Article

Two Types of there-sentences and Feature Specification

Chorong Kang 1 ,
Author Information & Copyright
1Seoul National University
*Corresponding Author : Lecturer, Department of Linguistics Seoul National University Building 5-308, 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-Gu, Seoul 08826, Korea, E-mail: chrkkang@gmail.com

ⓒ Copyright 2019 Language Education Institute, Seoul National University. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: Mar 04, 2019 ; Revised: Jul 02, 2019 ; Accepted: Jul 30, 2019

Published Online: Aug 31, 2019

ABSTRACT

This paper aimed to account for unexpected accusative case on a pronominal associate in there-sentences (there was him). It is unexpected that under the long-standing assumption in generative grammar, agreement coincides with case assignment. Since there-associates appear to agree with T in number (e.g. there was/*were a dog), they are expected to be valued as nominative case. Furthermore, such a pronominal associate with accusative case is not available in there-V type sentences (*there arrived him). In this paper, I propose a multiple-there hypothesis to account for different behaviors of there-V and there-BE. In the proposal, I argue that there-s in there-V and there-BE are base-generated in different positions due to their different “grammatical roles” (semantically null expletive vs. subject argument). Based on the distinction, I further argue that there-s have different feature specifications and show that the proposed system captures different behaviors between there-sentences with respect to sub-extraction and control.

Keywords: there-sentences; feature specification; pronominal associate; long-distance agreement; accusative case

References

1.

Bowers, John. (1993). The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24,591-656 .

2.

Beyssade, Claire. and Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin. (2005). A syntax-based analysis of predication. In E. Georgala and J. Howell, eds., Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory XV. Ithaca, New York: CLC Publications .

3.

Belletti, Adriana and Luigi Rizzi. (1988). Psych-Verbs and θ-Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 291-352 .

4.

Bolinger, Dwight. (1977). Meaning and Form. London: Longman .

5.

Borschev, Vladimir and Barbara H. Partee. (1998). Bytijnye predloženija i otricanie v russkom jazyke: semantika i kommunikativnaja struktura. [Existential sentences and negation in Russian: semantics and communicative structure]. In A. S. Narin'yani, ed., Dialogue '98: Computational Linguistics and Its Applications, 173-182. Kazan: Xéter .

6.

Borschev, Vladimir, and Barbara H. Partee. (2001). The Russian genitive of negation in existential sentences: The role of theme-rheme structure reconsidered. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst. In Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague (nouvelle serie), v. 4, ed. by Eva Hajiekova and Petr Sgall. Amsterdam: John Benjamins .

7.

Burzio, Luigi. (1986). Italian Syntax. Dordrecht .

8.

Chomsky, Noam. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .

9.

Chomsky, Noam. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka, eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89-155. Cambridge: MIT Press .

10.

Chomsky, Noam. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz, ed., Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .

11.

Deal, Amy, R. (2009). The origin and content of expletives: Evidence from ''Selection''. Syntax 12, 285-323 .

12.

Diesing, Molly. (1992). Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .

13.

Emonds, Joseph E. (1985). A Unified Theory of Syntactic Categories. Dordrecht: Foris .

14.

Francez, Itamar. (2006). Semantic structure and argument realization in (mostly Hebrew) existentials. In Y. Falk, ed., Proceedings of Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics 22, Retrieved from http://atar.mscc.huji.ac.il/~english/IATL//22/ .

15.

Harley, Heidi. (1995). Abstracting away from abstract case. Proceedings of NELS 25. GLSA, University of Massachusetts .

16.

Hartmann, Jutta M. (2005). Wh-movement and the Small Clause Analyses of the English there-construction. Leiden Papers in Linguistics, 2, 93-106 .

17.

Hartmann, Jutta M. (2008). Expletives in Existentials. English there and German da. Ph.D. dissertation. Tilburg .

18.

Hazout, Ilan. (2004). The syntax of existential constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 35, 393-430 .

19.

Hoekstra, Teun, and Rene Mulder. (1990). Unergatives as copular verbs: Locational and existential predication. The Linguistic Review 7, 1-79 .

20.

Kallulli, Dalina. (2008). There Is secondary predication in There-Existentials. In Charles B. Chang and Hannah J. Haynie, ed., Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 279-287. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project .

21.

Kratzer, Angelika. (2005). Building resultatives. In C. Maienborn & A. Wöllstein, eds., Event Arguments: Foundations and Applications, 177-212. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag .

22.

Laka, Itziar. (2000). Theta blind Case: Burzio's Generalization and its image in the mirror. arguments and case. In E. Reuland, ed., Explaining Burzio's Generalization, 103-129. Amsterdam: John Benjamins .

23.

Landau, Idan. (2007). EPP Extensions. Linguistic Inquiry, 38, 485-523 .

24.

Legate, Julie. (2003). Some interface properties of the phase, Linguistic Inquiry 34, 506-516 .

25.

Martinez Insua, Ana E., and Ignacio M. Palacios Martinez. (2003). A corpus-based approach to non-concord in present-day English existential there- constructions. English Studies 84 (3), 262-83 .

26.

McNally, Louise. (1997). A Semantics for the English Existential Construction. New York: Garland .

27.

Milsark, Gary, L. (1974). Existential Sentences in English. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT .

28.

Moro, Andrea. (1991). The raising of predicates: Copula, expletives, and existence. In Lisa L.S. Cheng and Hamid Demirdache, ed., More Papers on Wh-movement, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT .

29.

Moro, Andrea. (1997). The Raising of Predicates. Predicative Noun Phrases and the Theory of Clause Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .

30.

Moro, Andrea. (2000). Dynamic Antisymmetry. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press .

31.

Muss-Arnolt, W. (1894). The chaldean account of the deluge. The Biblical World 3 109-118 .

32.

Platzack, C. 1983. Existential sentences in English, German, Icelandic, and Swedish. In F. Karlsson, ed., Papers from the 7th Scandinavian Conference on Linguistics, 80-100. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of General Linguistics .

33.

Pylkkänen, Liina. (2002). Introducing Arguments. Ph.D. dissertation. MIT .

34.

Rando, Emily, and Donna Jo Napoli. (1978). Defnites in there-sentences. Language 54, 300-313 .

35.

Richards, M. & T. Biberauer. (2005). Explaining Expl. In M. den Dikken & C. Tortora, eds., The Function Of Function Words And Functional Categories, 115-153. Amsterdam: John Benjamins .

36.

Sabel, Joachim. (2000). Expletives as Features, in R. Billerey et al. (eds.) WCCFL 19 Proceedings, Cascadilla Press, Somerville, MA, 411-424 .

37.

Schütze, Carson. T. (2001). On the nature of default case. Syntax 4, 205-238 .

38.

Schäfer, Florian. 2013. Reconciling Burzio's generalization with unexpected accusatives: from German to Icelandic, talk presented at the 28th Comparative Germanic Syntax Workshop, Leipzig .

39.

Schütze, Carson T. (2002) On the nature of default case. Syntax 4(3), 205-238 .

40.

Sigurðsson, Halldór A. (2000). The locus of case and agreement. The locus of case and agreement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 65, 65-108 .

41.

Sigurðsson, Halldór A. (2003). Case: abstract vs. morphological. In Ellen Brandner, and Heike Zinsmeister, eds., New Perspectives on Case Theory, 223-268. Stanford: CSLI Publications .

42.

Sigurðsson, Halldór A. (2009). The no case generalization. In A. Alexiadou et al. eds., Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax, 249-280. Amsterdam: John Benjamins .

43.

Stowell, Tim. (1978). What was there before there was there. In Donka Farkas, ed., Proceedings of the 13th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 458-471. Chicago: CLS .

44.

Surányi Balázs. (2009). Subject islands: Cyclicity of derivation and intermediate movement to edges. NELS 38 (Proceedings of 38th Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society). Amherst: GLSA. 401-414 .

45.

Tsunoda, Tasaku. (1981). Split case-marking patterns in verb-types and tense/aspect/mood. Linguistics 19, 389-438 .

46.

Travis, Lisa. (1984). Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. Ph.D. dissertation. MIT .

47.

Williams, Edwin. (1994). Thematic Structure in Syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press .

The submission guidelines have been revised.


The submission guidelines of the Language Research have been revised as of September 25, 2019.

Please check and submit new papers based on the new guidelines.

https://www.elanguageresearch.org/author/guideline

Thank you for your interest in the Language Research.

I don't want to open this window for a day.