0

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Page 252) says:

It may be that the be of [Kim is fond of animals] should be regarded as semantically empty, serving the purely syntactic function of carrying the tense inflection, which has to be associated with a verb: note in this connection that translation equivalents in a good number of languages contain no verb. However, there are undoubtedly constructions where be does express a semantic predicate (e.g. in The chief culprit was Kim: see §5.5), and we will simplify by assuming that it does in all cases.

The copula be (is) of Kim is fond of animals is in the ascriptive use in that it ascribes to Kim the property of being fond of animals. By contrast, in The chief culprit was Kim, the copula be (was) is in the specifying use in that it specifies who the chief culprit was.

In the above excerpt, CGEL seems to be saying that the copula be in the ascriptive use has no meaning ("semantically empty") whereas that in the specifying use does have some meaning ("does express a semantic predicate").

Assuming this is what CGEL is saying, what semantic meaning does the copula be have in its specifying use (that the ascriptive be doesn't have)?

JK2
  • 6,553
  • Is this a trick question? In culprit was Kim, the "was" specifies the culprit by name. – Yosef Baskin Mar 22 '21 at 05:09
  • 1
    @YosefBaskin How does that make it a trick question? Please elaborate. Just so you know, I have no reason whatsoever to post a "trick question". – JK2 Mar 22 '21 at 05:12
  • So sorry, no disrespect. I meant that I was saying that be in its specifying use here does actually specify who. It does not just carry us across a divide, like an empty equal sign. – Yosef Baskin Mar 22 '21 at 05:36
  • @YosefBaskin No apologies necessary, but yours accepted. As for your explanation, do you really think that be itself (rather than the whole structure) carries the meaning of "specifying" in its specifying use? If you do, the same could be said about the ascriptive use, couldn't it? I mean, you could be saying, by the same logic, that the ascriptive be carries the meaning of "ascribing". And if anything has to be "an empty equal sign", it's the specifying be, not the ascriptive be. – JK2 Mar 22 '21 at 06:16
  • Just imagine the adverb specifically for specifying cases: The chief culprit was [specifically] Kim. The specifying was means was specifically. – Tinfoil Hat Mar 23 '21 at 03:16
  • @TinfoilHat If was meant was specifically, then your sentence would mean "The chief culprit was specifically specifically Kim." Just because you can add the adverb doesn't mean was includes the meaning of the adverb. – JK2 Mar 23 '21 at 03:40
  • Well, yeah, if you're CGEL, it does. – Tinfoil Hat Mar 23 '21 at 04:48
  • @TinfoilHat I don't know what you're talking about. – JK2 Mar 23 '21 at 05:36
  • I am saying that CGEL's specifying be includes, roughly, the meaning of an adverb like specifically, while its ascriptive be includes nothing. – Tinfoil Hat Mar 23 '21 at 13:53
  • @TinfoilHat Okay, then, what do you make of the last clause "we will simplify by assuming that it does in all cases" of the excerpt? Are they saying that they will assume that the copula be has a meaning in the specifying use as well as in the ascriptive use? – JK2 Mar 23 '21 at 15:17
  • Perhaps so. Sounds like they let go of semantic emptiness: It may be that the be of [3i] should be regarded as semantically empty... ([3i] is a typo by the way.) Paraphrasing: [... but let's go ahead and declare be — ascriptive or specifying — as expressing a semantic predicate.] So yes, maybe both bes carry semantic meaning. Maybe we could say the ascriptive be carries the meaning of "to be ascribed the property of": The chief culprit was hungry. —> The chief culprit was ascribed the property of "hungry". – Tinfoil Hat Mar 23 '21 at 18:41
  • @TinfoilHat What do YOU think about all this? Do you subscribe to the idea that the specifying be has its own meaning whereas the ascriptive be doesn't? I personally don't, in part because the specifying use as well as the ascriptive use is subsumed under the copula be, which by definition is simply functioning as a link between subject and predicative complement. // If your interpretation of the last clause is correct, I don't understand CGEL's reasoning for treating both uses as expressing "a semantic predicate" while still calling both uses the copula be. – JK2 Mar 24 '21 at 03:06
  • By treating both forms of the copula be as carrying meaning, aren't they saying that any copula be expresses a semantic predicate? – Tinfoil Hat Mar 24 '21 at 17:48
  • This is a genuinely interesting area of the language. I think the discussion-in-comments is not a bad way to deal with it. This is somewhere between grammar and logic. For example, the copula 'be' has a function in logic. For example, in the sentence "The culprit was Kim", 'was' is the 'was' of identity: "The culprit 'EQUALLED' Kim (or C=K)". So 'equals' in that sense also 'semantically empty'? Or are both 'is' and 'equals' both attributive? Oddly, I found that the Cambridge online dictionary ignore the identity use of the copula. – Tuffy Mar 24 '21 at 17:49
  • In 'John is John' (Tony Blair) there is a wealth of meaning. But possibly opinion-based / ... I'll stop there. – Edwin Ashworth Mar 24 '21 at 20:41
  • @TinfoilHat If they're really saying that any copula be expresses a semantic predicate, then they shouldn't be calling be 'copula', because 'copula' by definition simply links subject and predicative complement and is semantically empty. That's what I'm saying. – JK2 Mar 25 '21 at 02:55
  • @Tuffy As I understand it, people say the copula be is 'semantically empty' not because 'equal' somehow lacks any meaning but because the copula be is bleached of its original existential meaning. – JK2 Mar 25 '21 at 03:01
  • 1
    @JK2 We seem to be hurtling towards one of language's metaphysical and morphological black holes. – Tuffy Mar 25 '21 at 08:48
  • 1
    Or, as Bill Clinton once said, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” – Tinfoil Hat Mar 26 '21 at 02:24
  • @Tuffy What's so "metaphysical and morphological" about what I said? – JK2 Mar 26 '21 at 05:30
  • @EdwinAshworth briefly, there is a line according to which logical tautologies are not true but 'analytic' <'true-by-definition'>. As it stands, there is nothing to indicate whether it is empirically true or false. If I dig up a potsherd with "Marcus Marcus est" on it, I have no idea what it means. Maybe the writer is asserting M's right to be speak his mind about someone. Maybe he is refusing to change the name to be given to his new son. Maybe ... – Tuffy Mar 26 '21 at 09:41
  • @Tuffy 'Marcus' wasn't used by Beaker-folk. – Edwin Ashworth Mar 26 '21 at 17:04
  • @EdwinAshworth :) – Tuffy Mar 26 '21 at 21:13
  • You're supposed to groan. – Edwin Ashworth Mar 27 '21 at 10:59
  • Summing up, I would say that CGEL is wrong in trying to simplify by assuming be does "express a semantic predicate" in all cases. The way to simplify is to assume it's always an auxiliary, and that auxiliaries have no semantics. Hence, in The chief culprit was Kim, the proper noun phrase Kim is the predicate, and was is the auxiliary required for all predicate nouns and adjectives. If the sentence is reversed to Kim was the chief culprit, then the descriptive noun phrase the chief culprit is the predicate, once again, and was is an auxiliary, once again. That's much simpler. – John Lawler Mar 31 '21 at 15:00
  • @JohnLawler That may be simpler. But were Kim the predicate, why wouldn't The chief culprit seems Kim work? – JK2 Apr 01 '21 at 17:26
  • Because that's a different construction, and you can't have a predicate noun or adjective without a be auxiliary, which is present (seems to be Kim) but has been deleted by incorrect application of to be-deletion in this particular ungrammatical example. That's a fact about where to be-deletion is applicable, not about nominal predicates. – John Lawler Apr 01 '21 at 17:31
  • @JohnLawler So why is to be-deletion applicable to certain NPs (e.g., He seems a nice man.) but not to others (e.g., _He seems Kim*.)? Maybe, certain NPs such as _a nice man are indeed the predicate (as you claim them to be), but not the others such as Kim? – JK2 Apr 02 '21 at 03:27
  • Good question. One reason may be the difference in being an identity predicate and being a different kind of nominal predicate; another might be that seems nice has a Raised subject, where as *seems Kim doesn't. There are lots of complications. See Ann Borkin's classic 1973 paper ("To be and not to be", Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 9)). The matter was discussed further here in ELU.SE. – John Lawler Apr 02 '21 at 14:32
  • 1
    @JohnLawler Thanks for recommending the paper. A very interesting read! – JK2 Apr 03 '21 at 02:13
  • Ann Borkin was a genius. (I only use the past tense because she left linguistics, unfortunately.) – John Lawler Apr 03 '21 at 15:17
  • See also this question. – lly Aug 02 '21 at 04:54
  • @lly That's my own question. – JK2 Aug 02 '21 at 05:02
  • @JK2 Indeed. My comment isn't specifically directed at you, but making sure that these two show up in each other's side bars. – lly Aug 02 '21 at 05:08

0 Answers0