Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

The Linguistic Reflexes of Ontological Dependence

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of International Review of Pragmatics

Nouns used to pick out ontologically dependent entities such as holes and flaws, unlike those picking out “ordinary” entities, such as coats and tables, cannot felicitously stand as indefinite subjects of a locative copular sentence (#A hole is in the bucket), but appear freely in there-sentences (There is a hole in the bucket). This contrast is further evidence in favour of the idea that the two sentence types have different underlying predication structures (cf. Barwise and Cooper, 1981; Francez, 2007; Hazout, 2004; McNally 1998a; Williams, 1984, 1994), but also that the preposition in, occurring in both constructions, is ambiguous between a locative and relational meaning. That locative in is distinct from the in that relates a dependent entity to its host is confirmed by inferences between and among sentences containing these two forms. Locative in, whose meaning is roughly that of enclosure or containment, is licensed as a predicate in a locative copular sentence; this sentence type is used to state the location of an entity. However, because a dependent entity’s location is entirely contingent on its host, it cannot be felicitously introduced in this way. By contrast, it is possible to introduce a dependent entity by stating that its host has the dependent entity in it, which is what a there-sentence does. Following Hornstein, Uriagereka and Rosen (1994), the underlying representation of a there-sentence which realizes this relation does not contain a preposition; rather, relational in is derived via incorporation into the copula, like have (Kayne, 1993).

Affiliations: 1: Long Island University, USA rachel.szekely@verizon.net

10.1163/18773109-00701001
/content/journals/10.1163/18773109-00701001
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
10
5
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/18773109-00701001
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/18773109-00701001
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/18773109-00701001
2015-01-01
2018-10-21

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    International Review of Pragmatics — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation