Abstract

Within the Davidsonian paradigm copula-predicative constructions are commonly assumed to involve a state argument. Its source is taken tobe either the copula be (cf. e.g. Bierwisch 1988, Kamp & Reyle 1993, Rothstein 1999) or the predicative (cf. e.g. Parsons 1990 and the stage level/individual level debate following Kratzer 1989/1995). Yet, a critical examination of copula-predicative constructions in contexts that call for a Davidsonian argument (perception verbs, locative modifiers, manner adverbials, etc.) reveals that they do not behave as expected. The data examined here indicate that copula-predicative constructions lack a Davidsonian argument and they provide counterevidence to the assumption put forth by stage level/individual level accounts that there is a grarnmatically reflected distinction between temporary and permanent properties. The present paper takes an alternative stance and argues for a grammatical distinction between true state verbs like sit, stand, wait and statives like resemble, know, hate, cost. While state verbs introduce a full-fledged Davidsonian argument, statives only provide a temporal argument. Copula-predicative constructions are shown to belong uniformly to the class of statives. That is, they display a temporal argument whose source is the copula. The differences in acceptability observed with temporary vs. permanent properties are accounted for pragmatically on the basis of conversational implicatures.