The syntax of nominal copular clauses: theoretical and empirical perspectives

语言的一个基本方面是句子由主语和谓语组成。在最容易理解的情况下，谓语是围绕动词构建的，比如“teach”，如（1a）“My cousin teach”。但是谓语也可以用在名词周围，比如“teacher”，如（1b）“My cousin is a teacher”。英语在这里需要的联系词“be”在其他一些语言中是不存在的：在语义上，“名义联系句”（1b）中的谓语是“老师”。名义流行语从句的特性是语言学和哲学的一个长期问题：本项目旨在通过对这些从句的语法和语义进行系统和详细的跨语言调查，解决这些从句所带来的挑战性和潜在的揭示性问题，将经验领域从研究充分的语言扩展到研究较少的语言。将要研究的问题包括(I)-(III)中的问题：(I)语言使用多少种结构不同的名义流行子句？如果我们从上面（1b）这样的谓语例子和(2)“斯蒂芬·金是理查德·巴赫曼”这样的“身份陈述”之间的传统区别开始。（与“理查德·巴赫曼是斯蒂芬·金”意思相同）我们如何分析像(3)“在黑暗中，我以为你的阿姨是你！”（与“在黑暗中，我以为你是你的阿姨”的意思不同），这也涉及到两个人，就像(2)中的“身份声明”一样，但如果反过来，它们的意思就会改变。有些语言在所有这些情况下都使用相同的连词，这只是巧合吗？或者有些语言实际上在结构上是相同的，尽管意思不同？既然同一性在逻辑上是一种典型的对称关系，为什么它在语言中的表达通常是不对称的？（二）名词短语谓语的结构与名词短语在其他用法中的结构是否不同？这个答案告诉我们，复杂表达的意思是如何从它们的各个部分构建起来的？（三）名词性通俗句是不寻常的，因为第二个名词短语可以有一些意想不到的主语属性。例如，在某些语言中，典型的主语位置由第一个名词短语占据，但动词与第二个短语一致，第二个短语也有主语的情况。所以，在现代英语中，我们说“The problem is me”而不是“The problem am I”，而在德语中，情况正好相反（只有第二种版本是可以接受的）。这些“边缘案例”使我们能够完善和测试关于基本过程（如协议和案例分配）本质的相互竞争的假设。在缺乏相关语言文件的情况下，将使用在线问卷来在精心构建的实验中获取数据，这将扩大在更广泛的语言范围内获得有关预测的详细信息的范围。除了在项目中完成的实证和分析工作外，它还将通过制作和传播一个详细的框架来引出流行结构的数据，从而为未来的跨语言工作做出贡献，该框架旨在为研究人员使用文献较少的语言而设计。

One fundamental aspect of language is that sentences are composed of a subject and a predicate. In the best understood cases, the predicate is built around a verb, like "teach", as in (1a) 'My cousin teaches.' But predicates can also be built around nouns, like "teacher", as in (1b) `My cousin is a teacher.' The copula "be" that English requires here is absent in some other languages: semantically the predicate in the "nominal copular clause" (1b) is `a teacher'. The properties of nominal copular clauses are a long-standing issue for linguistics and philosophy: this project aims to address the challenging and potentially revealing questions posed by such clauses through systematic and detailed cross-linguistic investigation into their syntax and semantics, broadening the empirical landscape beyond well-studied languages to less studied ones. Issues that will be investigated include those in (I)-(III): (I) How many structurally different kinds of nominal copular clauses do languages use? If we start from the traditional distinction between predicative examples like (1b) above and `identity statements' like (2) 'Stephen King is Richard Bachman.' (has the same meaning as 'Richard Bachman is Stephen King')how do we analyse examples like (3) 'In the dark, I thought your aunt was you!' (does not have the same meaning as `In the dark, I thought you were your aunt')which also involve two individuals - like the `identity statement' in (2) - but change their meaning if reversed? Is it just a coincidence that some languages use the same copula in all these cases - and others - or are some of them in fact structurally identical despite differences in meaning? Given that identity is a quintessentially symmetric relation in logic, why is its expression in language typically asymmetric? (II) Is the structure of noun phrase predicates different from the structure of noun phrases in their other uses? What does the answer tell us about how the meaning of complex expressions is built up from their parts? (III) Nominal copular sentences are unusual in that the second noun phrase can have some unexpected subject properties. For example, in some languages the typical subject position is taken by the first noun phrase, but the verb agrees with the second, which also has the case for a subject. So, while in Present Day English we say `The problem is me' and not `The problem am I', in German the situation is the reverse (only the equivalent of the second version is acceptable). These "edge cases" allow us to refine and test competing hypotheses about the nature of fundamental processes like agreement and case-assignment. Where documentation is lacking for relevant languages, online questionnaires will be used to elicit data in carefully constructed experiments that will extend the range of detailed information available about predication in a broader range of languages than is typically available. In addition to the empirical and analytical work done within the project, it will also contribute to future crosslinguistic work by producing and disseminating a detailed framework for eliciting data on copular constructions designed for use by researchers working with less well documented languages.