Copula Cycle

8/13/2019 Copula Cycle

1/43

1

The Copula Cycle

Terje Lohndal, University of Maryland

Abstract

It is well-known that copulas often emerged from demonstratives and pronouns historically.

The present paper argues that copulas change cyclically. This claim is substantiated through a

rich number of examples from various languages. Besides the change from demonstratives

and pronouns to copulas, it is shown that copulas further may develop into affixes.

Interestingly, there are also languages like Hebrew where the copula first disappears and then

redevelops at a later stage. This paper describes the stages of the copula cycle, and argues that

there also are changes that do not fit directly into the major stages. The cycle is understood

through a formal theory of grammaticalization, where there are cognitive principles that help

the child to acquire a language.

1. Introduction*

It is a well-known fact that demonstratives may develop [] into personal pronouns, which

themselves may give rise to copulas. (Heine and Kuteva 2002: 109). In the typological

literature, this process is known as copularization: the grammaticalization process which

turns full verbs or other non-copular elements into copulas (Hengeveld 1992: 237-256,

Stassen 1997: 94-99; though see Pustet 2003 for a slightly different terminology). The aim of

this paper is to argue that there is a systematic cycle where copulas emerge from

demonstratives and pronouns or from verbs and might then develop further into auxiliaries

and grammatical markers like affixes. Demonstratives and pronouns may even reappear from

copulas. In addition to providing a typology of these patterns of change, I also aim at giving atheoretical analysis of these data within the Minimalist Program. Specifically I will approach

the data from the perspective of a formalist understanding of grammaticalization as in Roberts

and Roussou (2003) and van Gelderen (2004). This framework, I claim, provides a useful way

both to classify the changes and to understand the changes in question.

*Parts of this paper have been presented at the Linguistic Cycles workshop at Arizona State University in April2008. I am grateful to the audience for valuable comments. Thanks also to Werner Abraham, Brian Dillon, JanTerje Faarlund, Elly van Gelderen, David Ingram and David Lightfoot for their useful remarks.


2/43

2

The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 discusses an approach to the syntax of

copulas. Section 3 discusses grammaticalization and economy, adopting the framework in van

Gelderen (2004a, b et seq.). The copula cycle is introduced in section 4, and step by step data

are introduced that motivate the copula cycle. Section 5 concludes the paper.

2. The syntax of copulas

How to analyze copulas is a problematic and somewhat controversial question. I will not

provide an overview here, but simply present and briefly motivate the framework I am

adopting.

A common assumption about copulas is articulated by Baker (2003: 40):

This range of data implies that the copula in English is not involved primarily in the

dynamics of theta-role assignment, but rather appears when the lexical head of the

clause cannot bear finite tense and agreement morphology.

This has been the traditional approach. As has been argued elsewhere, there are many reasons

to think that this view is wrong (Rothstein 1999, 2001, Lohndal 2006, Lohndal, farli and

Nygrd 2008). However, the issue is not directly important for the present paper, and what I

will say in the remainder is largely tangential to this issue. What is important, however, is the

phrase structure we assume for copulas. In the next section, I will outline an analysis where

copulas are heads of a predication phrase.

In a seminal paper, Bowers (1993) proposes a predication phrase, PrP. Pr is a

functional category where the external argument (the subject) sits in the specifier of Pr. The

predicate is the complement, and can consist of either a VP, NP, PP or an AP. This can be

illustrated by way of the following tree structure.

(1) PrP

ei

SUBJECT Pr

ei

Pr PREDICATE/XP


3/43

3

This structure accommodates small clauses as well as main clauses. The structure for a small

clause like (2) is provided in (3).

(2) Lisa considers Mary crazy.

(3) [IPLisa considers [PrPMary [PrPr [APcrazy]]]]

Above the PrP in the clause is the inflectional phrase, IP. To illustrate a more complete

structure, (4) represents a typical sentence (I have omitted the higher layers).1

(4) PrP

ei

SUBJECT Pr

ei

Pr VP

ei

V

ei

V

Eide and farli (1999), based on Eide (1996), have argued, pace Bowers (1993), Baker

(2003) and Mikkelsen (2005), that copulas can lexicalize the head of PrP (see also Adger and

Ramchand 2003: 336). This has further been corroborated by Lohndal, Nygrd and farli

(2008), although their overall conclusion is slightly different. It is not possible to repeat all the

arguments in favor of this conclusion, but let us just look at one important one from Eide and

farli (1999).

Eide and farli (1999) note that there is an interesting symmetry between the particle

somin Norwegian and the copula. First, they argue that the particlesomcan lexicalize the

predication operator. A few examples supporting this are provided in (5)-(7).

1As Bowers (1993: 599-600) argues, a main verb moves from V to Pr. Later on many people have used vP as anotation for more or less the same thing as PrP (Chomsky 1995, Kratzer 1996), and some people use PredPinstead of PrP (Adger and Ramchand 2003, Baker 2003). Some have generalized this approach even further such

that a variety of heads can lexicalize what has been called a relator phrase (den Dikken 2006). There aredifferences between these two approaches, but I will set them aside in this paper as they are not directly relevantfor what follows.


4/43

4

(5) Vi fant [Marit [(*som) naken/*(som) nervevrak]].

we found Marit as naked / as nervous wreck

We found Marit nude/as a nervous wreck.

(6) Vi s [Jon [(*som) rasende/*(som) spkelse]].

we saw John as furious / as ghost

We say John being furious/as a ghost.

(7) Vi returnerte [pakken [(*som) upnet /*(som) flypost]].

we returned parcel.DEF as unopened / as air mail (Eide and farli 1999: 160)

We returned the parcel unopened/as air mail.

An adjectival predicate does not permit the occurrence of the particlesom, whereas a nominal

small clause predicate forces the presence ofsom. The structures in (5)-(7) all have in

common that you can always paraphrase them as a matrix sentence, in which case you

evidently will have to replacesomwith the copula. This is illustrated in (8)-(9).

(8) Vi fant [Marit [som nervevrak]] ! Vi fant Marit og [Marit [var nervevrak]].

we found Marit as a nervous wreck !we found Marit and Marit was a nervous

wreck

(9) Vi ser [dette [som faktum]] ![Dette [er et faktum]]

we see this as a fact ! this is a fact (Eide and farli 1999: 165)

As Eide and farli (1999) note, the bracketed parts of the two structures in each example are

very similar both semantically and syntactically, and the most striking difference seems to be

the head of the PrP, viz. the copula orsom. The difference in lexicalization is related to the

selecting matrix element. Eide and farli hypothesize that the selecting matrix element is averb not selecting for a verbal category whensomoccurs and a tense element when the copula

occurs. This predicts thatsomand the copula are in complementary distribution, except when

the head optionally selects a verbal category or a non-verbal category. The latter is precisely

the case with Norwegian perception verbs. Eide and farli point to (10) and (11) as evidence

that in such a case, there is no complementary distribution, which is a strong argument in

favor of treating bothsomand the copula as lexicalizations of the predication operator.


5/43

5

(10) Jeg s [naboen [som spkelse]].

I saw neighbor.DEFsoma ghost

I saw the neighbor as a ghost.

(11) Jeg s [naboen [vre spkelse]].

I saw neighbor.DEFbe a ghost (Eide and farli 1999: 167)

I saw the neighbor be a ghost.

In sum, it seems to be valid to assume the copula to be the head of PrP. This will be important

for what follows, thus I have taken some space to argue in favor of this position. In the next

section, I will turn to the specific diachronic framework that I will be using throughout the

paper.

3. Economy and grammaticalization

In recent years, grammaticalization has become an important research topic within generative

grammar, cf. Longobardi (2001), Roberts and Roussou (2003) and van Gelderen (2004a, b,

2007, 2008a, b). Within the functionalist paradigm, grammaticalization has been a crucial

topic for decades, see e.g. Lehmann (1985), Heine, Claudi and Hnnemeyer (1991), Hopper

and Traugott (1993) and Heine and Kuteva (2002, 2007). The present paper will mainly be

using the specific proposal laid out by Elly van Gelderen. Although several aspects between

her theory and Roberts and Roussous are similar, there are also important differences, which

I cannot deal with here for reasons of space. However, van Gelderen has in recent work

integrated grammaticalization and the linguistic cycle, and since the topic of this paper bears

on both issues, I think her framework is especially well-suited for analyzing the diachronic

source and development of copulas. In the present subsection, I will present the main aspects

of van Gelderens theory. First I will say something about economy and its role in our internalgrammar, and then I will discuss van Gelderens specific implementation of

grammaticalization as feature economy.

3.1. Economy, grammaticalization and features

Economy has been a pervasive aspect within the history of generative grammar. Here I am

primarily interested in the economy relating to grammatical derivations, not in the kind of

economy related to Ockhams razor. With the introduction of the minimalist program inlinguistic theory in the late 1980s (see Chomsky 1995 for a collection of the most central


6/43

6

papers), economy became one of the core principles of the program. One crucial aspect of

economy is that derivations have to be as cheap as possible, that is, the grammar always

chooses the least costly derivation. Another aspect is that childrens acquisition of language is

arguably driven by principles of economy (van Gelderen 2004a, b, 2007a, b, 2008a b,

Faarlund 2008). Van Gelderen (2004a, b) proposes two specific principles of

grammaticalization, namely (12) and (13).

(12) Head Preference Principle (HPP)

Be a head, rather than a phrase

(13) Late Merge Principle (LMP)

Merge as late as possible

These principles are argued to guide the child during acquisition, which also means that they

rely on the input. That is, the principles can only work when the input is ambiguous such that

there is more than one way to analyze the input data.2This relies on the assumption that it is

more economical to be a head than a phrase as heads are less complex, and the fact that late

Merge means that movement is avoided. Movement, even if seen as another species of Merge

(internal Merge, cf. Chomsky 2004), is more costly because it involves a process of copying

and remerging a lexical item during the derivation. External Merge does not involve copying,

which makes it cheaper (van Gelderen 2008b). Concretely, HPP means that a speaker will

prefer to build structures such as (14) rather than (15). I have followed van Gelderen in

labeling the projection FP and pro stands for a pronoun.

(14) FP (15) FP

ru ru

pro pro Fru

F .

Importantly, the HPP is a very specific and non-variant principle, as opposed to e.g. Hawkins

(2004) efficiency principle Minimize Forms or Stay within Optimality Theory (van

Gelderen 2008b). The LMP implies that Internal Merge (Move) is less economical than

2Obviously, this claim is in need of further substantiation which goes beyond the scope of this paper.


7/43

7

External Merge (pace Chomsky 2004), but I will refrain from discussing this further at this

point. As van Gelderen convincingly has shown, there are real empirical LMP effects, which

would be problematic to account for if Merge and Move were equally economical.

The second principle of economy, the LMP, works most clearly in the case of heads.

Some common examples of LMP at work are listed in (16) (van Gelderen 2008b).

(16) Preposition to complementizer (e.g.for)

(17) modals: v> Asp > T

(18) preposition to aspect (e.g. on)

(19) vP adverbials to TP/CP adverbials

(20) Negative objects to negative markers

One very common change that could be explained by reference to this principle is the well

known change in lexical verbs becoming modals in English (e.g. Traugott 1972, Lightfoot

1974, 1979, 1999, 2006, Plank 1984, Roberts 1985, 1993, Kroch 1989, Warner 1993,

Abraham 2002). In Middle English verbs like can,could,may,might,will,would,shallwere

full verbs. Lightfoot (2006: 90) summarizes the main differences by way of the following data

in (21)-(30).

(21) *He has could understand chapter 4.

(22) He has understood chapter 4.

(23) *Canning understand chapter 4,

(24) Understanding chapter 4,

(25) *He wanted to can understand.

(26) He wanted to understand.

(27) *He will can understand.(28) He will try to understand.

(29) *He can music.

(30) He understands music.

(21)-(30) show that modal auxiliaries differ from ordinary verbs in their distribution. A modal

does not occur with a perfective (21) or past participle (23), it does not occur in the infinitival

complement of another verb (25), nor as the complement of another modal (27), and no modalmay occur with a direct object (29). However, when modals were main verbs, these structures


8/43

8

were generally possible. Under the LMP, this change is straightforward.3(31) would be

preferred compared to (32) because the modal auxiliary is based generated higher in the

former than in the latter.

(31) TP (32) TP

ru ru

T vP T vP

might ru ru

v v

ru ru

v v might

Generally the LMP accounts for changes where a lexical head becomes a functional head, or

where a functional head becomes a higher functional head, both frequently described in the

literature on grammaticalization (see e.g. Heine & Kuteva 2002). However, the LMP can also

account for changes in the position of lexical phrases whereby lexical phrases become base

generated in the functional domain. Consider the examples in (33)-(34) (van Gelderen 2007a).

(33) Those who offend actually, are most grievously punished.

(34) Actually, it is kind of an interesting problem.

When actuallywas first introduced into the English language from French, it was an

adjective. In the 15th century it is used as a vP adverb (33). It may have been topicalized

frequently, leading to a change to a CP adverb (34). This change also shows that the LMP

works for both phrases and heads.

Recently, van Gelderen (2007b, 2008b) has reanalyzed the HPP and LMP, collapsing

them into one overall and more general principle, namely (35).

3

Notice, though, that the LMP does not say anything about whenthis change occurred. Obviously, the LMP is aprinciple that interacts with the external data, and unless the external data is such that the principle can kick in, itwont.


9/43

9

(35) Principle of Feature Economy

Minimize the semantic/interpretable features in the derivation

Adjunct Specifier Head > affix

Semantic > [iF] > [uF] > --

This is among others based on Radfords (2000) argument that interpretable features are

acquired before uninterpretable features, and the latter ones trigger the grammatical system.

Assuming that only heads are Probes (Chomsky 2005), (35) means that whenever the HPP is

at work, we get a (new) Probe. Interestingly, (35) also provides us with a formal definition of

what grammaticalization really is. It is a change whereby something becomes more

economical, i.e. where semantic features are reduced (on the assumption that uninterpretable

features are more economical than interpretable ones). This change in turn has syntactic

consequences, and the remained of the paper will be dealing with syntactic consequences

relating to copulas diachronically.

4. The copula cycle and features

In this section I will present various stages of what I take to be a copula cycle. First I will

present the cycle based on general theoretical considerations within the framework laid out in

section 3. This will function as a guiding heuristic when working our way through the

examples in the following sections. In section 4.2 I will describe changes where a specifier

develops into a head, viz. mainly demonstratives or pronouns that become copulas. Section

4.3 deals with the stage where a full verb has developed to a copula, that is, a head-to-head

change. This will be shown to be a prime example that the major cycle also has smaller sub-

stages. Section 4.4 discusses changes where the copula develops into a grammatical marker,

viz. a suffix. In section 4.5 I sum up the data and argue that the cycle proposed in 4.1 accountsstraightforwardly for the change.

4.1. The copula cycle

In the previous section I adopted a principle of feature economy that favors uninterpretable

features over interpretable features. This predicts that functional elements will start from

lexical elements, a prediction borne out by a wealth of attested examples in the literature. This

is also true for copulas, and Pustet (2003: 54) says that the main source for copulas seems tobe verbs and pronouns. Stassen (1997: 92-99) argues that there are three major diachronic


10/43

10

sources for (verbal) copulas. The first source is dynamic verbs covering the whole or parts of

the semantic domain which includes notions such as do/make/build, happen/occur go/turn

into/come/become and act(like) (Stassen 1997: 92-93). Examples of languages mentioned

by Stassen that employ this strategy are the Berber languages Tamazight and Shilha, various

Tibeto-Burman languages, Lahu, Lisu and Cambodian. The second source is what Stassen

calls copularization. This is a process where one of the members of the set of locational

support verbs becomes specialized as the support item for nominal predicates (Stassen 1997:

94). Commonly it is the semantically most neutral verb that undergoes this change. One

further step in this process is the gradual loss of locative meaning of the copular verb, thus the

language shifts towards a lexical differentiation of nominal and locational support items. The

Tanoan language Kiowa appears to be such a language. The only examples in which the item

/do:/ can act as a locative support where are sentences where it is accompanied by the particle

heaway, gone (37). Other locational contexts require the use of a set of different posture

verbs (38)-(39).4

(36) Te: Koy-gu ba-do: [Kiowa]

all Kiowa-UND2PL.UND-COP

You are all Kiowas

(37) Po: he: gya-do:

moon away PL-COP

There was (temporarily) no moon

(38) Guy-te -to:

other 3SG-stay

There is someone else here

(39) E:go yi: ol e-cel kicoy-ka

here two hair 3DUAL-COPin.soup-inThere are two hairs in the soup (Stassen 1997: 94)

4The abbreviations used in the glosses are as follows: 1, 2, 3 =person; ANIM = animate; ANT = anterior; AUX =auxiliary; C = noun class; CLASS = classifier; COMP = comparative case; COP = copula; DCL = declarative; DEF =definite; DEM = demonstrative; DETR = detransitivizer; DIST = distal; DUAL = dual; ERG = ergative case; ESS =essive case; EX = existential; FEM= feminine; FIN = finite; FM = focus-marker; FOCUS = focus/topic particle; FUT= future; GEN = genitive case; HAB = habitual; IMP = imperative; INAN = inanimate; INSTR = instrument; LOC =locative case; MASC= masculine;NM = nominalizer;NOM= nominative;NPL = nonplural marker; NPST = non-

past; PAT = patient; PERF = perfective; PL = plural; PROG = progressive; PROX = proximal; PRS = present; PST =past; PX = proximity marker; REL = relative marker; S = part of verb stem; SBJ = subject; SEQ = sequentialconverb; SG= singular; SUPER = superessive case; UND = undergoer-marker.


11/43

11

Other languages where copularization happens are the Yuman languages (Mojave, Cocopa,

Yavapai) and in North Carolina Cherokee (Stassen 1997: 94). The third source is the process

of verbalization, which can be viewed as the final stage of the grammaticalization process by

which pronouns and discourse particles are reanalysed as abstract linking morphemes in

predicate nominal sentences (Stassen 1997: 95). This process is especially frequent in many

African languages, e.g. Temne, Gola, Zande, Gbeya, Zulu and Shona, to mention but a few

(see Stassen 1997: 96 for a more comprehensive overview).

In the present paper, I will offer a different suggestion. I will propose a typology based

on structural positions. On the basis of the framework presented in section 3, I will try to

explain the cyclic nature of the changes in terms of feature economy. Note, though, that my

proposal is not incompatible with Stassens; it is another way of looking at the issues, and,

hopefully also a way to contribute with some different and further insights. Basically, I will

argue that there is a general copula cycle which looks like (40). Both the structural positions

and the feature contents of the lexical items are present (cf. Chomsky 2000 et seq.).

(40) demonstrative/pronoun > copula > grammatical marker

specifier > head > affix

iF > uF > --

Several interesting questions emerge from (40). What kind of specifier position do

demonstratives occupy? How do prepositions that develop into copulas fit into (40)? Are there

sub-changes internal to the cycle in (40)? Below I will address all of these questions. Section

4.2 discusses specifiers becoming heads, and I will argue that in most cases the relevant

specifier is the specifier of a predication phrase. This specifier then turns into the head of the

predication phrase (cf. the discussion in section 2). In section 4.3 I discuss the stage where the

copula is a head, and argues that changes take place within this stage of the cycle. Section 4.4discusses heads becoming affixes, that is, grammatical markers. Section 5 provides a short

summary.

4.2. Specifier to head

This section will discuss a number of examples showing that specifiers may develop into

copulas. The main part of the section will be devoted to demonstratives and pronouns

becoming copulas, but I will also somewhat briefly discuss existentials and prepositionsundergoing the same change.


12/43

12

4.2.1. Demonstratives and pronouns

There are several cases where a demonstrative or a pronoun has developed into a copula.5The

most famous case is the one described in Li and Thompson (1977), and their paper will also

play an important role in this section. However, towards the end I will also show that there are

several other attested cases of this change. I also think that the theoretical framework adopted

in this paper is a good alternative compared to functional theories of grammaticalization when

it comes to analyzing this change. As Devitt (1994: 143-144) points out, the change from

demonstratives and pronouns to copulas is somewhat problematic for grammaticization

theory if semantic generalization is assumed to be the key process in the development of

grammatical morphology. As will hopefully become evident, I think an advantage of the

formal theory of grammaticalization adopted here is that it is able to deal straightforwardly

with this change.

The most widely know case of a pronoun becoming a copula is the Mandarinsh,

discussed in Li and Thompsons (1977) seminal paper on the development of copula

morphemes.6In Archaic Chinese (11th -3rd B.C.), equational sentences did generally not

have a copula. This is shown in (41).

(41) Wng-Ti w zh" y" [Archaic Chinese]

Wang-Tai outstanding person DCL

Wang-Tai is an outstanding person (Li and Thompson 1977: 421)

In Modern Mandarin, the copulashregularly occurs in equational sentences:

(42) ni-ge rn sh xush#ng [Modern Mandarin]

that-CLASSman COPstudentThat man is a student (Li and Thompson 1977: 422)

5In some cases, it may be hard to determine whether a lexical item is a copula or a nominal element (cf. Dprez2003). However, I will not discuss any such cases in this paper.6Diessel (1999: 143-147) argues against Li and Thompsons (1977) analysis. He claims that the developments ofnonverbal copulas from third person pronouns and from demonstratives follow two different pathways.

However, I will argue that in both cases we are dealing with a case where a specifier becomes a head, whichjustifies subsuming the possible different pathways in the present paper. Possibly there might though be twoseparate sub-stages here.


13/43

13

This modern copula was a demonstrative in Archaic Chinese, as shown in the following

example:

(43) f$-z% zh y sh b&ng y" [Archaic Chinese]

Confucius arrive at this nation DCL

Confucius arrived at this nation (Li and Thompson 1977: 423)

However,shalso occurred in equational sentences in Archaic Chinese as an anaphoric

demonstrative pronoun:

(44) j y q sh#ng yo y q s' sh hu y"[Archaic Chinese]

already wish him live also wish him die this indecision DCL

wishing him to live while wishing him to die, that is indecision

(Li and Thompson 1977: 424)

Li and Thompson say that it seems fairly clear that the use ofshas a copula was productive

by the late Han period (1st -2nd century A.D.). In the vernacular literature, one finds

sentences such as (45) showingshas a copula.

(45) c' bi w sh h d"ng?

this white thing COPwhat kind

What kind of stuff is this white thing? (Li and Thompson 1977: 425)

The important thing, however, is that it is the use ofshas an anaphoric demonstrative

pronoun that gave rise to the modern copula construction: These topic-comment

constructions, then, set the stage for reanalysis: the topic-comment construction without acopula became a subject predicate construction with the anaphoric demonstrative pronounsh

being reanalyzed as a copula (Li and Thompson 1977: 425). Importantly, Li and Thompson

argue that there are some ambiguous data that favor this analysis. The data in (46)-(47) could

in fact well be interpreted as subject-predicate equational sentences. They are given a topic-

comment interpretation because there is no sentence in Archaic Chinese whereshfunctions

solely as a copula verb.


14/43

14

(46) zh( r sh%zh%, sh b rn y" [Archaic Chinese]

know then use him, this not kind DECL

To use him knowing (that he would rebel), that was unkind.

(47) j y q sh#ng yo y q s%, sh hu y"

already wish him live also wish him die, this indecision DCL

Wishing him to live while wishing him to die, that is indecision.

(Li and Thompson 1977: 424)

Since (46)-(47) are open to multiple analyses, this made it very likely that children analyzed

these strings differently at a later stage, given that there is sufficient representation of the

structures in the input (Lightfoot 1999). Ambiguity in the input (the primary linguistic data) is

a common source for language change (and often very little input is required; see Westergaard

2008), thus it is not incidental that the demonstrative pronoun develops into a copula when we

assume the principles of economy given in section 2. Let me now show how this can be

analyzed formally.

We have seen that a demonstrative can develop into a copula in Chinese. I will suggest

that the demonstrative is in SpecPrP, and that through the HPP it is analyzed as head of the

PrP. Using the sentences in (48) and (49) (repeated from above for expository convenience),

there is a change from (50) to (51).

(48) Wng-Ti w zh" y"

Wang-Tai outstanding person DCL

Wang-Tai is an outstanding person (=(41))

(49) ni-ge rn sh xush#ng

that-CLASSman COPstudent

That man is a student (=(42))

(50) PrP

ei

Wng-Ti Pr

ei

Pr w zh"


15/43

15

(51) PrP

ei

nige rn Pr

ei

Pr xush#ng

sh

In order to see this change even clearer, consider the part in bold in (52) (=(46)).

(52) zh( r sh%zh%, sh b rn y" [Archaic Chinese]

know then use him, this not kind DECL

To use him knowing (that he would rebel), that was unkind.

The stage whereshwas a demonstrative is given in (53), and the new stage where it is

analyzed as a copula is given in (54). The structures are simplified by not showing any of the

higher functional projections.

(53) PrP

ei

sh Pr

ei

Pr b rn

(54) PrP

ei

6 Pr

zh(r sh%zh% ei

Pr b rn

sh

These examples show how a formal theory can be used to explain the changes in question.

However, I would like to point out an important issue at this point. Van Gelderen (2004b: 73ff.) has invoked exactly this specifier-to-head change to explain how demonstratives may


16/43

16

develop into complementizers. I think the fact that demonstratives become both

complementizers and copulas show a crucial point: it is of utmost importance in which

specifieran element is. If an element is in SpecCP, it may become a complementizer; if it is in

SpecPrP, it may become a copula. Consequently, an element in SpecCP is predicted not to

develop into a copula. The latter change has to the best of my knowledge not been attested.

Notice that this is not a novel proposal about the framework I am adopting, but I think the

data that have been discussed underline this fact even further. Let us now look at more cases

of this change across various languages.

Li and Thompson claim that analogous processes like the Chinese one have taken

place in Hebrew, Palestinian Arabic and Wappo. What is particularly interesting for our

purposes is that they argue that there are traits of full cycles in both Hebrew and Palestinian

Arabic. I will use the former language to illustrate the process.

In Hebrew, the triliteral verbal copula, h-y-yis not used in the present tense. Instead,

one finds that equational sentences contain a demonstrative pronoun or a personal pronoun (if

the subject is non-sentential):

(55) [)e nitnaged lo] ze m*guxax [Hebrew ]

that we.will.oppose.to him this absurd

It would be absurd for us to oppose him.

(56) mo)e (ze) student )eli

Moshe that student my

Moshe is a student of mine

(57) ata (hu) ha-ganav

you he DEF-thief

You are the thief. (Li and Thompson 1977: 427)

For most speakers, according to Berman and Grosu (1976), the humorpheme is optional in

sentences containing pronominal subjects but obligatory in sentences with full DP subjects:

(58) David hu ha-ganav [Hebrew]

David he DEF-thief

David is the thief

(59) *David ha-ganavDavid THE-thief (Li and Thompson 1977: 428)


17/43

17

There are several other restrictions on where huappears (Li and Thompson 1977: 428-429).

These suggest, Li and Thompson argue, that pronouns are being reanalyzed as copulas in

Modern Hebrew. Recent research has also supported this view: Colloquial Hebrew uses the

overt copula with ever increasing frequency (Katz 1996: 87). Two arguments are advanced

in favor of this claim. First, the morphemeszeand huare also able to function as pronouns:

(60) ze me)une [Hebrew]

Thats strange

(61) hu ohev et-Rivka

he loves ACC-Rivka

He loves Rivka (Li and Thompson 1977: 429)

Sentences such as (62) have completed the transition from topic-comment to subject-predicate

equational sentences according to Li and Thompson (1977: 429-431).

(62) David hu ha-ganav [Hebrew]

David he DEF-thief

David is the thief (Li and Thompson 1977: 429)

I will not present the arguments in favor of this view. Instead I will direct attention to another

phenomenon, discussed by Katz (1996). The following example shows that the copula does

not agree in Person with its subject. The subject is second person, but the form of the copula

is nevertheless the invariant hu.

(63) Ata hu ha-i) [Hebrew]thou.MASCCOPDEF-man

You are the man (Katz 1996: 90)

Katz argues that this mismatch in persons shows that huis a copula and not merely a deictic

marker: The loss of the category of person is one property which leads us to conclude that

the erstwhile pronouns have grammaticalized in such utterances, and are for all intents and

purposes full fledged copulas (Katz 1996: 90; cf. Devitt 1994: 140).


18/43

18

An interesting important point is nevertheless that we have seen a development where

a copula disappears (h-y-y) and a new copula hudevelops from a pronoun. As Li and

Thompson (1977: 438) say, Thus, it seems that the emergence and decline of the copula may

be seen as a diachronic cycle. The cycle is clearly very complex. This is further supported by

data in Katz (1996) who presents evidence that copulas may become pronouns.

Katz (1996: 118-133) argues that the Turkish third person singular pronoun o(n)

developed from the third person singular present of the copula verb. In pre-nineteenth century

texts, the usual form of the third person absolutive was ol, and not oas it is today. The olroot

is also found in another instance, namely in the verb olmakto exist. Katz says that olwas

also used as the equivalent of the copula in the early period. As evidence for the directionality

ol> o, she points towards the fact that in earlier texts, both were used interchangeably. In

modern texts, ois the only form. Regarding the verb olmakto exist, it is clear that this verb

shares the common root with the demonstrative pronoun olsince -makis the infinitival

ending. Katz (1996: 122-123) also presents two main arguments for why the pronoun

developed from the copula and not the other way around. First, it is only in the very earliest

texts that the pronoun has a copula function. This seems to indicate that the copula function

emerged earlier, and that the pronoun is the new form. Second, early Turkish oral texts used

independent pronouns sparsely whereas Modern Turkish uses them amply. Here too, the

pronoun form seems to be the innovative one. Based on this, it seems clear that the verbal

form oldeveloped into the pronoun o(n) (see Katz 1996: 120 on the nasal).

Going back to demonstratives becoming copulas, another interesting case is Panare.

Panare has three different copulas, as shown in (64)-(66).

(64) maestro kj eapa [Panare]

teacher COP.ANIM.PROXPanare

The Panare is (PROX) a.teacher(65) maestro nj eapa

teacher COP.ANIM.DISTa.teacher

The Panare is (DIST) a teacher.

(66) echipen mn manko

fruit INANmango

Mango is a fruit (Gildea 1993: 55)


19/43

19

These examples show that the different copula depends on whether the third person subject is

animate or inanimate and whether they are inside or outside the speakers sphere of

perception. First and second person subjects in Panare have no copula:

(67) maestro yu/amen [Panare]

teacher 1SG/2SG

I am/You are a teacher (Gildea 1993: 54)

Gildea (1993: 56) says that: It is clear on morphological grounds that the copulas kj, nj and

mn are derived from nonverbal elements in that verbs take tense/aspect suffixes and prefixes

which agree with the subject for person, while these copulas take no affixes and they vary

suppletively to agree with the subject for animacy. The nonverbal forms which most

resemble these copulas are the pronouns knANIM.INVISIBLE, njwho? and mn

INAN.INVISIBLE. Gildea argues that the nonverbal copulas and these pronouns are derived

from the same historical set of pronouns, viz. demonstratives. There are two reasons for this

claim. First, demonstrative pronouns are not used with first or second persons, which fits well

with the fact that nonverbal copulas neither are used with these persons (67). Second, the

deictic opposition is common for demonstrative pronouns, cf. English thisand that. As

Gildea (1993: 58) points out, there is one difference between Panare and the examples

discussed by Li and Thompson (1977). In the latter case, all word orders are subject-predicate,

whereas in Panare the order is predicate-subject. He proposes that in Panare we have left

dislocation (instead of right dislocation as in Chinese):A teacher [is] he, John. Thus the

demonstrative was required as the subject, and a new analysis happened. It seems likely that

left dislocation has worked as a kind of trigger in Panare, just as right dislocation has in

Chinese. That is, both types of dislocations provided a natural domain for the emergence of

the copula.7What happens further, and which shows that the demonstrative has separated from the

subject semantically is that the deixis expressed by the copula may differ from that expressed

by the subject. An example is shown in (68).

7It may be that prosody plays a role in these changes, but that question goes beyond the scope of this study.


20/43

20

(68) maestro nj mj [Panare]

teacher ANIM.DIST ANIM.VISIBLE

This (here) guy was a teacher.

[he (PROX) is (DIST) a teacher] (Gildea 1993: 61)

The subject in (68) is mjANIM.VISIBLE, so the spatial dexis is proximal (i.e. the person is

right here); the copula is njANIM.DIST, so the temporal deixis is distal (i.e. not right now).

Distal temporal deixis is most commonly interpreted as past. Based on this, Gildea argues that

the historical demonstrative pronouns have become synchronic tense markers. In the final

step, these copulas develop into auxiliaries. The following examples show how kjand njare

used as verbal auxiliaries for aspect-marked verbs ( is a non-agreeing intransitive prefix).

(69) pmanpj kj Toman

A.DETR.hit.IMPERF.IANIM.PROXToman

Tom is falling (and landing with an impact)

(70) ?pmanpj nj Toman

A.DETR.hit.IMPERF.IANIM.DISTToman

Tom is falling (DIST) (Gildea 1993: 65)

The only difference between these clauses is the choice of auxiliary. In (69), the auxiliary is

kj, and as the translation shows, the clause is in the present tense. (70) has the auxiliary nj,

and although the clause is translated into present tense, it is understood to be occurring at a

spatially distal location (Gildea 1993: 65). Gildea (1993: 67-68) then shows that these

auxiliaries share syntactic properties with prototypical tense markers in Panare; see his work

for discussion.

Homonymies are also indicative of grammaticalization processes. In the languageKenya Luo, the third person pronoun can optionally be used as a copula, as shown in (71).

(71) dhk +n br [Kenya Luo]

woman COPgoodness

woman she is goodness (Tucker 1993: 308)

(72) dhk ber

woman goodnesswoman she is goodness (Tucker 1993: 308)


21/43

21

In Lango, a language closely related to Kenya Luo, the grammaticalization has moved further.

The original pronominal function is not transparent any more, and the copula !noccurs not

only with third person singular subjects:

(73) n ,n dktl [Lango]

1SG COP 1SG.doctor.HAB

I am the doctor (Noonan 1992: 146)

Again we see a process where pronouns develop into copulas. This is also the case in Lakota.

In this language the copula hc"ais etymologically based on the demonstrative pronoun h

this and the element c"asuch. Neither hnor c"aare compatible with verbal inflectional

categories: hc"a, however, can be inflected like a stative intransitive verb (Pustet 2003: 56):

(74) wa)cu he-m-cha [Lakota]

white.man S-1SG.PAT-COP

I am a white man (Pustet 2003: 68)

(75) Phalni he-m-cha

Pawnee.Indian S-1SG.PAT.COP

I am a Pawnee Indian (Pustet 2003: 69)

Lastly, let us have a look at one more case study. McWhorter (1997) (see also

McWhorter 1995) discusses whether copulas in English-based Atlantic creoles emerged due

to influence from West African copula systems or whether copulas are the result of

independent developments. Some data relevant to this issue are provided in (76)-(77). (76)-

(77) show that Ewe uses one copula in an equative context and another copula in a locative

context.

(76) L -nye t-mel [Ewe]

crocodile he-COPaquatic.ANIMAL

The crocodile is an animal that lives in the water


22/43

22

(77) -l x- me

he-COPhouse in

He is in the house (McWhorter 1997: 243)

The Sranan creole has a similar pattern, as shown in (78)-(79).

(78) Mi na datra [Sranan]

I COPdoctor

I am a doctor

(79) A de na ini Sranan Kondre

he COP LOC inside Surinam

He is in Surinam (McWhorter 1997: 243)

McWhorther argues against the hypothesis that the copula systems in creoles are the result of

influence from the West African languages (though see Migge 2002 for a critical discussion).

On the basis of data from Arends (1989), he shows that a zero copula is possible in the oldest

Sranan documents (the example is from 1770).

(80) Mi blibi joe wan bon mattie fo dem. [Sranan]

I believe you a good friend for them

I believe youre a good friend of theirs (McWhorter 1997: 244)

Arends argues that the copula evolved from the demonstrative dathat:

(81) Adjabre, da Djutongo [Sranan]

adjabre that Jews languageAdjabre is Saramaccan (McWhorter 1997: 244)

The modern copula emerged when what McWhorter calls a resumptive to a preceding topic is

analyzed as a copula. That is, the demonstrative dais analyzed as a copula at a later stage.

McWhorter also discusses the development of the locative copula de. He discusses

several ways of analyzing this issue (1997: 247-250), which I will not go into here. Instead, I

will just give his suggestion as to how this copula emerged. In contemporary Saramaccan, the


23/43

23

deictic adverb deis often optionally inserted into sentences in order to lend deictic emphasis.

Thus using deshows that the utterance is expressive.

(82) Niti fa mi de a Winiki d!, niti mi ji ta [Saramaccan]

never since I COP LOCWinikii there never I hear talk

Never since Ive been there at Winikii have I heard that

(83) D Gaam d Kfi g lku d! d. ku suwki d!

THEchief RELKofi go see there COPwith sickness there

The chief who Kofi went to look at is sick (McWhorter 1997: 250)

McWhorter argues that it is from this usage that dein Modern Saramaccan is derived. At first

there was no expression of the locative copula, just as we have seen for the equative copula:

(84) D wmi a wsu [Saramaccan]

THEman LOChouse

The man is at home (McWhorter 1997: 250)

McWhorter says that however, it would have been a common expressive strategy to insert an

expressive deictic debetween subject and the predicate, similar to todays usage (1997: 250):

(85) D wmi de a wsu [Saramaccan]

THEman there LOChouse

The man is there at home (McWhorter 1997: 250)

This deictic marker was now ripe to be analyzed differently by new speakers as these speakers

already had heard a number of Ewe sentences where the copula was obligatory:

(86) l x- me [Ewe]

he COPhouse in

He is in the house (McWhorter 1997: 251)

Thus, deis no longer an adverbial but a copula:

(87) D wmi d a wsu [Saramaccan]


24/43

24

THEman COP LOChouse

The man is at home (McWhorter 1997: 251)

Hence, the transition to a copula is complete.

In sum, we have seen a number of examples where demonstratives and/or pronouns

develop into copulas. I have claimed that this is an instance of a preference in acquisition for

analyzing elements as heads instead of specifiers, following van Gelderen (2004a, b et seq.).

In the next section I show another case of this change, namely copulas emerging from

existentials.

4.2.2. Existentials

Another pathway where copulas emerge is from existentials. This is not a widely attested

change, but data from Chalcatongo Mixtec show that it exists: Mixtec also allows a

construction in which the existential is used with an adjective. This construction []

apparently has the same meaning as the normal copula + adjective construction (Macaulay

1996: 87). To see this clearly, observe that the normal copula in Mixtec is ka.

(88) x! ka ll [Chalcatongo Mixtec]

Juan COPsmall

Jus is small/short (Macaulay 1996: 130)

The existential marker in the language is !oothere is:

(89) in kax wa" /oo tenn [Chalcatongo Mixtec]

insides box DEFEX tomato

in the box there are tomatoes (Macaulay 1996: 129)

The existentiale can also be used as a copula, which arguably is the new function.

(90) k#s#/ x [Chalcatongo Mixtec]

pot COP new

the pot is new/there is a new pot (lit. as for the pot, it exists new)

(Macaulay 1996: 130)


25/43

25

These two cases show that existentials may develop into copulas. I will argue that this change

is just another specifier to head change. That is, simplified structures of (89) and (90) would

look like (91) and (92).

(91) PrP

ei

/oo Pr

ei

Pr tenn

(92) PrP

ei

k#s# Pr

ei

Pr x

/

This presupposes a certain view on existentials. It seems reasonable to analyze these

existentials on a par with expletives like English there, which means that they are phrases. I

will assume, following the argumentation in Richards (2004), Richards and Biberauer (2005)

and Biberauer and Richards (2006) that expletives are merged in what corresponds to SpecPrP

in my framework (cf. also farli 2005 within a somewhat different perspective). Given that,

the analysis should be straightforward.

4.2.3. Summary

In this section I have discussed a number of examples of what I have analyzed as a change

from an element being a specifier to an element becoming a head. The main cases have been

demonstratives and pronouns that develop into copulas, but we have also seen that existentials

may undergo a similar change. In the next section, I will discuss cases where a head develops

into a different head.


26/43

26

4.3. Head-to-head

There are a number of cases where full verbs develop into copulas. However, there are also

cases where copulas develop into auxiliaries. Both of these changes do not involve change of

projection type both are heads but I will argue that the nature of the heads change. In this

section I will provide examples of these changes and an analysis.

4.3.1 Full verbs

It is well-attested in the literature that full verbs may develop into functional elements. A

famous case is the development of English full verbs into modals (see the references in

section 3). A similar change is where full verbs become copulas. This has even happened in

English; the past tense forms of become from wesmeaning to stay, to remain (Devitt 1994:

128). In this section I will give some further examples and an analysis.

In Alyawarra, copula constructions either use the verb animato sit or ayntimato

lie. These verbs have still retained their basic postural sense. This is shown in (93)-(94).

(93) an-il-ayant-a nhilantiya [Alyawarra]

sit-LIG-AUX-IMPhere.still

Sit here for a while ; stay here

(94) ayinga alingkarr-a an-ina

I.NOMtired-NOMsit-PAST.CONT

I was tired; I sat feeling tired. (Devitt 1994: 129)

Similar cases are found in other languages. The simplex verb ci-in Chantyal has extended it

meaning beyond the expression of a basic posture sense. The original use is shown in (95),

and the new copula meaning in (96)-(97).

(95) Ram kurci-phyara0ci-I [Chantyal]

Ram chair-SUPER sit-PERF

Ram sat on the chair (Noonan and Grunow-Hrsta 2002: 82)

(96) cater n* k$i n* mast*r ci-wa p*ri-m b$i-i

then FOCUSyou FOCUS teacher sit-NM happen-NPSTsay-PERF

Your have to be the teacher, they said from that time on

(97) m*%ya k$i-ye $*nuwar lu%-i ci-si-mlove you-GENappearance shine-ANTsit-ANT-NPST


27/43

27

(My) love, your appearance seems to shine (Noonan and Grunow-Hrsta 2002: 87)

There is also a copula, mu(with the allomorphs mand mu), which derives historically from

a verb meaning sit/stay. This copula has developed into an auxiliary verb and a non-past

suffix on verbs (cf. Turunen 2006 for a similar change in Erzya). (98)-(99) show the auxiliary

and (100)-(101) show the affix.

(98) na kam-ri t$o-wa-b$*nda p*yle, Ram kam la-wa mu [Chantyal]

I work-LOCarrive-NM-COMP before Ram work do-NM COP.NPST

Even before I get to work, Ram will be working

(99) c* din n* b*nnu n* b$*r*-ysi-wa mu-wa $in-si-m

that day FOCUSgun FOCUSfill-ANT-NOMCOP-NM COP-ANT-NPST

That day, it turned out that the gun was loaded

(Noonan and Grunow-Hrsta 2002: 89)

(100) na-s*sar-mu

I-ERGkill-NPST

Ill kill it

(101) *mrika-ne-ma-thy la-si-r* ci-m

America-person-PL-ESSdo-ANT-SEQsit-NPST

He sits down like an American (Noonan and Grunow-Hrsta 2002: 88)

Interestingly, we see almost a full cycle here. First we have a full verb, then a copula, then an

auxiliary and finally an affix. Below we will see further instances of these separate stages, but

it is noticeable that we seem to find all of them gathered in one language. This also speaks in

favor of the present theory as we would expect such cycles to emerge in individual languages.

Munro (1977) argues on the basis of data from Mojave that existential constructions

also should be included in the possible sources for copulas (see also Hengeveld 1992: 254-

255; and see e.g. Devitt 1994: 138 for a dissenting view on the direction of the change). The

discussion centers around sentences like (102).

(102) John k!a&'ide:-1-ido-p1 [Mojave]

John doctor-SBJ 3SG-COP-PERF

John is a doctor (Munro 1977: 445)


28/43

28

It is problematic to analyze a sentence like (102). The subject isJohn, although k#a$%ide:

doctor is grammatically marked as the subject. Munro (1977: 450) proposes that the subject

actually isJohn k#a$%ide:John (is) doctor, i.e a predication embedded by the verb ido. That

is, the paraphrase is better given as (103).

(103) There is [John (is) doctor]

Under this analysis, the subject is the embedded non-verbal predication, and the existential

verb may be expected to show agreement with this (inherently third person singular). The

following examples show that this prediction is borne out.

(104) Man('n(e-1 -ido-p1 [Mojave]

2SG 1SG-SBJ 3SG-COP-PF

Youre me.

(105) 'in(ep k!a&'ide:-1-ido-p1

1SG doctor-SBJ 3SG-COP-PF

Im a doctor. (Munro 1977: 452-453)

However, if the verb in (102) were a regular copula, we expect that it would agree with the

subject of the embedded non-verbal predication. This is indeed found:

(106) 'in(ep k!a&'ide:-1'-ido-p1 [Mojave]

1SG doctor-SBJ 1SG-COP-PF

Im a doctor (Munro 1977: 452)

As Hengeveld (1992: 255) argues: The fact that [(102)] and [(106)] exist side by side may be

taken as a sign of copularization of the existential verb used in a reality construction.

Regarding the analysis of these cases, I claim that this change is fully compatible with

the perspective adopted in this paper. Whereas full verbs project a VP and moves from V to

Pr (copies indicated by strikethrough below), the copula is merged directly in Pr. In other

words, instead of the structure in (107), we have the structure in (108).


29/43

29

(107) PrP

ei

SUBJECT Pr

ei

Pr VP

verb ei

V

ei

V

verb

(108) PrP

ei

SUBJECT Pr

ei

Pr PREDICATE

copula

In (108) the copula is directly merged in the PrP, thus there is no VP below it. Alternatively,

there might be a VP, but then this VP is lexicalized by a full verb (see Pustet 2003 for

languages where this is the case), and there is no movement from V to Pr. In other words, this

change is a consequence of the Late Merge Principle. The verb goes from a lexical element to

a functional element. If argument structure is part of syntax through features (Hornstein 1999,

2001), these features will be lost when a full verb changes into a copula. In the next section,

we will look at auxiliaries that develop from copulas.

4.3.2. Auxiliaries

Copulas that have developed from full verbs can also develop further. As Kuteva (2001: 67)

mentions, a copula derived from a bodily posture verb can develop further into an auxiliary.8

The Latin postural verbstarestand developed into the copula estarin Spanish, meaning to

8This shows that semantic restrictions are important to the cycle as well. However, I will not try to deal with thespecific role of semantics in the present paper.


30/43

30

be (somewhere, or temporarily) (Comrie 1976: 102). In Modern Spanish, this verb has

developed into a progressive auxiliary (109). We find the same structure in Italian (110).

(109) estoy cantando [Spanish]

I.stand singing

I am singing

(110) sto cantando [Italian]

I.stand singing

I am singing (Comrie 1976: 102)

Similar developments are attested in Imonda (Kuteva 2001: 65):

(111) ag-iani sabla ed-ia ekuk lh-ual-fna [Imonda]

women-NPLtwo PX-LOCdistance stand-DUAL-PROG

The two women were standing there in the distance.

(112) pilin ed-ia fa-hd-lh-f.

plate PX-LOCCLASS-put.up-COP-PRS

The plate is up there. (Heine and Kuteva 2002: 282)

Though, as Kuteva points out, this is by no means a universal auxiliation process (2001: 67).

However, we see traits of it in English, cf. (113).

(113) The car is arriving.

Devitt (1994) argues that the directionality in these cases is one where copulas develop into

auxiliaries. He notes a strong tendency for forms that serve as an auxiliary for progressive orcontinuous aspect to also appear as copulas in locative complements. This is shown for two

languages in (114)-(117).

(114) amu e idu tani manji manamu [Kui]

1P(IN) that house in COP.PRS.PRTCOP.1P(IN)

We are staying in that house

(115) anu lakai mai1S sacrifice.PRS.PRTCOP.1S


31/43

31

(116) nga di der al [Nung]

1S come PART COP PRES

I am (in the act of) coming

(117) magma hpe chum hka ma al

chief MASChouse in NEG COP PRES

The chief is not in his house (Devitt 1994: 174)

According to Devitt, in these cases the auxiliaries have developed from copulas. I will now

show how these cases can be analyzed.

An auxiliary is syntactically different compared to a copula in that the auxiliary is

commonly taken to be directly merged in the middle field, the IP domain. Once again, this is a

Late Merge effect. The change can be illustrated by comparing the somewhat simplified trees

in (118) and (119).

(118) IP

ei

I

ei

I PrP

copula ei

Pr

ei

P

copula


32/43

32

(119) IP

ei

I

ei

I PrP

auxiliary ei

Pr

ei

P VP

verb 5

verb

In (118) the copula is merged in PrP and moved to IP (in order to get inflected for tense and

other agreement properties). In (119), the auxiliary is directly merged in IP, and there is a

different verb in the argument domain of the clause. The next section discusses a slightly

different case where a head develops into a new head, namely adpositions becoming copulas.

4.3.3. AdpositionsAdpositions may be taken as another possible source of copulas. In Gbeya, the copula n!"

resembles the preposition n!"in several respects (Samarin 1966: 76). The copula n!"is

peculiar because it is used in combination with other copular elements, and seems to occur

exclusively with the verbs &andya, the singular and plural verbs to be (Samarin 1966: 77).

(120) wa y n)2 wey [Gbeya]

3PL COP.PL COPmanthey are men

(121) ta *2 n) bu

tree COP.SG. COPwhite

the tree is white (Samarin 1966: 77)

Frajzyngier (1986) discusses Chadic languages and argues that a grammaticalization from

preposition to copula has happened in several of these languages. He calls the copulas in theselanguages locative copulas. A few examples are provided in (122)-(124).


33/43

33

(122) kn g m [Bolewa]

buffalo COP in water

A buffalo is in the water

(123) kn g m s

buffalo COPin water not

The buffalo is not in the water

(124) s+-n k rw

shirt-1SG COPon tree

My shirt is on the tree (Frajzyngier 1986: 372)

(122)-(124) are all ungrammatical if either or the preposition following is deleted. These

examples can be categorized as belonging to the type (125). There is another type as well

(126), which makes it possible to test whether we are dealing with a copula in (122)-(124), or

whether we are dealing with two prepositions in a row.

(125) X is in/at Y

(126) X VERB Z in/at Y

If is a preposition, we would expect it to occur in (125) as well as in (126). However, if is

a copula, we would not expect it to occur in (126). The relevant data are provided in (127)-

(129), which show that the copula disappears in this configuration.

(127) zet s+ g k rw [Bolewa]

put shirt in on tree

Put the shirt on a tre

(128) sn zu s+-n g g ngrk

3SGput shirt-3SG in in bag

He put his shirt into a bag (Frajzyngier 1986: 372)

(129) mm m g klb g g sr-n

person DEMwith bottle in in hand-3MASC

That man has a bottle in his hand (Frajzyngier 1986: 373)


34/43

34

Frajzyngier also discusses the direction of the change: Did locative copulas emerge from

prepositions or did prepositions emerge from locative copulas? He discards the latter option

based on the fact that prepositions are far more frequent than copulas, thus it makes more

sense that in some languages a copula emerged than to say that such a copula disappeared

from most of the languages.

The question is now how we are to analyze this change within the current framework.

On standard assumptions, both prepositions and copulas are heads. Adopting the proposal in

Pesetsky and Torrego (2004: 518), we can assume that prepositions have the following feature

content (I have modified the notation slightly).

(130) PP

ei

P DP

uphi iphi

iCase uCase

In (130), uphi stands for unvalued phi-features whereas iphi stands for valued phi-features.

Pesetsky and Torrego (2001, 2004) argue that Case is best understood in terms of a displaced

Tense feature, but I have just put Case instead of T for expository convenience. The

unvalued phi-feature makes prepositions into a probe, which is necessary given the Agree

framework in Chomsky (2000, 2001, 2004, 2005, 2007). The Case feature is a valued feature

on P on this approach. Assuming the Economy of Features principle, we can argue that the

learner will try to get rid of this feature if possible. When this Case feature is removed, the

feature content is identical to copulas. A possible problem here is that the feature content also

resembles complementizers, and a very similar story has been invoked in order to explain how

prepositions may become complementizers (van Gelderen 2008b). At present it is not entirely

clear what the main difference is. Judging from the data above, it seems that those

prepositions that become copulas have a limited distribution. Specifically, they tend to occur

in the middle field, which is not the case for many of those prepositions that become

complementizers, at least not in English (van Gelderen 2008b). This might provide the learner

with a cue, that is, there need to be a certain structural relationship in order for a preposition

to become a copula in order for the Head Preference Principle to be involved in relation to the

PredP. This is also related to the discussion regarding whether a demonstrative develops into a


35/43

35

complementizer or a copula, cf. section 4.2.1. At present I am not able to formulate very

specific criteria for this relationship, but hopefully future research will elucidate this.

Heine and Kuteva (2002: 100) also quote a few cases of a locative copula developing

into a locative preposition. One such example is lebe at in Ewe with becomes a preposition

meaning at:

(131) agbal)3 le kpl*3 dz. [Ewe]

Book.def be.at table.def on

The book is on the table.

(132) me kp*2l*2ri le m*2dz.

1sg see lorry at street top

I saw a lorry on the street. (Heine and Kuteva 2002: 100)

Heine (1993) and Heine and Kuteva (2002: 101) view this as an instance of

grammaticalization. In the present framework, I would view such examples as cases of

renewal. That is, a cycle starts over again, with the new preposition having a potential to

redevelop into a copula, given the adequate external influence such that one of the economy

principles is able to work.

In this section we have seen a few examples of prepositions that change into copulas.

In the next main section, I discuss cases where a head develops into a grammatical marker.

4.4. Head to affix

So far we have seen changes where a specifier becomes a head and where a head becomes a

different head. In this section, I will look at cases where heads develop into affixes.

Typologically, copulas as affixes are not very frequent: In the majority of cases, copulas are

free morphemes (Pustet 2003: 39).

The copula niin Yoruba is homophonous with the general focus marker in the

language (Stassen 1997: 96):

(133) Oni,wo ni mi [Yoruba]

merchant COP 1SG

I am a merchant (Ashiwaju 1968: 28)


36/43

36

(134) Ll)2 ni w*2n d

in.the.evening FMthey arrived

It was in the evening that they arrived (Bamgb-se 1966: 37)

Verbal copulas may evolve into affixes. Modern Turkish has two different copular affixes,

though they occur in a very restricted set of contexts. One of them is the palatal glidey.

Notice that it can only be used after non-consonants (135):

(135) (ben) sat-c--y--m [Turkish]

1SG seller-COP-1SG

I am a seller (Kornfilt 1997: 77)

(136) (ben) 4retmen-im

1SG teacher-1SG

I am a teacher (Kornfilt 1997: 78)

As Kornfilt argues,yis an insertion rule restricted to morpheme boundaries in copula

sentences. If it were a general phonological rule ofy-insertion between vowels, even restricted

to morpheme boundaries, we would expect (137) to be grammatical.

(137) *kitab-- oku-du-y-um [Turkish]

book-ACCread-PAST-Y-1SG (Kornfilt 1997: 78)

There is a diachronic fact supportingyas a copula. Until the early years of the Republic (that

is, in the early 20th century), tense and agreement markers in copula sentences were attached

to a free morpheme iin the past tenses (138)-(139).

(138) (ben) sat-c-i-di-m [Turkish]

1SG seller COP-PST-1SG

I was a seller

(139) (ben) 4retmen i-di-m

1SG teacher COP-PST-1SG

I was a teacher (Kornfilt 1997: 80)


37/43

37

These inflected copular forms then developed to postclitics, and during this change, the

copular iturned into the glidey. Still one does find the free inflected copula in written

Turkish, according to Kornfilt, which nicely illustrates that there was such a previous stage

and that the transition has not yet made it entirely into writing. Thus, the reduced forms are:

(140) (ben) sat-c--y-di-m [Turkish]

1SG seller-COP-PST-1SG

I was a seller

(141) (ben) 4retmen-di-m

1SG teacher-PST-1SG

I was a teacher (Kornfilt 1997: 79)

There are other analyses ofyas a copula; Jansky (1954: 36) argues thatyis a linking

consonant that appears in specific phonological contexts. However, I think Kornfilt has

provided convincing evidence that this is not an adequate analysis and thatyindeed is a true

copula.

The other copula element in Turkish is the suffix DIr, a suppletive form for the

copula (Kornfilt 1997: 81). The historical source of DIris the verb to stand (Devitt 1994:

128, Pustet 2003: 58). It is used in the third person present only, and it is always optional, but

this is the only place where it is optional (Kornfilt 1997: 82).

(142) bu cadde-dir [Turkish]

this road-COP.3PRS

this is a road

(143) bu cadde

this roadthis is a road (Pustet 2003: 58)

Again, we see a copula emerging from a previous full verb.

4.5. Summary

In this section I have provided a number of examples in support of a copula cycle. The cycle,

I have argued, looks like (144).


38/43

38

(144) demonstrative/pronoun > copula > grammatical marker

specifier > head > affix

iF > uF > --

I have argued that the major transitions are those where a specifier becomes a head and a head

becomes an affix. However, I have also claimed that there are minor stages within each main

stage in (144). In particular, a verb may develop into a copula. Since a verb is already a head,

this is not a category change. Instead, I have argued that verbs and copulas are merged in

different positions, viz. the VP and the PrP.

5. Conclusion

The aim of this paper has been twofold. On the one hand, I have wanted to describe the major

patterns in which copulas emerge and disappear, what I have called the copula cycle. On the

other hand, I have tried to show that a formal theory of grammaticalization is a good

framework in order to account for and explain these changes. When demonstratives and

pronouns become heads, this is a change from the specifier of a predication phrase to a head

of the same phrase. In terms of features, it means that interpretable features are replaced by

uninterpretable features. I have also shown how full verbs become copulas, and subsequently

how copulas may turn into auxiliaries or grammatical markers. In sum, I have argued in favor

of a copula cycle involving three major stages, but also that these stages in many cases have a

more fine-grained internal cartography.

References

farli, Tor A. 2005. The Basic Nexus. Ms., Norwegian University of Science andTechnology.

Abraham, Werner. 2002. Modal verbs: epistemics in German and English.Modality and its

interaction with the verbal system, Sjef Barbiers, Frits Beukema and Wim van der

Wurff (eds.), 19-50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Adger, David and Gillian Ramchand. 2003. Predication and Equation.Linguistic Inquiry34:

325-359.

Ashiwaju, Michael. 1968.Lehrbuch der Yoruba-Sprache. Leipzig: VEB Verlag.Bamgbos5e, Ay-. 1966.A grammar of Yoruba. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


39/43

39

Baker, Mark C. 2003.Lexical Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bhat, D. N. S. 1994. The Adjectival Category. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Biberauer, Theresa and Marc Richards. 2006. True Optionality: When the grammar doesnt

mind.Minimalist Essays, Cedric Boeckx (ed.), 35-67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Bowers, John. 1993. The syntax of predication.Linguistic Inquiry24: 591-656.

Bowers, John. 2001. Predication. The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, Mark

Baltin and Chris Collins (eds.), 299-333. Malden: Blackwell.

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist Inquires. Step by Step. Essays on Minimalist Syntax in

Honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka (eds.),

89-155. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by Phase.Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael

Kenstowicz (ed.), 1-52. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. Structures and Beyond: The

Cartography of Syntactic Structure, Volume 3, Adriana Belletti (ed.), 104-131.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 2005. On Phases. Ms., MIT [To appear in Foundational Issues in

Linguistic Theory, Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero & Maria-Luisa Zubizaretta (eds.).

Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.]

Chomsky, Noam. 2007. Approaching UG from Below.Interfaces + Recursion

= Langauge? Chomskys Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics, Hans M.

Grtner & Uli Sauerland (eds.), 1-30. Berlin: Mouton de Guyter.

Comrie, Bernard. 1976.Aspect: an introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related

problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

den Dikken, Marcel. 2006.Relators and Linkers. The Syntax of Predication, Predicate

Inversion, and Copulas. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Dprez, Viviane. 2003. Haitian Creole Se: A Copula, a Pronoun, Both or Neither? On the

Double Life of a Functional Head,Recent Development in Creole Studies, Dany

Adone (ed.), 135-173. Tbingen: Max Niemeyer.

Devitt, Daniel. 1994. Copula Constructions in Crosslinguistic and Diachronic Perspective.

Doctoral dissertation, SUNY Buffalo.

Diessel, Holger. 1999.Demonstratives: form, function, and grammaticalization. Amsterdam:

John Benjamins.Eid, Mushira. 1983. The Copula Function of Pronouns.Lingua59: 197-207.


40/43

40

Eide, Kristin Melum. 1996. Som-predikativer. Cand.philol. thesis, Norwegian University of

Science and Technology.

Eide, Kristin M. and Tor A. farli. 1999. The Syntactic Disguises of the Predication

Operator. Studia Linguistica53: 155-181.

Faarlund, Jan Terje. 2008. A mentalist interpretation of grammaticalization theory.

Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory: the Rosendal Papers, ed. by Thorhallur

Eythrsson, 221-244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 1986. From preposition to copula.Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual

Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Vassiliki Nikiforidou, Mary VanClay,

Mary Niepokui and Deborah Feder (eds.), 371-386. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics

Society.

van Gelderen, Elly. 2004a. Economy, Innovation and Prescriptivism: From Spec to Head and

Head to Head.Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics7: 59-98.

van Gelderen, Elly. 2004b. Grammaticalization as Economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

van Gelderen, Elly. 2007a. Linguistic Cycles. Ms., Arizona State University.

van Gelderen, Elly. 2007b. The Definiteness Cycle in Germanic.Journal of Germanic

Linguistics19: 275-308.

van Gelderen, Elly. 2008a. Linguistic cycles and Economy Principle: The role of Universal

Grammar in language change. Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory. The

Rosendal Papers, Thrhallur Eythrsson (ed.), 245-264. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

van Gelderen, Elly. 2008b. Where did Late Merge go? Grammaticalization as Feature

Economy. Studia Linguistica62: 287-300.

Gildea, Spike. 1993. The Development of Tense Markers from Demonstrative Pronouns in

Panare (Cariban). Studies in Language17: 73-73.

Heine, Bernd. 1993.Auxiliaries: Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalization. New York:

Oxford University Press.Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi and Friederike Hnnemeyer. 1993. Grammaticalization: a

conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Heine, Bernd and Tania Kuteva. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Heine, Bernd and Tania Kuteva. 2007. The genesis of grammar: a reconstruction. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Hengeveld, Kees. 1992.Non-verbal Predication: Theory, Typology, Diachrony. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.


41/43

41

Hopper, Paul J. and Elisabeth Closs Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge:


Jansky, Herbert. 1954.Lehrbuch der Trkishen Sprache. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Katz, Aya. 1996. Cyclical Grammaticalization and the Cognitive Link Between Pronoun and

Copula. Doctoral dissertation, Rice University.

Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1997. Turkish. London: Routledge.

Kroch, Anthony. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change.Journal of

Language Variation and Change 13: 199-244.

Kuteva, Tania. 2001.Auxiliation: An Enquiry into the Nature of Grammaticalization. Oxford:


Lehmann, Christian. 1985. Grammaticalization: synchronic variation and diachronic change.

Lingua e Stile20: 303-318.

Li, Charles and Sandra A. Thompson. 1977. A mechanism for the development of copula

morphemes.Mechanisms of Syntactic Change, Charles N. Li (ed.), 419-444. Austin:

University of Texas Press.

Lightfoot, David. 1974. The diachronic analysis of English modals.Historical linguistics, J.

M. Anderson & C. M. Jones (eds.), 219-249. Amsterdam: North Holland.

Lightfoot, David. 1979.Principles of Diachronic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Lightfoot, David. 1999. The Development of Language. Acquisition, Change and Evolution.

Malden: Blackwell Publishers.

Lightfoot, David. 2006.How New Languages Emerge. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Lohndal, Terje, Mari Nygrd and Tor A. farli. 2008. The structure of copular clauses in

Norwegian. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax82: 23-41.

Longobardi, Guiseppe. 2001. Formal syntax, diachronic minimalism, and etymology: thehistory of French chez.Linguistic Inquiry32: 275-302.

Macaulay, Monica. 1996.A Grammar of Chalcatongo Mixtec. Berkeley: University of

California Press.

McWhorter, John H. 1995. Looking into the Void: Zero Copula in the Creole Mesolect.

American Speech70: 339-360.

McWhorter, John H. 1997. Lost in transmission: A case for the independent emergence of

the copula in Atlantic creoles. The Structure and Status of Pidgins and Creoles, ArthurK. Spears and Donald Winford (eds.), 241-21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.


42/43

42

Migge, Bettina. 2002. The origin of the copulas (d/n)aand dein the Eastern Maroon Creole.

Diachronica19: 81-133.

Mikkelsen, Line. 2005. Copular Clauses. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Munro, Pamela. 1977. From existential to copula: the history of Yuman BE.Mechanisms of

Syntactic Change, Charles N. Li (ed.), 445-490. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Noonan, Michael. 1992.A Grammar of Lango. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Noonan, Michael and Karen Grunow-Hrsta. 2002. Posture-verbs in two Tibeto-Burman

languages of Nepal. The Linguistics of Sitting, Standing and Lying, John Newman

(ed.), 79-101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Pesetsky, David and Esther Torrego. 2001. T-to-C Movement: Causes and Consequences.Ken

Hale: A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 355-426. Cambridge, MA:

The MIT Press.

Pesetsky, David and Esther Torrego. 2004. Tense, Case, and the Nature of Syntactic

Categories. The Syntax of Time, Jacqueline Guron and Jacqueline Lecarme (ed.), 495-

537. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Plank, Frans. 1984. The modals story retold. Studies in Language8: 305-364.

Pustet, Regina. 2003. Copulas: Universals in the Categorization of the Lexicon. Oxford:


Radford, Andrew. 2000. Children in search of perfection: Towards a minimalist model of

acquisition.Essex Research Reports in Linguistics34.

Richards, Marc D. 2004. Object Shift and Scrambling in North and West Germanic: A Case

Study in Symmetrical Syntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge.

Richards, Marc and Theresa Biberauer. 2005. ExplainingExpl. The Function of Function

Words and Functional Categories, Marcel den Dikken and Christina M. Tortora

(eds.), 115-153. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Roberts, Ian. 1985. Agreement patterns and the development of the English modal auxiliaries.Natural Language and Linguistic Theory3: 21-58.

Roberts, Ian. 1993. Verbs and Diachronic Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Roberts, Ian and Anna Roussou. 1999. A formal approach to grammaticalization.

Linguistics37: 1011-1041.

Roberts, Ian and Anna Roussou. 2003. Syntactic change: a minimalist approach to

grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rothstein, Susan. 1999. Fine-grained structure in the eventuality domain: the semantics ofpredicative adjective phrases and be.Natural Language Semantics7: 347-420.


43/43

Rothstein, Susan. 2001.Predicates and their subjects. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Samarin, William J. 1966. The Gbeya Language. Grammar, Texts, and Vocabularies.

Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Stassen, Leon. 1997.Intransitive Predication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Traugott, Elisabeth C. 1972.A History of English Syntax: A Transformational Approach to

the History of English Sentence Structure. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Tucker, A. N.1993.A Grammar of Kenya Luo (Dholuo). Kln: Kppe.

Turunen, Rigina. 2006. Complex Morphosyntactic Features of Nominal Predicates in Erzya.

SKY Journal of Linguistics19: 173-187.

Warner, Anthony R. 1993.English Auxiliaries: Structure and History. Cambridge:


Westergaard, Marit R. 2008. Acquisition and Change: On the Robustness of the Triggering

Experience for Word Order Cues.Lingua118: 1841-1863.

Documents

Copula Cycle