Pernilla Hallonsten Halling

Conclusion

The constructional overlap of


pred and adv shows more variation than that of attr

and pred (cf. section 7.2). Encoding overlaps that include the two functions as wholes are only attested as partial overlaps. When considering the difference, treating these encoding patterns as overlaps may seem a simplification. Naturally, a copula cannot be equated with a full verb. But it is not supposed to be understood as a simplification. The constructional overlap, described as partial only, does not exclude such differences, but clarifies both similarities and differences. The constructions that are between pred and adv show that the two functions may overlap completely, even if they do not overlap in their most typical instances. The very subtle differences that are encoded in some

languages illustrate this further. In conclusion, the partial overlap of
pred
and adv

occurs in unrelated languages spread out around the world, as illustrated in the map in figure 7.2. This spread is highly important. It shows that the relationship between pred and adv is not as rare as it may seem from a Eurocentric perspective, where pred and adv are often interpreted as being mutually exclusive.

3. [attr adv] construction overlap

Four cases of overlap of the attr and adv functions are attested in the languages of the sample, although two of them are perhaps more correctly classified as tendencies towards overlap. Tagalog (Austronesian) has a clear overlap. In this language, the most basic division that can be discerned in terms of categories is the distinction between content words and function words, where the latter is a closed class of particles (Himmelmann 2005: 360). Although the content words can be classified into different subcategories, these do not fit under labels like noun, verb, and adjective, since Tagalog lacks the close cor- respondence between morphological properties and syntactic distribution that languages such as English display. Instead, content words can occur anywhere syntactically, meaning that they “may occur as predicates, as (semantic) heads of noun phrases and as modifiers” (2005: 361). Tagalog stands out among the languages of the sample, in the nature of its encoding overlap of attr and adv. What unites the two functions is that they require the same structural feature in the form of a linker. According to Himmelmann, “[a]ll non- possessive modifying constructions involve the linker na (-ng after vowels, /n/ or glottal stop) between each major constituent” (2005: 359). In (7.28), two examples of attr are provided.

(7.28) Tagalog (Austronesian) (Himmelmann 2005: 359, 356)⁹ [attr adv]

1. 
   ang
   

spec