http://dx.doi.org/10.14342/smog.2014.76.

127 127

Copular Constructions in English: A

Multi-Dimensional Merge Approach

Chegyong Im (Daegu Arts University)

Chegyong Im. Copular Constructions in English; A Multi-Dimensional Merge

Approach. Studies in Modern Grammar 76, 127-148. The cross-linguistic
divergence of copula constructions does not necessarily imply that there is
no universal structure for the constructions. Since the introduction of the
notion, "small clause", the degree of categorial differentiation for copulas found
in many languages has no longer been a bothersome phenomenon for
linguists. Some recent works on the copula structure based on Merge theory
claim that one of the pair {XP, YP} must move to satisfy the canonical order
of the construction in the spirit of LCA. This paper attempts to explain how
we can choose the one from the pair that must escape from the first Merged
structure. Under the assumptions of Multiple Membrane Hypothesis (Im 2013),
and employing the cartographical order of functional categories (Rizzi 1997,
Cinque 1999, Starke 2001, 2006, among others), I argue that the syntactic object
left in small clause has its own intrinsic [Focus] feature that induces the
VP-internal location of the object at the interfaces. The morpho-phonemic
realization of √BE is followed to meet the legibility condition at the interfaces.
[Key words: copular structure, small clause, Vector Merge, cartography]

1. Introduction

Escribano (2011:1-2) classifies the English verb BE as follows: it selects

AP, NP, DP or PP predicates as in the example (1a). It is used to express
the situation of individuals in space and of events in space and time as
in (b). It also functions as an auxiliary selecting present/passive
participles as in (c,d). or future/modal auxiliary as in (e,f). It appears in
existential clauses like (g,h), very rarely in absolute sentence like (i), and
128 현대문법연구 76 (2014)

in pure existential like (j). The copula in (k) is used to express identity
in his classification.

(1) .a. Janine is French/professor of linguistics/a stripper/from Boston.

b. Helen/the wedding is in London. *Helen/the wedding is in July.
c. Andrew is studying medicine.
d. Janine was interviewed by Cosmopolitan.
e. The course is to start in a week's time.
f. The students are to register before tomorrow at noon.
g. There is a young lady waiting in your office.
h. There were several hooligans arrested by the police.
i. I think, therefore I am.
j There was a gigantic traffic jam (on the M4).
.k. The Dean/Mr. harris is that gentleman. That gentleman is the Dean/
Mr. Harris.

The validity of this classification is not our concern. We focus on the

constructions (a), (b) and (k), where BE functions as the main verb
(expletive constructions aside) because those constructions constitute
predicational structure in which BE functions as linking between the
subject and the predicate.
Copulas have been known as semantically empty. The fact that some
languages do not have copulas at all (e.g., Tagalog) indicates that
languages can operate effectively without copulas. However, many
languages employs copulas in their predicational constructions to link
the subject with the predicate. The three most widely accepted syntactic
functions of the copula are:

(2) a. the function of a linker between subject and predicate;

b. the function of a syntactic 'hitching post' to which verbal inflectional
.categories can be attached;
c. the function of a predicator which is added to lexemes that do not form
.predicates on their own. (Pustet 2003: 2)
 Copular Constructions in English (Chegyong Im) 129

If the linking hypothesis is right, the English verb BE happens to be the

lexical realization of the copula that is added to the predicates and
inflected for tense (aspect) and number.
In English, the copula constructions are sometimes classified by their
semantic functions. Higgins (1973), among others, suggests the following
four types of copula clauses1:

(3) .a. Brian is a clever guy. (Predicational)

b. Brian is the culprit. The culprit is Brian. (Specificational)
c. Brian is that man over there. That man over there is Brian.
(Identificational)
d. Cicero is Tully. Tully is Cicero. (Equative)

Higgins emphasizes the distinction between predicational and

specificational. The pre-copular DP Brian in (3a) denotes an individual,
and the post-copular DP a clever guy predicates a property of that
individual. In (3b), the pre-copular DP provides a variable (there is an
x that x is a culprit), and the post-copular DP provides a value for that
variable. It should be noted here that the value is new information, or
focus, and the variable part of is old information, presupposition (Declerck,
1988), or topic (Mikkelsen, 2005).
Under the general assumption that copular constructions start from
small clause structure, this paper attempts to provide the mechanism of
Merge of the syntactic objects participating in copular constructions. For
this purpose, the next section reviews the traditional Merge accounts
1 Some other classifications are possible. Declerk (1988) divides [NP be NP]
sentences into two main categories: specificational and predicational, while
Martinović (2013:1) classifies Double-DP copular sentences as follows:
(i) Double-DP copular sentences
a. [DP1 Carissa] is [DP2 a mother] [Predicational]
b. [DP1 The professor] is [DP2 Karlos] [Specificational]
c. [DP1 Clark Kent] is [DP2 Superman] [Identity]
We follow the classification in (3) because the pure equative construction like
(3d) provides a more powerful evidence for our proposal.
130 현대문법연구 76 (2014)

that resort to the movement of an element from a small clause for some
syntactic reasons. In section 3, information structure for copular
constructions is discussed with theoretical and empirical evidences.
Under the assumptions of Mutiple Membrane Hypothesis (Im 2013), and
employing the cartographical order of functional categories (Rizzi 1997,
Cinque 1999, Starke 2001, 2006, among others), it will be suggested that
the syntactic object left in small clause has its own intrinsic [Focus]
feature that induces the VP-internal location of the object at the
interfaces. It will be also argued that the free Merge in the dimensions
contributes to the establishment of the copular structure with the Merge
of the root verb BE. The last section summarizes the study.

2. Merge and Move Accounts

Earlier approaches to copular structure can be addressed from two

directions; the one, based on small clauses represented by Stowell (1995),
Moro (1995, 1997), Lundin (2003), den Dikken (2006) and the other, based
on the predication phrase represented by Bowers (1993, 2001), Adger and
Ramchand (2003), Baker (2003), and Mikkelsen (2005), among others. As
Stowell (1995: 272) notes, the motivation of small clauses is to uniformly
represent the subject/predicate relation [. . .] syntactically in terms of a
pair of sister constituents. The small clause has two sister DPs, one of
which moves and becomes the subject. Descriptively, it refers to any
construction consisting a subject and non-verbal predicate as in (4).

(4) SC
subject predicate

Moro (1997), based on Chomsky's observation that 'speculations about

[it]movement invoked consideration of language use: facilitation of
 Copular Constructions in English (Chegyong Im) 131

parsing on certain assumptions, the separation of theme-rheme

structures from base-determined semantic (θ) relations, and so on'
(Chomsky 1995:317), argues that the movement is triggered to explore
the 'extraneous' conditions imposed by the interaction with external
systems in the sense specified within the minimalist approach.
Movement is triggered not only to check and delete the [-interpretable]
feature wiping out non-interpretable entities at the relevant interface but
also to break the symmetry composed by the fundamental operation of
Merge as informally put in (5).

(5) Movement is driven by the search for antisymmetry

If Merge is an operation that takes two distinct constituents α and β

as input to form a larger constituent K as output, what is the label of
K? There are two options represented as the following:

(6) ∀ α,β, Merge yields K: (i) K = {α, {α,β}}

(ii) K = {<α,α>, {α,β}}

The label of the resulting constituent is either a simple label as in (6(i)),

or a complex label as in (6(ii)). How to decide the label of small clauses,
however, is not a simple matter; if α is the subject and β is the
predicate of a small clause, the first option (6(i)) is to be excluded
because the resulting constituent should neither α norβ: that is, the
small clause must not have the same distribution of either subpart. The
second option (6(ii)) cannot be the right structure, either. The simple
idea of considering small clauses as the result of adjunction of the
subject to the predicate might yield the problem of mismatch2. So the
2 For example, the adjunction of the subject (these pictures) to the predicate (the
cause of the riot) results in complete dissatisfaction as shown below.
132 현대문법연구 76 (2014)

available option for small clauses is the following:

(7) K = {<α,β>, {α,β} }

This is a desirable result; it indicates that when Merge of α and β

arouses, neither α nor β project. The structure of (8) would be (9).

(8) SC

the cause of the riot these pictures on the wall

(9) * K
M P
N Q
n q

In this tree, M c-commands P and P c-commands M. Crucially, M also

c-commands Q and P c-commands N; n and q would not be linearly
ordered, a violation of LCA. As shown in (9), the two noun phrases
c-command each other. To avoid the violation, movement of an element
from the small clause is necessary as shown in (10) and (11). This
movement should occur prior to PF to satisfy Kayne's LCA3 (Kayne
1994); movement is driven by the search for antisymmetry as described
in (5).

(i) DP*the
DPthese DPthe
3 Kayne's (1994) Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA) can be summarized as
follows; if grammar contains two relations, R1 and R2, R1 is the relation of
precedence and is defined on the linear sequence of terminal nodes, i.e. words;
R2 is the relation of asymmetric c-command and is defined with respect to the
hierarchy of phrasal non-terminal nodes. If the terminal node x is dominated by
the non-terminal node M that asymmetrically c-commands the non-terminal node
P, then x precedes all the terminal nodes that are dominated by P.
 Copular Constructions in English (Chegyong Im) 133

(10) [DP = SC [DPs] [DPp]]

(11) a. [T FF(Subj) [T V T [SC tsubj FF(Pred)]]]
b. [T FF(Pred) [T FF(Subj) [T V T [SC tsubj tpred]]]]

Moro argues that this process is exactly what we need to explain why
either noun phrase must be raised to the precopular position.

(12) a. [these pictures] are [sc t [the cause of the riot]] (canonical)
b. [the cause of the riot] is [sc [these pictures] t] (inverse)

The two constructions in (12) is derived from the following structure:

(13) TP
T'
T SC
are/is
DP DP
these pictures the cause of the riot
Raising the subject these pictures yields a predicational sentence ('canonical'
in Moro's terminology), while raising the predicate the cause of the riot
yields a specificational sentence ('inverse' in Moro's terminology) (Citko
2008: 276)4.
Why is (12a) canonical and (12b) inverse is not our concern. Our
concern is under what condition (12a) or (12b) is derived.

3. Information Structure of Copular Constructions

Copular sentences in English show focus properties; English relies on

sentence stress as well as inversion to create a focus interpretation:

4 For Moro, both identity and specificational statement involve the same
derivation, which is different from that of predicational sentence for extraction
reason. (See Moro (1997) and Citko (2008) for the further discussion.)
134 현대문법연구 76 (2014)

(14).a. Q: Who is Bill?

A: Bill is my BEST FRIEND [new information focus]
b. Q: Bill is your worst enemy, isn't he?
A: No, Bill is my BEST FRIEND [exhaustive listing focus]
c. Q: Who is your best friend?
A: TED is my best friend [new information focus]
d. Q: Bill is your best friend, isn't he?
A: No, TED is my best friend. [exhaustive listing focus]

As seen in (14a,b), the focused DP normally comes in the post-copular

position. When the focused DP occupies the pre-copular position as in
(14c,d), they get stressed. The picture, however, is not so simple.
Some scholars argue that inverse/specificational sentences have a
particular information structure: the variable is always the preposition,
old information, or topic, while the value is the focus of the sentence
(Higgins 1979, Declerck 1988, Mikkelsen 2005). Let's compare the
information structure of a predicational and a specificational sentence.

(15) a. Who is the winner?

b. The winner is JOHN [specificational]
c. JOHN is the winner [predicational]
(16) a. What is John?
b. *The WINNER is John [specificational]
c. John is the WINNER [predicational] (Martinović 2013:2)

A question which focuses the referential DP as in (15a) can be answered

with either a specificational/inverse or a predicational sentence. In
contrast, a question requiring a non-referential DP to be focused as in
(16a) cannot be answered in a specificational/inverse sentence.
The asymmetry is clearly noted in Heycock (1994). It is roughly
defined in her work, that the inverse copular construction is
characterized by the occurrence of an initial DP being used attributively,
and a postcopular DP used referentially5. A second characteristic of
 Copular Constructions in English (Chegyong Im) 135

inverse copular sentences is that the focus pattern is fixed: the

postcopular DP must be in focus, while focus can vary in canonical
copular sentences. For instance, in canonical copular sentences like (17a,
b), either precopular DP or postcopular DP gets focused (though JOHN
in (17a) needs a stress).

(17) a. A: Was the culprit John or Bill?

B: JOHN was the culprit.
b. A: Was John the culprit or the victim?
B: John was the CULPRIT.

The inverse construction, however, only allows focus on the postcopular

DP as in (18a).
(18) a. A: Was the culprit John or Bill?
B: The culprit was JOHN.
.b. A: Was John the culprit or the victim?
B: #The CULPRIT was John.

All in all, specificational sentences have a particular information

structure: the variable is the presupposition, old information, or topic,
and the value is the focus of the sentence. DP1 is obligatorily the topic,
and DP2, the focus. This claim is not novel when the phrase structure
of the copular sentences are taken into consideration in the traditional
terms as the following6:

5 It is uncontroversial that precopular DP1 is referential and postcopular DP2 is

property-denoting or attributive in predicational sentences. The situation,
however, is a little subtle in specificational sentences. It is clear that DP2 is
referential, but the semantic type of DP1 is a matter of debate. See Mikkelsen
(2005) and Martinović (2013) for a detailed discussion.
6 The structure (19) is a mixture of Bower (1993)'s predication structure adopted
in Moro (1997, 2000) and Chomsky (1999)'s phase structure.
136 현대문법연구 76 (2014)

(19) TP
T'
T vP/PredP
v'/Pred'
v/Prd SC
BE DP DP
John the culprit

Recall that Diesing assumes tree-splitting (20) at the level of LF.

(20) Tree splitting
IP
← restrictive clause
I'

I VP

nuclear V'
scope →
V XP

According to Diesing (1992)'s tree splitting mechanism, VPs are always

mapped into nuclear scopes of the tripartite quantificational structure.
Therefore, presuppositional NPs must raise out of VP before the tree
splitting takes place (via obligatory quantifier raising (QR)). The NP
with a strong quantifier has a presuppositional reading and it must raise
out of VP via QR at LF.
Although LF is not assumed since the advent of the Minimalist
Program, the idea of Diesing can be revised into the following structure
suggested in Lee (2004).
 Copular Constructions in English (Chegyong Im) 137

(21) vP
v'
v VP Focus Domain
V

He argues that the focus-marked object remains in situ within VP to

receive an appropriate interpretation. As shown in (10), VP is a focus
part of the sentence and the remaining part is a presuppositional one
of the sentence7.
If the copular structure of (19) also has the information structure of
(21), a revision of (20), the characteristics of the specificational sentences
mentioned above can be explained structurally, which is a desirable
result for our work because one of our goals is to show the Merge
operation of copular DPs and their concatenation without resorting to
movement.
Before we proceed to the next section, one more type of copular
sentences is worth mentioning: identity or pure equative sentences as in
(22) where the semantic/logical meaning is the same.

(22) a. The Morning Star is the Evening Star.

b. The Evening Star is the morning Star.

Our quest also includes showing how the DPs are placed in those
constructions.

7 We don't accept LF lowering of stressed DP1 suggested in Diesing (1992)

because our concern is restricted to the syntactic phenomena. The focused DP1
is a marked case, phonologically distinguished as a last resort.
138 현대문법연구 76 (2014)

4. Merge in Multiple Dimensions

4.1. 3D Merge and concatenation of copular structure

I have long argued that the pragmatic features of syntactic objects

should be considered when they are Merged. My assumptions are
manifested in my works (2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012)
in the name of Multiple Sphere Hypothesis (MSH). The most
fundamental hypothesis MSH assumes is that the process of derivation
is not cyclic, but simultaneous. Computation of language contains
operations that determine the phonological value as well as the semantic
value of each syntactic object by selecting the features from the lexicon
that pervasively exists in three spheres: θ-sphere, Φ-sphere and Ω
-sphere8.

8 A similar proposal is found in Boeckx (2008), where he argues for an

umambiguous Merge, such that the Merge produces a vector, or that the output
of Merge operation is vectorial in character. Vectors are objects that have both
a magnitude, and an orientation. They are like arrows; they have a clear point
of origin and an end point. The second suggestion in his theory of Merge is that
the clause skeleton is composed of three distinct domains like ω-domains
(CP-domains, the same notion in Grohmann 2003a), T-domains and α-domains
(thematic domains), T-domains functioning as as a linker, whose shape looks like
the following (Boecxk 2008; 152);
(i)

He further asserts that the presence of φ-features and T-features allow an α

-element to expand in two directions/dimensions: φ-features allow α-elements to
connect to DPs (arguments), and T-features ultimately allow the α-domain to be
connected to the ω-domain.
 Copular Constructions in English (Chegyong Im) 139

(24) θ-sphere Φ-sphere Ω-sphere ➜Spell-out

Revising Grohmann (2003a:74), it was suggested in MSH that the

contextual information would be clausal tripartition into three spheres.

(25) .Tripartition of Contextual Information

i. θ-sphere: part of the derivation where thematic relations are created
ii. Φ-sphere: part of the derivation where agreement properties are licensed
iii. Ω-sphere: part of the derivation where discourse information is established

MSH has been recently renovated into Multiple Membrane

Hypothesis (MMH). As defined in Im (2013), a membrane M9 is a layer
for SOs which serves as a selective plane comprising a PredP and is
impermeable to specific features. Revising the Tripartition of Contextual
Information of (25), I propose that the Merge of syntactic objects occurs
in the basic 3 dimensions.

(26) i. θM: a layer for SOs(root copies) where thematic relations are created
ii. ΦM: a layer for SOs(root copies) where agreement properties are licensed
iii. ΩM: a layer for SOs(root copies) where discourse information is established
(27)

9 The concept of membrane is adopted from biology and physics. It is a layer

of material which serves as a selective barrier between two phases and is
impermeable to specific particles, molecules, or substances when exposed to the
action of a driving force. (http://en.wikipedia.org)
140 현대문법연구 76 (2014)

Following the tradition of distributed morphology (Marantz 1997,

Adger 2013, among others), structure is built from copies of lexical root
SOs (with no category) in each M. When a lexical item is chosen, the
copies meet at the Merge area and share the features. The process can
be summarized as the following:

(28) i) Copies share their features when Ms Merge.

ii) The copies enter into the syntactic computation as a syntactic unit SU
when three Ms Merge.
iii) A SU comprises a phrase/phase when it contains a predicate.

As MMH assume free Merge of SOs, the Merged elements do not

constitute a structure until they meet the hyper membranes; morphological
M, Sensory-Motor M and Conceptual-Intentional M.

(29) There is a M for the morphology of SUs.

(30) The M for Sensory-Motor SMM and the M for Conceptual-Intentional
CIM go through the Merge area for sound and meaning.
(31)

To meet the legibility at the interfaces (Chomsky 1998), there are two
processes waiting for the root lexical items. The one is concatenation
that depends on cartography suggested in Starke (2001, 2006), Rizzi
(1997), Cinque (1999), among others. The other is morpho-phonemic
realization, which is discussed in the next section.
Problem of labeling for concatenation is discussed among some
scholars. For example, Sura'nyi (2006) notes that the need of labeling
results in look-ahead once it is recognized that (a) c-selectional
 Copular Constructions in English (Chegyong Im) 141

phenomena are not narrow syntactic, and (b) Agree should not exist if
syntax conforms to minimalist expectations (the checking function of
Agree is to be reduced to Merge).
Another underlying problem is; Merger of (functional) head and its
complement is not locally triggered. The output of this Merger serves
as input to a Merge operation that will ultimately license the checking
of some feature of the head, which is a mixed theory based on
look-ahead.10
Instead of labeling, MMH accepts the notion of cartography for the
concatenation of Merged SOs. Adger (2013), Starke (2001, 2006) Rizzi
(1997), Cinque (1999), among others, argue the functional hierarchy
which can only be determined in some interface component.

(32) There exists an ‘fseq’a sequence of functional projectionssuch that the

output of Merge must respect fseq. (Starke 2001:155)

The hierarchy proceeds from internal argument licensing to external

argument licensing, event structure and aspect, through to modality,
mood and tense, and then finally to discourse-related properties of focus
and topic.
If the assumptions of MMH are on the right track, the computation
of “John was the culprit” is the following.

(33=17b) John was the culprit

i) Merger of copies: {√John, √BE, √the culprit} in the basic membranes
ii) concatenation by (32)
iii) morpho-phonemic realization of SOs

Though (33ii) guarantees the order of [TP NP [VP ... ]], the problem of

10 The operation of movement for structure building and for the final
concatenation has been criticized as a mixture theory. See Brody (2000, 2002) for
detail.
142 현대문법연구 76 (2014)

which NP occupies which position should be resolved. In section 3, it

is observed that the focused DP occupies the VP complement position
when it is unmarked as in (17b) and (18b). As (20) and (21) shows, VP
complement position has [+Foc] feature. (Erteschick-Shir 1973,
Zubizaretta 1998, Drubig 2003, and Dominguez 2004, among others).
When DP2, the culprit is Merged, it assumes its pragmatic feature of
[+focus] in ΩM as well as other syntactic features. It occupies the VP
complement position by (32). Likewise, in (22a), a copy of THE
EVENING STAR has [+focus] feature at ΩM, while in (12b), a copy of
THE MORNING STAR has [+focus] feature at ΩM.
The next section will show why the notion of root BE is valid to cover
the cross-linguistic data as well as English.

4.2. Morpho-phonemic realization of root BE

As the root form of lexical items is assumed in MMH, the process of

morpho-phonemuc realization of the root form should be explicated to
meet the legibility condition at the interfaces. In the concatenation of the
sentence “John was the culprit,” the morpho-phonemic realization of the
DPs, John and the culprit needs little explanation; they are referential
entities, the category of which is decided on their own. In traditional
terms, when it extends to build a further structure, the new structure
is labeled on the basis of its immediate constituents (self-Merge in
Adger (2013)'s term).
My main concern is the morpho-phonemic realization of √BE that
needs much more explanation. As noted in section 1, the syntactic
functions of copula are the following;

(34=2) a. the function of a linker between subject and predicate;

b. the function of a syntactic ‘hitching post’ to which verbal inflectional
.categories can be attached;
 Copular Constructions in English (Chegyong Im) 143

c. the function of a predicator which is added to lexemes that do not

.form predicates on their own. (Pustet 2005:2)

Though the linker hypothesis of (35) considers copula to be a verb, a

cross-linguistic definition of (36) views copula to be a certain lexeme
functioning as a predicate nucleus.
(35) Linker hypothesis (Crystal 1980:93)
.Copula can be defined as a term used in grammatical description to refer
to a linking verb ... whose main function is to relate other elements of
clause structure, especially subject and complement.
(36) Definition (Hengeveld 1992, Stassen 1997)
.A copula is a linguistic element which co-occurs with certain lexemes in
certain languages when they function as predicate nucleus. A copula does
not add any semantic content to the predicate phrase it is contained in.

As observed in Pustet (2005), many languages have copulas including

those with more than one kind of copulas though some languages
employ no copula at all (e.g. Tagalog). Many examples in the work
show that there are cross-linguistic variation with respect to the lexical
class membership of lexemes which contribute with copulas.
The morphosyntactic potential of copulas may be more or less
identical with that of verbals in some languages. Most Indo-European
languages have verbal copulas which show the same inflectional
paradigm as other verbs do. But the copulas of full lexemes do not
necessarily belong to the formal class of verbs. In Navaho, copulas are
conjugated in the same paradigm as the adjectivals, while in Swahili, the
copula 'ni' is an example of a non-inflecting copula. It combines with
nominals and adjectivals in predicate position. Copulas are pronouns in
some languages (Kenya Luo and Lango, for example) and they are just
affixes in some languages (Af Tunni and Yagaria, for example).
Furthermore, some languages employ multiple copularization or dual
copulas (Lakota, Nuer, Thai, and Polish, etc.). (See Pustet 2005 and Citko
144 현대문법연구 76 (2014)

2008 for detailed examples.)

Another important characteristic of verbal copulas is that they appear
in phonologically zero-form in certain environment. In many languages,
the copula can be freely omitted as in the following example.

(37) a. ni go haih ngoh sailou leihge (Cantonese)

this CLF COP 1SG.POR younger brother PRT
“this is my young brother”
(CLF=classifier, POR=possessor, PRT=particle)
.b. ni go ngoh sailou leihge
“this is my young brother” (Pustet 2005:34)

In other languages, the copula is obligatorily omitted.

(38) a. ya Ø chelovek (Russian)

“I (am) a person”
b. ő Ø ember (Hungarian)
“s/he (is) a human”
c. ʔanā Ø ʔinsān (Arabian)
“I (am) a human“
d. ʔani Ø ʔadam (Hebrew)
“I (am a) human“ (http://en.wikipedia.org)
But these copulas tend to be morphologically realized/inflected affected
by the syntactic variables such as tense, aspect, plurality of the subject
etc.
All these observations lead us to ascertain that copula comes into
computation as a root lexeme √BE, which is semantically empty when
used as a liking device between the subject and the predicate. It
happens to be a verb in English-type languages occupying the main
verb position as shown in (1).
 Copular Constructions in English (Chegyong Im) 145

5. Conclusion

The canonical order of a equative copula construction is not decided

by the antisymmetry causing the heavy operation of movement, but by
the Merge operation of the two root DPs with their own specific
features. Likewise, the copula BE is selected as a root form as assumed
in Distributed Morphology. A lot of cross-linguistic evidences show that
BE is just a hat rack implying that the root form is Merged for the
construction. The verbal BE in English is just an instance of the
morpho-phonemic realization of the root lexeme to meet the legibility at
the interfaces. The canonical order of copular sentences is decided by
the functional hierarchy in hyper Ms as suggested in (31). It is argued
that the DP2 occupies the VP complement position because it has
[+focus] feature in ΩM.

References
Adger, D. 2013. A Syntax of Substance. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Adger, D. and G. Ramchand. 2003. Predication and Equation. Linguistic Inquiry
34, 325-360.
Baker, M. C. 2003. Lexical Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bowers, J. 1993. The Syntax of Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 591-656.
Bowers, J. 2005. Syntactic Relations. ms. Cornell University.
Brody, M. 2000. Mirror Theory: Syntactic Representation in Perfect Syntax.
Linguistic Inquiry 31, 29-56.
Brody, M. 2002. On the Status of Derivations and Representations. In S. D.
Epstein and T. D. Seeley (eds). Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist
Program, 19-41. Oxford: Blackwell.
Chomsky, N. 1995. Minimalist Inquiries. ms. MIT.
Chomsky, N. 1999. Derivation by Phase. MITOPL 18.
Chomsky, N. 2008. On Phases. In R. Freidin and C. P. Otero and M. L.
Zubizarreta, (eds). Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, 133-166. MIT
146 현대문법연구 76 (2014)

Press.
Chomsky, N. 2013. Problems of Projection. Lingua. http://dx.doi.or/10.1016/
j.lingua.2012.12.003.
Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. New
York & Oxford: Oxford U. Press.
Citko, B. 2008. Small Clauses Reconsidered: Not So Small and Not All Alike.
Lingua 118, 261-295.
Declerck, R. 1988. Studies on Copular Sentences, Clefts and Pseudo-clefts. Leuven:
Leuven University Press/Foris.
den Dikken, M. 2006. Relators and Likers: The Syntax of Predication, Predicate
Inversion and Copulas. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Diesing, M. 1992. Indefiniteness. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Dominguez, L. 2004. Mapping Focus: The Syntax and Prosody of Focus in
Spanish. Doctoral dissertation. Boston University.
Drubig, H. B. 2003. Toward a Typology of Focus and Focus Constructions.
Linguistics 41, 1-50.
Erteschik-Shir, N. 1973. On the Nature of Island Constraints. Doctoral
dissertation. MIT.
Escribano J. L. G. 2011 ‘BE’ and Case Theory. In Los Caminos de la Lengua:
Estudios en Homenaje a Enrique Alcaraz Varó, 1-12. Alicante: Universidad de
Alicante.
Grohmann, K. K. 2000. Prolific Peripheries: A Radical View from the Left.
Doctoral dissertation. UMCP.
Grohmann, K. K. 2003. Successive Cyclicity under (Anti-)local Considerations.
Syntax 6, 260-312.
Hengeveld, K. 1992. Non-Verbal Predication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Heycock, C. 1994. The Internal Structure of Small Clause: New Evidence from
Inversion. In J. N. Beckman (ed). Proceedings of North East Linguistic Society
25, 223-238. Amherst, Mass.: GLSA.
Higgins, R. 1973. The Pseudo-cleft Construction In English. New York: Garland.
Im, C. G. 2004. Derivational Economy and Multiple Spheres Hypothesis. Journal
of Linguistic Science 30, 277-298.
Im, C. G. 2006. Interpretation vs. Generation of -self. Studies in Modern Grammar
44, 91-119.
Im, C. G. 2007. Move is Occur; The First Step to Eliminate Movement. The
Linguistic Association of Korea Journal 15, 197-221.
Im, C. G. 2008. An Alternative Approach to the Raising Analysis of Split
 Copular Constructions in English (Chegyong Im) 147

Subjects. Studies in Modern Grammar 53, 39-56.

Im. C. G. 2009. How to Numerate and What to Compute; An Alternative
Approach to Solve the Late Merge of Adjunct. The Linguistic Association of
Korea Journal 17, 1-24.
Im. C. G. 2010. Multiple Transfer and honorification in Korean. In Proceedings,
2010 The Society of Modern Grammar Spring Conference, 45-58.
Im, C. G. 2011. Merge of Topic and Pronominal Apposition Construction in
AAVE. Linguistic Research 28, 37-51.
Im, C. G. 2012. Double Subject Constructions in Korean; A Purely Derivational
3D Merge Approach. Linguistic Research 29, 192-215.
Im, C. G. 2013. Muti-Dimensional Analysis for BE Constructions. Proceedings of
SMOG 2013 Fall Conference, 75-81.
Kayne, R. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Lee, W. 2004. VP-structure and the Domain of Focus. Doctoral dissertation.
Sogang University
Marantz, A. 1997. No Escape from Syntax: Don't Try Morphological Analysis in
the Privacy of Your Own Lexicon. In A. Dimitriadis, L. Siegel, C.
Surek-Clark, and A. Willaims (eds). Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn
Linguistics Colloquium, Upenn Working Papers in Linguistics 4-2, 201-225.
Philadelphia: Penn Linguistics Club.
Martinović, M. 2013. Information Structure of Copular Sentences in Wolof. ms.
University of Chicago.
Mikkelsen, L. 2005. Copular Clauses: Specification, Predication and Equation. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Moro, A. 1995. Small Clauses with Predicative Nominals. In A. Cardinaletti og
M. T. Guasti (eds). Small Clauses, 109-132. San Diego: Academic Press.
Moro, A. 1997. Dynamic Antisymmetry: Movement as a Symmetry-Breaking
Phenomenon. Studia Linguistica 51, 50-76.
Moro, A. 2000. Dynamic Antisymmetry. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press, Cambridge.
Pustet, R. 2005. Copulas: Universals in the Categorization of the Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Rizzi, L. 1997. The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery. In L. Haegeman (ed).
Elements of Grammar: Handbook of Generative Syntax, 281-337. Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
Starke, M. 2001. Move Dissolves into Merge: A theory of Locality. Doctoral
dissertation. University of Geneva.
Starke, M. 2006. On the Inexistance of Specifiers and the Nature of Heads. ms.
148 현대문법연구 76 (2014)

CASTL
Stassen, L. 1997. Intransitive Predication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stowell, T. 1995. Remarks on Clause Structure. In A. Cardinaletti og M. T. Guasti
(eds), Small Clauses, 271-286. San Diego: Academic Press.
Sura'nyi, B. 2006. Towards a Purely Derivational Approach to Syntax. The Even
Yearbook 7. Department of English Linguistics, Eötvös Lora'nd U Budapest.
Zubizaretta, M. L. 1998. Prosody, Focus, and Word Order. Cambridge. Mass.: MIT
Press.

Received: November 18, 2013

Revised version: December 7, 2013
Accepted: January 12, 2014
email: imcheg@chol.com