Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Linguistic Reflexes of Ontological Dependence

The Linguistic Reflexes of Ontological Dependence Nouns used to pick out ontologically dependent entities such as holes and flaws, unlike those picking out “ordinary” entities, such as coats and tables, cannot felicitously stand as indefinite subjects of a locative copular sentence (# A hole is in the bucket ), but appear freely in there -sentences ( There is a hole in the bucket ). This contrast is further evidence in favour of the idea that the two sentence types have different underlying predication structures (cf. Barwise and Cooper, 1981; Francez, 2007; Hazout, 2004; McNally 1998a; Williams, 1984, 1994), but also that the preposition in , occurring in both constructions, is ambiguous between a locative and relational meaning. That locative in is distinct from the in that relates a dependent entity to its host is confirmed by inferences between and among sentences containing these two forms. Locative in , whose meaning is roughly that of enclosure or containment, is licensed as a predicate in a locative copular sentence; this sentence type is used to state the location of an entity. However, because a dependent entity’s location is entirely contingent on its host, it cannot be felicitously introduced in this way. By contrast, it is possible to introduce a dependent entity by stating that its host has the dependent entity in it, which is what a there -sentence does. Following Hornstein, Uriagereka and Rosen (1994), the underlying representation of a there -sentence which realizes this relation does not contain a preposition; rather, relational in is derived via incorporation into the copula, like have (Kayne, 1993). http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Review of Pragmatics Brill

The Linguistic Reflexes of Ontological Dependence

Szekely, Rachel
International Review of Pragmatics , Volume 7 (1): 1 – Jan 1, 2015
Download PDF
21 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/the-linguistic-reflexes-of-ontological-dependence-9zT5jIqJrf

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
Copyright 2015 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.
ISSN
1877-3095
eISSN
1877-3109
DOI
10.1163/18773109-00701001
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Nouns used to pick out ontologically dependent entities such as holes and flaws, unlike those picking out “ordinary” entities, such as coats and tables, cannot felicitously stand as indefinite subjects of a locative copular sentence (# A hole is in the bucket ), but appear freely in there -sentences ( There is a hole in the bucket ). This contrast is further evidence in favour of the idea that the two sentence types have different underlying predication structures (cf. Barwise and Cooper, 1981; Francez, 2007; Hazout, 2004; McNally 1998a; Williams, 1984, 1994), but also that the preposition in , occurring in both constructions, is ambiguous between a locative and relational meaning. That locative in is distinct from the in that relates a dependent entity to its host is confirmed by inferences between and among sentences containing these two forms. Locative in , whose meaning is roughly that of enclosure or containment, is licensed as a predicate in a locative copular sentence; this sentence type is used to state the location of an entity. However, because a dependent entity’s location is entirely contingent on its host, it cannot be felicitously introduced in this way. By contrast, it is possible to introduce a dependent entity by stating that its host has the dependent entity in it, which is what a there -sentence does. Following Hornstein, Uriagereka and Rosen (1994), the underlying representation of a there -sentence which realizes this relation does not contain a preposition; rather, relational in is derived via incorporation into the copula, like have (Kayne, 1993).

Journal

International Review of Pragmatics – Brill

Published: Jan 1, 2015

Keywords: ontological dependence; copular sentence; there -sentence; locative prepositions

There are no references for this article.