TWO FORMS OF "BE" IN MALAYALAM
Tara Mohanan and K.P. Mohanan
National University of Singapore
Proceedings of the LFG99 Conference
The University of Manchester
Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (Editors)
1999
CSLI Publications
http://www-csli.stanford.edu/publications/
Tara Mohanan and K.P. Mohanan
National University of Singapore
1. INTRODUCTION
Malayalam has two verbs, uNTE
and aaNE, recognized in the literature as copulas (Asher 1968,
Variar 1979, Asher and Kumari 1997, among others). There is among speakers of
Malayalam a clear, intuitively perceived meaning difference between the verbs.
One strong intuition is that uNTE and aaNE correspond to the
English verbs "have" and "be"; another is that they should
be viewed as the "existential" and "equative" copulas
respectively.[2] However, in
a large number of contexts, these verbs appear to be interchangeable. This has
thwarted the efforts of a clear characterization of the meanings of the two
verbs.
In this paper, we will explore a variety of syntactic and semantic
environments that shed light on the differences between the
constructions with aaNE and uNTE. On the basis of the
asymmetries we lay out, we will re-affirm the intuition that
aaNE and uNTE are indeed equative and existential
copulas respectively, with aaNE signaling the meaning of x
is an element/subset of y" and uNTE signaling the meaning
of existence of an abstract or concrete entity in the fields of
location or possession. We will show that when aaNE is
interchangable with uNTE in existential clauses, its function
is that of a cleft marker, with the existential meaning expressed
independently by the case markers on the nouns.
Central to our exploration of
the two copulas is the discovery of four types of existential clauses in
Malayalam, namely:
Neutral: with
the existential verb uNTE.
Full cleft: with
the existential verb uNTE and the cleft marker aaNE.
Reduced cleft: with
the cleft marker aaNE alone.
Doubly reduced cleft: with
no verb.
We will show that the behavior of the three types of clefts exhibits a unity in a variety of environments in contrast to that of the neutral one, and that these asymmetries of behavior correlate with the meanings of uniqueness and presupposition associated with standard cleft constructions. Our analysis and conclusions raise a host of interesting questions for the relation between meaning and form in linguistic theory.
The paper is organized as
follows. We begin in section 2 by looking at a set of four puzzles of the
distribution of the two copulas. Section 3 shows that a copula construction
allows either aaNE or uNTE if one of the two arguments is in
non-nominative (dative or locative) case. Their meaning is that of possession
or location. However, if both arguments are nominative, we get an equative
construction, in which the copula can only be aaNE. In section 4, we
show that the instances in which one of the arguments is non-nominative have a
special uniqueness meaning whenever the copula is aaNE. This uniqueness
meaning is characteristic of the cleft construction. Following this lead, we
analyze aaNE sentences with non-nominative arguments as instances of the
cleft construction. We then show how such an analysis provides an explanation
for the puzzles discussed in section 2. Section 5 explores the behavior of
verbless clauses in Malayalam, and relates them to the aaNE and uNTE
constructions. We argue that verbless clauses involve the semantics of the
corresponding aaNE construction. From this, it follows that verbless
clauses with only nominative arguments are plain equatives, and those with a
non-nominative argument are parallel to clefts.
2. THE PUZZLING PIECES
2.1. Interchangeability of
the Copulas
The examples in (1)-(4) below illustrate the positive and negative
forms of the verbs uNTE and aaNE.[3] Following traditional practice, we gloss both
verbs as BE. What is interesting about
(1)-(4) is that in these sentences, the two verbs uNTE and
aaNE appear to be entirely interchangeable, and syntactically
and semantically equivalent.
| (1) | a. | aanakkE | pani | uNTE | / illa. |
| elephant-D | fever-N | BE-PR | BE:NEG:PR | ||
| The elephant has/doesn't have a fever. | |||||
| b. | aanakkE | pani | aaNE | / alla. | |
| elephant-D | fever-N | BE-PR | BE:NEG:PR | ||
| The elephant has/doesn't have a fever. | |||||
| (2) | a. | anikkE | innE | pariikSa | uNTE | / illa. |
| Ani-D | today | exam-N | BE-PR | BE:NEG:PR | ||
| Ani has/doesn't have an exam today. | ||||||
| b. | anikkE | innE | pariikSa | aaNE | / alla. | |
| Ani-D | today | exam-N | BE-PR | BE:NEG:PR | ||
| Ani has/doesn't have an exam today. | ||||||
| (3) | a. | puucca | tooTTattil | uNTE | / illa. |
| cat-N | garden-L | BE-PR | BE:NEG:PR | ||
| The cat is/isn't in the garden. | |||||
| b. | puucca | tooTTattil | aaNE | / alla. | |
| cat-N | garden-L | BE-PR | BE:NEG:PR | ||
| The cat is/isn't in the garden. | |||||
| (4) | a. | ii | mattanil | niRaccE | kuru | uNTE | / illa. |
| this | melon-L | full | seeds | BE-PR | BE:NEG:PR | ||
| This melon has/doesn't have a lot of seeds. | |||||||
| b. | ii | mattanil | niRaccE | kuru | aaNE | / alla. | |
| this | melon-L | full | seeds-N | BE-PR | BE:NEG:PR | ||
| This melon has/doesn't have a lot of seeds. | |||||||
Despite the apparent interchangeability of the two verbs in (1)-(4), they exhibit several classes of environments that reveal interesting semantic asymmetries between the two forms of BE, some of which have consequences for syntax. These involve (a) modification of possessed head noun, (b) specificity effects, (c) word order, (d) presupposition, and (e) the equative construction. We turn to these syntactico-semantic asymmetries in the following section.
2.2. Asymmetries
2.2.1 Possession
The first piece of surprise lies in the behavior of the two verbs when expressing the meaning of possession. Consider the asymmetries in (5) and (6):
| (5) | a. | anikkE | kuTTi | uNTE. | |
| Ani-D | child-N | BE-PR | |||
| Ani has a child. | |||||
| b. | anikkE | peNkuTTi | uNTE. | ||
| Ani-D | girl-child-N | BE-PR | |||
| Ani has a daughter. | |||||
| c. # | anikkE | kuTTi | aaNE. | ||
| Ani-D | child-N | BE-PR | (Intended: "Ani has a child.") | ||
| d. | anikkE | peNkuTTi | aaNE. | ||
| Ani-D | girl-child-N | BE-PR | |||
| Ani has a daughter. (The child that Ani has is a girl child.) | |||||
| (6) | a. | anikkE | kaaR | uNTE. | |
| Ani-D | car-N | BE-PR | |||
| Ani has a car. | |||||
| b. | anikkE | weLutta | kaar | uNTE. | |
| Ani-D | white | car-N | BE-PR | ||
| Ani has a white car. | |||||
| c. # | anikkE | kaar | aaNE. | ||
| Ani-D | car-N | BE-PR | (Intended: "Ani has a car") | ||
| d. | anikkE | weLuttai | kaaR | aaNE. | |
| Ani-D | white | car-N | BE-PR | ||
| Ani has a white car. (The car that Ani has is a white one.) | |||||
Why is the use of aaNE unacceptable in (5c) and (6c), where the complement of "be" is a single noun? Why does it become acceptable when this noun is modified in some way in (5d) and (6d)? A telling clue to the answer to this question lies in the glosses in parentheses. We will return to these examples after having looked at some other related facts.
2.2.2. Specificity Effects
We saw in (1)-(4) that uNTE and aaNE appear to be interchangeable in certain contexts. Now consider the examples in (7)-(8):
(7)
a. tooTTattil puucca uNTE.
garden-L cat-N BE-PR
There is a cat in the
garden.
b. tooTTattil aaroo uNTE.
garden-L someone-N BE-PR
There is someone in the
garden.
c. ewiTeyoo puucca uNTE.
somewhere cat-N BE-PR
There is a
cat somewhere.
(8) a. tooTTattil puucca aaNE
garden-L cat-N BE-PR
It is a cat in the
garden.
b. * tooTTattil aaroo aaNE.
garden-L someone-N BE-PR
c. * ewiTeyoo puucca aaNE.
somewhere cat-N BE-PR
In (8b, c), one of the NPs is nonspecific. The fact that this is the only difference between (8a) and (8b, c) suggests that nonspecificity is responsible for making (8b, c) unacceptable. Why is it that aaNE is incompatible with non-specific NPs? Once again, let us look at some more facts before answering this question.
2.2.3. Scrambling and the Copula
Even though Malayalam is a free word order language, word order differences in the copula constructions are accompanied by differences in meaning.[4] Consider some of the various possibilities:[5]
(9) a. kaappi
friDjil uNTE
coffee-N fridge-L BE-PR
There is coffee, in the
fridge.
b. kaappi
friDjil aaNE
coffee-N fridge-L BE-PR
The coffee is in the
fridge (and not somewhere else).
(10) a. friDjil kaappi uNTE
fridge-L coffee-N BE-PR
There is coffee in the
fridge.
b. friDjil kaappi aaNE
fridge-L coffee-N BE-PR
Coffee is what is in the
fridge (and not something else).
In (9), where the theme NP precedes the locative NP, the meaning is one of stating the location of the theme. The difference is that while (9a) is a simple statement about the location of the coffee, (9b) asserts this location to the exclusion of other locations. In (10), where the locative NP precedes the theme NP, (10a) is a simple statement of the existence of coffee in the fridge, while (10b) uniquely identifies what is in the fridge.
Let us go on to some further examples, before we zero in on the exact difference between aaNE and uNTE.
2.2.4. Presuppositions
As the examples in (10) suggest, the key to the difference between the semantic representations of the two copulas may lie in the differences in the presuppositions they trigger. Following Strawson (1952), we take it that a statement S presupposes a statement S' if and only if the truth of S' is a precondition for the truth or falsity of S. If the presupposition of a declarative sentence is false, the sentence is neither true nor false. Let us take the pairs of sentences in (11)-(13) below, and unearth their presuppositions:
(11) a. aanakkE pani uNTE. (=(1a))
elephant-D fever-N BE-PR
The elephant has a
fever.
b. aanakkE pani aaNE. (=(1b))
elephant
-D fever-N BE-PR
The
elephant has a fever. (What the
elephant has is a fever.)
(12) a. anikkE peNkuTTi uNTE. (=(5b))
Ani-D girl-child-N BE-PR
Ani has a daughter.
b. anikkE peNkuTTi aaNE. (=(5d))
Ani-D girl-child-N BE-PR
Ani has a daughter. (What Ani has is a
daughter.)
(13) a. friDjil kaappi uNTE. (=(10a))
fridge-L coffee-N BE-PR
There is coffee in the fridge.
b. friDjil kaappi aaNE. (=(10b))
fridge-L coffee-N BE-PR
Coffee is what is in the
fridge.
(11b) has the implication that there is something wrong with the elephant, (12b) that Ani has a child, and (13b) that there is something in the fridge. Furthermore, these implications are presuppositions: they are retained under negation, and in yes-no questions and conditionals, a classic test for presuppositions in the literature (Kiparsky and Kiparsky 1971; Karttunen 1973, 1974). Sentence (13b), for instance, would be uninterpretable in a situation where the fridge is empty. The negative, question, and conditional counterparts of (11b), (12b), and (13b) are given in (14)-(16):
(14) a. aanakkE pani alla.
elephant-D fever-N BE:NEG:PR
The elephant doesn't
have a fever (but something else).
b. aanakkE pani aaNoo?
elephant -D fever-N BE-Q:PR
Does the elephant have a
fever (or is it something else)?
c. aanakkE pani aaNEngil...
elephant-D fever-N BE-PR-IF
If the elephant has a
fever (as opposed to something else)
(15) a. anikkE peNkuTTi alla.
Ani-D girl-child-N BE:NEG:PR
Ani doesn't have a
daughter (but a son).
b. anikkE peNkuTTi aanoo?
Ani-D girl-child-N BE-Q:PR
Does Ani have a daughter
(or is it a son)?
c. anikkE peNkuTTi aaNEngil...
Ani-D girl-child-N BE-PR-IF
If Ani has a daughter
(as opposed to a son)
(16) a. friDjil kaappi alla.
Ani-D girl-child-N BE: BE:NEG:PR
Coffee is not what is in
the fridge (but something else).
b. friDjil kaappi aanoo?
Ani-D girl-child-N BE- Q:PR
Is it coffee in the
fridge (or something else)?
c. friDjil kaappi aaNEngil...
Ani-D girl-child-N BE-PR-IF
If it is coffee in the
fridge (and not something else)
In contrast, the presuppositions mentioned above are absent in (11a), (12a), and (13a). Consider, for illustration, the negation, question, and conditional of (13a):
(17) a. friDjil kaappi illa.
Ani-D girl-child-N BE: BE:NEG:PR
There is no coffee in
the fridge.
b. friDjil kaappi untoo?
Ani-D girl-child-N BE- Q:PR
Is there any coffee in
the fridge?
c. friDjil kaappi uNTEngil...
Ani-D girl-child-N BE-PR-IF
If there is coffee in
the fridge
(17a-c) do not have the implications that (16a-c) have. In other words, the difference between (13a) and (13b) lies in the presence of the presuppositions in the latter that are absent in the former. The same is true of (11) and (12) as well.
Given the facts in (11)-(17), then, the difference between uNTE and aaNE in the examples where there is an apparent overlap in meaning between the two verbs appears to lie in the presuppositions that aaNE induces.
3. THE EQUATIVE AND
EXISTENTIAL CONSTRUCTIONS
The examples discussed in the previous section all involve two arguments, one of which is either dative or locative. These examples express the meaning of either possession or location, which may be abstract or concrete. The distribution of uNTE, we find so far, is more general than that of aaNE, since the latter is associated with the special conditions we have seen above. As a result, aaNE can be replaced with uNTE, although the reverse is not true.
We now turn to a different construction, in which both arguments are nominative. This construction permits the copula aaNE, but disallows uNTE. Consider the examples in (18):
(18) a. mini TiicaR aaNE / *
uNTE.
Mini-N teacher-N BE-PR
Mini
is a teacher.
b. awan kaLLan aaNE. / *
uNTE
He-N thief- n BE-PR
He
is a thief.
c. ani sundari aaNE. / *
uNTE
Ani-N beautiful one-N BE-PR
Ani
is beautiful.
d. naalum naalum eTTE aaNE. / * uNTE
four-conj four-conj eight BE-PR
Four
plus four is eight.
The examples in (18) involve the equative meaning, which includes "x = y", and "x is an element/subset of y". Such examples have prompted researchers to label aaNE as the equative BE, and uNTE as the existential BE (Asher 1968; Variar 1979). An example of purely existential BE is given in (19):
(19) deiwam uNTE / * aaNE.
God-N BE-PR
God exists.
If we take (18) and (19), where the two verbs are not interchangeable, as the archetypal instances of aaNE and uNTE respectively, it would be reasonable to conclude that the core meaning of aaNE is [x BE y], and that of uNTE is [x EXIST (LOC y)], where y is an abstract or concrete entity in the semantic fields of location or possession. These specifications are given as part of the lexical representations of the two verbs:
(20) a. aaNE
: V [x BE y]
b. uNTE :
V [x EXIST (LOC y)]
4. AANE CLAUSES AS REDUCED CLEFTS[6]
4.1. Uniqueness
We have seen in (20) the
meanings of the two copulas when they are not interchangeable. We must now
identify the semantic distinction between them in cases when they are
interchangeable, as in (1)-(4). An important clue as to what
distinguishes aaNE from uNTE in such instances is found in the
asymmetry between the contexts appropriate for examples (10a) and (10b),
repeated below as (21a) and (21b) respectively.
(21) a. friDjil kaappi uNTE.
fridge-L coffee-N BE-PR
There is coffee in the fridge.
b. friDjil kaappi aaNE.
fridge-L coffee-N BE-PR
Coffee is what is in the fridge.
Example (21b) is acceptable only if the fridge does not contain anything other than coffee. If it contains not only coffee, but tea, milk, and vegetables, the sentence is unacceptable. In contrast, (21a) is acceptable in both contexts. When the entity and its location switch places, as in (9), repeated as (22), there is a corresponding asymmetry of meaning for the sentence with aaNE but not that with uNTE.
(22) a. kaappi
friDjil uNTE
coffee-N fridge-L BE-PR
There is coffee, in the fridge.
b. kaappi friDjil aaNE
coffee-N fridge-L BE-PR
The coffee is in the fridge (and not somewhere
else).
(22b) implies that there is coffee only in the fridge. If in addition there is coffee on the table, (22b) is unacceptable. (22a) is neutral to this distinction.
Thus, aaNE assigns a special meaning of x and not anything other than x to the constituent that immediately precedes it. Having seen this semantic contrast, we now note that the same contrast is found in the English cleft construction as well:
(23) a. John
sent a book to Mary.
b. It was a
book that John sent to Mary.
(23b) is appropriate if John sent a book to Mary and did not send anything else. If John sent a book, a flower, and a vase, (23b) would be unacceptable, but (23a) would still be acceptable. Drawing on Carlson (1983) who originally pointed out this special meaning of clefts, we will represent this element of meaning as UNQ (unique), and define it as follows:
(24) a. UNQ
(x) = x and not anything other than x.
b. aaNE assigns UNQ to the constituent that immediately
precedes it.
Given (24), the semantic distinction between (21b) and (22b) will be represented as (25a) and (25b) respectively:
UNQ
(25) a. friDjil kaappi aaNE. (=(21b))
fridge-L coffee-N BE-PR
There is coffee in the fridge.
UNQ
b. kaappi
friDjil aaNE. (=(22b))
coffee-N fridge-L BE-PR
Coffee is what is in the fridge.
In (25a), UNQ is assigned to the theme, while in (25b) it is assigned to the location; in each instance, the constituent that immediately precedes aaNE is UNQ.[7]
4.2. The Cleft Construction
The presence of UNQ in the aaNE sentences suggests the possibility that they are actually cleft constructions. The cleft construction in Malayalam is signaled by the presence of aaNE to the right of the clefted element, together with atE `it' to the right of the verb, as illustrated in (26):
(26) a. eli puuccakkE pustakam ayaccu.
mouse-N cat-D book-N send-pa
The mouse sent a book to
the cat.
b. eliyaaNE puuccakkE pustakam ayaccatE.
mouse-N-BE-PR cat-D book-N send-pa
It was the mouse who
sent a book to the cat.
c. eli puuccakkaaNE pustakam ayaccatE.
mouse-N cat-D-BE-PR book-N send-pa
It was the cat that the
mouse sent a book to.
d. eli puuccakkE pustakamaaNE ayaccatE.
mouse-N cat-D book-N-BE-PR send-pa
It was a book that the
mouse sent to the cat.
(27) a. aanakkE pani uNTE (=(1a)) elephant-D fever-N BE-PR
The elephant has a
fever. b. aanakkE pani aaNE uLLatE elephant-D fever-N BE-PR BE-it What the elephant has is
a fever. c. aanakkE pani aaNE.
(=(1b)) elephant-D fever-N BE-PR
What the elephant has is
a fever. (28) a. puucca tooTTattil uNTE (=(3a)) cat-N garden-L BE-PR The cat is in the
garden. b. puucca tooTTattil aaNE uLLatE cat-N garden-L BE-PR BE-it It is in the garden that
the cat is. c. puucca tooTTattil aaNE (=3b)) cat-N garden-L BE-PR It is in the garden that
the cat is.
(27b)/(28b) are clefted
versions of (27a)/(28a) respectively, the verb uLLatE being the
phonological realization of uNTE+atE. In terms of meaning,
(27c)/(28c) are identical to (27b)/(28b) respectively. Notice that the sentence
glosses we gave in (1b) and (3b) are different from those in (27c) and (28c).
Looking back, the new glosses are more accurate reflections of the meaning of
these sentences. It would be reasonable to assume, therefore, that (27c)/(28c)
are reduced versions of (27b)/(28b) with uLLatE missing.[8]
The uniqueness meaning in aaNE
clauses with a non-nominative argument, stipulated earlier as a property of the
verb aaNE under special circumstances, now follows from the hypothesis
that they are reduced clefts. The puzzling asymmetries in the copula
constructions in section 2 also turn out to be a consequence of the reduced
cleft hypothesis.
4.3. Explanation for the Puzzles
In section 2, we identified
four asymmetries between the uNTE construction and its aaNE
counterpart. If we assume that the latter is in fact a reduced cleft, then the
full cleft versions of the same uNTE sentences should exhibit the same
asymmetries. We find that this expectation is indeed borne out.
4.3.1 Possession
Consider the full clefts of
(5a) and (5b), given in (29a) and (29b) respectively:
(29) a. # anikkE kuTTi
aaNE uLLatE. Ani-D child-N BE-PR BE-it (Intended: "What
Ani has is a child.") b. anikkE peNkuTTi aaNE uLLatE. Ani-D girl-child-N BE-PR BE-it What Ani has is a
daughter.
The unacceptability of (29a)
is parallel to that of (5c). (29b) and (5d) are acceptable because they set up
an an implicit contrast (between a girl child and a boy child), thereby
justifying the special meaning of the cleft.
4.3.2. Specificity Effects
Consider the full clefts of
(7a-c), given in (30a-c):
(30) a. tooTTattil puucca aaNE uLLatE. garden-L cat-N BE-PR BE-IT It is a cat that is
in the garden. b. * tooTTattil aaroo aaNE uLLatE. garden-L someone-N BE-PR BE-IT (Intended: It is
someone who is in the garden.) c. * ewiTeyoo puucca aaNE uLLatE. somewhere cat-N BE-PR BE-IT (Intended: It is a
cat that is somewhere.)
Once again, the
unacceptability of the full clefts in (30b, c) parallels that of the reduced
clefts in (8b, c). This unacceptability follows from the incompatibility of
nonspecificity with the semantics of clefts.
4.3.3. Scrambling and the Copula
Consider
the full cleft versions of (9a) and (10a), given in (31a) and (31b)
respectively:
(31) a. kaappi
friDjil aaNE uLLatE. coffee-N fridge-L BE-PR
BE-it It is in the fridge that
the coffee is b. friDjil kaappi aaNE uLLatE. fridge-L coffee-N BE-PR
BE-it It is coffee that is in the
fridge.
The meaning difference between
(31a)/(31b) correlating to a difference in word order, parallels the
corresponding difference between (9b)/(10b). (31a)/(31b) uniquely identify the
location of the coffee and the contents of the fridge respectively, as do
(9b)/(10b). Yet again, the assumption that (9b)/(10b) are reduced clefts
explains their parallel with (31a, b).
4.3.4. Presuppositions
Finally,
the full cleft versions of (17a-c) are given in (32a-c) respectively.
(32) a. friDjil kaappi alla uLLatE. fridge-L coffee-N BE:NEG:PR BE-it Coffee is not what is in
the fridge (but something else). b. friDjil kaappi aanoo uLLatE? fridge-L coffee-N BE-q-pr BE-it Is it coffee in the
fridge (or something else)? c. friDjil kaappi aaNE uLLatengil... fridge-L coffee-N BE-PR BE-it-if If it is coffee in the fridge (and not something
else)
The
parallel between (32a-c) and (16a-c) follows directly from the reduced clause
hypothesis.
5. VERBLESS
CLAUSES
5.1. Verbless Equatives
Having argued for the
assumption that aaNE clauses with a non-nominative argument are reduced
clefts of the corresponding uNTE clauses, an interesting question
immediately comes up. What sanctions the absence of uLLatE be-it in
the reduced clefts? A clue to the answer lies in the verbless clauses in the
language.
As is well known, Malayalam
like many other languages including all the Dravidian languages, permits
independent clauses without an overt verb, typically translated into English
with the present tense form of 'be', illustrated in (33), the counterpart of
(18b):
(33) awan kaLLan
He-N thief- n He is a thief.
Given that the copula must be aaNE
if both arguments are nominative (section 3), the understood verb in (33) must
be aaNE. We therefore conclude that the equative construction has a
verbless counterpart. The question then is, do non-equative copula clauses also
have verbless counterparts? They do, as (34) illustrates:
(34) a. aanakkE pani. (cf.
(1)) elephant-D fever-N The
elephant has a fever.