The case for broader copulas

References

1. Abdulaev, Arsen K., and Isa K. Abdullaev
   2010 Cezyas folklor/Dido (Tsez) folklore/Didojskij (cezskij) fol´klor. Leipzig–Makhachkala: “Lotos.”
   [Google Scholar]
2. Adger, David, and Gillian Ramchand
   2003 “Predication and Equation.” Linguistic Inquiry34 (3): 325–359. 10.1162/002438903322247515
   https://doi.org/10.1162/002438903322247515 [Google Scholar]
3. Arche, María J.
   2012 “On the aspectuality of the Individual-Level/Stage-Level dichotomy.” Borealis1(2): 109–132. 10.7557/1.1.2.2385
   https://doi.org/10.7557/1.1.2.2385 [Google Scholar]
4. Arregi, Karlos, and Andrew Nevins
   2012 “Morphotactics: Basque auxiliaries and the structure of spellout.” Springer Science and business Media.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Bjorkman, Bronwyn A. M.
   2011 “BE-ing the Default: The Morphosyntax of Auxiliaries.” PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge MA.
6. Camacho, José
   2012 “Ser and Estar: The individual/stage-level distinction and aspectual predication.” The handbook of Hispanic linguistics, 453–475. 10.1002/9781118228098.ch22
   https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118228098.ch22 [Google Scholar]
7. Camacho, José
   2015 “What do Spanish copulas have in common with Tibetan evidentials?” InNew Perspectives on the Study of Ser and Estar [Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 5], ed. byIsabel Pérez-Jiénez, Manuel Leonetti and Silvia Gumiel-Molina, 173–201. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ihll.5.07cam
   https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.5.07cam [Google Scholar]
8. Carlson, Gregory
   1977 Reference to Kinds in English. PhD dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
9. Croft, William
   2022 Morphosyntax: Constructions of the World’s LanguagesCambridge, CUP. 10.1017/9781316145289
   https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316145289 [Google Scholar]
10. Embick, David
    2015 The morpheme: A theoretical introduction. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9781501502569
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501502569 [Google Scholar]
11. Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer
    2007 “Distributed morphology and the syntax/morphology interface.” The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, 289–324. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Escandell-Vidal, María Victoria
    2017 “Evidential commitment and feature mismatch in Spanish estar constructions.” Journal of Pragmatics1281: 102–115. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.004 [Google Scholar]
13. Escandell-Vidal, María Victoria, and Manuel Leonetti
    2002 “Coercion and the stage/individual distinction.” InFrom words to discourse: Trends in Spanish semantics and pragmatics, ed. byJ. Gutierrez-Rexach, 159–179. Oxford, England: Elsevier Science. 10.1163/9780585475295_011
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9780585475295_011 [Google Scholar]
14. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz
    1993 “Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection.” InThe View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. byK. Hale and S. J. Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Harley, Heidi
    2014 “On the identity of roots.” Theoretical linguistics40 (3–4): 225–276. 10.1515/tl‑2014‑0010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2014-0010 [Google Scholar]
16. Hengeveld, Kees
    1992 Non-Verbal Predication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110883282
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110883282 [Google Scholar]
17. Irwin, Patricia
    2018 “Existential unaccusativity and new discourse referents”, Glossa: a journal of general linguistics3(1): 24. 10.5334/gjgl.283
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.283 [Google Scholar]
18. Kopeć, Zbigniew
    2020 “Towards a Construction Grammar Analysis of English Pseudo-Copular Constructions with Perceptual Impression Verbs.” Bulletin de la Société Polonaise de Linguistique761: 321–335. 10.5604/01.3001.0014.6663
    https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0014.6663 [Google Scholar]
19. Kratzer, Angelika
    1996 “Severing the external argument from its verb.” InPhrase Structure and the Lexicon, ed. byJ. Rooryck and L. Zaring, 109–137. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑8617‑7_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8617-7_5 [Google Scholar]
20. Leonetti, Manuel, Pérez-Jiménez, Isabel, and Silvia Gumiel-Molina
    2015 “Ser and estar.” InNew perspectives on the study of Ser and Estar, ed. byIsabel Pérez-Jiménez, Manuel Leonetti and Silvia Gumiel-Molina, 1–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ihll.5.01leo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.5.01leo [Google Scholar]
21. Lyons, John
    1968 Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University. 10.1017/CBO9781139165570
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165570 [Google Scholar]
22. Marantz, Alec
    1997 “No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon.” University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics4 (2): 201–225.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Marantz, Alec
    2013 “Verbal argument structure: Events and participants.” Lingua1301: 152–168. 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.012 [Google Scholar]
24. Marín, Rafael
    2009 “Spanish individual-level and stage-level adjectives revisited.” Unpublished manuscript, Université Lille.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Marín, Rafael
    2010 “Spanish adjectives within bounds.” InAdjectives: Formal analyses in syntax and semantics, ed. byPatricia Cabredo-Hofherr and Ora Matushansky, 307–332. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.153.09mar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.153.09mar [Google Scholar]
26. Markman, Vita. G.
    2008 “The case of predicates (revisited): Predicate instrumental in Russian and its restrictions.” Journal of Slavic Linguistics1(2): 187–246. 10.1353/jsl.0.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1353/jsl.0.0001 [Google Scholar]
27. Matushansky, Ora
    2019 “Against the PredP theory of small clauses.” Linguistic Inquiry50 (1): 63–104. 10.1162/ling_a_00301
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00301 [Google Scholar]
28. Myler, Neil
    2016 Building and Interpreting Possession Sentences. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262034913.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262034913.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
29. Myler, Neil
    2018 “Complex copula systems as suppletive allomorphy.” Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics3 (1): 51. 10.5334/gjgl.214
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.214 [Google Scholar]
30. Nevins, Andrew, and Jeffrey K. Parrott
    2010 “Variable rules meet impoverishment theory: Patterns of agreement leveling in English varieties.” Lingua120 (5): 1135–1159. 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.05.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.05.008 [Google Scholar]
31. Petré, Peter
    2014 Constructions and Environments: Copular, Passive, and Related Constructions in Old and Middle English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199373390.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199373390.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
32. Pierce, Charles S.
    1909 ‘Copula’. Term inMats Bergman and Sami Paavola (Eds.), The Commens Dictionary: Peirce’s Terms in His Own Words. New Edition. Retrieved fromwww.commens.org/dictionary/term/copula, 10.09.2021.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Pustet, Regina
    2003 Copulas: Universals in the Categorization of the Lexicon. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199258505.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199258505.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
34. Raxilina, Ekaterina B.
    2008 Cognitivny analiz predmetnyx imen: semantika i sočetaemost’ (Cognitive analysis of subject names). Russkie Slovari. Moscow.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Roby, David B.
    2009 Aspect and the categorization of states: The case of ser and estar in Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.114
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.114 [Google Scholar]
36. Stassen, Leon
    1997 Intransitive Predication. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/oso/9780198236931.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198236931.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
37. Vendler, Zeno
    1957 “Verbs and times.” The Philosophical Review661: 143–160. 10.2307/2182371
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2182371 [Google Scholar]
38. Vydrin, Valentin
    2020 “Non-verbal predication and copulas in three Mande languages.” Journal of West African Languages7 (1): 77–105.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Wilson, Daniel J.
    2020 Syntactic and Semantic Variation in Copular Sentences: Insights from Classical Hebrew. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.261
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.261 [Google Scholar]