1

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Page 266) defines the ascriptive and specifying uses of be as follows:

[45] i His daughter is very bright/a highly intelligent woman. [ascriptive]

ii The chief culprit was Kim. [specifying]

In the ascriptive use, PC denotes a property and characteristically has the form of an AdjP or a non-referential NP; the subject is most often referential and the clause ascribes the property to the subject-referent. Thus [i], for example, ascribes to his daughter the property of being very bright or being a highly intelligent woman. The specifying use defines a variable and specifies its value. We might represent [ii] therefore as “The x such that x was the chief culprit was: Kim”; it serves to specify, or identify, who the chief culprit was. We will refer to the semantic roles joined by be as theme and property in the ascriptive case, and as variable and value in the specifying case.

In which use is the following sentence?

(1) One of the most successful pop singers is Adele.

At first, it seems to be in the specifying use, but I was wondering if we could represent (1) as “The x such that x was one of the most successful pop singers was: Adele”, which doesn't really make sense because there could be one of the most successful pop singers other than Adele.

Is (1) really in the specifying use?

Improve this question
6
  • 2
    Is this a definition? It seems like a list of vague generalities. It isn't worth making a distinction this undistinguished. The auxiliary verb be occurs in many constructions, including constructions of NP specification.
    – John Lawler
    Commented Jul 26, 2021 at 15:44
  • I am me. [specifying] I am truly me [ascriptive]. Just trying to be funny.
    – Lambie
    Commented Jul 26, 2021 at 16:13
  • One of the successful singers is Adele would be specifying, I believe, and parallel to your example at (1). Reversibility test: One of the successful singers is Adele. Adele is one of the successful singers. Is one of the successful singers Adele? Is Adele one of the successful singers? Pass specifying. Be swap test: *One of the successful singers seems Adele. Fail ascriptive.
    – Tinfoil Hat
    Commented Jul 26, 2021 at 19:33
  • @TinfoilHat Is Adele is one of the successful singers specifying or ascriptive?
    – JK2
    Commented Jul 26, 2021 at 23:58
  • It seems to me that it would be specifying, based on the reversal test offered a few pages down from your quotation. Or maybe change one of to among to see that they are both specifying?
    – Tinfoil Hat
    Commented Jul 27, 2021 at 2:07

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
2

Is [One of the most successful pop singers is Adele] really in [Huddleston and Pullum's] specifying use?

No, it isn't.

As this source discusses at length, this is not a hard-&-fast universally agreed-upon set of categories for how English uses the verb to be. Taking Huddleston & Pullum's categories at face value, though, you're getting confused because of the order of the parts. Reversed to

Adele is one of the most successful pop singers.

it's far clearer that the verb is just ascribing a general category that Adele falls into rather than specifying that Adele is the name or another name for the person designated by the other side of the copula.

According to this Wikipedia article, the most successful pop singers are the surviving members of the Beatles & Led Zeppelin, Elton John, Madonna, and—if you think she counts as a "pop singer"—Rihanna.

would be the specifying version of your example sentence. As should be clear, some people think the distinction involved is unhelpful to murky to nonsensical and draw their lines about the uses of to be in other places.

Improve this answer
8
  • Thanks for citing the paper, according to which (1) seems to be a specificational-categorizing clause (e.g. A familiar example would be the genus equus.). Then, I think it's more specifying than ascriptive. Why would you say it's ascriptive? Are you not following the paper you have cited?
    – JK2
    Commented Aug 2, 2021 at 6:04
  • @JK2 You seem to have misread the source in 2 separate ways. First, above the example you cite, it specifically deals with Huddleston and Pullam's understanding of specification which is more limited than others'. Your question and my answer deals with their approach. Second, the example cited is arguing against an entirely separate (mis)understanding of specification w/r/t indefinite NPs. The authors have their own understanding but are again arguing against that of the actual authorities being discussed. You may agree with them in preference to the sources but I don't see why you would.
    – lly
    Commented Aug 2, 2021 at 10:36
  • In other words, I was providing a source that discusses H&P's categories without being behind a paywall. The provided source goes on to argue their own points but those disagree with H&P (whose work is under discussion) and with other authorities. I was providing the source to help illuminate the current discussion, not agreeing with the authors and their conclusions (although you might). This is all covered by the "some people... other places" part of my answer.
    – lly
    Commented Aug 2, 2021 at 10:39
  • 2
    So although you've cited the paper, your answer isn't in line with it, because you don't agree with the paper either? Is that what you're saying?
    – JK2
    Commented Aug 2, 2021 at 10:48
  • 1
    I believe that any good answer should be based on authority, and more importantly, I have requested "an answer from a reputable source" with the bounty. I don't understand why you would cite what seems to be an authoritative source and write the answer based on nothing but your own personal opinion. Just because I've cited CGEL in the question doesn't mean you're not allowed to base your answer on other sources, as long as such other sources are credible sources such as papers, books, etc.
    – JK2
    Commented Aug 3, 2021 at 2:49
-1

I

  • The (1) x such that x was the (2) chief culprit was Kim.

In this case "the" ((2)) defines "chief culprit" as a single entity. Equivalently put, by using "the" you specify that there exist only one chief culprit. The determination needed to be able to use "the" as a definite determiner of "x" is found cataphorically in "the chief culprit".

  • The x such that x was one of the most successful pop singers was Adele.

In this second case, however, using "one of the" implies there exists more than one most successful pop singers; therefore the use of "the" as a definite determiner of "x" is not justified by a unique referent, none has been specified in the terms; in other words it does not correspond to the situation since there are admittedly several such singers.

What you can say is this.

  • An x such that x was one of the most successful pop singers was Adele.

II

[1] His daughter is very bright/a highly intelligent woman.
[2] The chief culprit was Kim.
[3] One of the most successful pop singers is Adele.

On the basis that the characterization does not concern the person only in itself in [2] and in [3], I'd say that the model of [2] and [3] are the same, and so the use of "be" in "[3]" is specifying.

Improve this answer
2
  • 1
    You lost me in the last paragraph. How could you consider the two models the same, when the value assigned to the variable x can be any one of the most successful pop singers other than Adele (e.g., Ed Sheeran)?
    – JK2
    Commented Jul 26, 2021 at 23:56
  • @JK2 I see the models as being the same as far as the characterization through the predicative expressions "the chief culprit" and "one of the most successful pop singers" are both the outcome of activity or circumstances that are not just intrinsic to the person but depend on the external world. For instance, concerning "The table is solid mahogany." the verb would be ascribing, as I understand this idea of classification, and concerning "The table is the center piece in the room." the verb would be specifying.
    – LPH
    Commented Jul 27, 2021 at 1:50

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .