The structure here is not complex.  The word "am" is functioning as a linking verb.  It is followed by a predicate nominative, "a Nigerian."  In the second case, "I am Nigerian," we still have "am" functioning as a linking verb.  Without the article, "Nigerian" shifts its function to a predicate adjective.

Dear Dennis,

Interesting question. In my [non-expert] opinion, "nigerian" would be an adjective working as an attribute in the sentence "I am Nigerian", as much as I could say "I am tall". In the second sentence, "I am a Nigerian", the adjective has been nominalized, and functions as a noun. What I find interesting, and I can't find an explanation right now, is that in the case of "being tall", "tall" can't be nominalized, I can't say "I am a tall", but rather it should remain an attribute of an object: "I am a tall one".

I believe that "Nigerian" in this case is a polysemic word, that can both denote the attribute of being from Nigeria, as well as the fact that the person/object/fact to which the word refers (noun) is from Nigeria. Consider the spanish case, however: "I am Spanish / I am a Spaniard". Or Britain: "I am Brittish / I am a Brit".

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

Fernando

Also, it is written with a capital N because it is an adjective derived from a noun written with capital letter, i.e., Nigeria.

Like Spain--> Spanish, or Shakespeare--> Shakespearean, and so on.

@ Fernando

Your explanation is o.k. with one little exception:

"In my … opinion, "nigerian" would be an adjective working as an attribute in the sentence "I am Nigerian", as much as I could say "I am tall"."

"Nigerian" in "I am Nigerian" is not working as an attribute, but is part of the predicate "am Nigerian". Nigerian is working as an attribute in the sentence: "I am a Nigerian man." (attribute of "man").

The structure here is not complex.  The word "am" is functioning as a linking verb.  It is followed by a predicate nominative, "a Nigerian."  In the second case, "I am Nigerian," we still have "am" functioning as a linking verb.  Without the article, "Nigerian" shifts its function to a predicate adjective.

Nigerian is the predicate here --the rest is really "semantic noise" --meaniing that the most informational part of the construction is NIGERIAN (neither AM nor A). Of course, use (or not use) of the article does make a difference. Yet, the problem I see with your (undoubtedly interesting) question is that it simultaneously seeks an answer at two levels without being conscious of the divide between these levels. What I mean is this: 1. At the informational semantic clevel, we are dealing with a predicate. 2. Yet, this is a first level approach (let us say --tongue-in-cheek-- a necesary but not sufficient condition) . There is indeed a difference between presence/non-presence of the indef. article. And the answer to this one can be sought, among other things, in group-membership, communities of practice, "identity", and other socially relevant (and pragma[linguis]tically grounded) issues.

• It is a noun since it means the person who lives in Nigeria. Whereas, "Nigerian" is an adjective since we do not add an indefinite article to adjectives in English language.

Dennis, you asked:

"If it is an adjective, why is it written with a capital letter?"

In English adjectives of names of countries are always written with a capital letter: an English girl, a British gentleman. 

Costas, you wrote:

"There is indeed a difference between presence/non-presence of the indef. article. And the answer to this one can be sought, among other things, in group-membership, communities of practice, "identity", and other socially relevant (and pragma[linguis]tically grounded) issues."

I am not sure if you are right. I think there is no difference, but I might be convinced if you could give me a detailed description of the exact difference.

Costas, you wrote:

"There is indeed a difference between presence/non-presence of the indef. article. And the answer to this one can be sought, among other things, in group-membership, communities of practice, "identity", and other socially relevant (and pragma[linguis]tically grounded) issues."

I am not sure if you are right. I think there is no difference, but I might be convinced if you could give me a detailed description of the exact difference.

James, I agree with you.

Just a passing reference. When you say: "The word "am" is functioning as a linking verb." I suppose 'linking verb' in your eyes is the same as copula. The expression 'linking verb' could be misunderstood. in my eyes "to be" is not a verb. Real verbs are auto semantics and contribute to the meaning of the predicate.

This would entail a paper I am unwilling to write --sorry, Klaus.  Indeed, I think that the difference was already pointed out by someone else's comment (in much the same way I suggest).

Oh, and copula and linking verb are synonymous, by the way. Taking a semantics-first view of verbs is of course one's right, but it is not what most linguists understand when talking about "verbs".   

@ Costas:

The history of linguistics shows that it is very difficult (and sometimes makes no sense) to do syntax theory without semantics.

Costas, you wrote:

"Oh, and copula and linking verb are synonymous, by the way."

I know, that they are used synonymously. But they have different connotations, which may lead us to different views on language features. This is what I wanted to say.

I know. I did a dissertation on the topic. Biut that does not change the fact that a pure semanticist approach (as you seem to suggest), even if does not miss the point, can hardly be the basis for discussion among people who do not know where each pother stands. This is all I mean, Klaus.

(Needless to say that this is the last post on the subject from my part)

The difference may lie in the person who achieves the analysis. If one says, ‘‘I am Nigerian’’, the norm says it is a rule to capitalize the nationalities, no matter if they are adjectives.

Anther says ‘‘I am a Nigerian’’, among certain peoples there exists the desire to make a disctinction of identity and resepect for the other ones introducing themselves to other persons coming form other tribes, zones, o countries.

Remeber, in Nigeria the languages such as Yoruba, Hausa, Igbo, Fula, and some others rule in specific geographical point of the country, despite the fact English language is the official language.

Translation may enrich the interaction between two or more different speakers coming from different cultures by stating customs and courtesy formalities.

Grammatical rules from a specific country may dark the intended meaning of speakers from different countries and languages.

The distinction between the predicate nominative and the predicate adjective may not be obvious in the case of "Nigerian," but with other nationalities, you can see it clearly.  For example, in English you say: "I am Spanish." (adjective) but "I am a Spaniard." (noun).  You cannot say: * "I am Spaniard."  or * "I am a Spanish."

Nigerian is a predicate adjective.  The -n ending indicates that one is from Nigeria.  Similarly we have, "I am an American. He is a Chilean. She is a Spaniard." are all predicated adjectives.  They can't be used as subjects of the predicate verb.  Also, most of them take the adjectival position before a noun, as in "American flag, a Nigerian woman." However "Spaniard" is irregular. Its adjectival ending is "ish" as in "Spanish wines."  Spanish also can be used as a predicate adjective if you don't put a determiner in from of it, as in "She is Spanish."

Elaine, your analysis is simply incorrect in every respect.  The structure of "I am an American" is linking verb + predicate nominative.  Under no known syntactic analysis could "an American" or "a Chilean" or "a Spaniard" be characterized as predicate adjectives here.  Furthermore, you are confused regarding syntactic form and function.  Just because we can use "American" as an adjective doesn't mean that it is functioning as a predicate adjective in "I am an American."  Your statement that American and Spaniard cannot be used as subjects is just plain wrong.  Consider:  "Americans are peculiar people."  "An American walked into a bar."  "The Spaniard smiled."  Etc., etc., etc.  As I stated in my initial post, the syntax here is not complex, provided one knows a bit about syntax.

Let’s have a look on semantics:

• (1) I am a Nigerian.
• (2) I am Nigerian.

The difference between Nigerian in (1) and Nigerian in (2) is, as we found out, a formal (formalistic) one: It is the difference between substantive and adjective. But semantically there is no differnce. Now let’s look at another use of Nigerian:

• (3) I am Nigerian (– more than my brother. He was born in the U.S.A. and still lives in the U.S.A.)

Formally between Nigerian in (2) and Nigerian in (3) there is no difference. In both sentences Nigerian is an adjective. But semantically there is a clear difference: Nigerian(2) means nationality, but Nigerian(3) means culture. Furthermore Nigerian(2) means a relation (the relation ‚citizen of ’, which exists between „I“ and the state of Nigeria), while Nigerian(3) means a property (to own certain cultural features, e. g. in thinking, feeling, behavior). So in my eyes the adjective Nigerian(2) is nearer to the noun Nigerian(1) than to the homonymous co-adjective Nigerian(3). It has much of the character of a noun, while Nigerian(3) could be called a „real“ adjective. There is a formal difference, too: We can’t put words like „more“ or „less“ or „very“ in front of Nigerian(2), but we can do this with Nigerian(3).

Another hint: The syntactic and semantic arguments are „I“ and „Nigerian“, not „a Nigerian“. Let’s look at the following sentences/utterances:

(1) I am a Nigerian.

(4) I love a Nigerian.

In (1) „I“ is followed by the copula. In such constructions in English the following noun („Nigerian“, predicate nominative; a countable substantive) has to take the „a“ automatically. The „a“ occurs only because of „I“ + „am“ and is not part oft he structure oft he sentence/utterance. So „Nigerian“ must be classified as N. But in (4) „a Nigerian“ must be classified as NP, because in (4) „a“ does not follow automatically after „I“ + „love“, since

(5) I love two Nigerians.

is syntactically (and semantically) correct, too. So in (5) and (4) „a“ contributes to the content of the argument, and the argument is „a“ + „Nigerian“.

(John Lyons showed that it is necessary to differentiate between N and NP.)

Klaus, I have no argument with your semantic analysis of the two sentences.  From a syntactic perspective, however, the two sentences are not the same, as I've noted previously.  In cognitive linguistics, it is important always to note that syntax and semantics are two ways of examining language that do not always align.  The form of "Nigerian" is a noun, and in S1 its form matches its function.  In S2, however, it is a noun functioning as an adjective.  Therefore, stating that "Nigerian" is an adjective in both sentences is incorrect.  We have a similar situation with regard to political designations in the US:  (1) I am an Independent; (2) I am independent.

Beyond the grammatical structure, there's also a little subtlety in the meaning of the sentence, whether you put the stress in "I" as in I am Nigerian (I AM the important part of the sentence, although I was born in Nigeria or from Nigerian parents) versus "WE (collective)" as in I am a NIGERIAN (meaning I am one of this group of people, the Nigerians). So maybe there lies the imporance of using a noun or an adjective.

 "Nigerian, as in 'I an a Nigerian" is a noun.  The indefinite article signals that a noun is coming.  If it were "I am a Nigerian citizen," then Nigerian is an adjective describing "citizen."  The articles a and the are noun determiners.  That is, they let the hearer know that a noun is coming.  The noun may have an adjective before it.  However, the phrase is not completed until the noun is uttered.  Notice , you can't say "I am a pretty, I am a small," or "I am the polite." That is, you can say those things, but your listener will be waiting for a noun to finish the phrase marked out by the  or  a. If your listener seems to be  waiting for a word to complete the phrase, then you know the word that completes it is the noun.  Try saying something like, "I am a small..." and notice how the listener looks at you and waits before speaking until you say the noun,  In fact, listeners may stare at you a minute, and finally say, "You're a small what?"

In both, Nigerian is a predicate nominative, meaning that Nigerian is equivalent to I or whatever the subject of the phrase is. "I am Nigerian," to me means that the speaker considers him or herself to be representative of the Nigerian people, but "I am a Nigerian," means that he or she comes from Nigeria, but now can also be identified with another culture as well.

I am grateful to all those who contributed to the discussion of the question posed. The question focused on three issues:

a. The nature of ‘‘a Nigerian’’ and ‘‘Nigerian’’ in the two sentences

b. Reason(s) for the determiner ‘‘a’’ preceding ‘‘Nigerian’’

c. Acceptability of the sentence, ‘‘I am a Nigerian’’ (with explanation)

Concerning issue (a) and (b) the explanations from the contributors have been superb. Regarding (c), when Naom Chomsky’s principles of ‘‘Grammaticality’’ and ‘‘Acceptability’’ are applied, make both sentences acceptable and meaningful. But looking at it from the semantic level both sentences bring about different emphases. I may be wrong, but it appears to me that when one wants to tell his/ her nationality, the use the predicative adjective (i.e. Nigerian) becomes more acceptable and meaningful. The predicative normative, ‘‘a Nigerian’’ becomes more acceptable and meaningful:

1. when painting a cultural behaviour / or

Example:

- Boy, why are you wearing an earring to class?

- Oh, I am a Nigerian.

2. When correcting one’s identity that has been misrepresented by another person.

Example:

- All along I have thought you were Gambian.

- No, I am a Nigerian.

Dennis,

In the example that you quote above, I think in No2. at least 'a' is not needed, especially since the trigger statement does not say 'a Gambian'. I feel that in number 1. too, a may not be needed

Narayanan

Although Soku is correct in noting that context determines the uses of "I am Nigerian" and "I am a Nigerian," I would argue that his examples are incorrect because they do not consider the intended meaning.  It seems to me that the first example is used for simple identification, as when someone asks, "What is your nationality?"  Answer: "I'm Nigerian."  The second, however, is used as an affirmation of identity, as when someone asks, "Why did you celebrate Aaron Egbele's bronze medal in the 2004 Olympics?"  Answer:  "I am a Nigerian!"

Dear Dennis

From: http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/ling001/morphology.html:

.........Consider the adjectival forms of the names of countries or regions in English. There are at least a half a dozen different endings, and also many variations in how much of the name of the country is retained before the ending is added: -ese, -an, -ian, -ish, -i, ? (French, German, Greek).

And you can't mix 'n match stems and endings here: *Taiwanian, *Egyptese, and so on just don't work.

To make it worse, the word for citizen of X and the general adjectival form meaning associated with locality X are usually but not always the same. Exceptions include Pole/Polish, Swede/Swedish, Scot/Scottish, Greenlandic/Greenlander. And there are some oddities about pluralization: we talk about "the French" and "the Chinese" but "the Greeks" and "the Canadians". The plural forms "the Frenches" and "the Chineses" are not even possible, and the singular forms "the Greek" and "the Canadian" mean something entirely different.

For example, let us take the -ish nations (Irish, British, Flemish, Polish, Scottish, Swedish). In the case of Pole/Polish, I am a Pole/Brit/Swede, etc are correct as such with ‘a’, and if you want to use the -ish forms you will have to say ‘I am a Polish/British/Swedish citizen/man/fellow’. Am I correct?

I am adding this just to point out that the answer Dennis’s question is linked to the form of the adjective and very difficult to generalize

Narayanan