Unifying specificational copular clause subjects
Main Claim: I propose a unification of the different types of specificational copular clause
subjects. I argue that specificational subjects are non-at-issue (Roberts et al 2009) w.r.t. existence.
Introduction: Specificational clauses can have definite and possessive subjects such as those in
the (a) sentences (Mikkelsen 2004). The (b) sentences show predicational clauses.
1a)
2a)
The doctor is John.
Your friend is John.
1b)
2b)
John is the doctor.
John is your friend.
Definite
Possessive
The predominant debate about specificational copular clauses has focused on whether these are
equations (Heycock & Kroch 1999, Sharvit 1999) or inverted predicates (Moro 1997, Mikkelsen
2004). Less focus has been placed on specificational copular clauses like the following.
3a)
A doctor that Susan knows is John.
3b)
*A doctor is John.
Indefinite
(3a) is a specificational clause with an indefinite subject. One surprising fact about such subjects
is that they must be modified (de Clerk 1988, Mikkelsen 2004). In this paper, I propose that the
relevant condition that a specificational clause subject must satisfy is that it must be non-at-issue
(Roberts et al) w.r.t. to existence. In (1 -2), the existence presupposition of definite, and possessive
subjects (Donnellan 1966, Barker 2011) makes these non-at-issue. As for modified indefinites, I
argue that they have a conversational implicature of existence (Strawson 1952) that makes them
non-at-issue. Existence presuppositions and implicatures are shown to be non-at-issue by showing
that these meaning-types project (Roberts et al). I also discuss partitive specificational subjects
and argue that their anti-uniqueness (Barker 1998) makes them non-at-issue w.r.t existence.
Existence presuppositions: Definites, and possessives don’t always have an existence
presupposition (Donnellan 1966, von Fintel 2004, Barker 2011, Coppock & Beaver 2012).
5) X: Is de Gaulle the King of France?
Y: No, after all there is no King of France.
6) X: Is the king of France de Gaulle?
Y: #No, after all there is no King of France.
(5) and (6) show that a definite does not always have an existence presupposition but a
specificational subject must have such a presupposition. This is seen in the fact that there is no
presupposition to cancel in (5) but there is one in (6). Possessives behave the same way. If this
shows that a specificational subject must have an existence presupposition, this will explain why
(3b) with an unmodified indefinite is ungrammatical as indefinites do not have existence
presuppositions. However, a modified indefinite does not have such an existence presupposition
either so why is (3a) good? What type of natural class do specificational subjects belong to?
Existence implicatures of modified indefinites: Strawson (1952), attributing Paul Grice, claims
that modification of an indefinite gives rise to a certain type of implicature. See also Dayal (2005).
7a)
John is [a doctor that Susan knows].
7b) There are doctors that Susan doesn’t know.
(entails: There are doctors)
When doctor has neutral intonation, modification by the relative clause as shown in (7a) gives rise
to the existence implicature (related to the maxim of quantity) seen in (7b). This implicature can
be canceled [(8a)] and reinforced [(8b)], which means that (7b) is a conversational implicature.
8a)
John is [a doctor that Susan knows]. Of course, since Susan knows every doctor, she is
obviously going to know John.
Cancelation
1
8b)
John is [a doctor that Susan knows]. But she doesn’t know his fellow doctors, Paul and
Sam.
Reinforcement
I propose that this conversational implicature of existence is what allows a modified indefinite but
not an unmodified indefinite to be a specificational subject. Thus, we have (9).
9) A specificational subject must have an existence presupposition or an existence implicature.
Definites and possessives can have an existence presupposition and modified indefinites as in (3a)
can have an existence implicature. Unmodified indefinites have neither. Thus, unmodified
indefinites, unlike the rest, cannot be specificational subjects.
Other considerations of indefinites: While relative-clause and PP modified indefinites are possible
specificational subjects, adjectival modification is highly marginal. I propose a solution for this
following Dayal’s (2005) account of a similar pattern with any. I will also show that the availability
of specific indefinite readings (Fodor & Sag 1982) is not responsible for the availability of
indefinite specificational subjects (eg. *?A certain doctor is John).
Existence Presuppositions and Implicatures: I now show that existence presuppositions and
existence implicatures form a natural class because both of them are non-at-issue (Roberts et al).
Following Roberts et al, I take one key characteristic of non-at-issue meanings to be the ability to
project even when embedded under an entailment canceling operator. That presuppositions project
is a standard assumption. Crucially, existence implicatures of modified indefinites also project.
10a)
10b)
10c)
John is not a doctor that Susan knows.
Is John a doctor that Susan knows?
If John is a doctor that Susan knows, then…
Negation
Yes-No Question
Conditional
(10) shows the P-family tests (Chierchia & McConnell-Ginet 1990). The implicature in (7b) is
present even in these contexts which indicates that it projects. Let’s consider (10a). Suppose Susan
is the one in charge of licensing every doctor. Thus, she necessarily knows every doctor. In this
context, it would suffice to say John is not a doctor if John is, for example, a pilot. (10a) would be
infelicitous in this context. The same reasoning applies to (10b-c). Given this, I propose (11).
11)
A specificational subject must be non-at-issue with respect to existence.
Partitives: Partitives can be specificational subjects [(12a)] and I claim that their anti-uniqueness
makes them non-at-issue w.r.t existence. (12b) shows partitive anti-uniqueness (Barker 1998).
12a)
One of John’s friends is Paul.
12b)
*The one of John’s friends is Paul.
Barker (1998) argues that partitives presuppose at least two individuals. This is why a definite
determiner which presupposes uniqueness is incompatible with partitives [(12b)]. I propose that
this is what makes a partitive non-at-issue w.r.t. existence and thus a suitable specificational
subject. I also discuss indefinites like an example of a doctor, which do not require overt
modification to occur as a specificational subject [(13a)]. I argue that these are similar to standard
partitives such as (12a), given that these also exhibit anti-uniqueness [(13b)].
13a)
An example (of a doctor) is Paul.
13b)
*The example (of a doctor) is Paul.
Note that (12b) and (13b) are grammatical if the partitive itself is modified: The [[one of John’s
friends] [that Susan likes]] is Paul. and The [[example of a doctor] [that Susan mentioned]] is Paul.
Conclusion: I argue that specificational subjects must be non-at-issue w.r.t existence.
2