Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-hqlzj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-17T22:30:51.304Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Typology Versus Mythology: The Case of the Zero-Copula

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Leon Stassen
Leon Stassen
Affiliation:
Department of General Linguistics, Catholic University of Nijmegen, Erasmusplein 1, K. 15–13, 6525 GG Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Email U248005@VM.UCI.KUN.NL
Get access

Abstract

It is widely believed that copulas perform a mere grammatical function, as carriers of grammatical categories such as Tense, Mood and Aspect in sentences with non-verbal predicates. Accordingly, zero copulas are predicted to occur only in contexts where these grammatical categories are unmarked. This article argues that this view of copulas, and especially of zero copula encoding, is untenable as a principle of Universal Grammar. More generally, the article demonstrates how typological generalizations can be used as an evaluation measure for putative abstract principles of linguistic theory.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 17 , Special Issue 2: Special issue on LINGUISTIC TYPOLOGY , December 1994 , pp. 105 - 126
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Aquilina, J. 1972. Maltese (Teach Yourself Books). London: St. Paul's House.Google Scholar
Ashiwaju, M. 1968. Lehrbuch der Yoruba-Sprache. Leipzig: V.E.B. Verlag.Google Scholar
Bamgbose, A. 1996b. A Grammar of Yoruba. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Benveniste, E. 1966a. La phrase nominale. In: Benveniste, E., Problèmes de linguistique generate. Paris: Gallimard, pp. 151–167.Google Scholar
Benveniste, E. 1966b. ‘Etre’ et ‘avoir’ dans leur fonctions linguistiques. In Benveniste, E., Problèmes de linguistique generale. Paris: Gallimard, pp. 187–207.Google Scholar
Bhattacharya, P. C. 1977. A Descriptive Analysis of the Boro Language. Assam: Gauhati University.Google Scholar
Bird, C. et al. 1977. Beginning Bambara. Bloomington, Indiana: (IULC).Google Scholar
Crazzolara, J. P. 1933. Outlines of a Nuer Grammar. Vienna: Anthropos.Google Scholar
Dik, S. C. 1980. Studies in Functional Grammar. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dik, S. C. 1983. Auxiliary and Copula Be in a Functional Grammar of English. In Heny, F. & Richards, B. (eds.), pp. 121–143.Google Scholar
Dik, S. C. 1989. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part I: The Structure of the Clause. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Donicie, A. 1959. De creolentaal van Suriname. Paramaribo: Radakishun.Google Scholar
Dorsey, J. O. & Swanton, J. R. 1912. A Dictionary of the Biloxi Ofo Languages. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Douglas, W. H. 1957. An Introduction to the Western Desert Language. Sydney.Google Scholar
Drabbe, P. 1965. Drie Asmat-dialecten. The Hague.Google Scholar
Fennell, J. L. I. 1961. The Penguin Russian Course. Middlesex: Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
Froger, F. 1923. Manuel pratique de la langue More. Paris: Fournier.Google Scholar
Fromm, H. & Sadeniemi, M. 1956. Finnisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Gair, J. W. 1970. Colloquial Sinhalese clause structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginter, K. & Tarnoi, L. 1986. Ungarisch für Ausländer. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado.Google Scholar
Glass, A. & Hackett, D. 1970. Pitjantjatjara grammar: a tagmemic view of the Ngaanyatjara (Warburton Ranges) dialect. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Graham, A. C. 1967. ‘Being’ in Classical Chinese. In Verhaar, J. W. M. (ed.), pp. 1–39.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. 1963. Some Universals of Language, with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements. In Greenberg, J. H. (ed.), Universals of Language. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, pp. 73–113.Google Scholar
Gregores, E. & Suarez, J. A. 1967. A Description of Colloquial Guarani. The Hague/Paris: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grierson, G. A. 1909. Linguistic Survey of India. Volume III: Tibeto-Burman Families. Part I: General Introduction. Specimens of Tibetan Dialects, the Himalayan Dialects, and the North Assam Group. Calcutta: Superintendent Government Printing.Google Scholar
Hall, R. 1944. Hungarian Grammar. Baltimore: Language Monographs. IB.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, S. P. 1976. Mokilese Reference Grammar. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Heny, F. & Richards, B. (eds.) 1983. Linguistic Categories: Auxiliaries and Related Puzzles. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Jacob, J. M. 1968. Introduction to Cambodian. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kiefer, F. 1968. A Transformational Approach to the Verb Van ‘to be’ in Hungarian. In Verhaar, J. W. M. (ed.), pp. 53–85.Google Scholar
LeCoeur, Ch. & LeCoeur, M. 1955. Grammaire et textes Teda-Daza. Ifan-Dakar: Memoires de l'Tnstitut Francais d'Afrique noire, no. 46.Google Scholar
Li, C. N. & Thompson, S. A. 1977. A Mechanism for the Development of Copula Morphemes. In Li, C N. (ed.), Mechanisms of Syntactic Change. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 419–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, C. N. & Thompson, S. A. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Vols. I–II. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lukas, J. 1953. Die Sprache der Tubu in der zentralen Sahara. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Lupardus, K. J. 1983. The Language of the Alabama Indians. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Mackinnon, R. 1971. Gaelic (Teach Yourself Books). London: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar
Mainwaring, G. B. 1876. A Grammar of the Rong (Lepcha) Language. Calcutta: Superintendent Government Press.Google Scholar
Makino, S. 1968. Japanese ‘Be’. In Verhaar, J. W. M. (eds.), pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
Meillet, A. 1906. La phrase nominale en indo-européen. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 14, 1–26.Google Scholar
Noss, R. B. 1964. Thai Reference Grammar. Washington, D.C.: Foreign Service Institute.Google Scholar
Okell, J. 1969. A Reference Grammar of Colloquial Burmese, I-II. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Press, M. L. 1974. A grammar of Chemehuevi. Ph.D. Dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
Rabel, L. 1961. Khasi, a Language of Assam. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
Ramamurti, G. V. 1931. A Manual of the Sora, or Savara, Language. Madras: Superintendent Government Press.Google Scholar
Rambaud, J.-B. 1903. La langue wolof. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.Google Scholar
Raptschinsky, B. 1946. Russische Spraakkunst. I. Groningen: Wolters.Google Scholar
Schiffman, H. F. 1984. A Reference Grammar of Spoken Kannada. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Smith, N. V. 1967. An Outline Grammar of Nupe. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.Google Scholar
Snyman, J. W. 1970. An Introduction to the Xu Language. Capetown: A.A. Balkema.Google Scholar
Sumner, A. T. 1922. A Handbook of the Temne Language. Freetown: Government Printing Office, Sierra Leone, West Africa.Google Scholar
Tucker, A. N. & Bryan, M. A. 1966. Linguistic Analyses. The Non-Bantu Languages of North-Eastern Africa. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Verhaar, J. W. M. (ed.) 1967. The Verb ‘Be’ and its Synonyms. Volume 1. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Verhaar, J. W. M. (ed.) 1968. The Verb ‘Be’ and its Synonyms. Volume 3. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Voorhoeve, C. L. 1965. The Flamingo Bay Dialect of the Asmat Language. The Hague: Ph.D. Diss., Leyden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warotamasikkhadit, U. 1972. Thai Syntax. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watkins, C. 1969. Indogermanische Grammatik. Vol. 3, Part 1. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar