Acta Linguistica Lithuanica

LXI (2009), 113 – 156

Copular constructions and their grammatical context

ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

The aim of the article is to contribute to a satisfactory classification of copular constructions. The author starts out by pointing out that a verbocentric theory of grammar yields little for an adequate analysis of copular and related constructions. A survey of the functions performed by the verb ‘be’ in the constructions under consideration shows that there is a semantic interdependence between verb meaning and the syntactic frame (argument structure). In view of this interdependence a construction grammar or cognitive grammar approach seems most promising. The author argues that little is to be gained from a proliferation of lexical meanings for the verb ‘be’ as a means of accounting for the properties of the individual constructions; rather, the focus should be on the aspects of syntactic and semantic structure that are most crucial to the predication, and on their correlation with the function of the whole construction. More specifically, with reference to copular constructions, particular attention should be paid to the semantic and/or referential properties of the (adjectival or substantival) nominal predicates.

1. INTRODUCTION: DIFFICULTIES IN THE SYNTACTIC ANALYSIS OF CONSTRUCTIONS WITH THE VERB TO BE¹

1.0. Copular constructions are generally understood to be sentences such as Jonas is sad, Jonas is a teacher, and Jonas is the teacher who instilled in us a love of our native language. In further classification into types, some authors assign the first two sentences to copular constructions of the ascriptive type and the last to the equative type (cf. Holvoet & Čižik-Prokaševa 2005: 79). In order to ensure the coherence of the grammatical description, copular constructions are often discussed alongside other constructions of similar structure, whose axis of predication likewise consists of a finite form of the verb

¹I sincerely thank Kristina Lenartaitė, who carefully read the initial version of this article and offered valuable comments. Of course, I alone remain responsible for any shortcomings of the article.

113

ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS

beto be. These are usually locative constructions (The notebook is in the drawer / by the book; its variant with comitative meaning, Jonas is with Birute), existential constructions (In the drawer / by the book there is a notebook), possessive constructions of having and possessive constructions of belonging (respectively, The child has a cold / a fever and This hat belongs to Antanas), active perfect constructions (I have never tasted frogs in my life), passive (perfect and imperfect) constructions (The city was completely destroyed during the night air raid; Teacher Jonas was loved by all the children), and some other variants of these constructions. The literature draws various typological parallels both among the construction types listed above and by comparing these constructions with the copular constructions mentioned earlier. Indeed, the common ontology of existential and locative constructions is not in doubt (cf. Holvoet 2005: 139–147). In terms of unmarked information structure, verb meaning, and ultimately syntactic interpretation, the other two aforementioned types—the possessive constructions of having and belonging—are comparable to these two types (ibid., 147–153). Some instances of active and passive constructions with predicative participles can rightly be regarded as variants of ascriptive-type copular constructions with an adjectival predicative (cf. Jonas is always neatly dressed and Jonas is always neat; The apartment is completely neglected and The apartment is bad).

1.1. When sentences are understood as propositions conveying a particular content, their classification into types first takes into account the purpose, or function, of the proposition they express. For example, distinct types of intransitive sentences serve to assert a state experienced by the referent of the subject noun phrase (The potatoes are boiling), existence (There are still potatoes left in Russia), a static position (location) (The book is on the table), attribute some property to that referent (The room is rather cramped), and so on. In discussing types of syntactic constructions, the point of departure is the syntactic interpretation of the sentences that instantiate those constructions. A sentence type understood in this way can be realized by several syntactic constructions. For example, a proposition asserting a possessive relation between two entities can be realized by two constructions—[NP_NOM have NP_{ACC (GEN)}] and [NP_DAT is NP_{NOM (GEN)}]), cf. The child has a cold / a fever and The child has a cold / a fever. Proponents of the dependency grammar model, who adhere to a verb-centered model of the sentence, syntactically

114

Jungties konstrukcijos ir jų gramatinis kontekstas

syntactically interpreting constructions, they rely on dependency relations arising from the semantics of the sentence verb, on the basis of which they define the grammatical functions of syntactic units. Such syntactic analysis is harder to carry out in cases where the sentence verb is not semantically rich and various elements that complement the semantics of that verb are used to express the sentence’s predication. Difficulties of syntactic interpretation are also unavoidable when analyzing sentences with the verb būti, whose meaning, even in its broadest outlines, is often difficult to grasp. For example, in works on Lithuanian grammar, when discussing copular constructions, the meaning of establishing identity between two (referential) entities (which is essentially identical to the copula’s function in the logical structure of a proposition) is recognized only for the verb būti in equative constructions, whereas the verb būti in ascriptive constructions (as understood here) is considered “semantically empty” (cf. Holvoet & Judžentis 2003: 32; Holvoet & Čižik-Prokaševa 2005: 79–80). Clearly, following this analytical approach, in the equative construction Jonas yra tas žmogus, apie kurį tu kalbėjai ‘Jonas is the person you were talking about’, the complement tas žmogus, apie kurį tu kalbėjai ‘the person you were talking about’ of the “identity” verb must be assigned argument status, just like the subject noun phrase Jonas. It is much harder, following this logic, to recognize argument status for the adjectival or nominal complements of the “semantically empty” copulas in ascriptive constructions, especially since, as is also acknowledged here, they are more appropriately called predicatives. To ensure a coherent description of copular constructions, the authors of works on Lithuanian grammar propose that certain “equative-type meanings” also be recognized for the verbs in ascriptive constructions (Holvoet & Čižik-Prokaševa 2005: 80). Intuitively, assigning some kind of “identity” meaning to the verbs of all copular constructions seems justified (I will return to this problem in the third part of the article and try to provide a more substantial basis for this intuition). However, the authors mentioned do not discuss the consequences of such a decision: it remains unclear whether the complements of the newly posited “identity” predicates in ascriptive constructions are “raised” to argument status or remain predicatives.

1.2. A similar line of syntactic interpretation is followed in works on Lithuanian grammar when comparing sentences with existential- and locative-type constructions, Stalčiuje yra sąsiuvinis ‘There is a notebook in the drawer’ and Sąsiuvinis yra stalčiuje ‘The notebook is in the drawer’ (Holvoet 2005: 139–147). In the first sentence, recognizing the verb būti as “ex-

115

ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS

the meaning of ‘existence’, the locative stalčiuje becomes a ‘peripheral circumstance’. In the second sentence, with no apparent basis for assigning any meaning to the verb būti, the same locative inevitably becomes an ‘obligatory circumstance’, since without it the main predication of the sentence would not be expressed (more precisely, the predication is expressed by the locative morpheme of the noun complementing the verb). Since the predication of the existence of any real-world object is difficult to imagine without its location, intuitively such a syntactic analysis seems not to correspond to the actual state of affairs. Moreover, the same distribution of grammatical functions in both types of construction seems to emanate from the same semantics of the verb būti, encompassing both the assertion of the existence of a located thing and the location of an existing thing. In other words, this verb in both constructions—the existential and the locative—can be assigned the meaning ‘located / locatable existence’.

1.3. Following the same logic, when the Grammar of the Lithuanian Language works syntactically interpret the (archaic, but still used in Lithuanian) mihi est type of possessive construction (He was only seven years old) and the belonging construction (This pen is mine), these two possessive constructions must be assessed differently from a typological perspective. If the verb būti in the first construction is recognized as having the meaning ‘existence’, then the possessor encoded by the noun’s dative, jam (‘to him’), has argument status, and this possessive construction is considered a subtype of the existential construction. If no specific meaning is recognized for the verb būti in the second, belonging construction, its possessor, mano (‘mine’), encoded by the genitive, must be treated as an ‘obligatory modifier’. Thus, in terms of grammatical function and syntactic status, this noun is equated with the ‘obligatory circumstance’ of a locative construction; as a result of this syntactic interpretation, the construction in question becomes closer to a locative than to a possessive construction (see Holvoet 2005: 151–153). We might reasonably ask whether the parallels drawn in this syntactic interpretation between constructions with obviously different functions help to assess their typological affiliation correctly. After all, an analysis of the interpretive possibilities of sentences such as Onutė’s green eyes shows that, under favorable contextual conditions, the possessor genitive in them can also have argument status (Mik alskas 2006b: 41–50). Holvoet (ibid., 159) also observes that the genitive of an ‘external’ possessor could replace the dative of an ‘external’ possessor without loss (which essentially coincides with the dative of the archaic mihi est type of construction),

116

Jungties konstrukcijos ir jų gramatinis kontekstas

discussing an example attested in dialects Bijūnėliui žali lapai, cf. Bijūnėlio žali lapai. Indeed, although the Lithuanian genitive and dative form a fairly clear opposition in terms of function, in some syntactic contexts these cases encode very similar meanings. For example, the predicative benefactive role marked by the dative can be recoded as a corresponding genitive possessor with little loss of meaning, cf. Šis kambarys yra jums / jūsų. (in a situation where rooms are assigned to guests). Even an adnominal genitive can in some cases be interpreted as an external (sentence-level), rather than internal (noun-phrase-level), possessor, cf. Profesoriaus portfelis pūpso ant stalo and Asistentas palaikė profesoriaus / profesoriui portfelį,—only in the first sentence is the attributive status of the genitive beyond doubt. Such a contextual convergence of the functions of the genitive and dative should come as no surprise: after all, dative roles that imply indirect participation in the event profiled by a sentence—recipient, addressee, benefactive, and experiencer—can readily be extended to the role of possessor². Although this functional convergence of the genitive and dative, which occurs only in specific syntactic contexts, is fairly marginal in the language, it could also encourage us to interpret the genitive in the aforementioned possessive belonging construction (Šis rašiklis yra mano) as an external possessor, thereby recognizing it as an argument. Such an analysis of this construction would be desirable, since it would allow us to regard both constructions under discussion—possession and belonging—as two distinct instantiations of essentially the same possessive relation. Unfortunately, as we shall see below (Section 2.2.2.1), on closer examination of the structure and genesis of the belonging construction, its analysis along these desired lines seems unlikely: the predicative function and “attributive” nature of the genitive in this construction do not allow us to readily treat it as an argument of the verb būti, and instead compel us to seek other alternatives for interpreting this genitive.

² A weighty argument for the functional similarity of the genitive and dative cases in Indo-European languages is provided by Geoffrey Haig’s hypothesis concerning the origin of past-tense ergative constructions in Iranian languages. According to this linguist, the ergative alignment of past-tense constructions (English alignment) developed from a type of construction in Old Persian, manā kartam (long discussed in the literature and variously interpreted), which was originally an external possessor construction (External Possessor Construction). It was precisely this genitive (manā), which had the status of an external argument in the construction, that naturally took over the functions of the dative case, which had already disappeared in Old Persian, first and foremost its benefactive function (Haig 2008: 41–88).

117

ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS

1.4. This brief overview of the problems that arise when applying the verb-centred analysis method to constructions with the verb būti shows that the resources of verb semantics alone are insufficient to define adequately the typological affiliation of such sentences. The insights into structural commonalities among the individual types of constructions discussed that are generated by such an analysis can sometimes even obscure the functions those constructions perform in language. To make the typological characteristics assigned to these constructions better correspond to their intuitively perceived purpose, closer attention should be paid to the semantic nature of their verb complements and to the referential properties of the nominal expressions used in them. The word order characteristic of the sentences instantiating a given construction, and the unmarked information structure corresponding to it, also help define the type of a construction. All these factors, in one way or another, reflect the purpose of individual construction types in language; in other words, they are functionally motivated. Regarding the importance of information structure for sentence typology, it is worth noting that only an information structure correlating with the definiteness of the preverbal nominal and the indefiniteness of the postverbal nominal can be considered unmarked. Only such an information structure can be regarded as an inherent property of the semantic structure of sentences classified typologically (for support for this idea, see Mikulskas 2006b: 34–41). The typology of copular constructions presented in the third part of this article will be based not so much on a syntactic interpretation derived from the semantics of their verbs as on an account of the semantic nature of predicates and a functional analysis of the referential properties of nominal expressions used in this position. But first, in the second part, we will attempt to examine more closely the semantics of the verb būti, used in all the constructions mentioned above.

2. SEMANTIC PROPERTIES OF THE VERB BŪTI

2.0. Only by examining more thoroughly the semantic properties of the verb būti used in the constructions mentioned above will we be able to see more clearly to what extent this verb could be regarded as the factor determining the syntactic frame (i.e. argument structure) of the constructions, or, in terms of formal semantics, as a semantic functor (this term is also widely used by the authors of Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbų, see Hov oet & Judžentis 2003: 15t.; Holvoet & Semėnienė 2004: 15; Hov oet & Judžentis 2005: 16t.). Of course, applying the term semantic functor to the verb of a sentence pre-

118

Jungties konstrukcijos ir jų gramatinis kontekstas

supposes a verb-centred sentence model. Advocates of applying this model assume that the argument structure that subcategorizes the sentence verb (English subcategorization frame) is predictable (derivable) from its so-called lexical meaning. It is understandable that applying the verb-centred model in syntactic analysis is problematic when the lexical meaning of the verb is difficult to define (as we have already seen from the examples discussed above). But in every case where the sentence verb appears semantically complete, can the syntactic properties that ultimately determine the typological affiliation of that sentence be derived from its meaning? In other words, does a syntactic analysis based on the conception of the sentence verb as a semantic functor adequately reveal the structural and semantic properties of the construction instantiated by that sentence?

2.1. It is easy to find constructions in language whose verbs it would be inaccurate to call semantic functors, since the “argument structure subcategorizing” those verbs is not one hundred percent predictable from their semantics. A good example in this respect is the so-called locative alternations: we could reasonably argue that the argument configurations in these alternating constructions depend to a large extent on which element of the situation profiled by the sentence is encoded as the direct object, while the verb’s meaning is then adjusted to the corresponding construction (in making this claim, we, along with Adele Goldberg (1995), recognize the distinctiveness of the meaning of a construction as a syntactic structure and the precedence of that meaning over the meaning of the sentence verb); compare:

(1) The father and son stacked firewood into a cone (in a day) (i.e. stacked a certain quantity (pile) of chopped firewood into a cone).

(2) The father and son stacked a cone of firewood (in a day).

The verbs in these constructions can accordingly be defined as (su)krau-ti₁ “to arrange (loose objects) in a conical shape” and (su)krau₂ “to form a cone (out of loose objects)” (the possibility of inserting into both sentences a temporal adjunct modifying the duration of the stacking activity shows that this activity is not instantaneous: its result is not achieved all at once, but gradually, little by little, as the cone of firewood is formed and enlarged). Thus, in considering these alternating constructions, it would be more accurate to speak of a relation of mutual rather than one-way dependence linking their verbs and corresponding argument structures—

119

ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS

tyki, t. y. ne apie prado ir priedo (angl. head: dependent) santykį (plg. Croft 2001: 248). Žinoma, nereikėtų išleisti iš akių, kad abiejose konstrukcijose vartojamų veiksmažodžių krauti₁ ir krauti₂ reikšmės pagrįsta gali būti laikomos dviem skirtingomis vienos, bendresnės, reikšmės realizacijomis. Pagrindas tokios bendros reikšmės postulavimui atsiranda, kai suvokiame, kad alternuojančių konstrukcijų perteikiami semantiniai turiniai tėra to paties (malkų krovimo į kūgį) scenarijaus skirtingi aspektai (ar profiliai). Ši bendroji reikšmė (ją Seizi Iwata, skirdamas nuo frazės lygmens reikšmės (angl. Phrase Level Meaning), siūlo vadinti leksinio prado lygmens reikšme (angl. Lexical Head Level Meaning); žr. Iwata 2005: 361–363) apima būtinuosius to krovimo scenarijaus elementus: krovėją, kraunamą objektą, būdingą krovimo formą, atitinkamai įkūnijančius bendresnius semantinius vaidmenis — agentą, muverį, (paskirties) lokatyvą.

2.1.1. The notion of a semantic functor is even more difficult to apply to the verbs of the so-called ditransitive (double-object) constructions in English and the alternating caused-motion constructions, cf.:

(3) She gave her boyfriend a new Mercedes.

(4) She gave a new Mercedes to her boyfriend.

It would be difficult to claim that the changes in argument structure in these two constructions, and the differences in constructional meaning associated with them, are derived from what appears to be the same verb to give. We could reasonably argue that the differences in meaning between the constructions in question are determined by their different structural frames, in which essentially the same predicate is used, namely [give NP NP] and [give NP [to NP]]: in these structures, the direct-object position is occupied by nouns representing different semantic roles, namely the recipient or the mover. Of course, to be precise, we should acknowledge that the meaning of the verb to give in the constructions under discussion depends to some extent on the distinctive “subcategorizing frame” characteristic of each. This dependence is clearer when the constructions in question use verbs that emphasize more strongly the trajectory of the transferred object, e.g.:

(5) They sent me another brochure. [send₁ NP NP]

(6) We sent the new letter to all the applicants. [send₂ NP [to NP]]

We could argue that the meaning of the predicate send₁ contains a more salient semantic component of impact on the recipient (their personal sphere), since the sentence pro-

120

Jungties konstrukcijos ir jų gramatinis kontekstas

files the recipient as the landmark (direct object) of the situation, whereas the meaning of the predicate send₂ emphasizes the trajectory of the mover’s movement (toward the recipient), with the mover selected as the landmark of the same situation profiled by the sentence. However, in this case too, we could suppose that a more general meaning of send, encompassing both meanings and denoting an agent-caused movement of a mover from the agent’s sphere into the recipient’s sphere, exists quite plausibly in the language user’s mind. But it would hardly be accurate to claim that this abstracted meaning sanctions the argument structure of either construction. On the other hand, since there is grounds to speak of distinct semantic variants of the verb to send (send₁ and send₂) in the constructions under discussion only insofar as they are supported by the different structural frames of those constructions, we could call these predicates semantic functors only with considerable qualification (cf. Langacker 2008: 239–244). It seems more accurate to say that the lexical meaning of the verb to send (defined by a particular semantic-interpretive frame) is compatible with the semantic specifications of both constructions.

2.1.2. Further, in attempting to define the meanings that the verb to be may have in various constructions, we will draw on the practice of syntactic analysis of the alternating constructions discussed above. We do so for two reasons. First, it is evident that the meanings that can be assigned to the verb in question depend greatly on the nature of the constructions in which it is used. Second, some constructions with the verb to be can justifiably be regarded as alternating: for instance, we might think that the raison d’être of the coexistence of two constructions—existential and locative—is to emphasize different aspects of essentially the same “localized existence” situation. Grouping other constructions under discussion on a similar basis will allow us to assign more general meanings to the verbs in such groups, thereby avoiding the postulation of “meaningless” lexemes in cases where it is harder to define a more specific meaning of the verb to be³.

2.2. Let us turn to a more detailed discussion of the meanings of the verb būti that it has in the constructions already mentioned. It is difficult to imagine how one or another constr-

³ This fundamental position is adopted in accordance with a basic postulate of cognitive grammar—the Content Requirement (also known as the Symbolic Thesis)—which prohibits the use of meaningless linguistic units in grammatical description (for more, see Langacker 1987: 97–98; Taylor 2002: 38–60; cf. Mikulskas 2006a: 40).

121

ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS

The configuration of the argument structure could be derived from the following constructions of the verb būti, cf.:

(7) Jonas is sad.

(8) Jonas is a teacher.

(9) Jonas is the teacher who instilled in us a love of our native language.

(10) The notebook is in the drawer / next to the book.

(11) In the drawer / next to the book is a notebook.

(12) The child has a runny nose / a fever.

(13) This hat belongs to Antanas.

What these sentences, which differ considerably in structure and purpose, have in common is that, apparently, the initial element (clausal head) of all of them is a complex verb (as we shall see below, this statement does not hold for constructions (11) and (12)). It consists of a finite form of the verb būti and a complement of that verb, which marks the content of the sentence’s predication. As the examples show, the complement of the verb būti may be a nominative adjective or noun (agreeing with the subject), an oblique case of a noun, or a prepositional construction. In the dependency grammar model, only the copular verbs are regarded as the main constituents (the initial elements of the sentence) of the constructions listed above, while efforts are made to treat their obligatory complements (complements of a locative nature expressed by oblique cases or prepositional constructions may also be referred to as obligatory adjuncts, obligatory modifiers, or predicative modifiers; the latter term, provisionally adopted as a working term in The New Grammar of the Lithuanian Language, see Holvoet & Mikulskas 2009b: 8–12) as equal in rank to the verb’s subject complement (cf. Holvoet & Čižik-Prokaševa 2005: 74–80). For such a syntactic analysis of the sentences under discussion, their copular verb must be considered a semantic functor, that is, assigned a certain meaning that allows the complements of the copula būti to be treated as its dependents, or arguments. Indeed, taking into account the communicative purpose of the constructions under discussion and assigning meanings to them accordingly, we could also assign corresponding meanings to their copulas. Thus, in construction (7), the verb būti could be assigned the meaning of ‘ascription’; in construction (8), this verb would have the meaning of ‘inclusion’; and in construction (9), it would signify the referential identity of the subject and the predicative nominal, in which case we could assign this verb the meaning of ‘equation’. As we shall see later (sections 3.4–3.4.2), there is reason to speak

122

Jungties konstrukcijos ir jų gramatinis kontekstas

about the structural and ontological commonality of these three constructions, assigning them (and thus their copulas) a more general meaning of ‘identity’. We could also refer to these three constructions more generally as identity constructions. On the other hand, identity constructions reveal a structural function of the verb būti—the copula function (cf. original Latin copula—link, bond, connection, joining). In the constructions under discussion, this verb generally denotes a certain relation (an identity relation) between two entities. We might therefore say that these two entities, encoded in the sentence by the subject noun phrase and the predicative adjective or noun phrase, constitute the obligatory arguments, or structural frame, of the verb būti as used in identity constructions. Nevertheless, in this case it would be more accurate to speak of the mutual dependence between the ‘identity’ predicate and its corresponding structural frame (the identity construction).

2.2.1. Construction (10) represents a type of locative sentence, while construction (11) represents a type of existential sentence. The features of these sentence types, their differences and similarities, have recently been analyzed and discussed quite extensively in Lithuanian scholarship (cf. Holvoet 2005: 139–147; Mikulskas 2006b: 34–41). It is not difficult to see the structural commonality of constructions such as (10) and (11), or to understand their shared ontological origins. Indeed, only an entity whose existence is not in doubt can be located somewhere (the fact that the existence of the referent of the subject noun phrase is presupposed in a locative construction is indicated by the definite interpretation of this noun phrase at the beginning of the sentence), while asserting an entity’s existence is difficult to imagine without its location, even in the most general terms. The logic of the mutual connection between an entity’s existence and location is simple: if an entity exists at all, it generally exists in some particular place (of course, in a sentence that place may be merely implicit or conceived of in general terms). The different meanings of these constructions are essentially determined by their reverse word order and the unmarked information structure corresponding to it, which allows the subject noun phrase to be interpreted as definite in the locative construction and indefinite in the existential one. (The indefiniteness effect associated with existential predication has been widely discussed in the literature; see Lyons 1999: 236–246; cf. Mikulskas 2006b: 36–38.) We could assign the verbs in these constructions the respective meanings of ‘location’ and ‘existence’. It is particularly easy to assign the meaning ‘existence’ to the verb būti when, as the discourse unfolds, it comes into focus, or the rheme, cf.:

(14) [Is there an account book in the drawer?] Yes, that account book is.

123

ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS

Although the word order of this sentence formally resembles that of locative sentences, its information structure is marked (as also indicated by the verb’s contrastive stress): the sentence’s existential nature is easily understood—its rheme consists solely of the predicate yra, which confirms the existence of (an account book) in (the drawer). This example draws attention to an important feature of the existential construction that distinguishes it from the other constructions discussed here: in it, existential predication is expressed essentially by a single verb, būti. For this predication to be understood, the location of the entity whose existence is asserted need not be specified. In the remaining constructions, by contrast—including the three identity constructions discussed earlier—the use of the verb būti without a corresponding complement is difficult to imagine. This is understandable, since these complements are an integral part of the predication expressed by those constructions. For example, in constructions (10), (12), and (13), the main burden of predication falls not even on the nominal complement, but on its case morpheme or preposition. All this suggests that the existential construction manifests another basic meaning of the verb būti (alongside the ‘identity’ meaning mentioned in section 2.2): ‘existence’. Now, in the locative construction, which is genetically related to the existential construction, we can assign the verb būti the meaning ‘location’ only metonymically, since here the task of indicating the location of the subject referent—the primary predication—falls to the locative morpheme of the noun functioning as a predicate modifier, or to the preposition governing that noun. We might therefore even assert that, at least ontologically, existential predication is primary with respect to locative predication, even if the opposite is often true in terms of formal expression: the literature notes that existential predication is often expressed using the structural possibilities of locative constructions. English existential constructions there is / there are are frequently cited as an example (cf. There is still hope; There is only one God.): in these constructions, the use of locatives to express existential predication is partly explained by the operation of the conceptual metaphor EXISTENCE IS LOCATION (HERE) (cf. The baby has arrived, i.e. has come into existence by being born) (Radden & Dirven 2007: 277). Since we cannot assert the existence of an entity without simultaneously presupposing its location, the frequent structural closeness of the two types of constructions is understandable. However, if there is reason to claim that the meaning ‘existence’ is basic for the verb būti, then there is also reason to claim that, ontologically, existential constructions are primary with respect to the corresponding locative constructions—

124

Jungties konstrukcijos ir jų gramatinis kontekstas

locative constructions. We can explain the structural closeness of existential and locative constructions (at least in Lithuanian) by the fact that interpretation of the content of the predications expressed by both types of construction is based on essentially the same conceptualization, whose key elements are the existence of an entity in reality and the location of an entity in reality. An existential construction asserts the fact that an entity is real—its existence in reality. At the same time, it is introduced into the “reality” of the discourse (hence the requirement that the referent be indefinite beforehand). When a locative proposition is formed on the basis of an existential proposition, an alternative information structure removes the assertion of existence from the sentence’s profile (it is now merely presupposed). When the syntax of the existential construction is reoriented toward expressing location, the verb būti in the new (locative) construction naturally also loses its primary function of asserting existence. It should be noted that, along with this loss, the predicate adapted to the needs of expressing an entity’s location is freed from the obligation—important to an existential predicate—of quantifying the entity whose existence is asserted. In an existential construction, this quantification is expressed through the indefiniteness of the subject noun phrase and is clearly visible when the noun phrase is plural or the predicate is negated, in which case the noun phrase inevitably takes the partitive genitive form⁴; cf. There are account books in the drawer; There is (some) account book in the drawer > There is no (any) account book in the drawer. In principle, the referent of the subject noun phrase in a locative construction cannot be quantified, since it is uniquely identified here; therefore, when the construction’s predicate is negated, the noun phrase retains the nominative form, cf. (That) account book is not in the drawer. Admittedly, this sentence sounds unnatural, but only because in a locative construction it is natural to negate not its verbal predicate, but the locative that expresses its primary predication, cf. (That) account book is not in the drawer.

As already mentioned, we could assign the meaning ‘location’ to the verb in the locative construction only indirectly, by way of metonymy⁵. Here, lo-

⁴ The genitive-of-negation test is quite successfully used (at least in Russian and Lithuanian) to diagnose existential predicates (see Holvoet 2005: 141–145).

⁵ In saying that the meaning ‘location’ is assigned to the verb būti in a locative construction by way of metonymy, I by no means wish to deny that this meaning is real. In phrasing it this way, I merely intend to emphasize that this meaning is not autonomous, but purely collocational in nature. It goes without saying that in word combinations, and all the more so in collocations, word meanings partly or completely “overlap.” In cognitive gra-

125

ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS

It should be noted that in some cases the verb in locative constructions retains its original “existence” meaning, cf.:

(15) [Where (else) is the notebook?] (There is (= notebooks) in the) drawer.

The purpose of sentences such as this one is to confirm the presumed existence of an object. Taking advantage of the structural possibilities of the locative construction, this is done in the sentence very economically—by indicating the location of that object. Thus, such a sentence is formally locative, but functionally it should be considered existential (for more on the specifics of such sentences, see Mikulskas 2006b: 40–41). The shared ontology of locative and existential constructions allows us to argue that the meanings of their verbs emanate from the more general meaning of the verb to be, which we can define as “localized / localizable existence.”

2.2.2. Constructions (12) and (13) represent different types of possessive sentences. They express, respectively, relations of possession and belonging.

the valency theory that grounds the formation of complex linguistic structures from simpler units (Langacker 1987: 277–327) explains this phenomenon of “overlapping” in terms of semantic specification, or elaboration: one (usually more contentful) linguistic expression, by combining with another (usually more abstract) linguistic expression, semantically specifies, or elaborates, the latter’s corresponding semantic substructure, which is described as a schematic outline of the content of the former expression and is called the elaboration site (English elaboration site, abbreviated e-site). The conventionality (or grammaticality) of the combination depends on the cognitive salience of the elaborated substructure, which in turn depends on the entrenchment in usage (usus) of combinations of this type. Using these cognitive terms to describe the combination of the verb to be with a locative in a locative construction, and to account for the “location” meaning of the verb that arises in this combination, the explanation would look approximately as follows. The constant spatial relation between two entities signaled by the locative morpheme (or the corresponding preposition) (in the construction, between two nominal referents) elaborates the corresponding semantic substructure of the verb to be, whose essence is a spatial relation profiled only schematically. Since the verb has a finite form in the construction, it denotes a process whose profile, in cognitive terms, consists of the same schematic spatial configuration being sequentially scanned over time. It is this profile acquired by the verb to be in combinations with locatives that makes it possible to speak of a “location” meaning of this verb. Combining a verb with the schematic meaning “locative” and a locative with a specific meaning yields a locative predicate, which inherits from the finite verb form a processual, or more simply, temporal dimension (in the infinitive case (cf. At ten o’clock, to be at the institute), spatial configurations distributed along the time axis are perceived holistically, so here we should speak of the simultaneity of the relation profiled by the complex predicate (to be at the institute); cf. Langacker 2008: 118.

126

Jungties konstrukcijos ir jų gramatinis kontekstas

The predicative relation of possession is rarely expressed in Lithuanian by the archaic mihi est-type construction—in its place, a habere-type construction has been adopted, cf. The child has a cold / a fever (Holvoet 2005: 148–151). The predicative relation of belonging can also be expressed explicitly in the language, by using the verb belong in a sentence, cf. This hat belongs to Antanas. At first glance, it seems that the verbs to be in both constructions under discussion require complements, so we could argue that the predicates of these constructions are complex, namely dat. + to be and to be + gen. We could then assign the verbs to be in these constructions, as in the locative construction, the meanings of “possession” and “belonging,” respectively, by metonymy. Of course, this metonymic approach is not the best way to describe the meaning of the verb in a sentence (by defining the lexical meaning of the verb to be in terms of the function of its complement, we reveal nothing new about its semantics). In addition, the initial position of the dative complement in the first construction suggests that this complement does not form a complex predicate with the verb to be: only the verb to be functions as the sentence predicate, while the dative complement is an argument of this predicate. Of course, in that case the verb to be in construction (12) must be assigned an independent meaning. And there is reason to do so. The typological parallels between possessive, existential, and locative constructions have long been noted in the literature (see Clark 1978: 87; cf. Holvoet 2005: 148–153). The possessive mihi est-type construction and the existential construction discussed above share a common feature in the specifics of unmarked information structure: in both cases, the subject noun phrase occurs in the rheme, while the theme position is occupied in one case by a dative argument and in the other by a locative. There is reason to believe that in both constructions the verb to be has essentially the same “existence” meaning. We could account for the ontology of this meaning in the possessive construction under discussion as follows: the mihi est-type construction expresses a proposition of “intentional” (“benefactive”?) existence; in other words, it asserts the existence of something directed toward the personal sphere of a possessor⁶. The logic is simple: if an object exists in someone’s personal sphere (THERE IS FOR SOMEONE), then that person has control over the object, i.e. POSSESSES it. Such a possessive and existential proposition

⁶ This claim is supported by the fact that Lithuanian has preserved mihi est-type possession constructions mostly precisely in cases where the dative possessor can also be construed as a benefactive (malefactive) or experiencer affected by the possessed entity; cf. also Mother will be glad that you came home!

127

ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS

The convergence of the constructions should come as no surprise, since some constructions with the verb turėti, too, in fact assert not that someone has something, but that something exists in someone’s personal sphere; cf.:

(16) We have mice at home.

In this sentence, the “possessor” we (together with our living environment—at home), implied by the verb ending, primarily helps to locate where the mice are; thus, as is often the case in other possessive constructions, it in fact merely serves as a reference point (reference point) (for a fuller discussion of the role of this cognitive concept in processes of perception and its importance in the ontology of possessive constructions, see Langacker 2000: 171–202). It is important to note that the locative is an obligatory element in sentences of this type, such as (16), and is constitutive of this (in fact, existential) construction: here it specifies the domain of validity of the reference point denoted by the possessor noun, or, in other words, defines the field of cognitive search. It is precisely the obligatory locative in this construction that suggests it is existential rather than possessive, especially since we cannot classify the construction as locative either: after all, by saying We have mice at home we say almost the same thing as with the existential sentence There are mice in our house, except that in the former sentence, use of the predicate turėti additionally expresses concern about the mice being present in the “possessor’s” (we) living environment; in other words, the mice being in the house is, in a certain sense, “relevant” to its inhabitants—we might say that it impinges on their personal sphere. Thus, here we have an assertion of “intentional” existence similar to that in the previously discussed mihi est-type construction: in one case, an existential assertion is implied from the originally possessive construction (16), whereas in the other, the reverse holds—a possessive relation is implied from the originally existential construction (12). It should be noted that it is precisely these implications, rather than the “lexical” meanings of the verbs used in the constructions, that determine their linguistic function and typological affiliation. This fact suggests that, in determining the type of a construction, in addition to the meaning of the verbs it contains, other semantic elements that determine the direction of its conceptualization (and therefore its overall meaning, or function) are no less important, such as modifiers of the location or duration of an action and the like, which proponents of the verbocentric model often relegate to the periphery of sentence predication. We will be able to see once again the importance of such “peripheral” elements for an alternative interpretation of complex predicates, and consequently for the conceptualization of the construction as a whole, when we analyze constructions with predicative participles (see Sections 2.5.1.1 and 2.5.2).

128

Jungties konstrukcijos ir jų gramatinis kontekstas

We will be able to see once again the importance of such “peripheral” elements for an alternative interpretation of complex predicates, and consequently for the conceptualization of the construction as a whole, when we analyze constructions with predicative participles (see Sections 2.5.1.1 and 2.5.2).

2.2.2.1. We have found no substantial grounds for interpreting the genitive in the possessive construction (13) (Antanas) as an external possessor, thereby assigning it the status of an argument of the verb būti: it is clear that the genitive combines with this verb to form the construction’s complex predicate. We would not want to assign the meaning of ‘belonging’ metonymically to the verb in this construction, since in a different type of possessive construction that meaning is explicitly marked by the verb priklausyti itself. As already mentioned, the literature emphasizes the structural similarity between the possessive construction with the predicate būti + gen. and the previously discussed locative construction with the predicate būti + loc. It is noted, first, that the two constructions share a similar unmarked information-structure pattern: both possessor and locative nouns occur in the rheme of these constructions; second, in both constructions the main predicational weight falls on the morpheme of the oblique case (or corresponding preposition) of the noun complement of the verb būti—in the first case, the possessive genitive, and in the second, the locative (or locative preposition). The structural parallelism between the two constructions becomes even clearer if we note that the relevant meanings are inherent in the case (or prepositional) morphemes that express the main predication in them: just as the function of the locative is inseparable from indicating location, so the function of the genitive is inseparable from expressing kinship, ownership (belonging), part/whole, or, more generally, a possessive relation. The question arises whether we can find an appropriate semantic explanation for this structural similarity between the possessive construction and the locative construction. In other words, is there a substantial functional and cognitive basis for interpreting the possessive construction in question “locatively”? After all, if we could consider the possessive construction a variant of the locative construction, we could then readily assign the meaning of ‘location’ to its verb būti as well, thereby, incidentally, reducing the number of homonymous forms of this verb in the description. Let us explore this possibility. Recall that it is most usual to express a possessive relation with the genitive in an attributive noun phrase, and we might even claim that the genitive’s use in predicate position in the possessive construction at issue is inherited from the corresponding attributive noun phrase, i.e., Antanas’s hat > This hat is Antanas’s. Cognitive-

129

ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS

In cognitive grammar, the analysis of the possessive noun phrase is based on the aforementioned concept of a reference point (reference point) (Langacker 1991: 167–180). The essence of this analysis is the assumption that in a possessive noun phrase, the genitive (the English -’s morpheme or the preposition of) encodes not only, and not so much, the possessor as a cognitively more salient entity that facilitates the identification of another entity of interest to the discourse participants. Thus, the so-called possessive construction is also used in language to serve the needs of nominal reference: the genitive’s denotatum often expresses not so much a relation of possession as it facilitates identification of the referent of another noun (the “possessum”) (indeed, the sentence Someone stole the boy’s bicycle does not necessarily refer to a bicycle belonging to the boy—it could also have been a bicycle borrowed from a friend; cf. also, from this perspective, the sentence My train arrives at exactly ten). It is important to note that although the cognitive concept of a reference point is relevant to more than one grammatical construction, it can be defined independently of linguistic expression, since it reflects a general feature of the process of perception: we usually identify some (less familiar) entities through others (more familiar to us) that are related to the former in one way or another and can point to them. It is quite easy to interpret the reference-point function “locatively” as well, especially since in many cases—particularly when the content of possessive predication consists of a whole–part relation—the locative meaning of the noun encoded by the genitive and its reference-point function in the possessive construction naturally coincide; cf. the window of the website, the edge of the table, and so on. Taking account of the cognitive purpose of the nominal possessive construction, we could assert that the “possessum” is naturally located within the environment of the cognitively more accessible “possessor.” We should assume that, even in predicate position, the genitive expressing a relation of possession does not entirely lose this more general cognitive reference-point function. Nevertheless, the purpose of the constructions in question is not to specify the reference of the possessum—it is expressed here by a subject noun phrase with a definite description, so its referent is at least identifiable in the current discourse space. The explanation that the hat in sentence (13) is located with respect to Antanas would be quite forced. And this is understandable: although the genitive in the possessive construction can etymologically be associated with the genitive in the corresponding attributive phrase, the construction itself serves a different purpose in language. This construction is usually used when, in the course of communication, it becomes necessary to indicate the owner of an object already familiar to the discourse participants. For this reason, in a possessive construction the possessum is prototypically

130

Jungties konstrukcijos ir jų gramatinis kontekstas

an inanimate object, while the possessor is a person or (less commonly) an animal (cf. This leash is our Pif’s). The function of the construction under discussion is also iconically reflected in the unmarked information structure of the sentence that instantiates it: the rheme states the owner of the object, which is of interest to the communicants. That the purpose in language of the possessive relation expressed by the possessive construction differs from that in attributive noun phrases is also shown by the semantic restrictions that apply to this construction. The possessive construction generally does not express what are called inalienable possession (cf. inalienable possession), or part–whole, relations; cf. Your eyes are beautiful, but ??Beautiful eyes are yours.⁷ And, as we have seen, the genitive in an attributive noun phrase that profiles precisely a part–whole relation can naturally be interpreted “locatively”—as a reference point for an object localized in space. All this shows that there is neither a functional nor a cognitive basis for interpreting the possessor’s genitive in the possessive construction as a reference point for the location of the possessum expressed by the subject noun phrase. It is precisely for these semantic reasons that we cannot regard the construction under discussion as a subtype of the locative construction. The verb būti in this construction must therefore be assigned, by metonymy, the non-autonomous meaning ‘belonging’⁸, although, as we have seen, the language has a verb, priklausyti, that can convey this meaning autonomously, without the support of a construction. But such synonymy between verbs used in different constructions is problematic only for those who stubbornly adhere to the thesis that the verb in a sentence is a semantic functor.

2.3. Having discussed the semantic properties of the verb būti in constructions (7)–(13), we see that the predicative potential of this verb provides little basis for the typological classification of the constructions under discussion. Only constructions (11),

⁷ Dėl ribotos tokių pasakymų kalboje galimybės žr. Mikulskas (2006b. 42–43).

⁸ Of course, if we looked more closely at the ontology of the possessive construction, we could also regard the meaning ‘belonging’ assigned “ad hoc” to its verb būti as a certain variant or instantiation of one of this verb’s basic meanings, ‘identity’, which is well attested in copular constructions; cf. This hat is Antanas’s possession,—such an extension of construction (13) is not entirely arbitrary, since it is well suited to the construction’s genitive attributive origin. On the other hand, overemphasizing this ontological parallel would obscure the possessive purpose of the construction under discussion and the corresponding aspects of its syntactic and semantic structure, which define its identity.

131

Rolandas Mikulskas

(12) „egzistenciniams“ predikatams galėtume pripažinti santykinį savarankiškumą, leidžiantį jų komplementams priskirti argumentų statusą⁹. Kitų aptartų konstrukcijų veiksmažodžių būti reikšmės yra pernelyg priklausomos nuo konstrukcijos, kurioje jie vartojami, pobūdžio. Nei šiose konstrukcijose veiksmažodžio būti turima ‚tapatumo‘, nei ‚lokacijos‘, nei ‚priklausymo‘ reikšmė nėra tiek savarankiška, kad jam iš anksto galima būtų priskirti kokią nors argumentų struktūrą („subkategorizuojantį rėmą“) — pats vienas šis veiksmažodis vargiai gali būti laikomas sintaksinės struktūros — finitinio sakinio — semantiniu funkatoriumi, kaip tai neretai daroma, analizuojant sakinius, kurių pradą sudaro turiningesnės leksinės reikšmės veiksmažodžiai. Regis, tapatumo, lokatyvinėse ir priklausymo konstrukcijose yra prasmės kalbėti tik apie SUDĖTINIŲ PREDIKATŲ sintaksinę distribuciją. Išties tam tikrą požymį subjekto vardažodžio referentui priskiriančioje (asriptyvinėje) konstrukcijoje, pavyzdžiui, Mokinys yra teisus, būtent tą požymį įvardijantis predikatyvinis būdvardis, o ne šį valdanti jungtis lemia, kokių semantinių savybių vardažodis gali eiti subjekto pozicijoje. Tai reiškia, kad šioje ir panašiose konstrukcijose subjekto vardažodį (mokinys) komplementacijos santykis sieja ne tiesiogiai su veiksmažodžiu būti, bet su visu sudėtiniu predikatu (būti teisam). Atitinkama konstituencija (sakinio sudarymo iš dėmenų tvarka) tokią kalbamų konstrukcijų sintaksės analizę vaizduoja formaliai, plg. [Mokinys_SUBJ [yra [teisus]]_PRED], arba [NP_SUBJ [V [Adj]]_PRED. Aišku, kad taip analizuodami tapatumo konstrukcijas sakinio pradą (angl. clausal head) sudarančių veiksmažodžiu jose laikysime ne jungties veiksmažodį būti, bet visą sudėtinę struktūrą, šio veiksmažodžio sudaromą su būdvardiniu ar daiktavardiniu komplementu. Tiesa sakant, „jungtimi“ veiksmažodį būti šios sintaksinės analizės kontekste nelabai tikslu ir vadinti (šį tradicinį terminą vartojame pasiskolinę iš tapatumo propozicijos, kaip loginės struktūros, analizės), nes čia jo pirminė funkcija ne jungti du tapatumo propozicijos esinius, o (predikatyvo) būdvardžiu ar daiktavardžiu reiškiamai sakinio predikacijai suteikti procesualumo, arba laikiškumo, dimensiją — ši esminė veiksmažodžio savybė būtina finitiniam sakiniui (t. y. tokiam sakiniui, kuris gramatinio laiko, asmens, modalumo rodikliais yra susiejamas su kalbėjimo

⁹ Nevertheless, even with respect to these arguments, we cannot regard these predicates as full-fledged semantic functors, since their existential interpretation depends to a great extent on the pragmatic properties of the constructions in which they occur, such as word order in the sentence and the corresponding unmarked information structure.

132

Jungties konstrukcijos ir jų gramatinis kontekstas

situation (“ground,” cf. ground) to be formed). To highlight the grammatical function of the verb būti in the constructions under discussion, we could call it a grammatical specifier. In the currently being written New Grammar of the Lithuanian Language, the verb būti in the compound predicate of an active perfect sentence is called a specifier; cf. I have never eaten frogs in my life. The term specifier is also applied here in the analysis of other combinations whose constituents occupy different positions with respect to internal and external syntactic relations. Drawing on the criteria for defining functor, base, and head proposed by Arnold Zwicky (Zwicky 1993: 292–315), the New Grammar distinguishes an internal head and an external head (or base) of a combination when describing the syntax of the aforementioned combinations. A specifier functions as a head only within the combination (see Holvoet & Mikulskas 2009a: 10–13). In the formation of Lithuanian perfect forms, the verb būti is generally assigned the function of an auxiliary verb, which essentially coincides with the definition of a grammatical specifier. Similarly, we could call the auxiliary verb būti in passive (perfect and imperfect) constructions a specifier; cf. The city was completely destroyed in the overnight air raid; The house was still under construction when the accident occurred. Nevertheless, in discussing identity constructions, we retain the traditional term copula. Although the grammatical function of the copular verb būti is undeniable and can be compared with the function of the auxiliary verb būti in the analytic forms mentioned¹⁰, its structural function in identity constructions is also evident: it allows us to speak of the relative autonomy of such a verb with respect to the second constituent of the complex predicate and to assign it the aforementioned meaning of ‘identity’. A further argument for distinguishing the copular verb from the auxiliary verb (specifier), as we shall see below (sections 2.5.1–2.5.2.1), is provided by a possible alternative interpretation of constructions with predicative participles. The cognitive analysis of the complex predicates used in these “ambiguous” constructions allows us to distinguish two semantic structures of the verb būti: one in which it functions as an auxiliary verb, and an entirely different one in which it functions as a copula.

¹⁰ The term “analytic (verbal) forms” is used here and below to refer to combinations of the verb būti with participles because it is conventional; this does not imply any particular view of the paradigmatic status of such forms in Lithuanian (cf. a different view in Holvoet & Semėnienė 2004: 36–41).

133

ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS

2.4. What has been said about the semantics of the verb to be should suffice to conclude that we cannot infer the nature of the constructions in which it is used from this verb, and that when distinguishing types of constructions with the verb to be, we can rely only minimally on its semantic properties. The verb to be acquires more or less clear outlines of lexical meaning only when used in a specific construction. Thus, the meaning of the construction absolutely or almost absolutely dominates with respect to this lexeme. Using the terminology of Construction Grammar, we could define the constructions in question as discourse-oriented syntactic structures with functionally motivated information structure and a distinctive meaning. Construction Grammar holds that only those verbal lexemes whose semantics—or, more precisely, the semantic-interpretive frames represented by those lexemes—allow it can be integrated into constructions with relatively autonomous meaning (the Semantic Coherence Principle; Goldberg 1995: 50). Depending on its meaning (on the nature of its semantic-interpretive frame), essentially the same verb can be integrated into several constructions (cf. the alternating constructions discussed in sections 2.1–2.1.1). Since only predicates of a particular semantics can be used in a given construction, from the verb’s perspective we could also assert that the nature of the construction is at least partly dependent on the verb’s meaning. In defining the meanings of the verb to be, we could hardly rely on any readily identifiable semantic-interpretive frames that structure knowledge about particular situations in non-linguistic reality. Because of its overly abstract meaning, this verb has extremely broad possibilities of “semantic compatibility,” which are revealed concretely only when it is used in one or another of the constructions discussed above. For example, the possibility of using the verb to be in an ascriptive or equative construction indicates that its meaning is compatible with the semantics of a particular identity proposition, while the possibility of using this verb in a locative or possessive mihi est-type construction indicates that its meaning is compatible with the semantics of a particular existence proposition. To be fair, it should be noted that certain changes in the internal semantic structure of verbs used in the constructions under discussion are possible, relating solely to the choice of their grammatical form. These changes may even determine the morphosyntactic form of the verb’s complement, thereby also modifying the syntactic form of the construction itself; cf.:

134

Jungties konstrukcijos ir jų gramatinis kontekstas

(17) Son, be strong. (18) Be a human being / be human, don’t act like that.

The imperative form of the verbs used in these sentences determines not only their aspectual properties but also changes in their lexical meanings. This form of the essentially imperfective verb būti denotes an action of perfective nature (i.e., an action that can in principle be completed or whose duration can be limited). Consequently, the predicate būk here denotes an active action that presupposes control by the subject. The meaning of this predicate in the examples in question could be defined respectively as ‘behave in a certain way’ and ‘act as someone’. Nevertheless, it would be too bold to claim that these changes in the verb’s meaning, associated with the choice of its grammatical form, substantially alter the construction’s argument structure and thus its typological affiliation.

2.5. A substantially more consequential factor for the typological affiliation of identity constructions may be the alternative interpretation of their complex predicates. The literature has widely discussed cases in which the participles (mostly with perfective meaning) that form the semantic basis of such predicates can be understood in the constructions in question both “adjectivally” and “verbally.” For example, in Works on Lithuanian Grammar (Holvoet & Pajėdienė 2004: 134), when discussing two possible interpretations of the sentence I am convinced that there are both good and bad people, it is said that we understand the sentence one way when we perceive the participle įsitikinęs as an adjectival predicative governed by the copula esu, and another way when we understand the phrase esu įsitikinęs as an analytic verb form (which is referred to here as a verbal construction). Thus, in one case we have an ascriptive-type construction, and in the other, a perfect construction. Let us take a closer look at such constructional alternations.

2.5.1. First, let us discuss the use of active-voice participles in the constructions in question. Forms of such participles derived from intransitive verbs can generally be interpreted in two ways, since they can specify the final state of the referent of a subject noun phrase after it has undergone the effect of a particular action. This specification of the state acquired by the subject referent provides the semantic basis for an “adjectival” interpretation of the participial form in question. It is worth noting that such a verbal adjective can also occupy the attributive position characteristic of this part of speech within a noun phrase; cf. People convinced of their own righteousness are of no use to us. The internally semantic structure of the complex predicate interpreted “adjectivally”

135

ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS

of the predicate esu įsitikinęs could be described in cognitive terms as follows. The perfect participial form įsitikinęs here profiles only the final (resultative) stage of the act of becoming convinced: this profile can be equated with that of other adjectives denoting a stative relation. The essence of the internal semantic structure of the verb esu, which imparts a dimension of processuality to this adjectival predication, consists in the same profile of an abstractly conceived stative relation being scanned (mentally) over time (thus this verb denotes an imperfective action). In forming a complex predicate, the specific content of the participial form semantically specifies, or elaborates, the corresponding abstract substructure of the verb. The substructure to be elaborated (the elaboration site) is freely selectable, because all elements of the imperfective verb’s internal structure (all the positions of the abstractly conceived stative relation that are profiled) remain unchanged over time.

2.5.1.1. A seemingly insignificant sentence element, usually assigned to the periphery of its syntactic structure, may prompt a “verbal” interpretation of the participial form in question; cf. More than once I have been convinced that there are both good and bad people. In this sentence, the adverbial modifier more than once, by indicating the repetition in the past of the event profiled by the complex predicate esu įsitikinęs, also indicates that each such recurring event had a beginning and an end, i.e., a certain duration. In cognitive terms, the participle in this complex form profiles all the stages of the act of becoming convinced; in forming the complex predicate, these elaborate all the corresponding elements of the verb’s internal structure esu, which can be imagined as positions in a particular (only abstractly conceived) verbal relation that changes over time and is scanned sequentially. A verb būti with such a semantic structure, as befits an auxiliary verb, is indifferent to perfective/imperfective aspect. Whether the complex predicate denotes a perfective or an imperfective action depends solely on the aspectual nature of the verb that provides the derivational basis and semantic-interpretation base for the participle: for example, the predicate (more than once) esu įsitikinęs denotes a perfective action, whereas the predicate (more than once) esu girdėjęs (tą melodiją) denotes an imperfective action¹¹.

¹¹ Perfektyvumą / imperfektyvumą čia ir kitur suprantu langakeriškai (Langacker 2002: 85–91), kaip veiksmažodžio žymimo proceso vidinę sandarą charakterizuojančią sąvoką, kuri nepainiotina su kalbamomis analitinėmis formomis reiškiamo

136

Jungties konstrukcijos ir jų gramatinis kontekstas

2.5.2. “Adjectival” participles may also be interpreted as passive-voice participles in a passive construction. In that case, this construction is essentially no different from an ascriptive copular construction. Passive-voice participles occupying the position of the adjectival predicative in a copular construction, like other adjectives, may also be used attributively, cf.:

(19) We saw that the city was completely destroyed.

(20) The completely destroyed city looked dreadful.

(21) These mushrooms are edible.

(22) We recognize edible mushrooms.

“Verbal” interpretations of passive-voice participles turn a copular construction into a passive construction. Such an interpretation may be prompted, besides a supportive context, by adverbial modifiers that modify the duration of the action presupposed by the participle¹², cf.:

(23) The city during the night raid was completely destroyed.

(24) Gathered and salted in late autumn, these mushrooms during the winter months are relished as food.

The compound predicates was destroyed and are edible in these sentences should be regarded as analytic forms of the verbs that underlie the formation of the participles (destroy and eat). A cognitive account of the formation of such forms could in many respects resemble the account given above of the formation of analytic verb forms with active-voice participles. First, we note that

the notion of the perfect. The latter is generally characterized as the ability of a verb phrase, by means that are more or less grammaticalized, to register the relevance to the communicants of an action that occurred / was completed before the time of speaking. Since the category of perfectivity / imperfectivity defines the aspectual possibilities characteristic of a given verb, it should not be identified with the category of event / process aspect, which captures the dichotomy in the realization of these possibilities (cf. Mikulskas 2005: 26–27).

¹² Such modifiers cannot be used with predicates of every type. For example, of the two sentences The village was surrounded by forests on all sides and The fugitive was finally surrounded by the police, only in the second can the duration of the action denoted by the compound verb form was surrounded be modified. Because of the specific nature of the predication of extended objects (see Mikulskas 2005: 32–38), in the first sentence the same form can only denote a static spatial configuration (the forests arranged in a circle around the village). Due to this semantic constraint, the “verbal” interpretation of the participial form in the construction under discussion essentially coincides with its “adjectival” interpretation (for a fuller discussion of this phenomenon, see Langacker 2002: 145–147).

137

ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS

Similarly to the case discussed earlier involving passive-voice participles interpreted “verbally,” the integrated verb būti becomes indifferent to the perfective / imperfective distinction—the complex predicate inherits these aspectual properties from the verb forming the lexical base of the participle (cf. buvo (sugriautas / griaunamas ir buvo matytas / matomas), so such a verb būti may rightly be called an auxiliary verb or a specifier¹³. The passive construction with past-tense passive participles differs from the corresponding construction with present-tense passive participles in that the former, like the previously discussed construction with active participles, is suited to expressing the perfect. Since the perfect participle in this construction, by profiling only the final stage of the action experienced by the subject referent—corresponding to the patient in the active construction—is able to capture the patient’s final state, such a participle can readily be perceived as an adjective, in which case the passive construction turns into an ascriptive copular construction.

2.5.2.1. The possibility of interpreting passive-voice present-tense participles in the passive construction adjectivally should probably be associated with the possibility of a modal interpretation of the atemporal complex verbal relation denoted by these forms, which arises in the case of general propositions when the agent argument is removed from the sentence profile, cf.: These mushrooms were always eaten by forest dwellers > These mushrooms were always eaten > These mushrooms are edible (i.e., these mushrooms can be eaten). This possible chain of semantic development shows how the action continually experienced by a patient (mushrooms) can be reinterpreted as the patient’s ability or suitability to undergo that action, and this property of verbal origin already falls within the semantic domain of adjectival denotation. An “adjectivally” interpreted passive-voice present-tense participle, like its “verbal” counterpart, profiles all the stages of the action experienced by the patient (of course, perceived holistically, as the atemporal nature of participles requires; see Langacker 2008: 117–122); however, unlike in the latter case, all stages of the action implied by such an “adjective” are perceived as identical. In other words—

¹³ That the semantic structure of the auxiliary verb merely adapts to a participial form interpreted “verbally” when forming an analytic form is shown by the fact that these forms alone can function as predicates in non-finite clauses, cf. Interrogated for a long time, he finally confessed.

138

Jungties konstrukcijos ir jų gramatinis kontekstas

in other words, the idea of development relevant to a perfective action is removed from the semantic structure of such a newly coined verbal adjective (of course, if the verb from which the participle is formed is itself perfective, but cf. (26) below). As a result, during the interpretation of the “adjectival” participle, the profile of an entire sequence of identical instances of the verbal relation (stages of action) is essentially equivalent to the constant (static) relation expressed by adjectival predication¹⁴. The fact that passive-voice present-tense participles interpreted “adjectivally” in copular constructions are perceived by language users almost as ordinary adjectives is also shown by instances of these forms being graded, cf.:

(25) These books are the most purchased / best-selling.

(26) These ice creams are children’s favorites.

Sentence (26) is interesting here in another respect as well: unlike the other cases under discussion, it still uses a genitive of agentive origin (more briefly, an agentive genitive) (children’s). However, it seems that things here are not quite as they appear at first glance. The syntactic status of this genitive is no longer the same as that of the agent genitive in the corresponding passive construction These ice creams are liked by children (or By children these ice creams are liked), since in sentence (26) it forms a tightly integrated phrase with the verbal adjective. This is shown by the unusualness of the superlative form in the passive construction, cf. These ice creams are most liked by children, but?These ice creams are children’s favorites (??By children these ice creams are favorites). In the literature, such an agentive genitive associated with a passive-voice adjectival participle is described in terms of inclusion, or incorporation (see Keenan & Dryer 2007: 344–345; cf. Holvoet 2001: 47). Discussing the origin of the agent genitive in Baltic passive constructions, Axel Holvoet notes that Latvian has preserved archaic copular constructions of the type [māja [ir [tēva celta]]], in which the agentive genitive is partially incorporated into the phrases of passive perfect participles (interpreted “adjectivally” in predicative position—R. M.). According to Holvoet, such a genitive of dual nature—partly possessive, partly agentive (“authorial”)—in Lithuanian

¹⁴ Adjectival predication generally expresses a relation between the denotatum of a noun and a certain domain in some qualitative space (of color, taste, smell, etc.), or a certain point on a normative scale in some quantitative space (of length, height, width, etc.) (see Langacker 2008: 116).

139

ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS

In the language, possessive constructions most likely became, through reanalysis, full-fledged agent genitives, cf. [house [was [father’s built]]] > [house [was [father’s] built]] (for more detail, see Holvoet 2001: 45–58). In Lithuanian passive constructions, the position of the agent genitive is not fixed, and a construction that formerly expressed origin becomes difficult to identify in such circumstances. However, as example (26) shows, a construction with a partially incorporated genitive can occasionally be used in the language. This (partial) incorporation of the genitive into the predicative participial phrase is most likely secondary, and is associated with the atemporalization of passive participle forms in passive constructions. In sentence (26), unlike in sentence (21), when the present passive participle form is interpreted “adjectivally,” the agent genitive cannot be omitted because of the semantic specificity of the verb megti, which presupposes an evaluator: rather than being omitted, this genitive is associated with the predicative phrase. The meaning of this “agentive” genitive could be compared with the function of dativus iudicantis, which is also often used with degree markers (Holvoet & Čižik-Prokaševa 2005: 89), cf. These ice creams are most delicious to children. It should be noted, however, that the position of such a dative in the sentence is not strictly fixed (cf. These ice creams are most delicious to children; To children these ice creams are most delicious).

When present-tense passive participial forms are interpreted “adjectivally,” the finite form of būti integrated with them likewise changes from an auxiliary verb into a copula, with its characteristic imperfective verbal semantics¹⁵.

2.5.3. The analysis of constructions with participial predicates merely confirmed a fact that had already emerged: for the typological classification of both copular and related construction types, what matters is not so much their finite verb as their

¹⁵ Imperfectivity is an inherent feature not only of the copula but also of the semantics of the verb būti in other constructions discussed earlier; in this respect, the verbs of locative and possessive constructions are most readily compared with the copula, as they add a temporal dimension to the constant spatial or possessive relation denoted by their complements. The fact that in some constructions these verbs can be made perfective by certain grammatical means (for example, through the use of the imperative, optative, or conditional; cf. If you are (were) patient, I will (would) tell you everything) merely confirms their imperfective nature. Thus, in this respect, the verbs būti in not only copular but also other constructions that profile a stative process can be contrasted with the auxiliary verbs of analytic forms that profile a dynamic process, which are indifferent to the perfective/imperfective distinction.

140

Jungties konstrukcijos ir jų gramatinis kontekstas

the possibilities for semantic interpretation of its complement, as well as other factors that correlate with those possibilities and encourage one or another conceptualization of constructions (factors that may also be fixed as constant elements of a construction, such as temporal adjuncts in the perfect construction, cf. Over the course of my long life I have seen everything, or locative adjuncts in existential constructions, cf. We have ferrets at our homestead). The detailed classification of copular constructions presented in the third part of the article is based precisely on an analysis of the semantic and referential interpretive possibilities of the predication component expressed by these constructions, which makes it possible to reveal the nature of that predication. In discussing the typological properties of copular constructions, we will call their predicate complements obligatory predicatives, thereby emphasizing that the nature of the complement predication they express is essentially the same as that of the complements of other verbs with incomplete semantics, cf. Jonas is sad and Jonas seems sad. By calling adjectival elements of copular constructions (obligatory) predicatives, we also distinguish them from participial complements of analytic verb forms in active (perfect) and passive (perfect and imperfect) constructions. Applying the notion of predicative to adjectival and nominal complements of copular constructions (especially if we associate it with free predicatives) also implies a certain, albeit slight, independence of the predication they express from the identity predication expressed by the copular verb būti within the architecture of the complex predicate, since the corresponding components of analytic forms are undoubtedly more closely connected in this respect.

3. TYPOLOGY OF COPULAR CONSTRUCTIONS

3.0. As we can see, differences in the interpretation of the copular verb būti cannot serve as an independent criterion for distinguishing types of copular constructions. In this situation, it seems much more useful to choose as the criterion for classification the semantic or referential properties of the copular complements—adjectival or nominal predicatives—that express the main predication in such sentences and create the conditions for expressing one or another kind of proposition by means of a copular construction that is essentially the same structurally. It is because of this latter circumstance that we intuitively perceive all copular sentences as instantiations of a single structural archetype, adapted to the needs of identity propositions.

141

ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS

3.1. We would probably not be mistaken in asserting that the center (or, we might say, prototype) of this structural archetype consists of sentences belonging to the ascriptive construction, in which the main predication, expressed by an adjective (an adjectival predicative), assigns a certain quality or quantity to the referent of the subject noun phrase, cf.:

(27) This decision was foolish.

(28) The tree is tall.

(29) The house is wooden.

Like the verb, the adjective is a part of speech of relational nature: it locates an abstractly conceived thing in a certain qualitative or quantitative space, and often also measures it against some qualitative or quantitative scale that presupposes a certain norm. The adjective’s predicative potential also follows from its relational nature: like the verb, an adjective can express the main predication in a sentence. In predicative position, an adjective states the state of the referent denoted by the subject noun phrase, whose continuation over time (its processual character) is expressed here by the finite form of the copular verb. Given all this, the predisposition of adjectives to predicative use should come as no surprise. As we know, in predicative position adjectives can express not only main (primary) but also additional (secondary) predication (Holvoet & Tamulionienė 2005: 117–121; Holvoet & Mikulskas 2009b: 5–8).

3.2. It is harder to explain the predicative function of nouns—or, more broadly, nominal expressions—used in copular constructions. After all, when defining the category of the noun, referentiality, or reference to entities in reality, is rightly regarded as its essential functional feature. In a sentence, the referentiality of a nominal phrase (i.e., a noun phrase) should be understood as its indication or identification in reality of the referents of the participants in a verbal relation. Thus, it is clear that the purpose of nouns in language (with a few exceptions¹⁶) is to denote not relations between entities but the entities themselves. The predicative potential of verbs and adjectives (and, more broadly, of prepositions and adverbs) is precisely associated with expressing one kind of relation or another. Yet the following sentences are entirely usual in the language, cf.:

¹⁶ I have in mind nouns that presuppose part–whole, kinship, or other social relations, such as (boat’s) bottom, (bride’s) father, (squad’s) leader, and so on (for more detail, see Holvoet & Mikulskas 2009a: 16–17).

142

Jungties konstrukcijos ir jų gramatinis kontekstas

(30) Jonas is a teacher.

(31) Jonas is our teacher.

(32) Jonas is our Lithuanian-language teacher.

(33) This quarter, Jonas is our Lithuanian-language teacher.

(34) Jonas is the teacher who instilled in us a love of our native language.

It is natural to ask how nouns of non-relational nature can express the main predication in these sentences. Before attempting to answer this question, let us first note that “nominal” predication in the sentences presented here is not homogeneous either. Functionally, these sentences can be divided into those that express an inclusion relation between their nominal referents and those that express an identity relation between such referents—the latter, in contrast with ascriptive sentences, are also called equative sentences. Sentence (30) is the clearest representative of the first type, while sentence (34) represents the second. The other sentences may be assigned to either type: their interpretation depends on external (contextual) circumstances. Formally speaking, both sentences denote an identity relation between the descriptions supplied by the subject and predicate nouns. The structural identity of the two sentence types is also confirmed by the possibility of interpreting some cases in either way. However, the purpose of sentences such as (30) is to say that the referent of the subject noun is a member of the broader class of referents denoted by the predicate noun. To express such an inclusion relation, it is not necessary for the subject noun in a copular construction to denote a uniquely identifiable referent and for the predicate noun to be interpreted as indefinite, as in example (30); it is sufficient for the scope of reference of the second noun to be broader than that of the first, cf.:

(35) Dolphins are mammals.

Both nouns in this example are probably interpreted as indefinite, although plural forms in such generic statements can denote either a certain, indefinite quantity of referents satisfying the type description, or all referents satisfying that type description, inclusively—in other words, they can function as the name of a unique class of referents (cf. Mikulskas 2006a: 52–54). Because the predicate noun’s broader reference sanctions the inclusion relation, its predicative potential is more readily perceived in sentences of the first type than in sentences of the second type, in which (as, for example, in sentence (34)) the identity of two uniquely identifiable referents is asserted.

143

ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS

Perhaps this is why the former are often intuitively assigned to the ascriptive type of copular constructions (cf. Holvoet & Čižik-Prokaševa 2005: 79). Indeed, when the referent of a subject noun phrase in such sentences is assigned to a broader class of referents, it may be metonymically associated with an essential characteristic of the members of that class. When the predicative noun in an inclusive-type construction and the predicative adjective in an ascriptive-type construction are related by derivation, such a metonymic association between a member of the class and its constitutive characteristic becomes almost inevitable, and the meanings of the two constructions differ only slightly, cf.:

(36) Petras yra kvailys.

(37) Petras yra kvailas.

However, by no means can we identify such pairs based on a derivational relationship in every case, on the basis of which we might attempt to assign copular constructions expressing inclusion to the ascriptive type. Moreover, it is difficult to ignore the fact that the functional load of the copula differs in ascriptive- and inclusive-type constructions: in the former type, the function of these finite verb forms is primarily grammatical, whereas in the latter type they also express an identity relation that is ontologically important to the entire proposition¹⁷. After all, we will agree that, logically, inclusion is merely a subtype of the more general identity relation: a nominal referent is included in a broader class on the basis of a certain generalized characteristic (a type description), by identifying it with other members of that class. Thus, we have arrived at the idea that the two types of copular sentences distinguished earlier—inclusive and equative—are unified not only by nominal predicates but also by a shared ontology. It seems worthwhile to treat copular sentences with nominal predicates as a single type. Nevertheless, the question remains unanswered: how can nouns of non-relational nature express the main predication of such sentences? In other words, where does their predicative potential come from?

¹⁷ Of course, for this reason, when analyzing copular constructions with nominal predicates, we could assign their copulas the meanings of “inclusion” or “identity,” but this would set them sharply apart from analogous constructions with adjectival predicates, in which the function of the copula is recognized first and foremost as grammatical. Thus, if we wish to treat all copular constructions as essentially the same structural archetype, we should emphasize the structural, rather than semantic, function of the copula in every case.

144

Jungties konstrukcijos ir jų gramatinis kontekstas

3.2.1. If we understand the content of the descriptions provided by nouns in predicate position as the instantiation of the type they imply¹⁸ (and an instantiated example always points to its type), then their relational nature is easy to demonstrate: such nouns represent a relation between an individual (instantiated) representative of a type and the type itself (or between the corresponding descriptions). The effect of inclusion (and the predicative potential of the nominal predicate) is created by bringing the referent of the subject noun into the broader circle of referents defined by the type description, through an identity relation with an instantiation of that type. For understandable reasons, a predicative noun’s reference to a type description (and the relational nature of that noun) is easier to grasp when it is interpreted indefinitely and nonspecifically, that is, as a noun denoting an arbitrarily chosen representative of the type¹⁹. But the definite predicative nouns of so-called equative constructions also point in their own way to descriptions of the relevant types (if only because, by definition, the referents of those nouns are uniquely identifiable instantiations of their respective types). Since in these constructions the type description provided by the predicative noun has a much narrower reference than in the indefinite case (for example, in sentence (34) it is provided by the entire restrictive phrase the teacher who instilled in us a love of our native language, which in practice can have only one referent here), the inclusion relation they express is harder to grasp—it is reduced here to a minimum. However, the distinction between the type description and an instantiation of that type, which is significant to a relational understanding of the predicative noun, can still be readily grasped, especially if that instance, as in example (34), is explicitly marked by the definiteness marker that. Thus, in both cases we can speak of the relational nature of the noun and its resulting predicative status, which arises from its syntactic position—that of a predicate.

¹⁸ Plačiau apie tipo ir jo instanciacijos skirtį žr. Langacker (1991: 51–73); plg. Mikulskas (2006a: 34–35).

¹⁹ The identity relation denoted by sentences of this type, such as Jonas yra mokytojas, could also be treated as the direct inclusion of an individual (Jonas) in a more general class (of teachers), which in this case would be named by a simple noun (not a noun phrase!) mokytojas. Examples from some article languages would also support such an analysis, cf. French Jean est professeur (but cf. English John is a teacher); however, it is more difficult to apply this analysis to equative constructions, whose definite predicative noun points to a type description only indirectly, through the instantiation of a uniquely identifiable representative of that type (cf. Langacker 1991: 69).

145

ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS

3.2.2. A few words should be said about sentences such as (31), (32), and (33), which, depending on whether their predicative noun phrase is interpreted as definite or indefinite, can be interpreted respectively as expressing a relation of equation or inclusion. We will discuss these examples in turn. Sentence (31) seems equally open to both interpretations. This is because the idealized cognitive model of SCHOOL (ICM; Lakoff 1987: 68–76), which is relevant to the interpretation of this sentence, in principle supports a situation in which the referent of the possessor our (the class at school) may have more than one teacher, so the possessive description our teacher need not denote a uniquely identifiable individual. In sentence (32), however, the same SCHOOL ICM would encourage a definite interpretation of the description our Lithuanian language teacher, and the sentence would then express an equative identity relation, since a middle- or high-school class usually has one teacher for any given subject. Yet the referent of the description in question in this sentence may also fail to be uniquely identifiable, for example, if the possessor our here denotes all the pupils at the school, which may have several Lithuanian language teachers. At first glance, the analysis of sentence (33) should not differ from that of sentence (32), discussed above. However, it seems that the teacher type denoted by the description our Lithuanian language teacher in example (33) is understood more as a role, performed or instantiated by a single individual during a particular period. This case is known in the literature as role definiteness²⁰, whose defining feature—the possibility of a single referent—makes sentence (33) more akin to an equative construction.

3.2.3. To sum up what has been discussed, we can divide copular constructions into two main types: ascriptive and identity-type constructions. Their difference essentially depends on what functions as their predicate—adjectives or nouns. Such a typology of copular constructions based on different parts of speech is very clear and is motivated by the fact that adjectives, owing to their relational nature, are essentially predisposed to pre-

²⁰ Fauconnier (1985: 35–81) išvesta vaidmens (angl. role) ir jos vertės (angl. value) skirtis laikytina skirties „tipas vs. instancijacija“ specifine atmaina. Vaidmens apibrėžtumas išplaukia iš jo unikalumo tam tikros istoriškai nulemtos pasaulio tikrovės tipe. Vaidmens apibrėžtumą natūraliai perima ir jo vertės, įgyjamos per to pasaulio tipo instancijas konkrečiu laikotarpiu (plačiau žr. Langacker 1991: 71–73; plg. Mikulskas 2006a: 54–55).

146

Jungties konstrukcijos ir jų gramatinis kontekstas

to express the main predication of a sentence in the dative position, whereas nouns acquire this ability only when they occupy the predicate position. Furthermore, depending on whether the nominal predicate in these constructions is interpreted as definite or indefinite, identity constructions can be further divided into equative and inclusive subtype constructions.

3.3. Finally, some peripheral cases of copular constructions should also be discussed, in which proper names function as predicates, cf.:

(38) Allow me to introduce myself, I am Jonas Petraitis.

(39) I am Jonas.

(40) My name is Jonas.

(41) My name is Jonas.

(42) Our teacher is Jonas Petraitis.

Proper names usually provide a definiteness description, i.e., their referent is a uniquely identifiable person. However, this is not necessarily so. The referent of a proper name may be unfamiliar to the listener; in that case, the speaker utters the name with an indefinite marker, cf. Our teacher is a certain Jonas Petraitis—in this example, the referent of the proper name is a specific but indefinite person. Yet it is easy to imagine a copular sentence in which the proper name is interpreted non-specifically, cf. These two rascals are Sutkai—in this example, the predicate noun refers to an entire family or lineage, which usually has more than two members, so the inclusive nature of the proposition is readily understood here. It seems that the analysis of those copular constructions whose predicate proper name denotes a single, albeit indefinite, referent is considerably more problematic. How should the relative nature of such nominal predicates be understood? What type description does the proper name refer to, or what type can the denotation of a proper name instantiate? However semantically impoverished the description of the type represented by a proper name may be, it is significant from a theoretical point of view. Let us consider sentence (38) in this regard: by uttering it, the subject I most likely wishes not to tell the listener their name, but to introduce themself as the person uniquely associated with that name. In addition to uniquely identifying its bearer, however, the name Jonas Petraitis also indicates that its bearer is a male of Lithuanian nationality. Besides nationality and gender, and sometimes origin or social status, a diminutive form of a name may also indicate that its bearer is young (cf. Antanukas, Petraičiokas) and other similar things, into which

147

ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS

We usually pay no attention when using names. Yet these “insignificant” things provide an empirical basis, however minimal, for establishing the instantiation relation between the type of person they represent and a particular individual representing that type. The type description conveyed by a proper name can be recognized especially easily when that name is associated in society with the historically significant role of its bearer. The predicative potential of such a name used in predicate position is obvious; cf.:

(43) He is Vytautas Landsbergis, and that says it all.

Finally, the implications associated with proper names can give rise to the use of proper names in a common-noun sense. When such names function as predicates in copular constructions, there is no longer any doubt about their predicative potential; cf.:

(44) That boy of mine is a real Einstein.

3.3.1. Sentence (39) can be considered an answer to the question What is your name? or an answer to the question Who are you? In the first case, the analysis of the sentence should be associated with the analysis of sentences such as (40) and (41), and in the second with the analysis of sentence (38) discussed above. Indeed, otherwise, in interpreting sentence (39), its predicate Jonas denotes a particular individual who, moreover, can be uniquely identified implicitly as the person mentioned earlier, and this recognition implication can be regarded as a description of the type instantiated by the proper name—it can, if necessary, also be expressed explicitly; cf.:

(45) I am that Jonas who called you yesterday.

3.3.2. Since the sentences discussed express an identity relation between two uniquely identifiable referents—persons—they can rightly be regarded as instantiations of the equative subtype of the copular construction. Sentence (42) is essentially no different from such sentences, provided that we do not consider it an answer to the question What is your teacher’s name? At first glance, however, the identity relation expressed in this sentence appears to differ from the cases discussed above in that it holds between two nominal referents. Indeed, if we consider this sentence an answer to the question Who is your teacher?, its subject noun phrase is indefinite and apparently has a broader reference than the proper name in predicate position. The scope relation between the noun phrases in such a sentence is

148

Jungties konstrukcijos ir jų gramatinis kontekstas

the reverse of that in the cases of expressing an inclusion relation discussed above (cf. Jonas Petraitis is (our) teacher). However, if we treat the subject noun phrase our teacher in the sentence in question as a role (cf. section 3.2.2) that, during a given period, can be performed (instantiated) by only one individual (even if unknown to the hearer), then the problem of the ontological possibility of an identity relation between two referents that seemingly differ in scope is resolved: the identity relation is expressed between two specific referents, except that the referent of the predicate noun phrase (the proper name) may be a uniquely identifiable person.

3.3.3. When sentence (39) means the same as sentences (40) and (41), the identity relation it expresses is not between the referent of the uniquely identifiable first person (I) and the bearer of the proper name (Jonas)—a specific person instantiating a male individual (a Lithuanian)—but between the (uniquely identifiable bearer of the name) and the name itself. In other words, here the target of the identity proposition is not the person himself, but only a particular, appellative aspect of him. This aspect is expressed explicitly in the paraphrases of sentences (40) and (41). Let us remember that the referent of the subject noun phrase (a particular person) can be categorized in one way or another in other copular sentences with an inclusion meaning as well—for example, by specifying their profession, social or family status, and so on (cf. I am already a pensioner / grandfather). It is clear that in sentences such as (39), (40), and (41), the referent of the predicate noun phrase—the proper name itself—is not a uniquely identifiable entity; cf.:

(46) I am Jonas, and my neighbor is Jonas too.

(47) My name is Jonas, and my neighbor’s name is Jonas too.

The relational character (and predicative potential) of proper names functioning as predicates in the sentences under discussion could be explained by the fact that here they express a relation between the name given to a particular person (Jonas) and the place that name occupies in the onomasticon (religious tradition, popularity, etc.) or its implicational potential (historical and cultural associations, etc.)—these latter factors constitute the type description of the proper name per se. All such sentences can rightly be assigned to the identity-type, inclusive-subtype copular construction, but, while retaining their distinctiveness, we could distinguish them as a variety of appellative copular sentences. Thus, peripheral cases of copular constructions can also, in one way or another, be assigned to the types and subtypes discussed above.

149

ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS

3.4. In basing the typological classification of copular constructions on the semantic (part-of-speech) and/or referential properties of the predicative words used in them, we were intuitively guided by the assumption that the distinguished construction types and subtypes are, in essence, different instantiations of the same structural archetype. It was on the basis of this assumption that the terms prototype and periphery were used in the discussion. However, in discussing the predication patterns of various copular constructions and their variants, we also drew attention to the different purposes in language that motivate these characteristics. In fact, the names of the distinguished copular construction types and subtypes—ascriptive, inclusive, and equative constructions—were coined on the basis of their different purposes. Thus, we might reasonably ask whether constructions with an identical form—X is Y—but different purposes have anything in common. In other words, is there a shared meaning that unites the copular construction types discussed, allowing them all to be assigned to the same category, for example, that of identity-meaning constructions? This is a fundamental question. Indeed, depending on how we answer it, we will be speaking either of homonymy between entirely different constructions or of distinct typological instantiations of the same construction.

3.4.1. In discussing various variants of copular sentences with nominal predicatives, we emphasized their ontological commonality, which also allows us to speak of their shared structural meaning—that of an identity relation. But the same identity relation also underlies the ontology of copular sentences with adjectival predicatives. As we have already noted, the predication expressed by an adjective is relational in nature. Put more simply, this predication cannot be understood (or described) autonomously, as an independently existing property, but only as a (qualitative or quantitative) characteristic of a particular thing. Consequently, the semantic structure of an adjective always includes a slot for an abstractly construed thing, and we would not stray too far from the truth in representing the structure of the sentence Jonas yra protingas as Jonas yra protingas daiktas (žmogus). Thus, we could argue that the attribution of a property to the referent of the subject noun phrase in ascriptive-type sentences is likewise realized through the assertion of an identity relation. Here, however, one participant in the identity relation is not instantiated in physical reality, but only in the mental space of implications: the referent of the noun implied by the predicative adjective. Yet the situation is similar in inclusive-subtype copular sentences as well: we could reasonably suppose that one participant in the identity relation profiled by such sentences—

150

Jungties konstrukcijos ir jų gramatinis kontekstas

the referent of the nominal predicative—is instantiated in reality only for structural reasons. Indeed, the inclusion of the subject noun phrase’s referent in the broader class of referents satisfying a particular type of description, or, in other words, its assignment to a particular type of homogeneous entities existing only in mental space, is structurally possible in a copular construction only by means of a freely chosen representative of that type, instantiated in reality for this purpose. More generally, such “structural” instantiation constitutes the functional motivation for the nonspecific reference of an indefinite noun phrase (cf. Langacker 1991: 68). It is clear that the referent of such a noun phrase does not exist outside the sentence and is likewise a mental phenomenon, although in a somewhat different sense from the substantive element implied by the semantic structure of a predicative adjective.

3.4.2. In summary, we can argue that the identity relation profiled in the copular constructions discussed is a meaning component shared by the entire category, allowing us to speak, alongside the previously mentioned locative, existential, and possessive-meaning constructions, of identity-meaning constructions, whose copular verbs in all cases perform essentially the same structural function of expressing identity (or have an ‘identity’ meaning). However, this shared meaning component, which underlies the structural archetype of copular constructions, does not preclude their functional differentiation. As we have seen, depending on what the subject noun phrase’s referent is identified with in copular constructions, they can serve to attribute a property to a referent, include it in a class, or compare two specific referents—that is, perform an equation function.

4. CONCLUDING REMARKS

4.1. We would like to conclude the article with some general reflections on the extent to which the verb būti’s predicative potential contributes to the functional differentiation of the constructions in which it is realized. After all, to classify these constructions adequately, we must, on the one hand, take their purpose into account, while on the other, it is difficult to disregard the ontological commonality among constructions with different purposes that emerged in the course of the analysis, allowing them to be grouped into certain structural archetypes. The analysis in the second part of the article of the meanings that the verb būti can have in various constructions

151

ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS

makes it possible to define its predicative potential, or range of meanings, whose anchor points are the meaning of ‘existence’, clearly attested in the existential construction, and the meaning of ‘identity’, readily recognizable in copular constructions. The “lexical” meanings of būti in the verbs of the other constructions discussed—which, when defined, require “tautologically” relying on the semantics of those verbs’ complements or on the relevant constructional function—could, in terms of their origin, be linked to one or the other of the aforementioned basic meanings. Indeed, as we have seen, there is reason to associate the verbs in locative and mihi est-type possessive constructions, each in its own way, with existential predication (see Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2), and to associate the verb in possessive constructions with identity predication: we can argue that the possessive relation in the latter construction is realized much as it is in the ascriptive copular construction discussed just above (Section 3.4.1)—through the assertion of an identity between two entities, one of which is merely implied (see footnote 8). These considerations suggest that all the constructions discussed may be derived from two structural archetypes—existential and identity. Since the predicative potential of the verb būti is rather limited, constructions adapted to various communicative needs may have been formed from the aforementioned structural archetypes either by “internal” restructuring of the basic structure—reinterpretation—or by “external” restructuring, for example by changing individual elements of that structure as needed (for instance, replacing the predicative with the possessor’s genitive in the archetypal identity structure yields a possessive construction) and/or by changing its unmarked information structure (the clearest example is the contrast between existential versus locative constructions).

4.2. That the same basic structure, when suitably restructured, can be adapted to the needs of several different propositions is clearly demonstrated by the various interpretive possibilities of sentences such as Onutės (yra) žalios akys, discussed in detail in recent Lithuanian literature (see Holvoet 2005: 153–159; Mikulskas 2006b: 41–50). Sentences of this type are most often interpreted as constructions attributing a particular property to a person—in which case, presumably, they are derived from the corresponding copular construction (cf. Onutės akys yra žalios) by topicalization. However, in a favorable context, the sentence mentioned can acquire a possessive interpretation, close to that of the mihi est-type possessive construction. Indeed, the construction Onutei yra žalios akys in Lithuanian

152

Jungties konstrukcijos ir jų gramatinis kontekstas

is not yet entirely foreign, although it already sounds unusual. It cannot be ruled out that, as the old mihi est-type possession construction was disappearing in Lithuanian (it was being pushed out of use by the newer habere-type construction that was gaining ground), the dative in it could, at least sporadically and when the context allowed, be replaced by the genitive (on the possibility of functional convergence between these cases, see section 1.3). Thus, the twofold interpretation of the aforementioned underlying structure (Onutės (yra) žalios akys) may be associated with two sources of its origin. On the basis of the interpretations mentioned above, we could argue that two homonymous constructions exist in the language—a construction attributing a property to a person and a possessive construction of having (of course, in making this claim we would have to turn a blind eye to the fact that only the first interpretation is sufficiently conventional in usage to be called, without doubt, the meaning of the construction). The verbs būti in these homonymous constructions must then be associated with two different meanings of the underlying structures—‘identity’ and ‘existence’. However, these meanings can be “discerned” only when the sentence is interpreted in one or the other (formally) identical way. Thus, although in this way they are “recognized” as intrinsic to the constructions in question, they are unlikely to have any predictive value in determining the identity of those constructions.

4.3. Similarly, the “underlying” meanings of verbs used in the constructions discussed in this article, “recognized” as inherited from their source structures, are unlikely to be of much help in determining the identity of those constructions. Even when recognized, these meanings say little about the purpose of the new constructions in which the verbs are used. Moreover, as we have seen more than once, when a construction’s function changes, the semantic properties of its verb often change as well: for example, because of the definiteness of its subject noun phrase, the verb in a locative construction, which is ontologically (and perhaps etymologically) related to existential predication, no longer has the quantificational property required of the verb in an existential construction, namely, quantifying over the referent of that noun phrase (see section 2.2.1). Nevertheless, the semantics of the verb būti merely adapts to the meanings of constructions tailored to various communicative needs. In defining a construction’s identity, far more important are those elements of its syntactic and semantic structure that determine its very suitability for a specific language function—in other words, its functional adequacy. These are the elements that merit closer attention when classifying constructions typologically.

153

Rolandas Mikulskas

LITERATŪRA

Clark, E. V. 1978: Locational: Existential, locative, and possessive constructions. In: Greenberg, Ferguson & Moravcsik, eds., 1978, 85–126.

Corbett, G. G., Fraser, N. M. & McGlashan, S. 1993: Heads in Grammatical Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Croft, W. 2001: Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fauconnier, G. 1985: Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press (Bradford Books).

Goldberg, A. E. 1995: Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Greenberg, J. H., Ferguson, Ch. A. & Moravcsik, E. A., eds., 1978: Universals of Human Language. Vol. 4: Syntax. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Haig, G. L. J. 2008: Alignment Change in Iranian Languages: A Construction Grammar Approach. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Holvoet, A. 2001: Once More the Baltic Genitive of Agent. Baltistica 35.1, 45–58.

Holvoet, A. 2005: Intranzytivinių sakinių tipai: egzistenciniai, lokatyviniai ir posesyviniai sakiniai. In: Holvoet & Mikulskas, red., 2005, 139–160.

Holvoet A. & Čižik-Prokaševa, V. 2005: Papildiniai ir aplinkybės. In: Holvoet & Mikulskas, red., 2005, 65–92.

Holvoet, A. & Judžentis, A. 2003: Sintaksinių ryšių tipai. In: Holvoet & Judžentis, red., 2003, 11–35.

Holvoet, A. & Judžentis, A. 2005: Sintaksinės priklausomybės tipai: papildymai ir patikslinimai. In: Holvoet & Mikulskas, red., 2005, 11–38.

Holvoet, A. & Mikulskas, R., red., 2005: Gramatinių funkcijų tyrimai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. (Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai, 3.)

Holvoet, A. & Mikulskas, R., red., 2006: Daiktavardinio junginio tyrimai. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. (Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai, 4.)

154

Jungties konstrukcijos ir jų gramatinis kontekstas

Holvoet, A. & Mikulskas, R. 2009a: Sintaksine priklausomybė (nepublikuotas rankraštis). http://www.lki.lt/LKI_LT/images/Padaliniai/Gramatikos_skyrius/Priklausomybe.pdf

Holvoet, A. & Mikulskas, R. 2009b: Gramatinės funkcijos (nepublikuotas rankraštis). http://www.lki.lt/LKI_LT/images/Padaliniai/Gramatikos_skyrius/Gramatines%20funkcijos.pdf

Holvoet, A. & Pajėdienė, J. 2004: Laiko kategorija ir laiko formos. In: Holvoet & Semėnienė, red., 2004, 121–140.

Holvoet, A. & Semėnienė, L. 2004a: Linksnio teorijos pagrindai. In: Holvoet & Semėnienė, red., 2004, 11–33.

Holvoet, A. & Semėnienė, L. 2004b: Rūšies kategorija: mediumas ir pasyvas. In: Holvoet & Semėnienė, red., 2004, 35–60.

Holvoet, A. & Semėnienė, L., red., 2004: Gramatinių kategorijų tyrimai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. (Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai, 2.)

Holvoet, A. & Tamulionienė, A. 2005: Antriniai predikatyvai. In: Holvoet & Mikulskas, red., 2005, 117–137.

Iwata, S. 2005: Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning. Cognitive Linguistics 16.2, 355–407.

Keenan, E. L. & Dryer, M. S. 2007: Passive in the world’s languages. In: Shopen, ed., 2007, 325–361.

Lakoff, G. 1987: Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago – London: University of Chicago Press.

Langacker, R. W. 1987: Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Langacker, R. W. 1991: Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Langacker, R. W. 2000: Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

155

ROLANDAS MIKULSKAS

LANGACKER, R. W. 2002: Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. 2nd ed. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

LANGACKER, R. W. 2008: Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

LYONS, CHR. 1999: Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

MIKULSKAS, R. 2005: Išilginių objektų predikacijos pobūdis. Subjektyvaus judėjimo sąvoka. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 52, 23–39.

MIKULSKAS, R. 2006a: Apibrėžiamųjų būdvardžių aprašo perspektyva. In: HOLVOET & MIKULSKAS, red., 2006, 33–65.

MIKULSKAS, R. 2006b: Pastabos dėl sintaksinio dviprasmiškumo sąvokos ir kiti susiję dalykai. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 55, 1–53.

RADDEN, G. & DIRVEN, R. 2007: Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

SHOPEN, T. 2007: Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Vol. 1: Clause Structure. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

TAYLOR, J. R. 2002: Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

ZWICKY, A. M. 1993: Heads, bases and functors. In: CORBETT, FRASER & McGLASHAN, eds., 1993, 292–315.

Rolandas Mikulskas

Lietuvių kalbos institutas

P. Vileišio 5, 10308 Vilnius, Lietuva

[email protected]

156