Specificational copular sentences in Russian and English

Abstract

Williams (1983) andPartee(1986a) argued that specificational sentences like (2) result from “inversion around the copula”: that NP1 is a predicate (type ) and NP2 is the subject, a referential expression of type e. Partee(1999) argued that such an analysis is right for Russian, citing arguments from Padučeva & Uspenskij (1979) that NP2 is the subject of sentence (1). But in that paper I argued that differences between Russian and English suggest that in English there is no such inversion, contra Williams (1983) and Partee (1986a): the subject of (2) is NP1, and both NPs are of type e, but with NP1 less referential than NP2, perhaps “attributive”

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,219

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-06-01

Downloads
24 (#914,270)

6 months
24 (#129,956)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Semantic vs. Syntactic Categories.Edwin Williams - 1983 - Linguistics and Philosophy 6 (3):423 - 446.
Concealed questions and specificational subjects.Maribel Romero - 2005 - Linguistics and Philosophy 28 (6):687 - 737.
Predicates and Their Subjects.Susan Rothstein - 2001 - Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Add more references