초록 close

In this p,lper I attempt to show that by analyzing there as an existential operator ~e can have principled accounts for most of the fundamental questlons <,bout there constructions. This amounts to saying that there is equivalent to 3 in symbolic logic. In other words, 3 is lexicalized as there in English. Given this, we can interpret the close relation between there and the associate basically to be a reflex of the operator property of there. Thus there requires a variable, and the associate nominal serves as its variable. This enables us to treat many there-related ill-formed sentences as instances of vacuous quantification, hence the ungrammaticality. Based on this, I suggl~t that there should not be treated as a semantically superfluous element and that there constructions have nothing to do with representational economy. In the course of the discussion, I suggest that there is a D° element and is minimally different from other 0 elements that appear in subject )osition. To be more specific, it lacks only the number feature while bear,ng a Case feature as well as other agreement features. I also suggest that English grammar leaves open the possibility of existential there having the complete set of 0-features and that at least when this option is taken, there should not be treated as a predicate contra Dikken (1995) and 'v1oro (1997).


In this p,lper I attempt to show that by analyzing there as an existential operator ~e can have principled accounts for most of the fundamental questlons <,bout there constructions. This amounts to saying that there is equivalent to 3 in symbolic logic. In other words, 3 is lexicalized as there in English. Given this, we can interpret the close relation between there and the associate basically to be a reflex of the operator property of there. Thus there requires a variable, and the associate nominal serves as its variable. This enables us to treat many there-related ill-formed sentences as instances of vacuous quantification, hence the ungrammaticality. Based on this, I suggl~t that there should not be treated as a semantically superfluous element and that there constructions have nothing to do with representational economy. In the course of the discussion, I suggest that there is a D° element and is minimally different from other 0 elements that appear in subject )osition. To be more specific, it lacks only the number feature while bear,ng a Case feature as well as other agreement features. I also suggest that English grammar leaves open the possibility of existential there having the complete set of 0-features and that at least when this option is taken, there should not be treated as a predicate contra Dikken (1995) and 'v1oro (1997).