Expletive There

A chain is a set of connected links, including a single link. It is probably true that the head and the tail of a link are coindexed, and hence, every link on the chain will be coindexed. Coindexation in this sense is assigned an index to one end of a link such that it matches the other end. This is slightly different from referential indexation.

At issue here is the expletive pronoun 'there':

(1)   There is a unicorn in the garden.

(C) claims that there and the external argument are coindexed. Note that he does not give any arguments for it. He says that they are coindexed, and given that, there and the external argument form a link (chain). We could justify coindexation if there were movement (feature copying) but there isn't. There is simply inserted as a dummy pronoun functioning as the subject of the sentence.

The logical structure for (1) is, we assume, the following. First we asume the embedded eventuality IN <location>, <:theme>. And the matrix eventuality: EXIST <theme>:

(2)   EXIST <IN < THE GARDEN > <ONE UNICORN>>.

THE GARDEN is the internal argument of IN, and UNICORN is the external argument of IN. <IN < THE GARDEN > <ONE UNICORN> is the only argument of EXIST.

The first issue is the theme argument of IN. In implies a location and a theme. The theme can be an object as in:

(3)   A unicorn is in the garden.

Or it can be a basic eventuality, usually EXIST, but other semantic heads (predicates) are possible. Note that one can say:

(4a)   Something is in the garden.

(4b)   There exists something in the garden.

Although the theme of IN (4b) is a clause, a basic eventuality called a small clause in the syntax (it is not modified by an operator with the exception of Prominence; see small clauses). In the syntax (2) takes the following form:

(5)    there

(Click on the diagram to view an enlargened version of (5).)

The next issue is prominence. EXIST/BE is usally spelled out as 'exist' or some conjugated from of 'be' plus the expletive 'there' in subject position. Actually we should consider the verb 'be' a main verb derived from BE. BE has more than one meaning.; we can mark the existential sense of BE as 'BE:exist'. One reasonable hypothesis, the one taken above, is that the theme argument of EXIST/'BE can be either an NP or a locative PP. In the first we are merely claiming that unicorns exist:

(6a)   There is (exists) a unicorn.

(6b)   There are (exist) unicorns.

Or we can claim that they exist in a specific location (1).

'There' is a dummy pronoun that is inserted to maintain the requirement that English subjects must have a phonetic form (a null variant of the phonetic form is possible as in the case of the subject of imperatives which is either 'you' or [NULL]). 'There' comes with a feature that points to EXIST/BE; if EXIST or BE is not there, then 'there' is improperly inserted.

Next, T needs a verbal host. The features of T are copied the the verb EXIST, which is spelled out either as 'exist' or as the varying forms of 'be'. More interesting is Prom in the embedded small clause. It targets the external argument of the small clause. The features of the argument NP (A UNICORN) are copied to Prom. Note that in the case of PPs, the internal argument cannot be targeted:

(7)   *There is been the garden in by a unicorn.

There case with Prom in the the matrix clause is different. The internal target of EXIST may or may not be targeted. If it is targeted then the features of it are copied to Prom:

(8)   A unicorn is (?exists) in the garden.

Normally, the internal argument is not targeted. In this Case, 'there' must be inserted.

The last question deals with the Case of the internal argument. Presumably, the Case in formal English is [+Nom]. In colloquial Standard English, the Case is probably [-Nom], since the predicate object pronouns are accusative after BE:

(9a)   It is I who am here. (formal English)

(9b)   It is me who is here. (colloquial English)

Note that the verb BE agrees with the nominative object, but not with the accusative object in colloquial English. So, how does the predicate object receive the accusative Case? The most probable way is that both EXIST and the copular verb BE are governors and assign the accusative Case to the predicate object in English. In many languages including formal English, they assign the nominative Case. When the predicate object is targeted, a barrier is inserted blocking Case assignment, and the features of the object are copied to Prom.

(10)

The point that C is trying to make is if it were a chain, then a theta-role would be assigned to through the chain to include there. This simply does not work. There is no rationale for coindexation, and hence none for a chain. This leaves there without a theta-role. But so what?, if we assume that theta-roles are names for arguments. There is not an argument. And we don't really need the visibility condition.

This page last updated 29 JA 2001

Go to top of page

Go to Keywords 2