of-speech systems

Language

Predicability

Burushaski Ngiyambaa Quechua, Imbabura Tagalog Ket Turkish Dutch Jamaican Creole Chukchee Nahali Ngalakan Sumerian Basque Yessan-Mayo Lango Abkhaz Guarani Hungarian Mam Nasioi Arabic, Egyptian Bambara Pipil Babungo Chinese, Mandarin Tamil !Xu Gilyak Hausa Hixkaryana Krongo Miao Navaho Thai Vietnamese West Greenlandic Yagaria

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1-2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0

PoS-system 2 2 2 2 2 2-3 3 3 3-4 4 4 4 4 4 3-4 4 4 4 4 4-5 5 5 5 5 5-6 5-6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5-6

Predicability and predicate type 135

The following correlations emerge from Table 21: (i)

(ii)

(iii)

All truly flexible languages (parts-of-speech systems 2, 2-3, and 3 in Table 21) allow all classes of predicate, up to and including possessive ones, to be used predicatively; All rigid languages for which the class of manner adverbs is irrelevant or a small and closed one (parts-of-speech systems 5 and 5-6 in Table 6) do not allow the predicative use of possessive predicates, nor has the predicative use of bare nominal predicates been attested; All rigid languages for which the adjective class is irrelevant or a small and closed one (type 5-6 and 6 in Table 6) do not allow the predicative use of nominal and possessive predicates. Those with a small and closed adjective class furthermore do not allow these adjectives to be used predicatively.

Thus, flexible languages not only show their flexibility in the extent to which nonverbal predicates can be put to different non-predicative uses, but also in the extent to which these predicates can be used predicatively. The more rigid a language is in its parts-of-speech system, the less permissive it is with respect to the predicative use of non-verbal predicates. Specialized languages, i.e. those with an open class of manner adverbs (parts-of-speech systems 3-4 and 4 in Table 21) occupy an intermediate position. Some group with types 2 and 3, whereas others group with types 4-5 and 5. To give some examples, Chukchee and Ngalakan allow the predicative use of possessive predicates, Guarani and Hungarian do not. This mixed character of specialized languages will show up in later chapters as well.

6.1.1.2. Explanations. On the basis of the data presented above, the conclusion seems warranted that the predicate hierarchy that is operative within the domain of non-presentative ascriptive predications is firmly established. This raises the question of what motivates the existence of this hierarchy. In this section I will present two possible explanations. In Hengeveld (1992b) I argue that an explanation can be discovered if one looks at the nature of the properties expressed by the non-verbal predicates studied here. These properties exhibit different shades of abstractness, as indicated in Figure 28. Roughly speaking, locative predicates designate spatial properties, most adjectival predicates physical properties, nominal predicates social properties, and possessive predicates properties that are dependent on legal or social conventions. In this sense the predicate hierarchy reflects different shades of abstractness, and as such is an instantiation of a more fundamental parameter. Note that the characterizations given here of the nature of the properties expressed by different types of predicate apply to their predicative use only. Thus, nouns may express all kinds of properties, but only nouns expressing social properties are used predicatively.

136 Non-verbal predicability

>• N

w*.

WL.

> A

Spatial properties

> Physical >• Social > Conventional properties properties properties

Concrete

>

>

>

>

Abstract

Figure 28. Predicate hierarchy 1A and degrees of abstractness

Although the overall picture presented in Figure 28 seems to be rather coherent, the position of adjectives within it is problematic. Many members of the adjective class do indeed designate physical properties such as size, weight, and colour, but there are many others that designate rather abstract evaluative properties. There are no indications that in the languages of the sample these are treated differently as regards their degree of predicability, something one would expect if predicability were governed by abstractness alone. I therefore would like to consider another possibility, inspired by Stassen (1992), itself inspired by Givon (1984: 51-56). Stassen (1992) studies the extent to which several types of non-verbal main predicate are expressed by means of the expression format that is used for intransitive verbal main predicates as well. Since the expression of non-verbal predication will be the subject of chapter 8,1 will reserve a more elaborate account of Stassen (1992) for that chapter. Here it may suffice to mention that in order to account for his findings, Stassen formulates a time-stability scale that is a revised version of that formulated earlier by Givon (1984: 51-56). In Givon's time-stability scale classes of predicates are ordered as to their stability over time; verbs generally denote properties or relations that are subject to rapid change, nouns those that are relatively stable over time, and adjectives form an intermediate class, as represented in (10): (10)

Givon's time-stability scale Verbs — Adjectives Nouns rapid change intermediate states most time-stable

Stassen (1992) reformulates the scale so as to include (locative) adverbs,2 with the result represented in (11).

2. Stassen intends this term to cover locative adverbiale as well.

Predicability and predicate type

(11)

137

Stassen's revised time-stability scale Verbs — Adverbs — Adjectives — Nouns

Note that this revised time-stability scale, unlike the original one, should be interpreted as applying to classes of predicates used predicatively.3 Whether the properties designated by locative adverbs are more time-stable than those designated by verbs is open to question, but that need not be of concern here. The relevant point is that the three categories of non-verbal predicate listed in (11) occupy positions on the scale with respect to each other that correspond exactly to their positions on predicate hierarchy 1A, as indicated in Figure 29.

Revised time-stability scale Verbs

Adverbs

Adjectives

Nouns

««λ.

A

N

Wfj.

Predicate hierarchy 1A

Figure 29. Stassen's revised time-stability scale and predicate hierarchy 1A—version 1

A full parallellism between the revised time-stability scale and predicate hierarchy 1A would require the addition of verbs on the left hand side of predicate hierarchy 1A, and the inclusion of possessive phrases on the right hand side of the revised time-stability scale, as indicated in Figure 30. The addition of verbs to predicate hierarchy 1A is unproblematic. Predications based on verbal predicates are, by definition, predicable. Their exclusively predicative use distinguishes them from other parts of speech (see 4.3). It is less evident that possessive phrases would express properties that are more time-stable than those expressed by nouns. It should be kept in mind, however, that, as stated above, nouns used predicatively normally express social properties such as occupations, inclinations, and convictions, i.e. acquired rather than inherent properties. Furthermore, in many languages temporary possession is conceptualized as a locative rather than possessive relation, as illustrated in the following examples:

3. See Arends (1989) on the applicability of Givon's time-stability scale to the predicative use of predicate classes.

138 Non-verbal predicability

Hungarian (Uralic-Yukaghir; de Groot 1983: (12) Peter-nel van Peter-LOC COP.PRES.3.SG. "The tie is at Peter." 'Peter has the tie with him.' (13) *Peter-nel van Peter-LOC COP.PRES.3.SG. "The house is at Peter." 'Peter has the house with him.'

101) a nyakkendo. DEF tie

a haz. DEF house

Revised time-stability scale Verbs

Adverbs

Adjectives

Nouns

V

WLOC

A

Ν

Possessive phrases (Xi)poss

Predicate hierarchy 1A

Figure 30. Stassen's revised time-stability scale and predicate hierarchy 1A—version 2

Given that nouns used predicatively often designate non-inherent properties and the predicative use of possessive phrases is often restricted to the expression of permanent possession, the position of possessive phrases within the re-revised timestability scale seems acceptable. Summarizing, the correlation between predicate hierarchy 1A and time-stability may be represented as in Figure 31.

> A

less time-stable

>

Ν

more time-stable

Figure 31. The re-revised time-stability scale

Predicability and predicate type 139 Further evidence for the relevance of the re-revised time-stability scale within systems of non-verbal predication will be given in chapter 8-10, where the expression of predicable non-verbal predication types is studied. 6.1.1.3. Presentative predications. In 6.1.1.1 I looked at the predicability of nonpresentative ascriptive predications. It is now time to turn to presentative ones. The set of presentative predications is a limited one: whereas non-verbal predications based on possessive and localizing predicates can be both presentative and nonpresentative, non-verbal predications based on adjectival and nominal predicates are always non-presentative (see 5.5.1).4 Thus, within the domain of presentative ascriptive non-verbal predication types only part of the predicate hierarchy presented above can be evaluated. Table 22 lists the relevant data. Some illustrative examples are given in Table 23. There is only one language, Burushaski, in which the presentative possessive predication type might be predicable. The analysis of the construction is, however, not without problems. Consider the following example: Burushaski (Isolate; Lorimer 1935) (14) Χ-ε hin i bnn. X-GEN one son COP.PAST.3.SG "Of X was one son." 'X had a son.' This sentence can be interpreted as a presentative possessive predication. The possessive phrase occupies the predicate position and complies with the criteria for predicates used in ascriptive predications. But since in Burushaski the possessor precedes the numeral in term phrases and the copular verb ba is used in existential predications as well, (14) could also be paraphrased as Ά son of X existed'. Only by giving the construction the benefit of the doubt can it be interpreted as a possessive one.

4. It is probably because of this discrepancy that earlier studies concerned with the relations between non-verbal predication types have concentrated on possessive and locative predications, and have generally not paid much attention to adjectival and nominal predications.

140 Non - verbal predicability

Table 22. Predicability of presentative ascriptive predications

Language

(x/0)L

!Xü Abkhaz Arabic, Egyptian Babungo Bambara Basque Burushaski Chinese, Mandarin Chukchee Dutch Gilyak Guarani Hausa Hixkaryana Hungarian Jamaican Creole Ket Krongo Lango Mam Miao Nahali Nasioi Navaho Ngalakan Ngiyambaa Pipil Quechua, Imbabura Sumerian Tagalog Tamil Thai Turkish Vietnamese West Greenlandic Yagaria Yessan-Mayo

+ + + + + + + + + +/ + +

+ + + + + + + + + ·+·/· +/· + + + + + +

-*-/·

Predicability and predicate type 141

Table 23. Predicability of preservative ascriptive predications—some examples

Language Burushaski Pipil Ngiyambaa

Thus, there is hardly any language, if any, in which presentative possessive predications are predicable. This observations can be written down, trivially, as an implicational hierarchy, as in (15): (15)

Predicate hierarchy IB: Presentative ascriptive predications

This hierarchy states that presentative localizing predications are more easily predicable than presentative possessive predications, and predicts that if presentative possessive predications are predicable in a language, presentative localizing predications will be predicable as well. Positing this hierarchy would be entirely irrelevant, if it were not for the fact that the terminal points of the two predicate hierarchies, the one presented in 6.1.1.1 and the one presented here, contain the same predicates. The differences that exist between the two sets of predications as regards their predicability are related to presentativity itself, as will be shown in 6.2.

6.1.2. Equative predications There is little to be said about the predicability of equative predications. In all but one of the languages of the sample non-verbal predications based on referential predicates, whether identifying or classifying, specifying or characterizing, are predicable. The one exception concerns Abkhaz,5 where identifying predications, i.e. equative non-verbal predications based on a definite referential predicate, are non-predicable. First consider the following example, as analyzed by Hewitt (1979):

5.1 am grateful to Arie Spruit for bringing the facts to be discussed here to my attention.

142 Non-verbal predicability

Abkhaz (Caucasian, Hewitt 1979: 46) (16) Wsy Zaira l-a-w+p'. DEM Zaira 3.SG.OBJ-COP-STAT 'That's Zaira.' Hewitt analyses the verbal form -a/-ak'w as a copulative stem restricted to identifying equative constructions. There are two problems with this analysis. The first, noted by Hewitt (1979: 105) himself, is that the personal prefix /- '3.SO* is not a subject but an object prefix. The second (Spruit, personal communication) is that in certain tenses the stem -a/ak™' may itself be accompanied by the copula zaa, as in the following example: Abkhaz (Caucasian, Spruit 1986: 124) (17) D-z-ak'°d-zaa-lak'gd 3.SG.M.SBJ-REL.OBJ^/t'H'-COP-ever 'whoever he is' If -a/-ak'" is analysed as a copulative stem, it is hard to explain why it should itself receive support of another copulative stem. Spruit (1986: 107) therefore analyzes -al-ok™ as a two-place lexical stem meaning 'identical to (OBJ)' rather than as a copulative stem. Within this approach, (16) and (17) would be analyzed as in (18) and (19): Abkhaz (Caucasian, Spruit 1986: 107, 124) (18) Way Zaira 0-l-a-w-p'. DEM Zaira 3.SG.NH.SBJ-3.SG.F.OBJ-identical-PRES-DECL "That is identical to Zaira." "That's Zaira.' (19) D-z-ak'°d-zaa-lak'gd 3.SG.M.SBJ-REL.OBJ-identical-COP-ever "whoever he is identical to" 'whoever he is' The analysis of -a/-ak'v as a lexical rather than a copulative stem thus accounts for both the object marking and the fact that -a/-ak'w may itself be accompanied by a copula. The data concerning the predicability of equative constructions are listed in Table 24. The two possible types are illustrated in Table 25. On the basis of these data the following hierarchy may be postulated, again, only trivially: (20)

Predicate hierarchy 2: Equative predications > (dxj

Predicability and predicate type 143

Since only in the case of Abkhaz there is a difference in predicability between the two different types of equative predication, support for this hierarchy is rather weak. Its relevance will, however, be further demonstrated in chapter 8 in connection with the question of what grammatical means are used to express the different predication types. The existence of predicate hierarchy 2 may be related to a difference in use between the two types of predicate that has been noted by several authors,6 among others Lyons (1977: 470-473). In predications based on an indefinite term-predicate the focus is more often than not on the property expressed by the head noun rather than on the reference of the term phrase, whereas in predications based on a definite term-predicate the reverse holds true. The latter "are used, characteristically, to identify the referent of one expression with the referent of another" and the former "to ascribe to the referent of the subject-expression a certain property" (Lyons 1977: 472). One might hypothesize now that the referential nature of definite term-predicates conflicts with a predicative status more easily than the non-referential nature of indefinite term-predicates. This problem is neatly solved in Abkhaz by turning the definite term into an argument of a lexical predicate, thus creating a situation in which the referential nature of the term is in harmony with its syntactic status. In several other languages the somewhat different status of definite term-predicates is reflected in the use of a special format for their expression, as will be shown in chapter 8.

Table 24. Predicability of equative predications—some examples

Language Abkhaz Tamil

(ix,) + +

6. For an overview and discussion see Keizer (1990).

144 Non-verbalpredicability

Table 25. Predicability of equative predications

Language !Xü Abkhaz Arabic, Egyptian Babungo Bambara Basque Burushaski Chinese, Mandarin Chukchee Dutch Gilyak Guarani Hausa Hixkaryana Hungarian Jamaican Creole Ket Krongo Lango Mam Miao Nah ali Nasioi Navaho Ngalakan Ngiyambaa Pipil Quechua, Imbabura Sumerian Tagälog Tamil Thai Turkish Vietnamese West Greenlandic Yagaria Yessan-Mayo

(\ )

(dx)

+ + + + + +

+

+ + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

+ + + + + + + + +

+ + +

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + 4·

Predicability and predication type

145

6.2. Predicability and predication type 6.2.0. Introduction In the preceding sections the degree of non-verbal predicability of the languages of the sample was studied in relation to predicate types within a number of different major predication types. Predicability can also be measured across major predication types: certain classes of predication, together constituting a major predication type, are much more easily predicable than others. Anticipating the data to be presented in the following sections, the different degrees of predicability of major predication types may be represented as in (21): (21)

Predication hierarchy Equative > Ascriptive Non-presentative

> Presentative Non-existential > Existential

What is shown in (21) is that the equative predication type is the most easily predicable, followed by the non-presentative ascriptive predication type, which is in turn followed by its presentative counterpart. Within the class of presentative predications non-existential predications are more easily predicable than existential ones. The latter hierarchy applies to localizing predications only. The complex hierarchy in (21) will be reconstructed in the following sections. I will start with a comparison of the two most closely related predication types, the presentative and non-presentative ascriptive ones, in 6.2.1, and then draw equative predications into the picture in 6.2.2.

6.2.1. Ascriptive predications The fact that two different predicate hierarchies had to be postulated in 6.1.1.1 and 6.1.1.2 for non-presentative and presentative ascriptive constructions suggests that presentativity itself should be treated as an independent parameter in the description of non-verbal predicability. The hierarchy emerging from the data is the one given in (22), which says that non-presentative predications are more easily predicable than presentative ones and that within the latter class non-existential ones are more easily predicable than existential ones. (22)

Predication hierarchy—Ascriptive predications Ascriptive Non-presentative > Presentative Non-existential >

Existential

146 Non-verbal predicability

Table 26. Predicability of localizing predications

Language

(x^^-Pres

!Χΰ Abkhaz Arabic, Egyptian Babungo Bambara Basque Burushaski Chinese, Mandarin Chukchee Dutch Gilyak Guarani Hausa Hixkaryana Hungarian Jamaican Creole Ket Krongo Lango Mam Miao Nahali Nasioi Navaho Ngalakan Ngiyambaa Pipil Quechua, Imbabura Sumerian Tag log Tamil Thai Turkish Vietnamese West Greenlandic Yagaria Yessan-Mayo

+ + + + + + + + + +/+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +/·+·/+ + +

+ + + + + +

(Xj^+Pres

(0)Loc/+Pres

+ + + + + + + + + +/+ +

+ + + + + + + + + +/-

+ + + + + + +

+ + + + + + +

. + +/-

+ + +/-

+

+/+ + +

+ + +

+

+

+ + -

+ + +/-

Predicability and predication type

Table 27. Predicability of possessive predications

Language !Xu Abkhaz Arabic, Egyptian Babungo Bambara Basque Burushaski

Chinese, Mandarin Chukchee Dutch Gilyak Guarani Hausa Hixkaryana Hungarian Jamaican Creole Ket Krongo Lango Mam Miao Nahali Nasioi Navaho Ngalakan Ngiyambaa Pipil Quechua, Imbabura Sumerian Tagalog Tamil Thai Turkish Vietnamese West Greenlandic Yagaria Yessan-Mayo

(\)PoJ-Pres

+

+ +

+ +

+

+ + + + +

+

(x,)Poa/+Pres

+/-

147

148 Non-verbal predicability

Table 28. Predicability of localizing predications—some examples

Language Bambara Ngiyambaa Hausa Yagaria

(x^^-Pres

(x^L^y+Pres

+ +/+ .

+ +/-

^L^y+Pres +

.

.

Table 29. Predicability of possessive predications—some examples

Language Burushaski Dutch West Greenlandic

(xi)Poss/-Pres + +

(x^po^+Pres +/-

The first part of the hierarchy in (22) can be tested for localizing and possessive predications only. These are the predication types that have both a presentative and a non-presentative realization (see 5.5). The second part can be tested for presentative localizing predications only, since only these have an existential and a non-existential realization (see 5.1.3). The relevant data are given in Tables 26-29. The data in these tables, particularly those in 26 and 28, support both parts of the hierarchy given in (22): in languages in which presentative predications of one of the two types are predicable their non-presentative counterparts are predicable as well, and in languages in which existential predications are predicable their nonexistential counterparts are predicable as well. There is only one language for which a difference in predicability between presentative locative and existential predications has been noted. In Ngiyambaa the existential non-verbal predication type is non-predicable, whereas the presentative locative one is under certain conditions. Consider the following examples: Ngiyambaa (Pama-Nyungan; Donaldson 1980: 325, 233, 108) (23) Wanhdha-la-wa:-li: ga-ra. which-LOC-EXCLM-1 .NOM.DU COP-PRES 'Whereat is it?'

Predicability and predication type 149 (24)

(25)

Buray ηϊηΐ ga-ra. child.ABS here.LOC COP-PRES 'There are children here.' Dhigu-buwan. emu.bush-PROPR.ABS "It is with emu bushes." 'There is/are emu bushes.'

In Ngiyambaa both non-presentative (23) and presentative (24) locative predications are predicable, provided that the locative predicate is of a deictic nature (see 6.3). If the locative predicate is non-deictic, a positional verb is used. Existential predications, never having a deictic predicate, are never predicable. A proprietive construction (see 7.1.5) is used instead, as illustrated in (25).7 Having separated the predication hierarchy from the predicate hierarchy, the two may now be combined into the two-dimensional hierarchy given in Figure 32.

Hardly predicable !ι

· —·--

(e^+Pres (XiW+Pres (XiW+Pres (x^-Pres

A/-Pres

N/-Pres

(x^-Pres

Easily predicable

Figure 32. Predicate and predication hierarchy—version 1

In Figure 32 the predicate hierarchy is projected horizontally, the predication hierarchy vertically. In this way the terminal points of the two versions of the predicate hierarchy are connected, and the irrelevant combinations are simply not

7. The low number of languages in which existential locative predications are less easily predicable than non-existential ones may be partly the result of a problem that has already been noted in 5.1.3.2.2. It may be very hard to distinguish between a presentative locative predication and an existential one, since in the former the locative may often remain unexpressed if retrievable from the context. Most grammars do not go into this problem in any detail, and in most grammars examples are given out of context, so that a proper assessment of the status of an existential construction is impossible.

150 Non-verbal predicability

realized. The representation furthermore shows that the existential/non-existential distinction is relevant to presentative localizing predications only. The bottom left box in Figure 32 represents an easily predicable predication type, the upper right box a hardly predicable predication type. Thus this picture shows that in a typological perspective non-presentative locative predications and presentative possessive predications are diametrically opposed as to their degree of predicability. An explanation for the fact that presentative predications are not as easily predicable as non-presentative ones is that within presentative predications two functions have to be fulfilled at the same time: a location or possessor should be ascribed to an entity, which at the same time has to be introduced into the discourse. The introduction of an entity into the discourse can, however, be achieved more easily by relating the entity introduced to an entity already known to the addressee (see 5.5.1). Since such an entity is not available in existential predications, they are likely to be less easily predicable than non-existential ones.

6.2.2. Ascriptive and equative predications The final predication type to be considered is the equative one. There are no direct links that can be established between this predication type and the ascriptive ones, since they do not share a common predicate type. The equative predication type truly stands apart in comparison with other types of non-verbal predication. A comparison can be made quite easily, however, since, as stated in 6.1.2, the most easily predicable type of equative predication, the classifying one, is available in all languages of the sample. Even the most easily predicable type of ascriptive predication, the non-presentative locative one, does not have this degree of predicability, as has been shown in 6.2.1. On the basis of these facts, the predication hierarchy may be completed as in (26): (26)

Predication hierarchy Equative > Ascriptive Non-presentative

> Presentative Non-existential > Existential

The position of equative predications contiguous to non-presentative ascriptive ones was to be expected, since the two predication types share their non-presentativity. The fact that equative predications are more easily predicable than ascriptive ones can be explained taking into consideration what has been said about the uses of word classes and the typology of parts-of-speech systems in chapter 4. It was argued there that the distinguishing uses of non-verbal predicates are nonpredicative. In ascriptive predications, however, they are used predicatively, which

Predicability and predication type

151

requires the language to have a certain amount of flexibility with respect to the uses to which different classes of predicates may be put. Equative predications do not require this kind of flexibility: their predicate is a term phrase, within which nominal heads and adjectival and possessive modifiers can be used in their distinguishing, non-predicative functions. Further corroboration for these statements can be found in 7.2. As will be shown there, the equative predication type often substitutes for non-presentative ascriptive predication types that are non-predicable in the languages of the sample. This is because, by doing so, nominal, adjectival, and possessive predicates are enabled to occur in their preferred distinguishing functions as constituents of term phrases. The same does not hold for locative predicates, the distinguishing use of which is adverbial. This sets locative predicates apart from all other types of predicate, which is reflected in their position in Figure 33.

Hardly predicable ι

1

(0)iJ+PKS

(XiW+Pres

(x^Lo/i-Pres (x^-Pres

A/-Pres

(ix.)

N/-Pres

(XiW-Pres (dx.)

Easily predicable

Figure 33. Predicate and predication hierarchy—version 2

Figure 33 incorporates the main parameters that are relevant in the description of non-verbal predicability and can be viewed as a 'map' of the general area of nonverbal predication. This area is partitioned in various ways in the languages of the sample, particularly with respect to the grammatical means that are used to express the various types of non-verbal predication, as will be shown in chapter 9. There are some further parameters that are relevant for a full description of nonverbal predicability, but these apply to subsets of the predication types listed in Figure 33 only. These parameters may be used to explain most of the occurrences of multiple values (+/-) in the tables presented earlier, and are concerned with deixis (6.3) and quantification (6.4).

152 Non · verbal predicability

6.3. Predicability and deixis In preceding sections mention has been made of a difference in behaviour of locative predications with a deictic versus those with a non-deictic predicate. In some languages predicates corresponding to here, there, etc. and their interrogative counterpart where behave differently from other locative predicates, either with respect to the expression of the predication in which they occur (see chapter 8) or with respect to their degree of predicability. In Ngiyambaa, as indicated in 6.2.1, locative predications based on a locative question word (27) or demonstrative adverb (28) are predicable, but in other locative predications a positional verb has to be used (29)-(30): Ngiyambaa (Pama-Nyungan; Donaldson 1980: 325, 233) (27) Wanhdha-la-wa:-li: ga-ra. which-LOC-EXCLM-1 .NOM.DU COP-PRES 'Whereat is it?' (28) Buray rjini ga-ra. childABS here.LOC COP-PRES 'There are children here.' (29) *Bura:y galiq-ga ga-ra. child.ABS water-LOC COP-PRES 'There are children by the water.' (30) Bura.y galirj-ga wara-nha. childABS water-LOC stand-PRES 'There are children by the water.' A similar difference in predicability of deictic and non-deictic locative predicates can be found in Ngalakan. The hierarchy that may be tentatively posited on the basis of the data from these languages is given in (31): (31)

Deixis hierarchy Deictic >

Non-deictic

Since there are languages that allow the predicative use of both deictic and nondeictic locative predicates, and languages that allow the predicative use of neither of these, the possible instantiations of (31) are as illustrated in Table 30. The situation in Ngalakan is particularly interesting, since in that language the deixis hierarchy interacts with the predication hierarchy. Thus, whereas nonpresentative locative predications based on the deictic predicate go?ye 'here' are predicable, presentative ones based on that same predicate are not, as illustrated in (32M33):

Predicability and quantification 153 Ngalakan (Gunwinyguan; Merlan 1983: 62, 176) (32) fiu-go?ye. l.SG-here 'I'm here.' (33) Yipunj'a τηιιηαηα-όϊ go?ye-gen. long.time.ago white.people-PRIV here-ADVR "Long time ago it was white-people-less here." 'Long time ago there were no white people here.'

Table 30. Predicability and deixis

Language !X Ngiyambaa Ngalakan Yagaria

(x,) ^-(-Deictic + + +/-

6.4. Predicability and quantification In some languages presentative predications are non-predicable if a quantifier is present. Consider the following examples: Yessan-Mayo (Sepik-Ramu; Foreman 1974: 160, 223) (34) Sibu-wo ti-bwe. ashes-EXCL COP-PAST.CONT 'There were only ashes.' (35) Mate pes. bag two "The bags are two." 'There are two bags.' Existential predications that do not contain a quantifier, such as (34), are predicable in Yessan-Mayo. If a quantifier is present, however, it has to occupy the predicate position, the result being a predicative quantifier construction (see 7.1.6), which in this case is used as an alternative for the existential predication type, as illustrated in (35). Similar differences in predicability related to the presence versus absence

1 54 Non - verbal predicability

of a quantifier can be found in Navaho. The facts presented by these languages can be translated into the following hierarchy: (36)

Quantification hierarchy Non-quantified >

Quantified

In Table 31 the quantification hierarchy is illustrated for existential predications.

Table 31. Predicability and quantification

Language Krongo Yessan Mayo West Greenlandic

+ +

The predicative quantifier construction will be studied in greater detail in 7.1.6 and 7.3.

6.5. Summary In order to account for the differences in the extent to which non-verbal predication types are predicable in the languages of the sample, the following predicate hierarchies have been postulated: (37)

Predicate hierarchy l (1A+1B): ascriptive predications W0)Loc

(38)

>

A

>

N

>

Predicate hierarchy 2: equative predications > (dx,)

Different hierarchies had to be postulated for ascriptive and equative predications. The former was furthermore shown to have two different realizations in the presentative and non-presentative domain. This and other differences in predicability between major predication types were captured by the following predication hierarchy:

Summary 155

(39)

Predication hierarchy Equative > Ascriptive Non-presentative

> Presentative Non-existential > Existential

The predicate and predication hierarchies were combined into a two-dimensional predicability hierarchy in Figure 33. Although this two-dimensional hierarchy accounted for most of the facts, for some languages multiple values had to be given for the predicability of certain predication types. To account for these two additional hierarchies were formulated, a deixis hierarchy and a quantification hierarchy: (40) (41)

Deixis hierarchy Deictic > Non-deictic Quantification hierarchy Non-quantified > Quantified

Together these hierarchies account for almost all the variation found in the languages of the sample with respect to the predicability of non-verbal predication types. The few remaining exceptions will be studied from a diachronic perspective in chapter 10. The hierarchies listed here will be shown to be relevant with respect to the alternatives chosen for non-predicable predication types and with respect to the expression of predicable predication types as well.

7. Alternatives for non-verbal predications

7.0. Introduction In the preceding chapter I tried to determine the extent to which the different nonverbal predication types distinguished in chapter 5 are predicable in the languages of the sample. In this chapter I will concentrate on the alternatives that languages use for non-predicable predication types. In 7.1 I will first give a survey of these alternatives. In 7.2 I look at the distribution of the alternatives in non-presentative and presentative predications, respectively. The results are evaluated in 7.3.

7.1. Alternative predication types 7.1.1. The lexical predication type 7.1.1.0. Introduction. In many cases the alternative used for a non-predicable predication type is based on a lexical verb or verbalizing affix which captures the semantic relation that would have been expressed by the non-verbal predication type had it been available. There are two subtypes, depending on the nature of the lexical verb or verbalizing affix. 7.1.1.1. The true lexical predication type. In the first subtype (LEX1) the alternative predication type is based on a true lexical predicate, generally a verb. Thus, many languages use predications based on a possessive verb as an alternative for the presentative possessive predication type: Pipil (Central Amerind; Campbell 1985: 119)

(1)

Su

datka

ni-k-piya.

NEG nothing l.SG.SBJ-3.SG.OBJ-have Ί don't have anything.' Similarly, positional rather than copular verbs may be used in the expression of locative meaning: Yagaria (Trans New Guinea; Renck 1975: 19, 68) (2) Ovu-da ma-lo' bei-d-u-e. Ovu-l.SG DEM-LOC sit-REAL-l.SG-INDV Ί, Ovu, am here.'

(3)

Totoga

yo'

bogo hano-d-i-e.

above house one exist-REAL-3.SG-INDV 'Up above there is a house.'

158 Alternatives for non-verbaI predications

The choice of one of the positional verbs used in predications with locative meaning in Yagaria is determined by the animacy of the subject term: bei 'sit' is used for animate subjects, hano 'exist' is used for inanimate subjects (see also Haiman 1980: 343). Since this type of distribution can be seen as determined by the selection restrictions imposed by the two verbs, these verbs cannot be considered true copulas, which, like other auxiliaries, do not impose selection restrictions at all (see 3.4). The situation in Dutch, Ngalakan, and Ngiyambaa is somewhat different from that obtaining in Yagaria: in these languages the selection of a particular positional verb does not depend on intrinsic properties of the located object, such as its animacy, but rather on its actual (horizontal, vertical, etc.) position. Consider the following examples (see also Rijkhoff 1992: chapter 2): Dutch (Indo-Hittite) (4) *Het boek DEF book in LOC 'The book is (5) Het boek DEF book 'The book is (6) Het boek DEF book 'The book is

is op tafel COP.PRES.3.SG LOG table de boekenkast. DEF bookcase on the table/in the bookcase.' lig-t op tafel lie-PRES.3.SG LOC table on the table.' Staat in de stand-PRESJ.SG LOC DEF in the bookcase.'

I /

boekenkast. bookcase

Verbalizing affixes rather than verbs are used in West Greenlandic, where nonpresentative possession (7) and status (8) are regularly expressed in a true lexical predication using the verbalizing affix -gi 'have as': West Greenlandic (Eskimo-Aleut; Fortescue 1984: 173, 171) (7) illu-gi-galua-ra. house-have.as-previous-POSS. 1 .SG 'the house I used to have.' (8) ilinniartitsisu-ra-arput. teacher-have.as-INDV.l.PL.3.SG "We have him as a teacher" 'He is our teacher' In all these true lexical predications the main constituents of the corresponding nonpredicable non-verbal predications are present, but their syntactic status is different.

Alternative predication types 159

By way of example, representations of the possessive non-verbal predication type and its true lexical alternative are given in (9) and (10), respectively: (9)

ίΐ 0)

Non-verbal predication: (e;: Kf.: U,)*, (f,)) (xjU (e;)) "Xj is of χιAlternative LEX1 predication: (e,: [(ή: predv (f,)) (χ,)0 (χρο] (e;)) "Xj has Xj"

In the non-verbal predication in (9) the predicate term (xj refers to the possessor, the argument term (x^ to the possessed item. In the alternative true lexical predication in (10) both terms are arguments of a lexical verb (predv). 7.1.1.2. The pseudo-transitive predication type. The second subtype of lexical predication (LEX2) is formed by predications based on what might be called pseudo-transitive verbs, remnants of originally transitive verbs which have lost some of their lexical characteristics while retaining others. An example of this strategy can be found in Kpelle, where the verb used in predications with locative meaning is "a singular imperative of the verb meaning 'see'" (Welmers 1973: 315). It betrays this origin in the fact that it takes the entity located as its object: Kpelle (Mande; Welmers 1973: 315) (11) '-Kaa n a. 3.SG.OBJ-see there "See him/her/it there." 'He/she/it is there.' The verb kaa "must be interpreted as having a specialized, fossilized function in such locative expressions, since the plural imperative form is not used when speaking to more than one person" (Welmers 1973: 315). The construction can thus be seen as syntactically subjectless. Since the single remaining argument is treated as an object, the construction cannot be considered an instance of non-verbal predication. Originally possessive verbs may show up in pseudo-transitive predications expressing iocative and existential meaning: Spanish (Indo-Hittite; Suner 1982: 22) (12) tHay un medico have.PRESJ.SG INDEF doctor "Has it a doctor in this town?" 'Is there a doctor in this town?'

en este pueblo? LOG DEM town

160 Alternatives for non-verbal predications

The verb used in Spanish in predications expressing locative and existential meaning is related to the originally possessive verb haber 'have',1 from which it differs slightly in its present tense form only. The single argument of this verb behaves as a Goal argument, as is shown by pronominalization: Spanish (Indo-Hittite; Suner 1982: 22) (13) Si que lo yes CMPLR 3.SG.ACC.M "Of course it has one." Of course there is one.'

hay. have.PRES.3.SG

The construction is syntactically subjectless: the verb always occurs in the third person singular, whether its single argument is singular or plural. It can therefore not be analyzed as a predication based on a one-place non-verbal predicate. As in the case of LEX1, one might say that in LEX2 the same elements are involved as in the non-verbal predication type it replaces. This is shown for locative predications in (14) and (15): (14)

(15)

Non-verbal predication (e; I(f;: (x^u* A > Ν > Bare > Referential > Predicativity hierarchy

Loc Relational

There are two differences: (i) Stassen does not distinguish between bare nominal predicates and referential predicates, so that the hierarchies in (38) do not exactly coincide, and (ii) Stassen restricts himself to locative adverbials, which is not surprising, since this is the most easily predicable type of predicate within the relational class. A major difference between Stassen's approach and the one followed here has to do with the explanation of the position of locatives on the hierarchy. As has already been mentioned in 6.1.1.3, Stassen proposes a Revised Time Stability Scale to

The distribution of expression formats

201

explain the existence of the verbalization hierarchy. Locative adverbials would occupy the leftmost position on that scale, which is not what is actually found, as the verbalization hierarchy shows. Stassen therefore proposes a second explanation, the one word principle, which says that predicates are most easily expressed through the strategy that is also used for verbs if they consist of single phonological words. I have found no evidence supporting the one word principle in my sample. The approach followed in this study is somewhat different. As I argued in 6.1.1.3, Stassen's Revised Time Stability Scale, including its position for locative adverbials, is fully operative if considered from the point of view of predicability, disregarding the actual expression format chosen for predicable non-verbal predication types. It is, however, irrelevant from the point of view of the expression of non-verbal predication types. The Predicativity Hierarchy can be explained satisfactorily in terms of predicate types, without any need to invoke further principles. 8.2.2.2. The zero-2 strategy. (Non-)predicativization could, in principle, be studied from two different angles, which may be expected to yield complementary results. One may study the extent to which languages allow a zero-2 strategy, i.e. do not require predicativization, on the one hand, and the extent to which they require the presence of a predicativizing copula, on the other. There are good reasons for following the former approach. As has been argued in 8.2.1, the predicativizing strategy is found in complementary distribution with both the zero-1 and the zero-2 strategy. Since this overwhelming presence of the predicativizing strategy obscures the facts related to its application, I prefer to take the extent to which languages use a zero-2 strategy as my point of departure. The relevant data are given in Table 41. On the basis of the data in Table 41 the hierarchy given in (39) may be posited: (39)

Predication hierarchy Equative > Ascriptive Non-presentative

> Presentative Non-existential > Existential

In the present context this hierarchy should be read in the following way: if a predication type within this hierarchy does not require predicativization, all predication types preceding it in the hierarchy do not require predicativization either. The predication hierarchy given in (39) is identical to that given earlier in 6.2. There it was meant to account for degrees of predicability as they relate to different predication types. That the same hierarchy is relevant with respect to degrees of predicativization may be interpreted as an indication that the more easily predicable

202 The expression of non-verbal predications

a predication type is, the more likely it is to be expressed by means of a zero-2 strategy.

Table 41. The zero-2 strategy

Language

Equative

!Xu Hixkaryana Vietnamese Ngiyambaa Quechua, Imbabura Turkish Yessan-Mayo Tamil Chukchee Hausa Tagalog West Greenlandic Chinese, Mandarin Gilyak Guarani Ngalakan Thai Yagaria

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Jamaican Creole Babungo

-

Ascriptive -Presentative

-fPresentative -Existential -(-Existential

+ + + + -t+ + + + + + + -

+ + + + -

-

nprd -

nprd nprd nprd -

nprd nprd nprd -

nprd

nprd nprd

nprd nprd

+/+

+/+

+

Table 41 not only shows a correlation between predicability and predicativization, it also lends further support to the validity of the position of existential predications on the predication hierarchy. Evidence for this position on the basis of the data concerning predicability appeared to be rather scarce in 6.2.2. The data presented here show, however, that existential predications require a predicativizing strategy more often than all other predication types, which may be interpreted as an indication of their lower degree of predicability. There are two counterexamples to the claims presented here. In Babungo and Jamaican Creole the zero-2 strategy is not used in equative predications, whereas

The distribution of expression formats

203

it is used in other predication types. A closer inspection of these predication types reveals that the strategy is used optionally with localizing predicates only. With other types of predicate the copula is obligatory. In Babungo the zero-2 strategy is applied in the present tense in presentative and non-presentative predications based on a localizing predicate. In Jamaican Creole the use of this strategy is more restricted: it is used in locative predications only, and within this class there are even further restrictions. Consider the following examples: Jamaican Creole (Creole, Bailey 1966: (40) Jan de huom. Jan COP home 'Jan is home.' (41) Jan ben de huom. Jan PAST COP home 'Jan was home.' (42) Jan (de) ina di Jan COP LOG DEF 'Jan is in the house.' (43) Jan ben de ina Jan PAST COP LOG 'Jan was in the house.'

82-83, Beck, personal communication)

house. house di house. DEF house

The copula de is obligatory in predications in which the predicate is a locative adverb, as in (40) and (41). It is optional in the present tense if the predicate is a locative phrase introduced by ina, as in (42). In other tenses the copula is obligatory, as illustrated in (43). The data from Babungo and Jamaican Creole suggest that within the set of ascriptive predications die most easily predicable predication type, as defined by the predicate hierarchy presented in 6.1 and repeated in (44), is at the same time the most likely to be expressed by means of a zero-2 strategy. (44)

Predicate hierarchy 1A: Ascriptive predications > A > N >

Thus, the use of the zero-2 strategy in Babungo and Jamaican Creole corresponds with a high degree of predicability of the predication types concerned, just as in the other cases presented in Table 41 . Note that the combined predicate and predication hierarchy in Figure 33 (see 6.2.2) correctly predicts this possibility: equative predications come out as the most easily predicable ones on the basis of the predication hierarchy, localizing predications on the basis of the predicate hierarchy. The cases of Babungo and Jamaican Creole at the same time illustrate an important difference between the conditions under which the zero-1 and zero-2

204 The expression of non-verbal predications

strategies are used. Whereas localizing predications, being based on relational predicates, are the least likely to be expressed by means of the zero-1 strategy, they are at the same time, being based on the most easily predicable predicate type, the most likely to be expressed by means of the zero-2 strategy within the set of ascriptive predications. Chukchee partly seems to contradict what has been said here. In non-presentative ascriptive predications in Chukchee a zero-2 strategy is applied in predications based on adjectival, nominal, and possessive predicates, but a special predicativizing copula morpheme is used in localizing predications only. This is, again, an example of the exceptional behaviour of localizing predications, which will be further studied in chapter 10. A comparison of the predicativity hierarchy (see 8.2.2.1), which governs the extent to which the zero-1 strategy is used, with the predication hierarchy, which governs the extent to which the zero-2 strategy is used, shows that this difference is due to the fact that the use of the zero-1 strategy is conditioned by morphosyntactic categories, whereas the zero-2 strategy is conditioned by semantic and pragmatic categories. According to the predicativity hierarchy, predications based on bare adjectival and nominal predicates are most likely to lack a copula in a zero-1 construction. According to the predication hierarchy, equative predications are most likely to lack a copula in a zero-2 construction. Both hierarchies coincide, however, in that they predict that presentative predications are most likely to contain a copula. Considering these similarities and differences, it is not surprising that in the typological study of Radics (1984: 164), in which the distinction between the two zero-strategies is not made, adjectival and equative predications appear as the most likely and presentative predications as the least likely to lack a copular verb. 8.2.2.3. The discriminating strategy. As stated in 8.1.3, the discriminating strategy may be combined with the zero-1, the predicativizing, and the zero-2 strategy. With the first it is combined twice in the languages of the sample, with the second only once. In all three cases the copula is applied in equative predications. Examples have been given in 8.1.3. In the remaining three languages for which a discriminating strategy has been noted, Mandarin Chinese, Hausa, and Vietnamese, this strategy is used in combination with a zero-2 strategy. In all three languages it is used in the expression of equative predications. Only in Hausa is a discriminating copula, different from that used in equative predications, used in locative predications as well. In the languages of the sample the discriminating strategy is thus used most frequently (i) in combination with the zero-2 strategy, (ii) in the expression of equative predications. This is because in this situation the equative construction might easily be interpreted as an apposition of two terms without some signal that the construction as a whole should be interpreted as a (non-verbal) predication. A

The distribution of expression formats

205

closer inspection of this phenomenon will be provided in 8.2.3, where the conditions triggering a copula will be studied. A final but important point to be noted is that within the class of equative predications a discriminating strategy is used most often in the expression of identifying predications. In two of the six languages employing a discriminating strategy, Egyptian Arabic and Lango, this strategy is applied within identifying predications only. In both languages it combines with a zero-1 strategy. As in the case of existential predications, this higher frequency as regards the presence of a copula lends support to the lower position the identifying predication type occupies on the predicate hierarchy tentatively posited in 6.1.2.

8.3. Copula triggers 8.3.0. Introduction In 8.2.1 I studied the distribution of expression formats across languages, in 8.2.2 I looked at the distribution of each of the individual expression formats across nonverbal predication types. It is now time to have a closer look at those situations in which two different formats are used for the expression of a single predication type, in particular those cases in which one of these expression formats contains a copula while the other does not. I will study the presence versus absence of a copula in terms of the nature of the conditions triggering the presence of a copula. Three factors will be shown to be relevant: tense, mood, aspect, and person (8.3.3.1), deixis (8.3.3.2), and ambiguity (8.3.3.3).

8.3.1. Tense, mood, aspect, and person 8.3.1.0. Introduction. An important element of Dik's (1980) theory of copula support is the idea that a verbal copula may be interpreted as "a supportive device for expressing predicate operator distinctions in those cases where these cannot be expressed through the predicate itself" (Dik 1980: 94). The predominance of the predicativizing strategy noted in 8.3.2.2 shows the correctness of this approach, which might be extended to include person distinctions as well. In most languages there are several predication types in which a predicativizing strategy is applied in all circumstances. In others the application of this strategy is subject to certain conditions. In this section I will concentrate on the nature of these conditions and therefore restrict myself to those cases in which a copula is not used in all circumstances.

206 The expression of non-verbal predications

8.3.1.1. Conditions. Three different situations have been found with respect to the conditions under which a copula may be absent, in so far as they relate to tense, mood, aspect, and person (henceforth TMAP). First, there are some languages in which a predicativizing copula has to be used with one set of tenses, and has to be absent with another set. This is the case in Abkhaz and Turkish. Given that Abkhaz and Turkish are the only languages in the sample exhibiting this kind of system and are spoken in adjacent areas, it could be that the close resemblance in their treatment of non-verbal predicates is due to language contact. In Abkhaz there is a set of suffixes that may be added to dynamic stems only. If one of these suffixes has to be applied to a non-verbal, i.e. non-dynamic, stem a predicativizing copula intervenes. The suffixes that can be added directly to a Stative stem express Present tense, Past tense, and Imperative mood. In Turkish the situation is slightly different. In this language there is a set of suffixes that may be added to verb stems only. If one of these suffixes has to be added to a non-verbal stem a copula is used. The suffixes that do not require a copula to be used express Present tense, Past tense/witnessed, Past tense/nonwitnessed, Realis conditional mood, and Simultaneity. Dynamic stems in Abkhaz and verbal stems in Turkish also have in common that, when combined with particular sets of suffixes, they behave like Stative (Abkhaz) or non-verbal (Turkish) stems with respect to further suffixation, suggesting in the case of Turkish that the first set turns the verbal stem into a non-finite form that may then be used as a non-verbal predicate in an auxiliary construction (Lees 1972; van Schaaik 1983). Second, in many languages a predicativizing copula may be absent in the present tense only. This is the case in Egyptian Arabic, Babungo, Hungarian, Jamaican Creole, Lango, Ngalakan, and Imbabura Quechua. Absence of a copula may be further restricted to the present tense, third person, which is the case in Imbabura Quechua and Hungarian. In the latter it is still further restricted to third person singular. Third, there are some languages in which predicativizing copulas may be absent in those cases in which time reference does not have to be made explicit, e.g. when it is inferrable from the context or specified by lexical means. This is the case in Ngiyambaa, and seems to be the case in Gilyak and Yessan-Mayo. Since very often time reference does not have to be made explicit if the situation described is developing at the moment of speaking, the distinction between this situation and the one in which absence of a copula is restricted to the present tense is often somewhat difficult to make.1

1. Conditions of type 2 and 3 are listed by Ferguson (1971: 142) among the most frequently encountered characteristics of equational clauses without a copula.

The distribution of expression formats

207

8.3.1.2. Optional and obligatory absence. Another way of looking at the data concerning the absence versus presence of copulas is to determine whether a copula is optionally or obligatorily absent under certain conditions. The behaviour of copulas in this respect is related to the nature of the zero-strategy employed by the languages concerned, and may furthermore be related to the conditions of absence of a copula. In Table 42 the relevant data are listed. In this table the different sets of conditions of use of copulas are numbered in the order in which they were discussed in the previous section: 1 indicates that a copula is absent in a welldelimited set of tenses, 2 that it is absent in the present tense only, and 3 that it is absent if time reference does not have to be made explicit.

Table 42. Absence of copula and zero-strategy

Conditions

Zero-strategy

Language

Absence of copula

Abkhaz Turkish Arabic, Egyptian Hungarian Lango Ngalakan

obligatory obligatory/unmarked obligatory obligatory/unmarked obligatory obligatory

1 1 2 2 2 2

01 01 01 01 01 01

Babungo Jamaican Creole Quechua, Imbabura Gilyak Ngiyambaa Yessan-Mayo

optional optional optional optional optional optional

2 2 2 3 3 3

02 02 02 02 02 02

Table 42 shows that in general a copula is obligatorily absent in languages using a zero-1 strategy, whereas it is optionally absent in those using a zero-2 strategy. Partial counterexamples are Hungarian and Turkish. In Turkish absence of the copula is obligatory in the present tense, whereas in other tenses it is not, although in the latter case presence of a copula is restricted to formal speech and writing (Swift 1962: 152). In Hungarian the copula may be added, but the result is a rather marked construction type. There is a straightforward explanation for the correlations shown in Table 42. In languages employing the zero-1 strategy the non-verbal predicate itself is capable of carrying some of the distinctions characteristic of main predicates. In such

208 The expression of non-verbal predications

circumstances the presence of a predicativizing copula would be superfluous and is felt as overdone. For instance, in Turkish, one of the languages in which a copula is sometimes used in what might have been a zero-1 construction, the inflection is carried over from the non-verbal predicate to the (redundant) copula, resulting, as stated above, in a marked construction type that is not used in everyday conversation. Within zero-1 languages there may be a wide range of tenses allowing encoding by means of the zero-1 strategy (type 1), or absence of a copula may be restricted to the present tense (type 2), which in Hungarian and Ngalakan is characterized by the absence of any morphological material. In languages employing the zero-2 strategy the situation is different. The nonverbal predicate itself is not capable of carrying any of the distinctions characteristic of main predicates. If any one of these has to be expressed, a predicativizing copula has to intervene. Within this type of language the absence of a copula is either possible in just one situation, i.e. the present tense (type 2), in which case a correct interpretation is arrived at by virtue of the opposition with those situations in which a copula is present, or the absence of a copula may be contextually determined (type 3), in which case a correct interpretation is arrived at through other elements of the sentence or through the wider context. Conditions of type 2 may thus be found in both types of language, but there is a difference. In zero-1 languages the copula may be absent in the present tense, because this tense can be expressed on the non-verbal predicate itself, whereas in zero-2 languages the copula may be absent in the present tense, because this tense does not have to be expressed, neither on the non-verbal predicate nor on the predicativizing copula.

8.3.2. Deixis There are several languages in which a copula may remain optionally absent in certain types of predication containing a deictic element. Consider the following examples: !Xü (Khoisan; Köhler 1981: 599-600) (45) Fie 'o: Goba. DEM COP Mbukushu 'That is a Mbukushu.' (46) T\'u: ze: ke.fle:. hut new DEM 'This is a new hut.'

The distribution of expression formats 209

West Greenlandic (Eskimo-Aleut; Fortescue 1984: 78, 77) (47) Ika-ni-ip-puq napparsimtnavik. DEM-LOC-COP-3.SG.INDV hospital Over there is the hospital.' (48) Samma tupir-paaluit, down.there tent-several 'Down there there are several tents.' The examples from !Xu show the optional absence of a copula in equative predications, those from West Greenlandic in locative predications. In the examples from !Xu the argument term is a deictic element, in those from West Greenlandic it is the predicate that is of a deictic nature. The optionality of a copula in relation to deixis has been found in locative and equative predications only. It has been noted in !Xu, Hixkaryana, Tamil, Thai, Vietnamese, and West Greenlandic. In all languages but Thai the locative predication type is reported to behave in the way illustrated here, whereas only in !Xu and Thai the equative predication type is reported to show this behaviour. In Hixkaryana only questioned deictic locative adverbs allow absence of the copula. For West Greenlandic, Tamil, and Thai there are explicit statements that the optionality of the copula is restricted to the present tense, while the same seems to hold for the other languages, since all examples are translated by means of a present tense. Thus, these languages could also have been listed as examples of type 1 languages in the previous section. They are treated here because there is the additional condition that there be a deictic element in the sentence. It comes as no surprise that the expression format used in case of absence of a copula is a zero-2 construction. Spatial deixis is not a category usually associated with the main predicate. Dropping of a copula in deictic contexts leads to the loss of the categories expressed on that copula, if any, and the result can only be a zero-2 construction. If compared with the results of the previous section, this explains the additional restriction that reference is to the present rather than to other temporal reference points, and the optional rather than obligatory absence of the copula. More surprising is that all six languages discussed here have one important property in common: they are all of the rigid type. More precisely, they either lack a class of adjectival predicates (!Xu, Hixkaryana, Thai, Vietnamese, West Greenlandic), or have a closed class of basic adjectival predicates, the predicative use of which is disallowed (Tamil). An explanation for this correlation may be that in rigid languages of the type discussed here only the locative predication type is predicable within the set of ascriptive predications. It is furthermore a common property of these languages that they have a separate expression format for equative predications. The result is that there is a strict demarcation line between equative

210 The expression of non-verbal predications

and locative predications (see 9.2.1 for discussion of this phenomenon). This might constitute a favourable situation for a copula to be absent.

8.3.3. Tense and Deixis In 8.2.2 I argued that the absence of a copula in zero-1 languages is conditioned by morphosyntactic factors, whereas in zero-2 languages it is conditioned by semantic and pragmatic factors. Since zero-2 languages are also the only languages in which both tense and deixis may condition the absence of a copula, it may be useful to have a somewhat closer look at the relation between tense and deixis in zero-2 languages. Common to all zero-2 languages treated in 8.3.1, where the relation between absence of a copula and TMAP-categories was studied, is that they allow a copula to be absent when reference is to a period of time which overlaps with the time of the speech event. Common to all zero-2 languages treated in the previous section is that they allow a copula to be absent if reference is made to an object which is present at the place of the speech event. In the latter group of languages both conditions do in fact hold at the same time, for instance in Thai, where a copula is obligatory when the subject term "... refers to an object which is removed from the time and place of the utterance" (Kuno and Wongkhomthong 1981: 96).

(E,: [ILL (S) (A) (X,: [-

[

term

] (et))

α;: PredN

Figure 42. Deictic centre, tense, and deixis

In the hierarchical model of the utterance presented in chapter 1 the time and place of the utterance is embodied by the speech act variable E. This variable serves as

The distribution of expression formats 211

a deictic centre (see Comrie 1985: 36; Dik 1989: 37; Hengeveld 1989: 130) on the basis of which the reference of absolute tenses, demonstratives, and other shifters (Jakobson 1971: 131-133) can be determined. Tense belongs to the domain of predication operators (π2, see 1.6), and deixis to the domain of term operators (Ω, see 1.6). Thus, the relations between deictic centre, tense, and deixis can be represented as in Figure 42. In terms of this figure one could say that a copula may be absent: (i) if e{ and E, overlap in time, as represented by a π^ operator Pres(ent); (ii) if Oi is located in the same area as E,, as represented by a demonstrative Ω operator. Since, as indicated in 8.3.2, condition (ii) seems to occur only in conjunction with condition (i), the former may be seen as a more specific condition on the latter, as represented in Figure 42. The semantic basis for the absence of a copula in zero-2 languages may thus be found in the relation between time and place of the narrated event (e·) on the one hand, and time and place of the speech event (E,), as expressed by the shifers here and now, on the other.

8.3.4. Ambiguity At several points in the preceding discussion the disambiguating function of discriminating copulas has been noted. The examples that have been given all related to the disambiguation between two different non-verbal predication types, e.g. specifying and characterizing equative predications. Disambiguation may also be necessary within one and the same non-verbal predication type. This type of disambiguation can be illustrated by looking at some examples from Mandarin Chinese. This language has an optional copula shi, which is of pronominal origin. That shi is not entirely optional can be derived from some of the conditions under which its presence is preferred. First consider the following examples: Mandarin Chinese (Sino-Tibetan; Hashimoto 1969: 84) (49) Zhe shu. DEM book 'this book' or 'This is a book.' (50) Yuehan xiaohair. John child 'the child John' or 'John is a child.' The examples given here are ambiguous between a term and a predication reading, or as Eid (1983: 203), in discussing similar examples from Egyptian Arabic, puts it, there is a "... potential ambiguity of a phrasal vs. a sentential interpretation ..." of the construction involved. To make the predication reading unambiguous, either

212 The expression ofnon-verbal predications

the pronominal copula shi or a pause should be inserted in between the two constituents, as in the following examples: Mandarin Chinese (Sino-Tibetan; Li—Thompson 1977: 422) (51) Nei-ge ren shi xuesheng. DEM-CLFR man COP student 'That man is a student.' (52) Nei-ge ren, xuesheng. DEM-CLFR man student "That man is a student.' Insertion of a pause identifies the first constituent as a Theme (see 1.4). This being an extra-clausal constituent, the part of the sentence following the pause is interpreted as a predication. Insertion of a copula marks a predicative relation within the predication itself. In both cases the predication reading is imposed upon the construction. A second condition under which shi is strongly preferred is illustrated by (53): Mandarin Chinese (Sino-Tibetan; Li—Thompson 1977: 422) (53) Chi pingguo de nei-ge ren eat apple ATTR DEM-CLFR person

xihuan

de

shi wo COP l.SG

peng.you.

like ATTR friend 'The person who is eating an apple is the friend I like.' If the subject term in equative predications is long and complex, as in (53), the insertion of a copula is preferred. Junger (1981: 127), discussing a similar construction involving a pronominal copula in Hebrew, notes that the function of the copula in sentences like these is to separate the subject term from the predicate so as to ease the processing of the sentence. Virtually all pronominal copulas found in the languages of the sample are used in this disambiguating function in equative predications only. The question of why it is precisely in this context that pronominal copulas are found will be addressed in 10.4.

9. Systems of non-verbal predication

9.0. Introduction A number of general patterns that languages may use to split up the area of nonverbal predication emerge from the data presented in chapter 8. In this chapter I will show that these patterns correlate to a high degree with other features of the languages concerned, in particular (i) their parts-of-speech system, with its implications for the degree of predicability of non-verbal predication types, and (ii) the zero strategy they adopt, if any. In 9.1 I first discuss the predominant expression patterns one by one, mentioning in each case the correlations with the features mentioned above, and then try to arrive at some generalizations concerning these correlations.

9.1. Expression patterns 9.1.0. Introduction

In the preceding chapter I looked at the distribution of individual expression formats across languages and across predication types without paying attention to the fact that in several languages further subdivisions can be made within the expression formats making use of a copula, since these languages make use of more than one such morpheme. In this section I will incorporate this information by looking at how languages split up the area of non-verbal predication in terms of the (combinations of) morphological realizations of the different types of non-verbal predication, where by a morphological realization I understand (i) a copula, (ii) a zero-1 construction, or (iii) a zero-2 construction. Table 43 lists the morphological realizations of the different types of non-verbal predication in the languages of the sample. In this table copulas are printed in italics, a - indicates that a predication type is nonpredicable in the language under consideration, 01 is a zero-1 construction, and 02 a zero-2 construction. On the basis of the information in Table 43 the languages of the sample can be arranged in groups using roughly the same kind of partitioning within their system of non-verbal predication. The partitionings I am most interested in are those defined by what may be called global splits. Within each of the partitionings further local splits may be encountered, but these will be shown to be of less interest.

214 Systems of non-verbal predication

Table 43. Expression formats used in the languages of the sample

Language

!Xu Abkhaz Arabic, Egyptian Babungo Bambara Basque Burushaski Chinese, Mandarin Chukchee Dutch Gilyak Guarani Hausa Hixkaryana Hungarian Jamaican Creole Ket Krongo Lango Mam Miao Nah ali Nasioi Navaho Ngalakan Ngiyambaa Pipil Quechua, Imbabura Sumerian Tagalog Tamil Thai Turkish Vietnamese West Greenlandic Yagaria Yessan-Mayo

Ascriptive Presentative Existential

Locative

Non-presentative Possessive Locative

-zaa/01 kan/01 luu/02

ge/02 -zaa/01 kan/01 luu/02

ge/02 -zaa/01 kan/01 luu/02

be

be

be

ge

izan

izan/egon

ba you tva

ba you tva

zijnl-

zijnl-

zijnl-

P'i

p'i

-

nalke exe/02

exe van de use äßidi

tie

ba/-

izan/egon ba

zai tva

exe van

van

de/02

de/02

use aß tie

01 aß tie

(a)t

(a)t

(a)t

mua tha

mua

Mo tha

onomaun -IhonishiQ

nemi tiya

onomaun -/honishlp -/ga/02 nemi tiya

onomaun honishlg -101 -/ga/02 nemi ka/02

g* -

g* -

ga 02

untu

untu/iru

iru/02

-

-

juu

var/ol CO

var/ol co/02

-

-

i/ol/01 o702 it/02

-

-Iti

-

ti/02

Expression patterns 215

Table 43. Expression formats used in the languages of the sample (continued)

Ascriptive (cont.) Non-presentative (cont.) Adjectival Nom. Poss.

_ 0l/-zaa kan/01 luulka izan/egon ba 02

02

zijn

zijn

irr 01 irr irr van/01 01 01 irr

izan

Definite

o/02 0l/-zaa kan/01 luu dolyelye...ye izan

o/02 kan/0l/huwa lau dolyelye...ye izan ba 02/shi 02 zijn 02/mu 02 ne/ce/ke 02 van/ 0l a 0l

02/shi 02 zijn 02/mu

-

a

a 0l

elfbedo 01 irr ka 01 irr

Indefinite

ba 02 zijn

Language

Equative

ne/ce/ke 02 van/01 a 0l aa01/bedö 0l zau

ollbedölen 01 zau

ka

0l/-me a)la/i M£,lgU

01 ----- 02/ka

0l 'anisht'elnishil 0l/-me 0l/-me 0l/-me/02 02/ga 02/ga 01

me 02 irr — - 01//-/W -— irr irr ///02 ti/02

02/ka 02/ka me me 02

02 02 02/pen/khi 01///0/ 01/ / / 02// -u/tassa(-u) 0l 02

0l 'anisht'elnishil 01/-me/02 02/ga 0l 02/ka me 02 02 02/pen/khi 0llilol 02/lä -u/tassa(-u) 0l 02

!Xu Abkhaz Arabic, Egyptian Babungo Bambara Basque Burushaski Chinese, Mandarin Chukchee Dutch Gilyak Guarani Hausa Hixkaryana Hungarian Jamaican Creole Ket Krongo Lango M am Miao Nahali Nasioi Navaho Ngalakan Ngiyambaa Pipil Quechua, Imbabura Sumerian Tagalog Tamil Thai Turkish Vietnamese West Greenlandic Yagaria Yessan-Mayo

216 Systems of non-verbal predication It should be noted that the particular partitionings listed in the following sections have been explicitly drawn up with an eye to possible correlations between the splits within the system of non-verbal predication and any of the parameters mentioned in the introduction. Other, less interesting, groupings than the ones presented here could have been arrived at by assigning more weight to what are considered local splits in what follows. There are three general principles that I have followed, however, in drawing up the present classification. First, the groupings that are given are maximally global, i.e. the splitting is binary. Second, every language has been assigned to one group only. Third, for the classification of the languages of the sample only the expression of predicable predication types has been taken into account.

9.1.1. Relational versus non-relational Several languages in the sample make a basic distinction between predications based on relational predicates on the one hand, and those based on non-relational ones on the other, where the latter class comprises both bare and referential predicates. Figure 43 represents this particular subdivision.

(x.W+Pres

A/-Pres

N/-Pres

(x.W-Pres

Figure 43. Relational versus non-relational: Bambara, Guarani, Hungarian, Lango, Mam, Nasioi, Pipil.

Expression patterns 217

The picture presented in Figure 43 was first presented in 6.2, where it represented degrees of predicabiliry. In chapter 8 the hierarchies on which it is based, the predicate and predication hierarchies, were shown to be relevant with respect to the selection of expression formats as well. In this chapter it will be shown to be appropriate for the general representation of systems of non-verbal predication. Some further preliminary remarks are in order with respect to Figure 43, illustrating the general points made in the introduction to this section. First, the languages mentioned here may make further local splits within one of the two subareas. For instance, Bambara makes a further distinction between predications based on bare and referential predicates, and Lango has a copula that is used in identifying predications only, as can be seen in Table 43.l Second, not all predication types listed in Figure 43 are predicable in all of the languages mentioned, so that the generalization holds only for predicable predication types within the languages concerned only. Thus, neither of the possessive predication types is predicable in Guarani, and in Hungarian predications based on bare nominal predicates are non-predicable as well. For a language to qualify as belonging to the type under discussion here, predications based on adjectival predicates should be predicable, however, since in those cases in which they are not the distinction between relational and non-relational predicates no longer makes sense: in those languages the relevant contrast is that between localizing and equative predications (see 9.1.2). Third, in establishing the subdivisions both single morphological realizations and combinations of morphological realizations have been taken into account. In Hungarian, for instance, relational predicates combine with the verbal copula van in all circumstances, whereas non-relational predicates combine with this same verbal copula in non-present tenses only, the alternative in the present tense being a zero-1 strategy (see Figure 44). Thus, although Hungarian uses the same verbal copula in both sets of predications, it does make a difference between the two sets in terms of the combination of morphological realizations of the predication types. It comes as no surprise that most of the languages exhibiting the relational versus non-relational subdivision in their system of non-verbal predication are languages that use the zero-1 strategy. In discussing this strategy I showed that the application of this strategy is governed by a predicativity hierarchy, repeated here as (1):

1. Interestingly, neither of the languages exhibiting the relational versus non-relational pattern makes a further local split within the subarea of predications based on a relational predicate.

218 Systems of non-verbal predication

(1)

Predicativity hierarchy 1 2 Bare > Referential >

Relational Non-presentative

>

Presentative

Languages in which the zero-1 strategy is restricted to either bare predicates (cutoff point 1) or bare and referential predicates (cut-off point 2) show a major split between relational and non-relational predicates. Note that this is partly a result of the fact that there are no languages in which one (combination of) morphological realization (s) is used for bare predicates, and another for referential and relational predicates. The relevance of this latter point will be taken up in 9.3. A sketch of a zero-1 language exhibiting the relational versus non-relational pattern is given in Figure 44. In this figure copulas are given in italics, and a indicates that the predication type involved is non-predicable.

van

van

van

van/el

van/01

van/01

Figure 44. Sketch: Hungarian

Not all zero-1 languages show the subdivision discussed here. Some of these languages allow the zero-1 strategy to be used not only with bare and referential predicates, but with relational ones as well, a possibility predicted by the predicativity hierarchy in (1) (cut-off points 3 and 4). These languages will show up below in 9.1.3.

Expression patterns 219

There is one language exhibiting the relational versus non-relational pattern that does not use the zero-1 strategy. In Bambara separate copulas are used for bare, referential, and relational predicates, as shown in Figure 45.

be

be

be

ka

do/ye/ye...ye

do/ye/ye...ye

Figure 45. Sketch: Bambara

All languages having the relational versus non-relational pattern are neither extremely flexible nor extremely rigid. In rigid languages predications based on bare predicates are non-predicable, which excludes their organizing their system of non-verbal predication along the lines sketched here. In flexible languages there is little need to give relational predicates a treatment different from the one used for bare and referential predicates.

9.1.2. Equative versus localizing A large group of languages makes a basic distinction between predications based on referential and relational predicates, while predications based on bare predicates are non-predicable. Since the non-predicability of predications based on bare predicates implies the non-predicability of those based on possessive predicates (see 6.1.1), these languages do in fact make a basic distinction between equative and localizing predications, as indicated in Figure 46.

220 Systems of non-verbal predication

(x^-Pres

Οχι)

(fix)

Figure 46. Equative versus localizing: !Xu, Mandarin Chinese, Gilyak, Hausa, Hixkaryana, Krongo, Miao, Navaho, Tamil, Thai, Vietnamese, West Greenlandic, Yagaria.

Again, there may be further subdivisions within each of the sub-areas. For instance, within the area of localizing predications Mandarin Chinese makes a distinction between presentative and non-presentative ones. !Xu gives a different treatment to existential and non-existential predications. In Yagaria equative predications are the only predicable ones. All languages exhibiting the pattern given in Figure 46 either lack a class of adjectival predicates or have a closed class of adjectival predicates that cannot be used predicatively, that is, they are of the rigid type, which is also reflected in the non-predicability of predications based on bare nominal and possessive predicates. A typical example is Tamil, represented in Figure 47. Thus, in these languages equative and localizing predications each have their own (combination of) morphological realization (s), the remaining predication types being non-predicable. The correlation between a language not having a class of adjectives that can be used predicatively and its having separate equative and localizing predication types is so strong that all languages with the first property also have the second one. An explanation for this will be offered in 9.2.1.

Expression patterns 221

untu

untuliru

iru/02

02

02

Figure 47. Sketch: Tamil

A common property of the languages having the equative/localizing pattern is that, if they use a zero-strategy, it is of the zero-2 type. Again, this is not surprising, as a closer inspection of the hierarchy governing the use of the zero-2 strategy reveals:

(2)

Predication hierarchy 1 Equative > Ascriptive Non-presentative

> Present at ive Non-existential > Existential

The hierarchy predicts that there are languages that use the zero-2 strategy in equative predications only (cut-off point 1), in which case they cannot but belong to the type discussed here as long as the predicative use of predications based on bare predicates is disallowed.

9.1.3. Presentative versus non-presentative The third type of distribution of expression formats is that in which there is a basic distinction between presentative and non-presentative predications, as represented in Figure 48. An example of this subtype is given in Figure 49.

222 Systems of non-verbal predication

(xi)Loc/-Pres

A/-Pres

NAPres

(dx.)

Figure 48. Presentative versus non-presentative: Ket, Imbabura Quechua, Turkish.

A common property of the languages with this system is that they are of the flexible type, or, more exactly, that they have a single class of predicates in which the functions of noun and adjective are combined. It is this flexibility that enables them to use a single expression format for predications based on bare, referential, and relational predicates. The reason for employing different expression formats for presentative and non-presentative predications might be that this is the only way in which presentativity can be signalled in these languages. Clark (1978: 91) shows that the indefiniteness2 of the subject term in presentative constructions is indicated in one of two ways: "Some languages rely on word order and others on the use of definiteness markers". She furthermore found that in many languages "word order itself is the main indicator of definiteness where there is no definite or indefinite article available". Common to the languages exhibiting the presentative/non-presentative pattern is that they do not have articles, or do not make obligatory use of articles on the one hand, and either have rather rigid or rather free word order. Thus, the difference between presentative and non-presentative predications cannot be signalled by articles, nor by specialized presentative and non-presentative word order patterns.

2. In terms of the analysis of these constructions given in chapter 5, it is the presentative nature of the subject term rather than its indefiniteness that is at stake. However, in most cases referents that are introduced into the discourse will be indefinite.

Expression patterns 223 The only remaining option is to distinguish between the two by means of different expression formats.

var/ol

var/ol

i/ol/01

i/ol/01

i/ol/01

Holl0\

i/ol/01

Figure 49. Sketch: Turkish.

Both zero-1 and zero-2 languages can be found having this system, as is predicted by the two hierarchies governing the use of the zero-1 and zero-2 construction, repeated in (3) and (4): (3)

(4)

Predicativity hierarchy 1 2 Bare > Referential > Relational Non-presentative Predication hierarchy 1 Equative > Ascriptive Non-presentative

2

Presentative 3

> Presentative Non-existential > Existential

The predicativity hierarchy predicts that there are languages that use a zero-1 strategy in non-presentative predications, but not in presentative ones (cut-off point