01.05.2013 Views

Jaume Solà i Pujols - Departament de Filologia Catalana ...

Jaume Solà i Pujols - Departament de Filologia Catalana ...

Jaume Solà i Pujols - Departament de Filologia Catalana ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

an AP, PP or NP predicate. As before, Spanish does not forbid the b., d. and f. constructions.<br />

If we assume, as in Koopman & Sportiche (1988), that the EA forms a Small Clause with<br />

its VP in Agentive constructions, and that for some reason the subject of the Small clause follows<br />

the predicate in Catalan (optionally in Spanish), then this i<strong>de</strong>a extends naturally to non-VP small<br />

clauses.<br />

It has been conten<strong>de</strong>d in several papers (Bonet (1989), Saccon (1991)) that subject<br />

inversion is not possible with copulative constructions involving an individual-level predicate<br />

(in Kratzer's (1988) terminology). 10 The evi<strong>de</strong>nce is based on examples like the following:<br />

(17) a. *És intel.ligent en Joan<br />

Is intelligent the Joan<br />

b. *És <strong>de</strong> Barcelona la Maria<br />

Is from Barcelona the Maria<br />

The question is: are these examples unacceptable because individual-level predicates do<br />

not admit subject inversion at all, or because there is some restriction which exclu<strong>de</strong>s these<br />

examples without excluding all cases of subject inversion with individual-level predicates? I will<br />

assume that the latter i<strong>de</strong>a is on the right track.<br />

First of all, it is a general fact that the inverted subject, when sentence-final is Focus.<br />

Then it might be the case that in the preceding examples there is some problem concerning the<br />

10 In fact, several authors have conten<strong>de</strong>d that individuallevel-predicate<br />

copulative constructions the subject is directly<br />

generated in Spec of INFL (Kratzer (1988), Torrego (1989)). I<br />

think this is hardly tenable if the split INFL hypothesis is to<br />

be kept, unless it is somehow reinterpreted (e.g., by assuming<br />

that the Argument of an individual level predicate is generated<br />

higher up than the Argument of a Stage level predicate). I will<br />

abstract away from the issue. I think that, being equipped with<br />

the ISH and empty categories, we should not give up strict<br />

locality constraints on predication, unless semanticists<br />

themselves were to say otherwise for strictly semantic reasons,<br />

which is unlikely.<br />

1

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!