1

Workshop on Copulas

Università di Bologna, 2014, March 13-14

Copulas in comparison to lexical verbs: some syntactic tests

Alexander Letuchiy

National research university Higher School of Economics

Preliminary remarks

Russian as a language with zero copulas (see Peškovskij 2001 (1928), Shirjaev 1967, Arutjunova, Shirjaev

1983, Weiss 1993, Junghans 1997):

(1) Petr inžener-Ø.

PETER.SG.NOM ENGINEER-SG.NOM

‘Peter is an engineer.’

According to criteria proposed by Mel’čuk (1971), the verb byt’ demonstrates suppletion:

Zero forms in present tense.

Lexically expressed forms in all other cases.

However, not all contexts of ‘being’ admit a zero copula:

(2) U tebja #(jest’) doma ruž’j-e?

at you.GEN be.PRS.(3SG) home riffle-SG.NOM

‘Do you have a riffle at home?’

Omission of the copula jest’ in (1) would not lead to ungrammaticality, but would change the meaning

to ‘Is your riffle at home?’ The ‘possessive proper’ meaning is mainly conveyed by a lexical copula jest’.

(3) U tebja *(jest’) xotja by odn-a vilka?

at you.GEN be.PRS.(3SG) at.least one-F.SG.NOM fork-SG.NOM

‘Do you have at least one fork?’

In (3), due to the absence of the locative phrase and the indefiniteness of the NP, the omission leads to

ungrammaticality.

The focus of majority of the previous studies (except Testelets 2008, 2009):

Semantics of zero copula constructions.

Distribution of jest’ vs. Ø.

See also Adamou & Costaouec (2010) for analysis of temporal, aspectual, modal and some other

properties of copulas across languages.

Some authors (Shirjaev 1967) point to usability of Ø in non-present contexts, but only cite separate

examples, with no systematic analysis:

(4) On počuvstvova-l-Ø užas- Ø.

he.NOM feel-PST-SG.M SCARE-SG.ACC

Vokrug temno, na ulice nikogo.

around dark on street-SG.LOC nobody.GEN

‘He felt scared. It was (lit. is) dark, nobody in the street.’

2

However, the same is possible with some non-zero verbs.

Testelets (2008, 2009): analysis of combinations of zero copulas with ni-negative pronouns / negative

polarity items (nikto ‘nobody’, nikogda ‘never’ and so on).

Classification of copulas by Testelets (2009).

I. Existential: V stakane moloko ‘In the glass is (some) milk’.

II. Identifying: Ubijca – Raskol’nikov ‘Raskol’nikov is the one who killed’.

III. Characterizing:

3a. Taxonomic: Ivan – student ‘Ivan is a student’

3b. Relational: Polina – moja sestra ‘Polina is my sister’

IV. Characterizing with full form of adjective: Polina krasivaja ‘Polina is beautiful’

V. Characterizing with short form of adjective: Polina krasiva ‘Polina is beautiful’

VI. Locative: Sumka na stole ‘The bag is on the table’

VII. Possessive: U Poliny ekzamen ‘Polina has an exam’, lit. ‘At Polina is an exam’

VIII. Temporal: Koncert segodnja ‘The concert is today’

IX. Temporal with prepositional phrases: Konferencija v sledujuščem godu ‘The conference is / will

be the next year’

Testelets’ conclusion:

Constructions with two nominative NPs (identifying, characterizing) and constructions with

short forms of adjectives behave as constructions with lexical verbs in what concerns

interpretation and behavior of negation.

All other constructions behave distinctly from constructions with lexical verbs. This means that

they in general do not take a phrase negation and, thus, the very question whether there is a

verb / VP in cases like ‘Petja is in Moscow’. It is possible, for instance, that we deal with

something like a ‘predicative preposition’ introducing a small clause in cases like:

(5) I don’t want you preparing the food with [your hands dirty].

Citko (2005): for Polish, a special kind of functional head must be postulated for structures with to ‘it’ (a

‘pronominal copula’) due to its special properties:

Two nominative NP (‘Warsaw is the capital of Poland’).

Some special structural properties:

o E.g. if the copula construction is embedded under another clause (‘He thinks that

physics is the most interesting thing in the world’), no question to the embedded

clause is possible:

(6) * ‘What do you think that physics is?’

See also Franks, Greenberg 1994, Rothstein 2004, and others.

3

Main questions

1. Is it true that the zero copula behaves in a peculiar way only under negation?

2. If not, are the same two classes as those distinguished by Testelets relevant for the other

criteria?

The outline of the talk

I. Contexts of ‘strict’ behavior of zero copulas (ZC is impossible or less possible than lexical

verbs.)

II. Contexts of ‘liberal’ behavior of zero copulas (ZC is possible in contexts where lexical verbs

in present tense are impossible.)

1. Liberal behavior

1.1. Adjunct clauses

Russian adjunct clauses: mainly absolute interpretation of tense.

(7) Kogda ja by-l-Ø v Moskv-e ja ži-l-Ø v gostinic-e

when I.NOM be-PST-SG in Moscow-SG.LOC I.NOM live-PST-SG.M in hotel-SG.LOC

‘When I was to Moscow I lived in a hotel.’

In (7) the tense of the embedded verb byl is absolute (precedence to the moment of speech).

Exceptions: poka ‘while’ can host a clause with relatively-marked tense:

(8) Počitaj-Ø stat’j-u poka ede-š v poezd-e.

read-IMV article-SG.ACC while ride-PRS.2SG in train-SG.LOC

‘Read the article while you are in the train.’

In (8), the present tense edeš is interpreted relatively (the situation in the embedded clause is

simultaneous to the main clause event počitaj). The absolute interpretation is impossible because the

imperative speech act places the situation in an unreal world.

However, in constructions with zero copulas the relative interpretation occurs more readily than with

lexical verbs.

(9) Poka teplo gulja-l-i v džins-ax s nosk-ami.

while warm.PREDIC walk-PST-PL in jeans-PL.LOC with sock-PL.INS

‘While it was warm (lit. ‘it is warm’), we wore jeans and socks.’

(10) Ja remont-Ø dela-l-a poka muž-Ø na rabot-e.

I.NOM renovation make-PST-SG.F while husband on work

‘I made renovations while my husband was at his job.’

For the minimal pairs with lexical verbs, the absolute interpretation is natural:

(11) */??Poka svet-it solnc-e gulja-l-i v džins-ax s nosk-ami.

while shine- PRS.3SG sun-SG walk-PST-PL.NOM in jeans-PL.LOC with sock-PL.INS

‘While the sun shone (lit. ‘the sun shines’), we wore jeans and socks.’

4

In what follows, I will consider cases of ‘illegal’ relative interpretation (in other words, cases when there

is a zero copula in the embedded clause but a past tense or sometimes other non-present forms in the

main one).

What about other types?

I. Existential:

(12) Poka u pap-y gosti, my igra-l-i v detsk-oj.

II. Identifying: Ubijca – Raskol’nikov ‘Raskol’nikov is the one who killed’.

Semantically implausible.

III. Characterizing:

3a. Taxonomic: Ivan – student ‘Ivan is a student’

(13) ??Poka ja student-Ø, ja dela-l-Ø čto zaxoč-u.

while I.NOM student-SG.NOM I.NOM make-PST-SG.M what.ACC want.PF-FUT.1SG

‘While I am a student I made what I wanted.’

The relative interpretation is hardly possible – thus, the taxonomic type behaves like lexical predicates.

3b. Relational: Polina – moja sestra ‘Polina is my sister’

Semantically implausible.

IV. Characterizing with full form of adjective: Polina krasivaja ‘Polina is beautiful’

(14) *Poka ona krasiv-a ja jej by-l-o xorošo.

while she.NOM beautiful.L-F.SG.NOM she.DAT be-PST-SG.N good

‘While she was (lit. is) beautiful, she felt good.’

V. Characterizing with short form of adjective: Polina krasiva ‘Polina is beautiful’

(15) ??Poka ona krasiv-a jej by-l-o xorošo.

while she.NOM beautiful.SH-F.SG she.DAT be-PST-SG.N good

‘While she was (lit. is) beautiful, she felt good.’

VI. Locative: Sumka na stole ‘The bag is on the table’

(16) ?Poka na stol-e konfet-y on ne e-l-Ø

while on table-SG.LOC sweet-PL.NOM he.NOM not eat-PST-SG.M

ničego drug-ogo.

nothing.GEN other-N.SG.GEN

‘While there were (lit. are) sweets on the table he did not eat anything else.’

(17) ??Poka na stol-e lež-at konfet-y on ne mog jest’

while on table-SG.LOC lie-PRS.3PL sweet-PL.NOM he.NOM not eat-PST-SG.M

ničego drugogo.

nothing.GEN other-N.SG.GEN

‘While there were (lit. are) sweets on the table he did not eat anything else.’

5

For the zero copula construction, the relative interpretation is perhaps a bit more plausible, but the

difference is insignificant at all.

VII. Possessive: U Poliny ekzamen ‘Polina has an exam’, lit. ‘At Polina is an exam’

(18) ??Poka u menja kurs-y ja ne xodi-l-Ø v kino.

while at I.GEN courses-PL.NOM I.NOM NEG go-PST-SG.M to cinema.SG.ACC

‘While I have courses I did not go to the cinema.’

VIII. Temporal: Koncert segodnja ‘The concert is today’

Impossible / semantically implausible.

IX. Temporal with prepositional phrases: Konferencija v sledujuščem godu ‘The conference is / will

be the next year’.

Impossible / semantically implausible.

The same difference between lexical verbs (absolute interpretation) and copulas (relative interpretation

is possible) is observed in structures with the subordinator kogda ‘when’ (the default temporal

subordinator).

Copula with a predicative non-locative PP (19) vs. lexical verb (19’):

(19) Kogda on ne v dux-e k nemu lučše by-l-o

when he.NOM NEG in spirit-SG.LOC to he.DAT better be-PST-SG.N

ne podxodi-t’.

NEG come-INF

‘When he was (lit. is) sad it was better not to bother him.’

(19’) ?Kogda on grust-it k nemu lučše by-l-o ne podxodi-t’.

when he.NOM be.sad-PRS.3SG to he.DAT better be-PST-SG.N NEG come-INF

Intended: ‘When he is sad it was better not to bother him.’

Zero copula is possible with adjectives (! a binominative construction) but not with NPs in taxonomic

interpretation (! another binominative construction)

(20) Kogda pjan-(yj) mog vykuri-t’ pačk-u za večer-Ø.

when drunk.SH(L) can.PST.SG.M smoke-INF PACK-SG.ACC FOR EVENING-SG.ACC

‘When he was (lit. is) drunk he could smoke the whole pack of cigarettes in one evening.’

(20’) *Kogda (on) student-Ø on mog by-t’-Ø staratel’n-ym.

when (he.NOM) student-SG.NOM he.NOM can.PST.SG.M be-PST-SG.M hard-working-M.S.GINS

Intended: ‘When he was (lit. is) a student he was hard-working.’

Zero copulas are also possible with predicative NPs like kogda dožd’ ‘when it is raining’ if the main

predicate is in past.

Conclusion: the two classes distinguished by Testelets are not repeated precisely by this criterion. It is

mainly uses not containing two nominative NPs which can have a relative interpretation in examples like

(9)-(10) and (20). However, subclasses inside this class behave differently (cf. (20) and (20’) for different

behavior of adjectival and taxonomic structures.

6

NB: constructions with predicative non-locative PPs are more problematic in constructions like poka and

kogda than predicatives (predicative adverbials) like teplo ‘warm’.

1.2. Argument clauses with esli ‘if’

The marker esli ‘if’ marks conditional clauses in its main function:

(21) Esli Vanj-a pried-et, my s nim pogovor-im.

If Vanja-NOM come-PRS.3SG WE.NOM with he.INS talk-PRS.1PL

‘If Vanja comes, we will talk.’

However, there equally exist constructions with esli marking clausal complements:

(22) Ix počemu-to bes-it esli roditel-i spj-at.

they.ACC why-PART drive.angry-PRS.3SG if parent-PL.NOM sleep-PRS.3PL

‘I don’t know why, but they get angry if their parents sleep.’

In this ‘argument’ use, tense and mood on a predicative can sometimes remain unmarked:

(23) Stranno esli by ona vsta-l-a

strange if SUBJ she.NOM stand-PST-SG.F

na storon-u pravoslavn-yx serb-ov.

on side-SG.ACC orthodox-PL.GEN Serbian-PL.NOM

‘It would be strange (lit. it is strange) strange if she (Vanessa Paradis) took the side of Serbian

orthodoxes.’

(24) Ploxo esli rezus-Ø okaž-et-sja otricatel’n-ym.

bad if rhesus.factor-SG.NOM turn.out-PRS.3SG-REFL negative-M.SG.INS

‘It will be bad (lit. it is bad) if the rhesus factor turns out to be negative.’

NB: in all other cases, TAM marking in ‘argument’ clauses with esli is obligatory. For instance, contrary to

(25), main lexical verb must be marked for subjunctive, if esli-clause is marked for subjunctive:

(25) Menja ne udivi-l-o by / *ne udiv-it esli by

I.ACC NEG surprise-PST-SG.N SUBJ NEG SURPRISE-PRS.3SG if SUBJ

et-o proizoš-l-o zavtra ili poslezavtra.

this-NOM occur-PST-SG.N tomorrow or after.tomorrow

‘It would not surprise me if this took place tomorrow or after tomorrow.’

Is the same ‘TAM omission’ possible with other types of zero copulas?

It is not really checkable, because only few zero copula constructions admit esli-clauses. However, some

interpretative esli-constructions are possible with TAM omission only with zero copulas.

(26) Durak on esli tak postup-it.

fool-SG.NOM he.NOM if so do-PRS.3SG

‘(I can conclude that) he is a fool if he makes something like this.’

(27) ??Ni čert-a on ne sto-it esli tak postup-it.

he.NOM devil-SG.GEN he.NOM NEG COST-PRS.3SG if so do-PRS.3SG

‘(I can conclude that) he does not cost anything if he makes something like this..’

7

1.3. Relative clauses

Lexical verbs: absolute interpretation of tense:

(28) Tot čto side-l-Ø v kresl-e by-l-Ø Vasj-a.

that.M.NOM REL sit-PST-SG.M in armchair-SG.LOC be-PST-SG.M Vasja-SG.NOM

‘The person (lit. ‘that’) who was sitting in the armchair was Vasja.’

Zero copulas: relative interpretation (zero copula for simultaneity to the main clause) is possible:

(29) Tot čto v kresl-e podn’a-l-Ø vverx ruk-u.

that.M.NOM REL in armchair-SG.LOC raise-PST-SG.M up hand-SG.ACC

‘The person who (was) in the armchair raised his hand.’

Other types are not uniform. The relative interpretation is possible:

With short adjectives and comparatives:

(30) Tot čto starše vs-ex posovetova-l-Ø mne id-ti otsjuda.

that.M.NOM REL. older all-PL.GEN advise-PST-SG.M I.DAT go.INF from.here

‘The person who (was) the oldest advised me to go away.’

Other types of copulas, including long forms of adjectives, are hardly possible.

(31) *Tot čto tolst-yj podn’a-l-Ø vverx ruk-u.

that.M.NOM REL fat.L-M.SG.N raise-PST-SG.M up hand-SG.ACC

Intended: ‘The person (lit. ‘that’) who is (lit. was) fat raised his hand.’

[maybe implausible because long forms of adjectives are incompatible with čto]

(32) *Tot čto včera by-l-Ø lučše.

that.M.NOM REL yesterday be-PST-SG.M better

Intended: ‘The one which was (lit. ‘is’) yesterday was better (e.g. of a concert).’

NB: the subclasses distinguished by Testelets are not repeated by this criterion. For instance, short

forms of adjectives behave distinctly from long forms. However, a complicated bunch of factors

influence possibility of the construction with a zero copula:

Animacy (the zero copula construction is better with animate subjects, this is why temporal

constructions are ungrammatical).

Restricted grammaticality of constructions with long form of adjectives in the predicative

position.

In general, however, constructions with two nominative NPs are unacceptable in the zero copula

construction.

Differences in temporal clauses vs. relative clauses: comparative degree and short forms of adjectives

are possible with zero copulas in relative clauses, but not in temporal clauses.

1.4. čem … tem (‘the more …, the more’) construction

8

Finally, the construction with the marker čem … tem behaves in a non-standard way with zero copulas in

that it admits difference in tense marking if the embedded clause contains a zero copula.

(33) Čem xolodnee tem xuže zavodi-l-a-s’ mašin-a.

the.more cold.COMPAR the.more worse switch.on-PST-SG.F-REFL car-SG.NOM

‘The colder it is in the street, the more difficult wast is to switch the car on.’

This construction has a very restricted combinability with types of zero copulas.

1.5. Resultative construction

Resultative construction is different from other criterions because it shows a semantic, rather than

grammatical difference between zero copulas and other predicates.

(34) Poverni napravo i ty u cerkv-i.

turn.IMPER.SG right and you.NOM at church-SG.GEN

‘Turn right and you are near the church.’

(35) Poverni napravo i ty stoi-š u cerkv-i.

turn.IMPER.SG right and you.NOM stand-PRS.2SG at church-SG.GEN

‘Turn right and you are near the church.’

This difference, contrary to the abovementioned ones, seems to be due to the aspectual value of the

copula. It seems that the resultative state meaning is more readily expressed by copula constructions

than by lexical verbs.

1.6. The problem of modal verbs

A special problem is constituted by modal verbs. Some zero copula constructions are possible with

modal verbs but not without them:

WORSE:

(38) ??Poka ja student-Ø, ja dela-l-Ø čto zaxoč-u.

while I.NOM student-SG.NOM I.NOM make-PST-SG.M what.ACC want.PF-FUT.1SG

‘While I am a student I made what I wanted.’

BETTER

(39) Poka ja student-Ø, ja mog dela-t’ čto zaxoč-u.

while I.NOM student-SG.NOM I.NOM can.PST.SG.M make-INF what.ACC want.PF-FUT.1SG

‘While I am a student I made what I wanted.’

WORSE:

(40) Kogda pjan-(yj) govori-l-Ø čto ja emu nadoje-l-a.

when drunk.SH(L) say-PST-SG.M that I.NOM he.DAT EVENING-SG.ACC

‘When he was (lit. is) drunk he said that he was fed up with me.’

9

BETTER:

(41) Kogda pjan-(yj) mog vykuri-t’ pačk-u za večer-Ø.

when drunk.SH(L) can.PST.SG.M smoke-INF PACK-SG.ACC FOR EVENING-SG.ACC

‘When he was (lit. is) drunk he could smoke up the whole pack of cigarettes in one evening.’

? Maybe the zero copula construction is embedded on the lowest level which is not localized in past but

is unreal?

(42) ‘It was better [not to bother him [when he is sad]].’

BUT-1: the copula construction is still better than the corresponding construction with a lexical verb (the

‘low’ interpretation would admit also lexical verbs in present tense).

BUT-2: semantics: for instance, (41) doesn’t mean ‘He could [smoke up the whole pack [when he is

drunk]]’. The temporal clause is not inside the scope of the modal operator.

It seems that possibility of constructions like (40)-(41) with a ‘tense conflict’ is regulated by several

factors:

1. Presence / absence of lexical verb in the embedded clause.

2. The embedded clause is attached under a clause with a past tense form / with an infinitive / ….

And, perhaps, it is important that modal verbs are not full-fledged verbs (BUT IT’S NOT FOR THIS TALK).

1.7. Syntactic status: ellipsis?

Can the constructions under analysis be interpreted as elliptical ones?

No!

1. Adverbial modifiers

In constructions under analysis, past tense adverbials, as, for instance, togda ‘then’ and v tot den’ ‘in

that day’ are impossible.

(9) *Poka v tot den’-Ø teplo gulja-l-i

while in that.M.SG.ACC day-SG.ACC warm.PREDIC walk-PST-PL

v džins-ax s nosk-ami.

in jeans-PL.LOC with sock-PL.INS

Intended: ‘While it was warm (lit. ‘it is warm’) this day, we wore jeans and socks.’

(33) *Čem xolodnee t-oj zim-oj tem xuže

the.more cold.COMPAR that-F.SG.GEN winter-SG.GEN the.more worse

zavodi-l-a-s’ mašin-a.

switch.on-PST-SG.F-REFL car-SG.NOM

‘The colder it is in the street that winter, the more difficult it was to switch the car on.’

2. Aspectual restrictions on kogda:

! A zero copula construction is only possible if compatible with the aspectual value of the particular type

of embedded structure:

10

kogda with past tense: either iterative (‘when he was drunk (for many times)’) or punctual

(‘when / while he was drunk (yesterday)’).

kogda with present tense: only iterative (‘when he is drunk (for many times)’, but not punctual

(‘when / while I am drunk now’, e.g. ‘While I am drunk (now), I can say any sort of things’).

(20) is possible (but only interpreted as iterative).

(20’) is impossible (iterative interpretation is out).

Copula construction is not a case of copula omission. Aspectual restrictions are as in constructions with

present tense.

1.8. Not copula? A dynamic verb?

In Russian, there are contexts where the zero is not a copula, but rather a zero dynamic verb: cf. Ty na

vokzal ‘Are you going to the railway station?’ (lit. ‘You to the railway station?’), see Melčuk 1995 for

classification of Øs in Russian.

No, rather a copula!

The complex clauses under analysis are impossible with dynamic verbs.

2. Strict behavior

In some constructions, in contrast, zero copula is impossible or restrictedly possible.

2.1. Tak i ‘still’

The construction with the particle tak i is synonymous to the construction do six por – both of them

mean ‘still’.

However, their combinational properties differ:

do six por: compatible with zero copulas

tak i: incompatible with most zero copula constructions.

Presence / absence of two nominative NPs is irrelevant here:

(43) *Ty tak i v Moskve?

you.NOM so and in Moscow-SG.LOC

‘Do you continue to live in Moscow?’

(44) Ty tak I žive-š v Moskve?

you.NOM so and live-PRS.2SG in Moscow-SG.LOC

‘Do you still live in Moscow?’

(45) *Polin-a tak i krasiv-aja / krasiv-a?

Polina-SG.NOM SO and beautiful.L-F.SG.NOM beautiful.SH-F.SG

‘Is Polina still beautiful?’

11

(46) Polin-a tak i ostaj-et-sja krasiv-oj?

Polina-SG.NOM SO and remain-PRS.3SG beautiful.L-F.SG.INS

‘Does Polina still remain beautiful?’

NB: constructions with ‘predicatives’, such as ploxo ‘bad’, and predicative non-locative uses of PPs, such

as ne po silam ‘unable, incapable’ (with an experiencer in an IO position) and ne v sostojanii (with an

experiencer in the subject position) are also impossible:

(47) *Tebe tak i ploxo / ne po sil-am et-o sdela-t’?

you.DAT so and bad.ADV NEG in force-PL.DAT THIS-ACC do-INF

‘Do you still feel bad / are you still incapable to do it?’

(4y) *Ty tak i ne v sostojan-ii et-o sdela-t’?

you.NOM so and NEG in state-SG.LOC THIS-ACC do-INF

‘Are you still incapable to do it?’

However, some constructions with PPs are possible:

(49) Ty tak i ne v kurs-e kto et-o

you.NOM so and NEG in course-SG.LOC WHO.NOM THIS-ACC

sdela-l-Ø?

do-PST-SG.M

‘Don’t you still know who did it? ’

Maybe, the restriction is due to the presence of the clitic particle i which requires a lexical predicative

host?

But see the following section…

2.2. Tol’ko i ‘only’

For tol’ko i ‘only’, containing the same clitic particle i, restrictions are more sophisticated.

(50) *Tol’ko Petj-a i futbolist-Ø.

only Petja-SG.NOM and football.player-SG.NOM

Intended: ‘Only Petja is a football player.’

(50) Tol’ko Petj-a i sta-l-Ø futbolist-om.

only Petja-SG.NOM and become-PST-SG.M football.player-SG.INS

‘Only Petja became a football player.’

(51) *Tol’ko Maš-a i krasiv-aja / krasiv-a.

only Masha-SG.NOM and beautiful.L-F.SG.NOM beautiful.SH-F.SG

‘Only Petja became a football player.’

(52) Tol’ko emu i po sil-am et-a zadač-a.

only he.DAT and in force-PL.DAT this-F.SG.NOM task-SG.NOM

‘Only he is able to solve this task.’

(53) *Tol’ko Petj-a i v Moskv-e.

only Petja-SG.NOM and in Moscow-SG.LOC

‘Only Petja became a football player.’

12

(54) Tol’ko Petj-a i v sostojani-i eto sdela-t’.

only Petja and in state-SG.LOC this make.PF-INF

‘Only Petja is able to do it.’

(55) *Tol’ko emu i ploxo.

only he.DAT and bad.ADV

‘Only Petja feels bad.’

(56) Tol’ko emu i prijatno tut gulja-t’.

only he.DAT and pleasant.ADV here walk-INF

‘Only to him is pleasant to walk here.’

NB: tol’ko i as a test for predicate status. Even short forms of adjectives are impossible in this

construction, but predicative PPs like v sostojanii are possible.

Testelets (2008, 2009): predicative PPs are similar to binominative constructionsand short forms of

adjectives.

The constructions under analysis show that predicative PPs are ‘more predicates’ than adjectives.

Linear order / quantity of words restriction: the tol’ko i construction is ungrammatical if there is only

one word after i.

Conclusions

1. In some contexts, restrictions on zero copulas are looser, and in some contexts stricter than on lexical

verbs.

Loose restrictions are due to lack of morphological categories marked on zero copulas. No

conflict between TAM characteristics of zero copulas and verbs in another clause.

Strict restrictions are due to the requirement of a lexical word for a clitic, but also of a lexical

head for interpretation of an operator. Noteworthy, the two construction with the clitic i behave

distinctly: this means that this problem cannot be accounted for only in terms of being clitic vs.

non-clitic.

2. The account proposed by Citko (2005), Testelets (2008, 2009) is satisfactory for negation but should

be adapted / revisited / or something else for all facts observed here:

It is not true that copula constructions behave entirely distinctly from lexical verb constructions

(the differences are rather scalar and the two classes of copula constructions are not uniform

across criteria.

It is not either true that copulas behave in the same way as copula verb constructions.

Possible solution: the more the copula construction is similar to an NP modifier, the less it demonstrates

tense agreement requirements and so on.

Arguments for this point of view:

In poka ‘while’-constructions with a zero copula often the subject is also omitted like poka v

Moskve ‘while in Moscow’ (= perhaps not a full-fldged embedded clause).

13

For relative clauses, the variant with a ‘tense conflict’ is most characteristic (relative clauses are

the most natural candidates to be equivalent to NP modififers).

Another factor favouring ‘tense conflicts’:

Stage-level predicates allow for tense conflicts more readily than individual level ones. This is

why locative constructions are happier in contexts like (9)-(10) and (20) than adjectival ones and

especially taxonomic ones.

Table 1. Compatibility of different types of copulas with diagnostic construction, not characteristic of

lexical verbs (‘liberal behaviour’).

poka + zero kogda + zero čem … tem + zero relative clauses

Existential + +- - - / implausible

Identifying implausible - +

Taxonomic -+? - +-

Relational implausible - +-

Characterizing with full form of adjective

- + -+ (mainly comparative)

Characterizing with short form of adjective

+- + implausible

Locative + + ? +

Possessive - +- -?

Temporal - / impl - -

Temporal with prepositional phrases

- / impl -? -

Predicatives (ploxo ‘bad’) + + + with some implausible

Predicative PPs - - -?

Table 2. Compatibility of different types of copulas with diagnostic construction, not characteristic of

lexical verbs (‘strict behaviour’).

tak i tol’ko i

Existential - -

Identifying - -

Taxonomic - -

Relational - -

Characterizing with full form of adjective

- -+

Characterizing with short form of adjective

- -+

Locative - -

Possessive - -

Temporal implausible -

Temporal with prepositional phrases

implausible -

Predicatives (ploxo ‘bad’) -? +

Predicative PPs -+ (with few) +

References

14

Adamou, Evangelia, and Denis Costaouec. 2010. Connective constructions in the world’s languages: a

functionalist approach. La lingustique 46 (1). 43-80.

Arutjunova, Nina D., and Evgeni N. Shirjaev. Russkoe predloženie. Bytijnyj tip. Moscow, 1983.

Junghanns, Uwe. 1997. On byt’ (and byti). In Uwe Junghans and Gerhild Zybatow (Hrsg.). Formale

Slavistik. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert Verlag. 251–265.

Mel’čuk, Igor A. 1971 (1972). O suppletivizme. In Shaumjan, Sebastian K. (ed.). Problemy strukturnoj

lingvistiki. Moscow: Akademija nauk SSSR.

Peškovskij, Alexandr M. 2001 (1928). Russkij sintaksis v naučnom osveščenii. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj

kul’tury.

Citko, Barbara. 2005. Copula Sentences Reconsidered. In James E. Lavine, Steven Franks, Mila Tasseva-Kurktchieva, Hana Filip (eds). Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics. The Princeton Meeting 2005. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publishers.

Franks, Steven, and Gerald Greenberg. 1994. The Functional Structure of Slavic Clauses. In Jindrich Toman (ed.) Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics. The Ann Arbor Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.

Rothstein, Susan. 2004. Predicates and their subjects. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Shirjaev, Evgeni N. Nulevye glagoly kak členy paradigmatičeskix i sintaksičeskix otnošenij. Candidate

degree dissertation. 1967.

Testelets, Yakov G. 2008. O predloženijax s nevyražennoj sv’azkoj v russkom jazyke. In Raisa I. Rozina and

Galina I. Kustova (eds). Dinamičeskie modeli: Slovo. Predloženie. Tekst. Sbornik statej v čest’ E.V.

Padučevoj. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskix kul’tur.

Weiss, Daniel. Die Faszination der Leere. Die moderne russische Umgangssprache und ihre Liebe zur

Null. In Zeitschrift für Slavische Philologie LIII/1993 (Beiträge zum XI. Internationalen Slavisten-Kongreß,

Bratislava 1993). 48–82.