Skip to main content
Log in

Two subject positions in Scottish Gaelic: The syntax-semantics interface

  • Published:
Natural Language Semantics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper examines the stage-level/individual-level hypothesis (Kratzer 1989; Diesing 1988) from the point of view of modern Scottish Gaelic. This language exhibits two syntactically distinct predicational structures, and in particular, two distinct subject positions distinguishable on the basis of word order. While the distinction between the two positions can be shown to support the stage/individual-level hypothesis in one sense, the picture is muddied by the fact that many habitual or ‘characteristic’ sentences seem to be formed according to the stage-level subject construction type.

The solution proposed relies on two novel elements. First, it distinguishes the classical Davisonian event variable from the Kratzerian one hypothesized to be the hallmark of the stage-level sentence type. And secondly, it makes a strict logical separation between two types of generics: generics proper, which involve quantifying over an individual variable; and habituals, which only involve quantification over an event variable. These are represented by two distinct logical types which may nevertheless give rise to similar truth conditions in context.

I show that the analysis can be made to account for tense interpretation, the scope of genericity, and the facts of syntactic complementation in Scottish Gaelic. To the extent that the solution is successful, it is evidence for a quite direct mapping between syntactic and semantic representations and for the important intuitions behind the initial Kratzer/Diesing stage vs. individual-level hypothesis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Carlson, G.: 1977, Reference to Kinds in English, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  • Carlson, G.: 1982, ‘Generic Terms and Generic Sentences’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 11, 145–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, G.: 1989, ‘The Semantic Composition of English Generic Sentences’, in G. Chierchia, B. Partee, and R. Turner (eds.), Properties, Types and Meaning Vol. 2: Semantic Issues, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 167–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N.: 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N.: 1993, ‘A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory’, in K. Hale and S. Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20: A Festschrift for Sylvain Bromberger, MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chung, S. and J. McCloskey: 1987, ‘Government, Barriers and Small Clauses in Modern Irish’, Linguistic Inquiry 18, 173–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, Ö.: 1975, ‘On Generics’, in E. Keenan (ed.), Formal Semantics of Natural Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 99–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, D.: 1967, ‘The Logical Form of Action Sentences’, in N. Rescher (ed.), The Logic of Decision and Action, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diesing, M.: 1988, ‘Bare Plural Subjects and the Stage/Individual Level Contrast’, in Genericity in Natural Language, SNS-Bericht 88-42, Universität Tübingen.

  • Doherty, C.: 1990, ‘Clausal Structure and the Modern Irish Copula’, manuscript, University of California at Santa Cruz.

  • É Kiss, K.: 1994, ‘Two Subject Positions in English’, manuscript, Linguistic Institute of the Hungarian Academy, Budapest.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiengo, R. and R. May: 1990, ‘Anaphora and Ellipsis’, manuscript, City University of New York and University of California at Irvine.

  • Gazdar, G., R. Pullum, and I. Sag: 1981, ‘Auxiliaries and Related Phenomena in a Restrictive Theory of Grammar’, Language 58, 591–638.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I.: 1982, The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  • Higginbotham, J.: 1985, ‘On Semantics’, Linguistic Inquiry 16, 547–593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A.: 1981, ‘The Notional Category of Modality’, in H.-J. Eikmeyer and H. Rieser (eds.), Words, Worlds and Contexts: New Approaches to Word Semantics, de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 38–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A.: 1989, ‘Stage Level and Individual Level Predication’, manuscript, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  • Krifka, M., F. J. Pelletier, G. Carlson, A. ter Meulen, G. Link, and G. Chierchia: 1995, ‘Genericity: An Introduction’, in G. Carlson and F. J. Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 1–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D.: 1975, ‘Adverbs of Quantification’, in E. Keenan (ed), Formal Semantics of Natural Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, J.: 1980, ‘Is There Raising in Modern Irish?’, Eriu 31, 59–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, J.: 1983, ‘A VP in a VSO Language?’, in G. Gazdar, E. Klein, and G. Pullum (eds.), Order Concord and Constituency, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 9–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, J.: 1984, ‘Raising, Subcategorization and Selection in Modern Irish’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1, 441–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, J.: 1990, ‘Clause Structure, Ellipsis and Proper Government in Irish’, Technical Report 90-06, Syntax Research Center, University of California at Santa Cruz.

  • McCloskey, J. and K. Hale: 1984, ‘On the Syntax of Person-Number Inflection in Modern Irish’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1, 487–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T.: 1990, Events in the Semantics of English MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, L. K. and F. J. Pelletier: 1987, ‘Problems in the Representation of the Logical Form of Generics, Plurals and Mass Nouns’, in E. LePore (ed.), New Directions in Semantics, Academic Press, London, pp. 385–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stowell, T.: 1989, ‘Subjects, Specifiers and X-bar Theory’, in M. Baltin and A. Kroch (eds.), Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 232–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallduví, E.: 1994, ‘The Dynamics of Information Packaging’, in E. Engdahl (ed.), Integrating Information Structure into Constraint-based and Categorial Approaches to Grammar (DYANA-2 Report R1.3.B), ILLC, Amsterdam, pp. 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

This paper would never have been written if it hadn't been for the interest and help of a number of native Scottish Gaelic speakers. I gratefully thank Rachel Martin, Christine Primrose, Chrissie McInnes, Eosaph MacIlliosa, Seonaidh McDonald (Seonaidh Beag), and the late Donnie Campbell. Special thanks go to Rody Gorman for detailed and painstaking judgments on often quite subtle data. I am especially grateful to Caoimhím O Donnaile, who was so generous with his time and advice and who regularly conveyed last-minute questions to and from native speakers over email. Thanks must also go more generally to the Sabhal Mòr Ostaig, the Gaelic-speaking college on the Isle of Skye, for their help and support.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ramchand, G.C. Two subject positions in Scottish Gaelic: The syntax-semantics interface. Natural Language Semantics 4, 165–191 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00355412

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00355412

Keywords

Navigation