Identity How would you characterize yourself

Characterization with regard to the identity of objects


"I'll tell you one thing, I do am the prince Noccsa, "called the prince into the darkness and laughed.
(the daily newspaper June 15, 1988, 21)

The sequence is the same as in recent years in Sindlingen and Zeilsheim, where the Sparkasse started the exhibition series in the western parts of the city.
(Frankfurter Rundschau January 28, 1999, 3)

"I am Manfred, Wolfgang is my brother, "replies Manfred Faust.
(Frankfurter Rundschau June 29, 1998, 4)

He was the head of the circle, had studied theology, but then dropped out because of a pretty woman, had become a lawyer, had seven children and was considered "one of our most capable social politicians".
(Böll 1963, 102)

If I understand you correctly, that means: AGAB should never have got an ABM position, because the prospect of creating a permanent job there, is equal to Zero.
(the daily newspaper December 23, 1988, 18)

In contrast to characterizations with single-digit predicates, be considered here as a two-digit main verb. There is a reason for this: while a sentence like He is a cook. the question What is he? answered, answered a sentence like He's the cook. the question Who is he? In the first case there is a characterization as a cook, in the second an identification as a certain person who is characterized as a cook.

He is a cook.What is he?
He's the cook.Who is he?

In this context, the interpretation of He is a cook. This is how you can characterize someone as a cook. But you can also use it to answer the question about your identity. Such an answer is not sufficient for identification, but is often tolerated, be it because the questioner is not seriously interested in identification or because he accepts that the person asked cannot or does not want to say anything more precise.

To avoid misunderstandings: The communicative-functional analysis here does not proceed in two respects parallel to the syntactic analysis as presented in the unit classes of complements. There will be described as a two-valued verb to which an expression such as cook, a cook or the chef can occur as a predicative complement. The often analogous valence of a verb and the arity of a predicate differ here, because a predicate 'being' on its own can only be understood in the sense of an identifying predicate, for example 'being identical' or 'being the same'. In case of Be a cook must be supplemented by cook first to be step in to make it a predicate expression because be without this supplement is not suitable for a characterizing use.

At the same time, it can be seen here that the complements of a verb do not automatically have the status of an argument expression. This exception to the otherwise observed parallelism of valence and arity does not change the fact that the arity of predicates results from the valency of the verbs, adjectives and nouns that form the corresponding predicate expressions. The calculation is just not always as simple as one might assume on a superficial view.