A SYNTACTIC ANALYSIS OF COPULAR SENTENCES*
Masato Niimura
Nanzan University

1. Introduction
Copular is a verb whose main function is to link subjects with predicate complements. Ina limited sense, the copular refers to a verb that does not have any semantic content, but links
subjects and predicate complements. In a broad sense, the copular contains a verb that has its
own meaning and bears the syntactic function of “the copular.”
Higgins (1979) analyses English copular sentences and classifies them into three types.
(1)a.

predicational sentenceb.

specificational sentencec.

identificational sentence

Examples are as follows:(2)a.

John is a philosopher.

b.

The bank robber is John Smith.

c.

That man is Mary’s brother.

(2a) is an example of predicational sentence. This type takes a reference as subject, andstates its property in predicate. In (2a), the reference is John, and its property is a philosopher.
(2b) is an example of specificational sentence, which expresses what meets a kind of
condition. In (2b), what meets the condition of the bank robber is John Smith. (2c) is an
example of identificational sentence, which identifies two references. This sentence identifies
that man and Mary’s brother.

*

This paper is part of my MA thesis submitted to Nanzan University in March, 2007. This paper was
also presented at the Connecticut-Nanzan-Siena Workshop on Linguistic Theory and Language
Acquisition, held at Nanzan University on February 21, 2007. I would like to thank the participants forthe discussions and comments on this paper. My thanks go to Keiko Murasugi, Mamoru Saito,
Tomohiro Fujii, Masatake Arimoto, Jonah Lin, Yasuaki Abe, William McClure, Keiko Yano andNobuko Mizushima for the invaluable comments and discussions on the research presented in thispaper.
Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1, 203-237© Masato Niimura

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

Higgins’ (1979) analysis is to classify English copular sentences. In this paper, we ask
whether or not this classification peculiar to English, and discuss that Higgins’ (1979)classification is in fact applicable to Japanese and Chinese as well. We will also show that the
English copular, the Japanese copular, and the Chinese copular share some common syntactic
properties.
In many languages, copular can be omitted; or the copular omission takes place. The
phenomenon emerges in different ways among languages. For example, the following is from
Russian.
(3)a.

eto by-ldom
this COP-3SG.MSC.PST house‘This was a house.’b.

eto dom.
this house‘This is a house.’(Pustet 2003)(3a) is a past tense sentence, and (3b) is present tense one. In Russian, the copular by-l is
obligatorily deleted in the present tense.
(4) is an example of Turkish copular omission.
(4)

bu fare(-dir)this mouse-COP.3SG‘this is a mouse.’(Pustet 2003)

In Turkish, the copular -dir is optional in all contexts.
How could we capture these differences? This study compares English and with respect
to the conditions where the copular is omitted, and analyses the differences that we observe.
Observing the circumstances of copular omission in English and Japanese, there aresimilarities and differences. Examples are shown below.
(5)

(6)

a.

The winner *(is) a good runner.

b.

The winner *(is) Mary.

a.

John wa tetugakusya (da).
John TOP philosopher COP(Rothstein 1995)‘John is a philosopher.’-204-

A Syntactic Analysis of Copular Sentences (M. Niimura)b.

Ginkou-goutou wa John ?(da).
Bank-robber TOP John COP‘The bank robber is John.’

The sentences in (5) are examples of English main clause copular omission, and the sentencesin (6) are examples of the Japanese counterpart. In English main clauses, the copular cannot
be omitted, but in Japanese main clauses, it can be omitted. In (6), though the versions withcopulars sound more natural.
(7) and (8) are examples of embedded sentences from English and Japanese,respectively.
(7)

(8)

a.

I consider the winner (to be) a good runner.

b.

I consider the winner *(to be) Mary.

a.

Boku wa John otetugakusya (da) toomot-teiru.
I
TOP John ACC philosopher COP COMP think-PROG(Rothstein 1995)‘I consider John to be a philosopher.’b.

Boku wa ginkou-goutou oJohn ??(da) toomot-teiru.
I
TOP bank-robber ACC John COP COMP think-PROG‘I consider the bank robber to be John.’

Even in the same English examples, the copular can be deleted in (7a), but not in (7b). In
Japanese example (8) is just the same as English. The copular can be omitted in (8a), but notin (8b).
The main difference between Japanese and English lies in possibility of copular omission
in main clauses. In Japanese, copular omission is possible in main clauses, on the one hand. In
English, copular omission is impossible in main clauses, on the other. We attribute thedifference to the property nature of predicates, and show that the copular plays the same role
among languages.
The structure of this paper is as follows. I begin with Higgins’ (1979) classification of
copular sentences in section 2. After looking at the characteristics of three copular sentences,
we will show that these characteristics are applicable to Japanese and Chinese. This supports
the idea that Higgins’ (1979) classification is universal.
In section 3, we will make generalizations as to where copular omission occurs in
English and Japanese. We attempt to determine the conditions where copular omission occurs
in main clauses and embedded clauses, and describe the difference and the similarity between
the two languages.

-205-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

In section 4, we attempt to provide theoretical explanation for the facts we observe insection 3. We will show that the central properties of copular omission in Japanese embedded
clauses are explained by appealing to Rothstein’s (1995) predication relation.
In section 5, we will focus on main clauses. In main clauses, there is a major difference
between English and Japanese. The difference is attributed to a certain difference arising
between English and Japanese predicates. We suggest that the copular plays the same role in
English and Japanese.
Section 6 summarizes the paper.
2. Three Types of Copular Sentences by Higgins (1979)
Before analyzing copular omission, we look at the analysis of copular sentences by
Higgins (1979). Higgins classifies copular sentences into the following three types.
(9)a.

predicational sentenceb.

specificational sentencec.

identificationa sentence‘Predicational sentence’ is a type of sentence whose subject refers to some individual
and the predicate states that individual’s property. ‘Specificational sentence’ refers to the typeof sentence in which the referent of the post-copular noun phrase is the entity that meets a
condition denoted by the pre-copular noun phrase. The function of ‘identificational sentence’is to equate the references of the two noun phrases, both of which are fully referential. We
will review the properties of these three sentence types and show that this classification holds
for Japanese and Chinese.
2.1. The Classification of English Copular Sentences by Higgins (1979)
Examples of three types by Higgins (1979) are follows.
(10) Predicational sentencea.
John is tall.
b.

John is a teacher.

(11) Specificational sentencea.
The bank robber is John Smith.
b.

The winner is my brother.

-206-

A Syntactic Analysis of Copular Sentences (M. Niimura)(12) Identificational sentencea.
That man is Mary’s brother.
b.

The man over there is the Mayer of Cambridge.

The sentences in (10) are predicational sentences, the sentences in (11) are specificational
sentences, and the sentences in (12) are identificational sentences.
In predicational sentences given in (10), the subject noun phrases refer to something;hence they are referential.1 On the other hand, the complement noun phrases do not havereference, and work just like adjectives. Therefore, they are not referential.
In the case of specificational sentences like (11), the complements are referential.
Subject noun phrases refer to something, but we cannot decide the exact one. Therefore, thecomplements are weakly referential.
In identificational sentences like (12), subjects and complements are both referential.
These facts are summarized in (13).
(13) Analysis of three copular sentences from the point of referentiality.
subject, complement
type of sentences
Predicational sentenceSpecificational sentence
Identificational sentence

subject

complement

referential
weakly referentialreferential

nonreferentialreferentialreferential

Now, look at the syntactic features of these three types. In predicational sentences, thereversed order of subjects and complements is not possible.
(14) a.

John is a teacher.

b.

*A teacher is John.

(14a) is grammatical, but (14b), in which the order of subjects and complements is reversed,
is ungrammatical. On the other hand, in specificational sentences and identificational
sentences, the order of subjects and complements can be reversed(15) a.

The bank robber is John Smith.

b.

John Smith is the bank robber.

1

The names of each features [referential], [nonreferential], and [weakly referential] are by Okuno(1989).

-207-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1(16) a.

That man is Mary’s brother.

b.

Mary’s brother is that man.

(15) is specificational, and (16) is identificational. (15b) is the ‘reversed’ version of (15a).
Likewise, (16b) is the ‘reversed’ version of (16a). In each sentence, the order of subjects andcomplements can be reversed.
According to Higgins (1979), complements in predicational sentences can follow theverb become.
(17) a.
b.

John became tall.
John became a teacher.

The examples in (10) can be changed by using become, as in (17), so these are predicational.
Specificational sentences and identificational sentences does not allow become to follow theirpre-copular phrases.
(18)* The bank robber became John Smith.

(19)* That man becomes Mary’s brother.

(18) is based on (11a, and (19) on (12a). (18) and (19) are ungrammatical, which suggeststhat the copular in (11a) and (12a) cannot be replaced with become.
Only specificational sentences can be paraphrased with following as shown below.
(20) a.
b.

The bank robber is John Smith.
The following person is the bank robber: John Smith.

These syntactic features are summarized in (21)(21) Syntactic features of English copular sentences
test
Type of sentences
Predicational sentenceSpecificational sentence
Identificational sentence

reversed order*OKOK

becomereplacement
OK**

paraphrasewith following*
OK*

To sum up this subsection, we have reviewed Higgins’ (1979) classification, and thefeatures of the three types that he observed. In English, there are three types of copularsentences. Then, is this classification is universal? The next subsection, we will show
Higgins’ (1979) diagnostics apply to Japanese copular sentences as well.

-208-

A Syntactic Analysis of Copular Sentences (M. Niimura)

2.2. The Classification of Japanese Copular Sentences
Before applying Higgins’ (1979) classification to Japanese, one clarification of theJapanese copular is needed. Nishiyama (1999) argues that Japanese adjectives and nominal
adjectives share the same structure. In this study, he claims that the Japanese copular da isderived from de aru. Nishiyama’s (1999) arguments are summarized below.
2.2.1. Nishiyama’s (1999) analysis of Japanese copular(s)Japanese da is the contracted form of de aru. (See Nishiyama (1999), Nakayama (1988),
Urushibara (1993) among others.)(22) a.

Yoru gasizuka da.
night NOM quiet da‘The night is quiet.’b.

Yoru gasizuka de-aru.
night NOM quiet de-aru

Nishiyama (1999) analyses Japanese da as derived from de aru, based on some pieces ofevidence shown below.
First, there are some contexts where contraction cannot apply.
(23) a.

Yoru gasizuka de mo aru.
night NOM quiet de even aru‘The night is even quiet.’b.

*Yoru gasizuka da mo.
night NOM quiet da even
‘The night is even quiet.’

In (23), the particle mo is inserted. The only possible form is the one with de, as in (23a), notthe form da, as in (23b). If da is the basic form of the copular, it is not clear why it cannot be
used in the context shown in (23b). There is an adjacency requirement in the contraction of dearu into da. When a particle like mo intervenes between de and aru, the contraction isblocked.
Another context where the contraction is blocked is before should.
(24)

Yoru wa sizuka *da/*no/*na/de aru bekida.
night TOP quiet COP
should da‘The night should be quiet.’-209-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

In (24), even though there is no element between de and aru, we cannot use da. If da is thebasic form of copular, it is not clear why it cannot be used in the context found in (24). (23)and (24) show that the basic form is not da but de aru.
Before analyzing /de/ and /ar/, Nishiyama (1999) introduces the two views on the
copular. According to Bach (1967), the copular is a dummy element whose function is merely
to support tense.
(25) a.
b.

I consider [Xeli a nut].
Xeli *(is) a nut.

In a small clause structure like the one seen in (25a), the copular is not necessary, even though
there seems to be a predication relation between Xeli and a nut. In a matrix sentence like(25b), however, the copular is necessary. Based on the fact that the copular is not necessary inexamples like (25a), Rapoport (1987) claims that it is inserted to support the feature of INFL.
Bach and Rapoport share the following view on the copular.
(26) Semantically vacuous copular
The copular appears when there is a formal (syntactic or morphological) requirement.
(26) assumes that the copular has no meaning.
A different view was proposed by Bloch (1946). His view is as follows.
(27) Semantically contentful copular
The copular is an essential ingredient for (non-verbal) predication.
Nishiyama (1999) claims that Block’s (1946) view seems to be correct in the case ofJapanese.
(28) a.

John gasakana ohadaka de tabeta.
John NOM fish ACC naked de ate‘John ate the fish naked.’b.

John gasakana onama de tabeta.
John NOM fish
ACC raw de ate‘John ate the fish raw.’

Examples in (28a-b) are secondary predicate constructions. Whereas English copular requires
no copular in this context, Japanese requires de. In other words, even when there seems to be
no tense feature to support, Japanese requires the copular. This makes sense if we adopt (27)because there is predication in (28). /de/ is the copular which is not a dummy element but isthe essential part of predication.

-210-

A Syntactic Analysis of Copular Sentences (M. Niimura)

What about /ar/, then? Nakayama (1988) and Urushibara (1993) analyze /ar/ as the
copular as well. However, they adopt (26). That is, they assume that /ar/ has no semantic
content and that its function is to support tense.
Nishiyama (1999) adopts Bloch’s (1946) view and Bach’s (and Rapoport’s) view, and herefers to /de/ as the predicative copular and /ar/ as the dummy copular. Nishiyama proposesthat the predicative copular projects Predicate Phrase in the sense of Bowers (1993).
(29)

TP
NP

T’

yoru
‘night’

VP
PredP

AP
shizuka‘quiet’

T
V

Pred

-u
‘pres’ar‘dum.cop’

de‘pred.cop’

Bowers’ main claim is that whenever there is predication, there is a projection PredP.
However, since Pred is usually null, it is hard to support this proposal empirically. The
dummy copular projects VP, which is selected by T, and then supports the tense marker.2
These are the main points of Nishiyama’s (1999) analysis. The Japanese copular da isderived from de aru. In the next subsection, Japanese sentences with da are analyzed in theframework of Higgins’ (1979) classification.

2

Nishiyama (1999) analyzes the /k/ in Japanese adjectives as the copular based on examples likethose shown below.
(i)a.

Yama-ga
taka-ku-mo ar-u.
mountain-NOM high-ku-even be-PRES‘The mountain is even high.’b.

Yoru-gasizuka-de-mo ar-u.
night-NOM quiet-de-even be-PRES‘The night is even quiet.’

If we assume that (ib) is analyzed in the same way as (29), and that ku and de have the same status, /k/in (ia) is also a copular. In this paper, we deal with only da.

-211-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

2.2.2. Three types of copular sentences in JapaneseJapanese copular sentences also have the properties Higgins’ (1979) three types ofsentences has discussed. Observe (30-32).
(30) Predicational sentencea.
John wa tetugakusya da.
John TOP philosopher COP‘John is a philosopher.’b.

John wa sinsetu da.
John TOP kind COP‘John is kind.’(31) Specificational sentencea.
Ginkou goutou wa John da.
bank robber TOP John COP‘The bank robber is John.’b.

Sono syousya wa
watasi no anida.
this winner TOP I
GEN brother COP‘The winner is my brother.’(32) Identificational sentencea.
Ano otoko wa Mary no anida.
that man TOP Mary GEN brother COP‘That man is Mary’s brother.’b.

Asoko ni
iru otokonohito wa Cambridge no sityou da.
there LOC be man
TOP Cambridge GEN mayor COP‘The man over there is the Mayor of Cambridge.’(30) is predicational, (31) is specificational, and (32) is identificational. Do these sentences
have the characteristics of the three sentential types proposed by Higgins (1979)?
In predicational sentences, we cannot reverse the order of subjects and complements,
shown in (14). Complements in predicational sentence can follow become as in (17).
Predicational sentences cannot be paraphrased by using following. Do Japanese counterparts
have these features?

-212-

A Syntactic Analysis of Copular Sentences (M. Niimura)(33) Predicational sentencea.
John wa tetugakusya da.
John TOP philosopher COP(=30)

b. * Tetugakusya ga
John da.
philosopher NOM John COPc.

(reversed order)

John wa tetugakusya ni
natta.
John TOP philosopher COP became(complement of become)d. * Kakino mono ga
John dearu : tetugakusya.
following COP person NOM John COP philosopher(following …)(33a) shows the characteristics of predicational sentences. (33b) is the version of it in which
the order of the subject and the complement is reversed. This sentence is ungrammatical.3 We
can replace the copular in (33a) with become as in (33c). We cannot paraphrase (33a) to (33d)by using following. Thus, Japanese seems to have the equivalent of English predicational
sentences.
Now, do Japanese sentences that qualify as specificational in terms of referentiality havethe characteristics of English specificational sentences? In specificational sentences, we canreverse the order of subjects and complements as in (15), become cannot be used as in (18),and the paraphrase with following is possible as in (20).
(34) Specificational sentencea.
Ginkou goutou wa John da.
bank robber TOP John COPb.

(=31a)

John ga
ginkou goutou da.
John NOM bank robber COP(reversed order)c. * Ginkou goutou wa John ninatta.
bank robber TOP John COP becamed.

(complement of become)Kaki
no mono ga
ginkou goutou dearu : John. (following …)
following COP person NOM bank robber COP John(34a) is a specificational sentence. We can reverse the order of the subject and complement in(34b), but we cannot use naru, as shown in (34c). The paraphrase with following is possible
as in (34d). Thus, Japanese specificational sentences behave in the same way as their English
counterparts.

3

When the subject tetugakusya is nonreferential, this sentence is ungrammatical.

-213-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

Finally, let us look at Japanese identificational sentences. The characteristics ofidentificational sentences include: that the reversed order is possible, that the sentences do notallow become as the main verb, and that this type cannot be paraphrased with following.
(35) Identificational sentencea.
Ano otoko wa Mary no anida.
that man TOP Mary GEN brother COPb.

(=32a)

Mary no ani
gaano otoko da.
Mary GEN brother NOM that man COP

c. * Ano otoko wa Mary no aninithat man TOP Mary GEN brother COP(reversed order)

natta. (complement of become)becamed. * Kakino mono ga
ano otoko dearu: Mary no ani. (the following …)
following COP person NOM that man COP Mary GEN brother(35a) counts as an identificational sentence, based on the referential properties of the subject
and the complement. (35b) in which the order of the subject and the complement is reversed
is grammatical. The verb naru cannot be used in this type as in (35c). The paraphrase using
following is not possible as shown in (35d).
The summary of (32-35) is shown in (36).
(36) Syntactic features of Japanese copular sentences
test reversed orderType of sentences
Predicational sentenceSpecificational sentence
Identificational sentence

*
OK
OK

complementsof becomeparaphrasewith following

OK
*
*

*
OK
*

complementsof becomeOK**paraphrasewith following*
OK*

This chart parallels to English counterpart.
(21) Syntactic features of English copular sentences
test
Type of sentences
Predicational sentenceSpecificational sentence
Identificational sentence

reversed order*OKOK

Thus, Higgins’ (1979) classification is applicable to Japanese.

-214-

A Syntactic Analysis of Copular Sentences (M. Niimura)

2.3. The Classification of Chinese Copular Sentences
We showed that the classification proposed by Higgins (1979) applies to Japanese. Whatabout other languages, then? Here, we take Chinese and show that the his classification isapplicable to Chinese as well. In Chinese, shi is used to link subjects and complements.
Following Tang (2000), I regard shi as copular. First, the examples which seem to beequivalent to Higgins’ three sentential types are presented below.
(37) Predicational sentence
Zhangsan shi zhexuejia
Zhangsan be philosopher(38) Specificational sentence
Neige shengzhe shi Zhangsan
That winner be Zhangsan(39) Identificational sentence
Neige ren shi Zhangsan
That man be Zhangsan

gege
brother(37) is predicational, (38) is specificational, and (39) is identificational. Do these sentences
have the characteristics of three sentential types observed by Higgins (1979)?
(40) Predicational sentencea.
Zhangsan shi zhexuejia.
Zhangsan be philosopher

(=37)

b.

*Zhexuejia shi Zhangsan.
philosopher be Zhangsan(reversed order)c.

Zhangsan dang zhexuejia.
Zhangsan become philosopher(complement of become)d.

*Xialieren shi Zhangsan: zhexuejia.
following person be Zhangsan philosopher(following …)(40a) is a predicational sentence. First, (40b), in which the order of the subject and thecomplement is reversed, is ungrammatical. We can use dang, which is equivalent to become,in stead of shi, as in (40c). We cannot paraphrase (33a) to (33d). Thus, Chinese predicational
sentences and English predicational sentences behave alike with respect to Higgins’
diagnostics. The same holds for specificational sentences. Consider (41a).
(41) Specificational sentencea.
Neige shengzhe shi Zhangsan.
that winner be Zhangsan

(=38)

-215-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1b.

ZhangsanZhangsanshi neige shengzhe.
be that winner(reversed order)c. * Neige shengzhe dang Zhangsan.
(complement of become)that winner become Zhangsand.
Xialieren
shi neige shengzhe: Zhangsan. (following …)
following person be that winner Zhangsan(41b), where the subject and the complement is reversed, is grammatical. The verb dangcannot be used as in (41c). The paraphrase using following is possible as in (41d). These facts
show that Chinese specificational sentences also parallel their English counterparts. Finally.
turn to identificational sentences. (42a) is a Chinese example of the relevant kind.
(42) Identificational sentencea.
Neige ren shi Zhangsan gege.
that person be Zhangsan brotherb.

Zhagnsan gege shi neige ren.
Zhangsan brother be that personc. * Neige ren dang Zhangsan gege.
that person become Zhangsan brother(=39)(reversed order)(complement of become)d. * Xielirenshi neige ren: Zhangsan gege.
following person be that person Zhangsan brother(following …)(42b), where the subject and the complement is reversed, is grammatical. (42b) shows that theverb dang cannot be used. The paraphrase using following is impossible as in (42d).
The summary of the data discussed in (40-42) is shown in (43).
(43) Syntactic features of Chinese copular sentences
test
Type of sentences
Predicational sentence
specificational sentence
identificational sentence

reversed order*OKOK

complementsof becomeOK**paraphrasewith following*
OK*

This chart parallels to the English chart, repeated below. Thus, Higgins’ (1979) classificationis also applicable to Chinese.

-216-

A Syntactic Analysis of Copular Sentences (M. Niimura)(21) Syntactic features of English copular sentences
test
Type of sentences
Predicational sentenceSpecificational sentence
Identificational sentence

reversed order*OKOK

complementsof becomeOK**paraphrasewith following*
OK*

So far, we have looked at the classification of copular sentences proposed by Higgins(1979) are applicable to Japanese and Chinese. These facts show that this classification isuniversal.
In the next section, we turn to the phenomenon of copular omission. Is there any
similarity between Japanese and English as to copular omission? If there are somedifferences, why is it so? Before making a comparative study, we will see a generalization
about where copular can be omitted in English. Then, we will examine the case where
Japanese copular is omitted, and based on the arguments there, we will draw a generalization
on Japanese copular omission.
3. The Generalization about Copular Omission
In this section, the contexts where the copular is dropped are described. We examine thedata concerning copular omission in matrix clauses and embedded clauses in English andJapanese. First, the copular omission in English is discussed in 3.1. Japanese copular omission
is discussed in 3.2. Second, Japanese embedded clauses are different from English ones withrespect to Case marking. Relevant examples closely examined in 3.2. In order to capture thedifference between the two languages, we will look at Tanaka’s (2002) analysis of Japanese
embedded clauses.
3.1. The Contexts of Copular Omission in English
First, let us consider the contexts of copular omission in English. (44) and (45) are from
Rothstein (1995).
(44) a.

The winner *(is) a good runner.

(predicational sentence)b.

The winner *(is) Mary.

(specificational sentence)c.

That woman *(is) Mary.

(identificational sentence)

I consider the winner (to be) a good runner.

(predicational sentence)b.

I consider the winner *(to be) Mary.

(specificational sentence)c.

I consider that woman *(to be) Mary.

(identificational sentence)(45) a.

-217-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1(44a) and (45a) are predicational, (44b) and (45b) are specificational, and (44c) and (45c) are
identificational. (44) shows that copular omission is not possible in matrix clauses in any
sentential type. However, in embedded clause, as can be seen in (45), the copular can bedeleted only in predicational sentences. The reason is discussed in the next section based on
the theory of predication proposed by Rothstein (1999). The generalization concerning
copular omission in English is shown in (46).
(46) a.
b.

In matrix clauses, copular omission is impossible.
In embedded clauses, copular omission is possible only in predicational sentences.

Copular omission in matrix clauses is discussed in section 5. In the next subsection, thecontexts of copular omission in Japanese are examined.
3.2. The Contexts of Copular Omission in JapaneseIn this subsection, we propose a generalization concerning the contexts where copularomission is possible in Japanese. First, the contexts of copular omission in matrix clauses aredescribed in 3.2.1. Then, the contexts of copular omission in embedded clauses are describedin 3.2.2. In the case of embedded clauses, we find a difference between Japanese and English.
One example is shown below.
(47) a.
b.

I believe that he is smart.
Taroo wa [Hanako no
goukaku ga/ ototemo uresii to]
Taroo TOP Hanako GEN pass
NOM/ACC very glad COMP
omot-teiru (rasii).
think-PROG seem
‘Taroo is glad for Hanako’s success in the examination.’

In English example (47a), only nominative Case is assigned to the subject in the embedded
tensed clause. On the other hand, in Japanese example (47b), accusative Case as well asnominative Case can be assigned to the subject in the embedded tensed clauses. The
difference between Japanese and English with respect to Case marking will be taken up by
examining Tanaka’s (2002) analysis of raising to object out of CP.
3.2.1. The contexts of copular omission in Japanese matrix clauses
How is the copular omission in matrix clauses in Japanese? The contexts are described in
the following manner, based on Higgins’ (1979) classification.
(48) The copular omission in matrix clausesa.
John wa tetugakusya (da).
John TOP philosopher COP(Predicational sentence)-218-

A Syntactic Analysis of Copular Sentences (M. Niimura)b.

Ginkou goutou wa John ?(da).
bank robber TOP John COP(Specificational sentence)c.

Ano otoko wa Mary no ani ?(da).
that man TOP Mary GEN brother COP(Identificational sentence)(48a) is predicational, (48b) is specificational, and (48c) is identificational. The copular canbe omitted in any sentential type.
3.2.2. The contexts of copular omission in Japanese embedded clauses
Before looking at the data concerning Japanese embedded clause copular omission, we
have to clarify the difference between Japanese embedded clauses and English embedded
clauses. The problem is whether Japanese has the structure equivalent to the one that the
English Exceptional Case Marking (ECM) construction has.4 Traditionally, the Japanesecounterparts of the English sentences given in (49) have been thought to be sentences like(50) or (51).
(49) a.

I believe / consider that he is smart.

b.

I believe / consider him to be smart.

(50) a.

Taroo wa [Hanako no goukaku ga/ ototemo uresii to]
Taroo TOP Hanako GEN pass
NOM/ACC very glad COMP
omot-teiru.
think-PROG‘Taroo is glad for Hanako’s success in the examination.’b.

Taroo wa [Hanako no goukaku *ga/ ototemo uresiku]
Taroo TOP Hanako GEN pass
NOM/ACC very gladomot-teiru.
think-PRG

4

Exceptional Case marking construction refers to sentences like (i).

(i)

John believes [IP her to be happy].

Since to does not assign Case, the verb believe in the main clause assigns accusative Case to thesubject in IP.

-219-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1(51) a.

Hanako wa [Taroo no narenaresii taido ga/
omeiwaku da to]
Hanako TOP Taroo GEN familiar
manner NOM/ACC annoyance COP COMP
omot-teiru.
think-PROG‘Hanako finds Taroo’s old pals act annoying.’b.

Hanako wa [Taroo no narenaresii taido *ga/ omeiwkau ni]
Hanako TOP Taroo GEN familiar manner NOM/ACC annoyance COP
omot-teiru.
think-PROG

Comparing the English examples in (49) and the Japanese examples in (50) and (51), we finda difference in embedded clauses. In Japanese, accusative Case can be assigned not only tothe subject in non-tensed clauses, but also to the subject in tensed clauses. Accusative Case isassigned to the subject of the embedded clause in (50a). Nominative Case is also assigned. In
the case of non-tensed clauses like the one in (50b), only accusative Case is assigned,
similarly to what happens in English. Kuno (1976) proposes and Tanaka (2002) defends the‘Rasing to Object (RTO)’ analysis for the construction exemplified by (51).
3.2.2.1. Tanaka’s (2002) analysis of Japanese embedded clauses
The Japanese sentences in (52) are equivalent. The difference between them lies in thecase of the complement subject: nominative Case in (52a) and accusative Case in (52b).
(52) a.

John ga
Bill gabaka da toJohn NOM Bill NOM fool COP COMP

omot-teiru.
think-PROG‘John thinks that Bill is a fool.’b.

John ga
Bill obaka da toomot-teiru.
John NOM Bill ACC fool COP COMP think-PROG

Kuno (1976) argues that the complement subject in (52b) is raised to the matrix clause. Hisarguments are shown below.
(53) a. * John ga [Bill ga
orokanimo tensai da to]omot-teiru.
John NOM Bill NOM stupidly genius COP COMP think-PROG‘Stupidly, John thinks that Bill is a genius.’b.

John ga
Bill oiorokanimo [ti tensai da to]omot-teiru.
John NOM Bill ACC stupidly
genius COP COMP think-PROG

First, the matrix adverb can be placed after the accusative complement subject (53b), but not
after the nominative complement subject (53a). Since the matrix adverb in (53b) follows the-220-

A Syntactic Analysis of Copular Sentences (M. Niimura)complement subject, the complement subject in this example must be a matrix constituent.
Second, Japanese does not allow long distance scrambling of a subject noun phrase.5(54)Bill gaiJohn ga [ti baka da to ]omot-teiru
Bill NOM John NOM fool COP COMP think-PROG‘Billi, John thinks that ti is a fool.’

However, the raised object in (52b) can undergo scrambling.
(55)

Bill oiJohn ga [ti baka da to]omot-teiru.
Bill ACC John MON fool COP COMP think-PROG‘Billi, John thinks of ti as a fool.’This shows that the complement subject is a matrix constituent.
Third, (56) shows that pronouns in Japanese are subject to Condition B.
(56) a. * John gai kare oi
hihansita.
John NOM he ACC criticized‘Johni criticized himi.’b. ? John gai [kare gai
baka da to]omot-teiru.
John NOM he NOM fool COP COMP think-PROG‘Johni thinks that hei is a fool.’
Binding Theory is shown in (57).

5Long distance scrambling is like (i).

(i)

a.

Syukudai-oi[sensei-wa [Yoshio-ga ei mou teisyutusita-to ] omot-teita]
homework-ACC teacher-TOP Yoshio-NOM already submitted-COMP think-Prog-Past‘The teacher though that Yoshio had already submitted the homework.’b.

Sono mati-nii, [Yano-wa [Akemi-ga
eithat town-LOC Yano-TOP Akemi-NOM

ima-demo sundeiru-to] sinzi-takat-ta].
now-even live-COMP believe-want-Past‘Yano wanted to believe that Akemi was living in the town.’
Scrambling found in (i) is different from short distance scrambling in some respects. First, a break is
not obligatory in short distance scrambling, but a break is obligatory in (ia, b). Second, long distancescrambling needs contrastive meanings.

-221-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1(57) A.

An anaphor must be bound in its binding domain.

B.

A pronominal must be free in its binding domain.

C. An R-expression must be free.
Since pronouns must be free in their binding domain, (56b) is ungrammatical. In (56b),
however, kare in CP can take John as its antecedent.
(58)* John gai kare oi [ti baka da to]omot-teiru.
John NOM he ACC fool COP COMP think-PROG‘Johni thinks of himi as a fool.’

Pronominal RTO complement subject, in contrast, cannot be coreferential with the matrix
subject, as shown in (58).
Based on these facts, Kuno (1976) concludes that RTO is applied in sentences like (52b).
(52a) and (52b) are analyzed as in (59a) amd (59b), respectively.
(59) a.

John ga[Bill ga baka da to]omot-teiru.
John NOM Bill NOM fool COP COMP think-PROG‘John thinks that Bill is a fool.’b.

John ga
Bill oi [ti baka dai to]omot-teiru.
John NOM Bill ACC fool COP COMP think-PROG

Tanaka (2002) presents additional data supporting RTO. His additional argument for
RTO is based on the Proper Binding Condition (PBC) in (60).
(60) Proper Binding Condition (PBC)
Traces must be bound.
(61) a.

John-ga [Bill-ga
sono hon-okatta-to]itta.
John-NOM Bill-NOM the book-ACC bought-COMP said
‘John said that Bill bought the book.’b.

Sono hon-oi
John-ga[Bill-ga ti katta-to]itta.
the book-ACC John-NOM Bill-NOM bought-COMP said
‘The booki, John said that Bill bought ti.’c.

[Bill-gasono hon-okatta-to]iJohn-ga tiitta.
Bill-NOM the book-ACC bought-COMP John-NOM said‘[That Bill bought the book]i, John said ti.’-222-

A Syntactic Analysis of Copular Sentences (M. Niimura)d. * [[Bill-ga ti katta-to]j[sono hon-oi[John-ga tj itta]]].
Bill-NOM bought-COMP the book-ACC John-NOM said‘[That Bill bought ti]j, the booki, John said tj.’(61a) has a complement clause. In (61b) the complement object is scrambled. In (61c) thecomplement clause is scrambled. The grammaticality of these sentences shows that (61d) is
ungrammatical due to the illicitness of scrambling of the embedded CP. Its ungrammaticality
follows from the PBC. If scrambling involves adjunction to IP/TP, ti in (61d) fails to be
c-commanded by the scrambled object. With this in mind, consider (62).
(62)* [ti baka-da-to]jJohn-gaBill-oi tj omot-teiru.
fool-COP-COMP John-NOM Bill-ACC think-PROG‘[ti as a fool]j, John thinks of Billi tj.’

In (62), the complement clause is scrambled to sentence-initial position. The
ungrammaticality of (62), like that of (61d), follows from the PBC.
These facts all support the RTO analysis. In Japanese embedded tensed clauses,
accusative Case can be assigned to the subjects. This is explained by the RTO analysis. In thenext subsection, we will look at the data of copular omission in embedded clauses inJapanese.
3.2.2.2. Copular omission in Japanese embedded clauses
In Japanese embedded sentences, it is possible to assign nominative Case and accusative
Case to the subject. We have to consider two patterns.
(63) Embedded clause (verb: think) nominative Case assignmenta.
Boku-wa [John-ga
tetugakusya-*(da)-to]omot-teiru.
I-TOP
John-NOM philosopher-COP-COMP think-PROG‘I think that John is a philosopher.’b.

Boku-wa [ginkou-goutou-ga John-*(da)-to]omot-teiru.
I-TOP
bank-robber-NOM John-COP-COMP think-PROG‘I think that the bank robber is John.’c.

Boku-wa [ano okoto-ga Mary-no ani-*(da)-to]omot-teiru.
I-TOP
that man-NOM Mary-GEN brother-COP-COMP think-PROG‘I think that the man is Mary’s brother.’(64) Embedded clause (verb: think) accusative Case assignmenta.
Boku-wa John-oi[ti tetugakusya-(da)-to]omot-teiru.
I-TOP John-ACC
philosopher-COP-COMP think-PROG-223-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1b.

Boku-wa ginkou-goutou-oi [ti John-??(da)-to] omot-teiru.
I-TOP bank-robber-ACC John-COP-COMP think-PROGc.

Boku-wa ano otoko-oi [ti Mary-no ani-??(da)-to]omot-teiru.
I-TOP that man-ACC
Mary-GEN brother-COP-COMP think-PROG(63) and (64) contain embedded sentences under the verb omou.6 In (63), nominative Case isassigned to the complement subject. In (64), accusative Case is assigned to the complement
subject. (64) is an RTO construction. When nominative Case is assigned as in (63), thecopular cannot be deleted. On the other hand, when accusative Case is assigned like (64), thecopular can be deleted in predicational sentence.
The generalization concerning the contexts of copular omission in Japanese is in (65).
(65) a.
b.

6

In matrix clauses, the copular can be omitted.
In embedded clauses, the copular can be omitted where the sentence undergoes
RTO and the sentence is a predicational sentence.

We present another example using the verb minasu.

(i) Embedded clause (verb: consider) nominative Case assignment
a. Boku-wa [John-ga
tetugakusya-*(da)-to]minasi-teiru.
I-TOP
John-NOM philosopher-COP-COMP consider-PROG‘I consider John to be a philosopher.’b.

Boku-wa [ginkou-goutou-ga John-*(da)-to]minasi-teiru.
I-TOP
bank-robber-NOM John-COP-COMP consider-PROG‘I consider the bank robber to be John.’c.

Boku-wa [ano okoto-ga Mary-no
ani-*(da)-to]minasi-teiru.
I-TOP
that man-NOM Mary-GEN brother-COP-COMP consider-PROG‘I consider the man to be Mary’s brother.’(ii) Embedded clause (verb: think) accusative Case assignment
a. Boku-wa John-oi[ti tetugakusya-(da)-to]minasi-teiru.
I-TOP John-ACC
philosopher-COP-COMP consider-PROGb.

Boku-wa ginkou-goutou-oi [ti John-??(da)-to]minasi-teiru.
I-TOP bank-robber-ACC John-COP-COMP consider-PROGc.

Boku-wa ano-otoko-oi [ti Mary-no
ani-??(da)-to]minasi-teiru.
I-TOP that-man-ACC Mary-GEN brother-COP-COMP consider-PROG

Minasu differs from omou in that it does not allow nominative Case assignment even with the copular.
That is, this does not have the syntax shown in (59a). What is important here is that there is agrammaticality difference among the sentential types.

-224-

A Syntactic Analysis of Copular Sentences (M. Niimura)In this section, we proposed a generalization about the contexts where the copular can beomitted. In the next section, we will give an explanation for the generalization about
embedded clause copular omission, based on Rothstein’s (1995) analysis of predication
relation. The copular omission in matrix clause is discussed in section 5.
4. The Analysis of Copular Omission in Embedded Clauses
Comparing Japanese and English, we find a clear difference with respect to matrix clausecopular omission. While copular omission is not possible in any sentence type in English
matrix clauses, it is possible in any sentence type in the Japanese counterparts.
(66) a.

John *(is) a student.

(Predicational sentence)b.

The bank robber *(is) John Smith.

(Specificational sentence)c.

That man *(is) Mary’s brother.

(Identificational sentence)John wa tetugakusya (da).
John TOP philosopher COP(Predicational sentence)b.

Ginkou goutou wa John ?(da).
bank robber TOP John COP(Specificational sentence)c.

Ano otoko wa Mary no ani ?(da). (Identificational sentence)that man TOP Mary GEN brother COP(67) a.

The sentences in (66) are examples of English. The copular cannot be deleted in any
sentences. In the Japanese sentences given in (67), however, the copular can be deleted. The
contrast between (66) and (67) clearly shows that Japanese and English differ from each otherwith respect to main clause copular omission.
Then, What about embedded clauses?
(68) a.

I consider the winner (to be) a good runner.

(Predicational sentence)b.

I consider the winner *(to be) Mary.

(Specificational sentence)c.

I consider that man *(to be) John.

(Identificational sentence)In the case of English, only predicational sentences in ECM allow copular omission. In
specificational sentences and identificational sentences, omission is not possible. In Japanese,when nominative Case is assigned to the complement subject, omission is impossible,
whereas when accusative Case is assigned to the subject, that is when RTO is applied, copularomission becomes possible in a certain environment.

-225-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1(69) Embedded clause (verb: think) nominative Case assignmenta.
Boku-wa [John-ga
tetugakusya-*(da)-to]omot-teiru.
I-TOP
John-NOM philosopher-COP-COMP think-PROG‘I think that John is a philosopher.’b.

Boku-wa [ginkou-goutou-ga John-*(da)-to]omot-teiru.
I-TOP
bank-robber-NOM John-COP-COMP think-PROG‘I think that the bank robber is John.’c.

Boku-wa [ano okoto-ga
I-TOP
that man-NOM

Mary-no ani-*(da)-to]omot-teiru.
Mary-GEN brother-COP-COMP think-PROG‘I think that the man is Mary’s brother.’(70) Embedded clause (verb: think) accusative Case assignmenta.
Boku-wa John-oi[ti tetugakusya-(da)-to]omot-teiru.
I-TOP John-ACC
philosopher-COP-COMP think-PROGb.

Boku-wa ginkou-goutou-oi [ti John-??(da)-to] omot-teiru.
I-TOP
bank-robber-ACC
John-COP-COMP think-PROGc.

Boku-wa ano otoko-oi [ti Mary-no
ani-??(da)-to]omot-teiru.
I-TOP that man-ACC
Mary-GEN brother-COP-COMP think-PROG

When nominative Case is assigned as in (69), copular omission is not possible. Whenaccusative Case is assigned as in (70a), however, copular omission is possible when theembedded clause is a predicational sentence. Note also that omission remains difficult whenthe embedded clause is identificational or specificational.
In this section, copular omission in the embedded clauses was discussed. Rothstein(1995) analyses copular omission in English and Hebrew. She argues that matrix clauses in
Hebrew parallel with embedded clauses in English. Before analyzing Japanese embedded
clauses, we introduce Rothstein’s (1995) theory of predication relation in the next subsection.
4.1. Rothstein’s (1995) Theory of Predication Relation
Rothstein (1995) observes the data concerning copular omission in English.
(71) a.
b.

The winner *(is) a good runner.

(Predicational sentence)

The winner *(is) Mary.

(Specificational sentence)-226-

A Syntactic Analysis of Copular Sentences (M. Niimura)(72) a.
b.

I consider the winner (to be) a good runner.

(Predicational sentence)

I consider the winner *(to be) Mary.

(Specificational sentence)(Rothstein 1995)(71a) and (72a) are predicational sentences, while (71b) and (72b) are specificational
sentences.7 (71) shows that the copular cannot be omitted in matrix clauses. However, inembedded clauses, only predicational sentences allow the copular omission. Rothstein (1995)
presents the data from matrix clauses in Hebrew, which are analogous to the data fromEnglish embedded clauses.
(73) a.

Dani
Dani

(hu)
nexmad.
MASC.SG niceAP

‘Dani is nice.’
b.

Dani
Dani

(hu)
MASC.SG

rofe.
doctorNP

Dani (hu)al ha-gag.
Dani MASC.SG on the-roof

PP‘Dani is a doctor.’c.

‘Dani is on the roof.’
d.

Dani
Dani

*(hu)
mar yosef.
MASC.SG Mr. Yosef‘Dani is Mr. Yosef.’NP(Rothstein 1995)

The sentences in (73a-c), which are predicational sentences, are grammatical without the
copulars. In identificational sentences like (73d), however, the copular is obligatory. English
is different from Hebrew in some relevant respects. Copular omission is possible in matrix
clauses in Hebrew, but not in English. In addition, the English copular is verbal, while theHebrew copular is realized as pronominal. There are four forms of copular in Hebrew. The
copular is inflected for gender and number: masculine vs. feminine, on the one hand, andsingular vs. plural, on the other. For this reason, it is traditionally called the pronominal
copular (Pron).
Rothstein (1995) argues that the correct way to view the role of Pron is not in terms of
θ-roles or Case assignment, but in terms of predication relations.

7

Rothstein (1995) does not distinguish specificational sentences and identificational sentences, andlabels them identity sentences.

-227-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

According to the analysis of predication relations, small clauses have the structure [[NP][XP]], where XP is a predicate and thus the clause is an instance of predication. The
predication relation licenses both predicate and subject.
(74)[ [Dani]NP [nexmad]AP ]SC

In contrast, in specificational sentences and identificational sentences, neither of the twolexical constituents is a predicate. A Pron-less structure like (75) is a string of two argument
NPs. There is no syntactic relation in (75).
(75)* [Dani]NP [mar yosef]NP

However, when Pron projects an I’ constituent, I’ is a syntactic predicate node, and therefore
the relation between I’ and the Spec of IP is a predication relation.
(76)[Dani [hu [mar yosef]NP ]I’ ]IP

The subject NP is licensed as the subject of I’, and the post-copular NP is licensed as thesyntactic complement of Infl. In this case, there is no θ-marking relation between thepredicate and the subject.
Rothstein (1995) argues that the matrix clauses in Hebrew parallel to the embedded
clauses in English, and that copular omission is related to predication relation. A remaining
question is why, in English, Infl in complements of ECM verbs is optional if predication is
independently possible, while in main clauses it is obligatory. Rothstein (1995) suggests thatin English, tense and theta-marking are both methods for licensing clauses and that
non-tensed constituents are possible only in theta-marked positions.
In the next subsection, we apply this analysis put forth by Rothstein (1995) to Japanese.
4.2. The Analysis of Copular Omission in Japanese Embedded Clauses
The embedded clauses in (77a,b) are predicational sentences, and those in (78a,b) are
identificational sentences. Nominative Case is assigned to the embedded subjects in (77a) and(78a). Accusative Case is assigned to the embedded subjects in (77b) and (78b). All examples
are without the copular.
(77) a. * Boku-wa Taroo-ga
gakusei-toomot-teiru.
I-TOP Taroo-NOM student-COMP think-PROG‘I think that Taroo is a student.’b.

Boku-wa Taroo-ogakusei-toomot-teiru.
I-TOP Taroo-ACC student-COMP think-PROG-228-

A Syntactic Analysis of Copular Sentences (M. Niimura)(78) a. * Boku-wa Taroo-ga
Hanako-no ani-toomot-teiru.
I-TOP Taroo-NOM Hanako-GEN brother-COMP think-PROG‘I think that Taroo is Hanako’s brother.’b. ?? Boku-wa Taroo-o
Hanako-no ani-toomot-teiru.
I-TOP Taroo-ACC Hanako-GEN brother-COMP think-PROG
The structure of (77) and the one of (78) are shown in (77’) and (78’), respectively.
(77’)

IP
NP

I’

Boku-wa

VP

I
V’

CP

V
C’

SC

omot-teiru
C

NP

NP

Taroo

gakuseito-229-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

(78’)

IP
NP
Boku-wa

I’
VP

I
V’

CP

V
C’

SC

omot-teiru
C

NP

NP

to

Taroo

Hanako-no ani

I assume that the structure of (77) is (77’). Since (77’) does not have I, nominative Case is not
assigned to the complement subject.8 Therefore, (77a), in which the nominative Case isassigned, is ungrammatical. In contrast, accusative Case is assigned by the matrix verb, so(77b) is grammatical. What about identificational sentences embedded under ECM verbs? I
assume that the structure (78), where an identificational sentence is embededded, is (78’).
This construction does not have I, and therefore nominative Case is not assigned to thecomplement subject. (78a) is ungrammatical. In this case as well, accusative Case is assignedby the matrix verb. However, without the copular da, there is no predication relation between
the subject and the complement. In this case, copular da is obligatory in order to license therelation in question. The version of (78) with copular da is (78’’).

8The system of Case assignment here is based on Takezawa & Whitman (1998). T assigns thenominative Case, and verbs assign the accusative Case.

-230-

A Syntactic Analysis of Copular Sentences (M. Niimura)(78’’)IPNP

I’

Boku-wa

VP

I
V’

CP

V
C’

IP
NP

omot-teiru
CI’

Taroo NP
Hanako-no ani

to
I
da

The analysis of predication relation by Rothstein (1995) can be extended to Japanese
embedded clauses. In embedded clauses in English and Japanese of the kind we are interestedin, the predication relation licenses subjects and complements.9

9Chinese embedded sentences are shown below.

(i)

a.

Wo dangZhangsan (shi) xuesheng.
I consider Zhangsan
student(Predicational sentence)b.

Wo dang
neige qiangdao (shi) Zhangsan.
I consider that robber
Zhangsan(Specificational sentence)c.

Wo dang
neige ren(shi) Zhangsan.
I
consider that person
Zhangsan(Identificational sentence)

The verb dang, which is equivalent to consider, is used in (i). The copular can be omitted in any
sentences in (i).
(ii) a.

Wo juede Zhangsan *(shi) xuesheng.
I think Zhangsan
student(Predicational sentence)b.

Wo juede neige qiangdao *(shi) Zhangsan.
I think that robber
Zhangsan(Specificational sentence)c.

Wo juede neige ren *(shi) Zhangsan.
I think that person
Zhangsan(Identificational sentence)-231-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

So far, we have analyzed copular omission in embedded clauses. The next section isconcerned with copular omission in matrix clauses.
5. The Analysis of Copular Omission in Main Clauses
There is a striking difference between English and Japanese as to copular omission.
(79) a.

John *(is) a student.

(Predicational sentence)b.

The bank robber *(is) John Smith.

(Specificational sentence)c.

That man *(is) Mary’s brother.

(Identificational sentence)John wa tetugakusya (da).
John TOP philosopher COP(Predicational sentence)b.

Ginkou goutou wa John ?(da).
bank robber TOP John COP(Specificational sentence)c.

Ano otoko wa Mary no ani ?(da). (Identificational sentence)that man TOP Mary GEN brother COP(80) a.

In English main clauses, copular omission is not possible in any type of sentences as shown in(79). In contrast, in Japanese main clauses, omission is possible as shown in (80).
With respect to copular omission in main clauses, Tang (2000) provides the following
Chinese examples.
(81) a.

Zhangsan (shi) Zhongguoren.
Zhangsan be Chinese(Predicational sentence)‘Zhangsan is a Chinese.’b.

Wo mai de *(shi) zhe duo hua.
I buy DE be this Cl flower(Specificational sentences)‘What I bought is this flowers.’c.

Acht *(shi) ba.
eight be eight(Identificational sentences)‘Eight is acht’

The verb juede, which is equivalent to think, is used in (ii). In this case, the copular omission is notpossible in any sentences.

-232-

A Syntactic Analysis of Copular Sentences (M. Niimura)

In Chinese, the copular can be omitted in predicational sentences. How could we capture thedifference between English and Japanese on the one hand, and the difference between
Chinese and Japanese on the other?
5.1. Tang’s (2000) Suggestion
Tang (2000) classifies nominals in natural languages into two types: ‘predicative’ and‘non-predicative’. His claim is that NPs are predicative; while DPs are not. Consider (82).
(82)* John a genius.

In (82) a genius is a DP whose head is realized as the article a. As a genius is not predicative,
it cannot be predicated of the subject John directly. In order to make predication possible in(82), a verbal category is needed.
(83) is an example from Chinese. Shagua in (83) is a bare noun. It can be predicated of
the subject Zhangsan directly.10(83)

Zhangsan (shi) shagua.
Zhangsan be fool‘Zhangsan is a fool.’

In English, the following expressions are possible under a certain condition.
(84) a.
b.

You idiot!
You Martha, me professor.

(Tang 2000)

These examples show that NPs can be predicated directly.
5.2. Japanese Predicate Elements
In the previous subsection, we looked at the possibility that NPs can be predicatedwithout the copular. However, in the case of Japanese, even if the predicate complement is aDP, the copular seems to be omitted.

10

(i)

The copular omission is not possible in Chinese sentences with classifier.
Zhangsan *(shi) yi-ge shagua.
Zhangsan be one-Cl fool‘Zhangsan is a fool.’

In (i), the copular is obligatory.

-233-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1(85)

Ano otoko wa Mary no ani?(da)that man TOP Mary GEN brother COP‘That man is Mary’s brother.’This indicates that copular omission in main clauses is different from that in embedded
clauses. While predication relation plays a crucial role in determining the possibility ofembedded clause copular omission in English and Japanese, this does not seem to be the casewith main clause copular omission in both the languages.
Copular omission in Japanese main clauses may be analyzed as the phenomenon one
occurring at the morphophonological level. A similar kind of asymmetry between matrix vs.
embedded clauses is observed. The Japanese interrogative marker can be deleted in mainclauses, but never in embedded clauses.
(86) a.

Taroo-gadoko-niitta-*(ka) osiete kudasai.
Taroo-NOM where-LOC went-Q tellplease‘Please tell me where Taroo went.’b.

Taroo-wa doko-niitta(ka) ?
Taroo-TOP where-LOC went(Q)‘Where did Taro go?’

It is arguable to analyze both as involving deletion in the phonological component.
5.3. The Meaning of Sentences without Copular
In this subsection, we consider the meaning of sentences without a copular.
(87)

You idiot!

The example in (87) is from Tang (2000). (87) involves a strong value judgment and an
opinion. However, (88) may not sound natural.
(88)* You student!

(88) suggests that only nominals that have an evaluating meaning can appear in expressions
like (87).
In Chinese, the copular can be omitted in sentences like (89).
(89)

Zhangsan shagua.
Zhangsan fool‘Zhangsan is a fool.’-234-

A Syntactic Analysis of Copular Sentences (M. Niimura)(89), like (87), involves a strong judgment. What about Japanese case?
(90)(Omae-wa) baka!
you-TOP fool
‘You are a fool.’(90) involves a strong judgment, similarly to (87). Copular omission affects the meaning of
the sentence in main clauses in Japanese. This is different from the situation observed inembedded clauses. I suggest that the phenomenon of copular omission in main clauses isdifferent from that in embedded clauses11.
6. Conclusion
This study showed that the classification of copular sentences originally proposed by
Higgins (1979) is also applicable to Japanese copular sentences. We used the tests shown
below. English and Japanese copular sentences share these features.
(13)
test reversed orderType of sentences
Predicational sentenceSpecificational sentence
Identificational sentence

*
OK
OK

complementsof becomeOK**paraphrasewith following*
OK*

Furthermore, the classification also applies to Chinese copular sentences. This indicates that
Higgins’ (1979) classification of copular sentences is universal.
As one process that seems to apply in different ways cross-linguistically, we discussed
the phenomenon of copular omission. The major examples we discussed are repeated below.

11

Mizushima (2007) analyzes the Japanese plural morpheme tati. In her study, she claims that tati
attaches to DP.
(i)a.

Taroo to Hanako wa gakusei (*tati) da.
Taroo and Hanako TOP student tati COP‘Taroo and Hanako are students.’b.

Mickey to Minnie wa Disney land de aisareteiru nezumi tati da.
Mickey and Minnie TOP Disney land LOC be-loved mouse tati COP‘Mickey and Minnie are mice who are loved in Disney land.’(ia) is a predicational sentence. Tati cannot attach to the predicate of (ia). In contrast, tati can attached
to identificational sentences like (ib).

-235-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

(5)

(6)

a.

The winner *(is) a good runner.

b.

The winner *(is) Mary.

a.

John wa tetugakusya (da).
John TOP philosopher COP‘John is a philosopher.’b.

Ginkou-goutou wa John ?(da).
Bank-robber TOP John COP‘The bank robber is John.’

(7)

(8)

a.

I consider the winner (to be) a good runner.

b.

I consider the winner *(to be) Mary.

a.

Boku wa John otetugakusya (da) toomot-teiru.
I
TOP John ACC philosopher COP COMP think-PROG(Rothstein 1995)‘I consider John to be a philosopher.’b.

Boku wa ginkou-goutou oJohn ??(da) toomot-teiru.
I
TOP bank-robber ACC John
COP COMP think-PROG‘I consider the bank robber to be John.’

In embedded clauses like those found in (7) and (8), Japanese and English behave similarly.
The difference in grammaticality between (7a) and (7b), or the one between (8a) and (8b), canbe explained by Rothstein’s (1995) analysis of copular omission, where predication relation
plays an important role. Small clauses of the relevant sort have the structure [[NP] [XP]],
where XP is a predicate and thus the clause is an instance of predication. The predication
relation licenses both predicate and subject. In specificational sentences and identificational
sentences, neither of the two lexical constituents can be a predicate, and therefore thecopular-less sentence is ungrammatical.
In copular omission in main clauses, there is a difference between Japanese and English.
In Japanese, copular omission is possible, but it is not the case in English.
In Japanese main clauses, copular omission affects the meaning of the sentence. This is
not the case with embedded clause copular omission. I propose that the copular omission
phenomenon in main clauses is different from that in embedded clauses, and that the Japanese
copular in main clauses can be viewed as deletion in the morphophonological component.

-236-

A Syntactic Analysis of Copular Sentences (M. Niimura)

References
Bach, Emmon (1967) “Have and Be in English syntax,” Language 43, 462-485.
Bloch, Bernard (1946a) “Studies in colloquial Japanese I: Inflection,” Journal of the American
Oriental Society 66, 97-109. [Reprinted in R. A. Miller (ed.) (1969) Bernard Bloch on
Japanese, Yale University Press, New Haven.]
Bloch, Bernard (1946b) “Studies in colloquial Japanese II: Syntax,” Language 22, 200-248.
[Reprinted in R. A. Miller (ed.) (1969) Bernard Bloch on Japanese, Yale University Press,
New Haven.]
Chomsky, Noam (1981) Lectures on government and binding, Foris, Dordrecht.
Higgins, Francis Roger (1979) The pseudo-cleft construction in English. New York: Garland.
Kuno, Susumu (1976) “Subject raising”, Syntax and semantics 5: Japanese generative grammar,
Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), 17-19. New York: Academic Press.
Mizushima, Nobuko (2007) Nihongo no hukusuu hyousiki tati no imikaisyaku to sono kouzou,
Master’s thesis, Nanzan University, Nagoya.
Nakayama, Mineharu (1988) “Empty copulas,” in Yukio Otsu (ed.), Mita Working Papers in
Psycholingistics 1, Mita Psycholinguistics Circle, Keio University, pp. 121-128.
Narahara, Tomiko (2002) The Japanese copula. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nishiyama, Kunio (1999) “Adjectives and the copulas in Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics
8, 183-222.
Okuno tadanori (1989) Gendai no eigogaku siriizu 9 henkeibunpou ni yoru eigo no bunseki.
Kaitakusya.
Pustet, Regina (2003) Copulas. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rapaport, Tova Rebecca (1987) Copular, nominal, and small clauses: A study of Israeli Hebrew, PhD
dissertation, MIT.
Rothstein, Susan (1995) “Small clauses and copular constructions,” Syntax and Semantics, 28, 27-48.
Takezawa, Kouichi and John Whitman (1998) Nitieigo hikaku sensyo 9: Kaku to gojun to tougo
kouzou. Kenkyuusya Syuppan.
Tanaka, Hidekazu (2002) “Raising to object out of CP,” Linguistic Inquiry, 33, 637-652.
Tang, Sze-Wing (1998) “Parametrization of features in syntax”, Doctorial dissertation, University ofCalifornia, Irvine.
Tang, Sze-Wing (2000) “Nominal predication and focus anchoring,” ZAS Papers in Linguistics.
Urushibara, Saeko (1993) Syntactic categories and extended projections in Japanese, PhD dissertation,
Brandeis University.

-237-