Abstract
In this paper it will be argued that the difference between existential and locative sentences is primarily structurally encoded at the vP/VP level (at the first phase of a derivation). The crucial question is which argument of the verb BE (the Location or the nominal argument (“Theme”)) is projected as the “external argument”, i.e., which argument is the subject of inner predication. In the case of existential sentences it is the Location argument which is the subject of inner predication, and in the case of locative sentences it is the nominal argument. The subject of inner predication becomes by default also the subject of outer predication, i.e., the topic of the sentence. Hence, in the case of locative sentences the nominal argument is the subject of outer predication, i.e., the topic of the sentence, and in the case of existential sentences it is the Location which becomes the topic. (Or, alternatively, the actual topic (the subject of outer predication) might be the situational/ event variable, and the Location functions as a restriction on it.) However, the actual arrangement of constituents in the sentences under discussion, as in any other Polish sentence, is determined by the pragmatic/communicative principles. Given this, it is reasonable to think that the NOM/GEN case alternation in negated existential/locative sentences is primarily a matter of syntax, and not one of information structure or scope of negation. The analysis will be modeled in accordance with the phasal model of Chomsky (2000 et seq.).
References
Alexiadou, A. and E. Anagnostopoulou. 1998. “Parametrizing AGR: Word order, V-movement, and EPP-checking”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16(3). 491–539.10.1023/A:1006090432389Suche in Google Scholar
Babby, L.H. 1980. Existential sentences and negation in Russian Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.Suche in Google Scholar
Belvin, R. and M. den Dikken. 1997. “There happens, tobehave”. Lingua 101. 151–183.10.1016/S0024-3841(96)00049-6Suche in Google Scholar
Benveniste, É. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale Paris: Gallimard.Suche in Google Scholar
Bjorkman, B. and E. Cowper. 2015. “Where there is, and why”. Paper presented at the Congrès de l’ACL de 2015 / 2015 CLA meeting, May 30–June 1, 2015.Suche in Google Scholar
Błaszczak, J. 2001. Investigation into the Interaction between the Indefinites and Negation (Studia grammatica 51.) Berlin: Akademie Verlag.10.1515/9783050080093Suche in Google Scholar
Błaszczak, J. 2007. Phase syntax: The Polish Genitive of Negation. (Habilitation thesis, University of Potsdam.)Suche in Google Scholar
Błaszczak, J. 2008a. “Differential subject marking in Polish: The case of ‘X was not at Y’ constructions”. In: de Hoop, H. and P. de Swart (eds.), Differential subject markingStudies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 72). Dordrecht: Springer. 113–149.Suche in Google Scholar
Błaszczak, J. 2008b. “What HAS to BE used? Existential, locative, and possessive sentences in Polish”. In: Antonenko, A., J. Bailyn and C. Bethin (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 16: The Stony Brook 2006 Meeting Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. 31–47.Suche in Google Scholar
Błaszczak, J. 2009. A spurious genitive puzzle in Polish. In: Hanneforth, T. and F. Gisbert (eds.), Language and logos. Studies in theoretical and computational linguistics. Festschrift for Peter Staudacher for his 70th birthday. Studia grammatica 72.) Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. 17–47.Suche in Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. 2007. “Phases and explanatory adequacy: Contrasting two programs”. Theoretical Linguistics 33(1). 43–48.10.1515/TL.2007.002Suche in Google Scholar
Boneh, N. 2010. “Deconstructing possession”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28. 1–40.10.1007/s11049-009-9087-zSuche in Google Scholar
Borschev, V. and B. Partee. 2002. The Russian genitive of negation in existential sentences: The role of theme-rheme structure reconsidered”. In: Hajičova, E., P. Sgall, J. Hana and T. Hoskovec (eds.), Travaux de Cercle Linguistique de Prague (nouvelle série) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 185–250.10.1075/plcp.4.11borSuche in Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H. and L. Cornips. 1997. “Inalienable possession in locational constructions”. Lingua 101. 185–209.10.1016/S0024-3841(93)00022-ZSuche in Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. 2004. “A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences”. In: Alexiadou, A., E. Anagnostopoulou and M. Everaert (eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle: Explorations of the syntax–lexicon interface Oxford: Oxford University Press. 22–59.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.003.0002Suche in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program Cambridge: The MIT Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000. “Minimalist inquiries: The framework”. In: Martin, R., D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (eds.) Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik Cambridge: MIT Press. 89–155.Suche in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In: Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language Cambridge: MIT Press. 1–52.10.7551/mitpress/4056.003.0004Suche in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2004. “Beyond explanatory adequacy”. In: Belletti A. (ed.), Structures and beyond – The cartography of syntactic structure (Vol. 3). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 104–131.Suche in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2007. “Approaching UG from below”. In: Sauerland, U., and H.-M. Gärtner (eds.), Interfaces + recursion = language? Berlin: De Gruyter. 1–30.Suche in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2008. “On phases”. In: Freidin, R., C. Otero and M.L. Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 133–166.Suche in Google Scholar
Clark, E.V. 1970. “Locationals: A study of ‘existential,’ ‘locative’, and ‘possessive’ sentences”. Stanford University Working Papers in Language Universals 3. 1–36.Suche in Google Scholar
Clark, E. 1978. “Locationals: Existential, locative and possessive constructions”. In: Greenberg, J. H. (ed.), Universals of human language. (Vol. 4: Syntax. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 85–126.Suche in Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 1997. “The syntax of possession and the verb ‘have’”. Lingua 101 (3/4).129–150.10.1016/S0024-3841(96)00054-XSuche in Google Scholar
den Diken, Marcel. 2006. Relators and linkers. The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5873.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 2007a. “Phase extension. Contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction”. Theoretical Linguistics 33(1). 1–41.10.1515/TL.2007.001Suche in Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 2007b. “Phase extension: A reply”. Theoretical Linguistics 33(1). 133–163.10.1515/TL.2007.010Suche in Google Scholar
Dziwirek, K. 1994. Polish subjects New York: Garland Publishing.Suche in Google Scholar
É. Kiss, K. 2002. “The EPP in a topic-prominent language”. In: Svenonius P. (ed.), Subjects, expletives, and the EPP Oxford: Oxford University Press. 107–124.Suche in Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, N. 1997. The dynamics of focus structure Cambridge: CUP.10.1017/CBO9780511519949Suche in Google Scholar
Freeze, R. 1992. “Existentials and other locatives”. Language 68. 553–595.10.2307/415794Suche in Google Scholar
Grzegorek, M. 1984. Thematization in English and Polish. A study in word orderFilologia angielska 18.) Poznań: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu.Suche in Google Scholar
Hajičová, E. 2003. “Information structure and syntactic complexity”. In: Kosta, P., J. Błaszczak, J. Frasek, L. Geist and M. Żygis (eds.), Investigations into Formal Slavic LinguisticsContributions of the Fourth European Conference on Formal Description of Slavic Languages (FDSL IV), held at Potsdam University, November 28–30, 2001. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 169–180.Suche in Google Scholar
Harley, H. 1995. Subjects, Events and Licensing. (PhD dissertation, MIT.)Suche in Google Scholar
Hartmann, J.M. and N. Milićević. 2008. “The syntax of existential sentences in Serbian”. In: Antonenko, A., J. Bailyn and C. Bethin (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 16: The Stony Brook 2006 Meeting Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. 168–184.Suche in Google Scholar
Harves, S. 2002. Unaccusative syntax in Russian. (PhD dissertation, Princeton Univ.)Suche in Google Scholar
Hazout, I. 2004. “The syntax of existential constructions”. Linguistic Inquiry 35(3). 393–430.10.1162/0024389041402616Suche in Google Scholar
Heycock, C. and A. Kroch. 1998. “Inversion and equation in copular sentences”. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 10. 71–87.Suche in Google Scholar
Hoekstra, T. 1994. “HAVE as BE plus or minus”. In: Cinque, G., J. Koster, J.-Y. Pollock, L. Rizzi and R. Zanuttini (eds.), Paths towards Universal Grammar. Studies in honor of Richard S. Kayne. Washington: Georgetown University Press. 199–215.Suche in Google Scholar
Hoekstra, T. and R. Mulder. 1990. “Unergatives as copular verbs: Locational and existential predication”. The Linguistic Review 7. 1–79.10.1515/tlir.1990.7.1.1Suche in Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. 1999. “Movement and control”. Linguistic Inquiry 30. 69–96.10.1075/la.154.01horSuche in Google Scholar
Jiménez-Fernándes, Á. and V. Spyropoulos. 2013. “Feature inheritance, VP phases and the information structure of small clauses”. Studia Linguistica 67(2). 185–224.10.1111/stul.12013Suche in Google Scholar
Jung, H. 2011. The syntax of the be-possessive Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.172Suche in Google Scholar
Junghanns, U. 2002. Prinzipien der Informationsstrukturierung in slavischen Sprachen. (Habilitation thesis, University of Leipzig.)Suche in Google Scholar
Junghanns, U. 2003. “Fokussierungsstrategien in slavischen Sprachen”. In: Kosta, P., J. Błaszczak, J. Frasek, L. Geist, and M. Żygis (eds.), Investigations into Formal Slavic LinguisticsContributions of the Fourth European Conference on Formal Description of Slavic Languages (FDSL IV), held at Potsdam University, November 28–30, 2001. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 181–199.Suche in Google Scholar
Krifka, M. 2007. “Basic notions of information structure”. In: Féry, C., G. Fanselow and M. Krifka (eds.), Working papers of the SFB632, Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure (ISIS) 6. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam. 13–56.Suche in Google Scholar
Legate, J. 2005. „Phases and cyclic agreement”. In: McGinnis M. and N. Richards (eds.), Perspectives on phases. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49.) Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. 147–156.Suche in Google Scholar
Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax–lexical semantics interface Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Lindert, P. 2017. New insights into Polish Control: Evidence from predication, NP-ellipsis, and case. (PhD Dissertation, University of Stuttgart.)Suche in Google Scholar
Maienborn, C. 1996. Situation und Lokation. Die Bedeutung lokaler Adjunkte von VerbalprojektionenStudien zur deutschen Grammatik 53). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Suche in Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 1991. “Case and licensing”. In: Westphal, G., B. Ao and H.-R. Cae (eds.), ESCOL’91: Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics 234–253.Suche in Google Scholar
Matushansky, O. 2006. “Head movement in linguistic theory“. Linguistic Inquiry 37(1). 69–109.10.1162/002438906775321184Suche in Google Scholar
Matushansky, O. 2007. “Predication and escape hatches in phase extension theory”. Theoretical Linguistics 33(1). 93–104.10.1515/TL.2007.007Suche in Google Scholar
Miyagawa, S. 2005. “On the EPP”. In: McGinnis, M. and N. Richards (eds.), Perspectives on phases. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49.) Cambridge, MA: MIT-WPL. 201–236.Suche in Google Scholar
Moro, A. 1997. The raising of predicates Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511519956Suche in Google Scholar
Muromatsu, K. 1997. “Two types of existentials: Evidence from Japanese”. Lingua 101. 245–269.10.1016/S0024-3841(96)00051-4Suche in Google Scholar
Myler, N.J. 2014. Building and interpreting possession sentences. (PhD dissertation, New York University.)Suche in Google Scholar
Nash, L. 1995. “The internal ergative subject hypothesis”. In: Kusumoto K. (ed.), Proceedings of NELS 26. Amherst, MA: GLSA. 195–209.Suche in Google Scholar
Partee, B. 2000. “Topics under negation: ‘But the answer never came’”. In: Dölling J. and T. Pechmann (eds.), Prosodie – Struktur – Interpretation. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 74.) Leipzig: Universität Leipzig, Institut für Linguistik. 43–57.Suche in Google Scholar
Partee, B. and V. Borschev. 2002. “Genitive of negation and scope of negation in Russian existential sentences”. In: Toman, J. (ed.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Ann Arbor Meeting Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications. 181–200.Suche in Google Scholar
Partee, B. and V. Borschev. 2004. “The semantics of Russian genitive of negation: The nature and role of perspectival structure”. In: Watanabe, K. and R.B. Young (eds.), Proceedings of SALT XIV Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. 212–234.Suche in Google Scholar
Partee, B. and V. Borschev. 2007. “Existential sentences, BE, and the genitive of negation in Russian”. In: Comorovski I. and K. von Heusinger (eds.), Existence: Semantics and syntax Dordrecht: Springer. 147–190.Suche in Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. 2007. “Property delay. (Remarks on “Phase Extension” by Marcel den Dikken.)” Theoretical Linguistics 33(1). 105–120.10.1515/TL.2007.008Suche in Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. and E. Torrego. 2007. “The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features”. In: Karimi, S., V. Samiian and W. Wilkins (eds.), Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation Amsterdam: Benjamins. 262–294.10.1075/la.101.14pesSuche in Google Scholar
Richards, M. 2007. “On feature inheritance: An argument from the phase impenetrability condition”. Linguistic Inquiry 38(3). 563–572.10.1162/ling.2007.38.3.563Suche in Google Scholar
Rosengren, I. 1993. “Wahlfreiheit mit Konsequenzen – Scrambling, Topikalisierung und FHG im Dienste der Informationsstrukturierung“. In: Reis, M. (ed.), Wortstellung und InformationsstrukturLinguistische Arbeiten 306.) Tübingen: Niemeyer. 251–312.10.1515/9783111658469.251Suche in Google Scholar
Sasse, H.-J. 1987. “The thetic/categorical distinction revisited”. Linguistics 25. 511–580.10.1515/ling.1987.25.3.511Suche in Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H.Á. 2006. “The nominative puzzle and the low nominative hypothesis”. Linguistic Inquiry 37(2). 289–308.10.1162/ling.2006.37.2.289Suche in Google Scholar
Sgall, P. 2003. “Slavistics and the history of topic-focus studies”. In: Kosta, P., J. Błaszczak, J. Frasek, L. Geist, and M. Żygis (eds.), Investigations into Formal Slavic LinguisticsContributions of the Fourth European Conference on Formal Description of Slavic Languages (FDSL IV), held at Potsdam University, November 28–30, 2001. Linguistik International 10.) Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 201–212.Suche in Google Scholar
Stepanov, A. 2004. “Ergativity, case and the minimal link condition”. In: Stepanov, A., G. Fanselow and R. Vogel (eds.), Minimality effects in syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 367–399.10.1515/9783110197365.367Suche in Google Scholar
Stroik, T. 2009. Locality in minimalist syntax. (Ms.) Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 51.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262012928.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Stroik, T. and M.T. Putnam. 2005. “One step closer to a crash-proof syntax”. Paper presented at DEAL Workshop held in Berlin December 17–19, 2005.Suche in Google Scholar
Surányi, B. 2007. “On phase extension and head movement”. Theoretical Linguistics 33(1). 121–132.10.1515/TL.2007.009Suche in Google Scholar
Szwedek, A. 1974. “Some aspects of definitness and indefinitness of noun in Polish”. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 2. 203–211.Suche in Google Scholar
Topolińska, Z. 1981. Remarks on the Slavic Noun PhrasePrace Instytutu Języka Polskiego 37.) Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk.Suche in Google Scholar
Trask, R.L. 1979. “On the origins of ergativity”. In: Plank F. (ed.), Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations London: Academic Press. 385–404.Suche in Google Scholar
van Schooneveld, C.H. 1951. “The aspect system of the Old Church Slavonic and Old Russian verbum finitum byti”. Word 7(2). 96–103.10.1080/00437956.1951.11659396Suche in Google Scholar
Witkoś, J. 1998. The syntax of clitics: Steps towards a minimalist account Poznań: Motivex.Suche in Google Scholar
Witkoś, J. 2000. “Nominative-to-genitive shift and the negative copula nie ma Implications for checking theory”. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 8(1–2): 295–327.Suche in Google Scholar
Witkoś, J. 2010. “Movement theory of control and CP-infinitives in Polish”. In: Hornstein, N. and M. Polinsky (eds.), Movement theory of Control Amsterdam: Benjamins. 45–66.10.1075/la.154.02witSuche in Google Scholar
Woolford, E. 1997. “Four-way case systems: Ergative, nominative, objective, and accusative”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15. 181–227.10.1023/A:1005796113097Suche in Google Scholar
Wood, J. 2012. “Against the movement theory of control: Another argument from Icelandic”. Linguistic Inquiry 43. 322–330.10.1162/LING_a_00089Suche in Google Scholar
Woolford, E. 2003. “Burzio’s generalization, markedness, and locality constraints on nominative objects”. In: Brandner E. and H. Zinsmeister (eds.), New perspectives on case theory Stanford: CSLI Publications. 301–329.Suche in Google Scholar
Woolford, E. 2006. “Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure”. Linguistic Inquiry 37(1). 111–130.10.1162/002438906775321175Suche in Google Scholar
Zamparelli, R. 1995. Layers in the Determiner Phrase. (PhD dissertation, University of Rochester, NY.)Suche in Google Scholar
Zwart, J.-W. 2007. “Uncharted territory? Towards a non-cartographic account of Germanic syntax”. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik (GAGL) 45. 55–75.Suche in Google Scholar
Zwarts, J. 1992. X′-syntax – X′-semantics. On the interpretation of functional and lexical heads. (PhD dissertation, University of Utrecht.)Suche in Google Scholar
Zybatow, G. and U. Junghanns. 1998. Topics im RussischenSprache und Pragmatik 47.) Lund: Germanistisches Institut der Universität Lund.Suche in Google Scholar
© 2018 Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Foreword to this volume
- Stative and eventive passives of subject experiencer verbs in Polish
- Binding as agree and index raising: The case of Polish accusative object experiencers
- Binding by objects in Polish docs and please-type double object unaccusatives: Testing theoretical accounts
- On left-peripheral particle to in Polish and Czech: A focus, a topic head, or neither?
- A note on lexicalizing ‘what’ and ‘who’ in Russian and in Polish
- Cardinal numerals and complex numerals as specifiers
- Clause structure, case and agreement in Polish existential, possessive and locative sentences: A phase-based account
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Foreword to this volume
- Stative and eventive passives of subject experiencer verbs in Polish
- Binding as agree and index raising: The case of Polish accusative object experiencers
- Binding by objects in Polish docs and please-type double object unaccusatives: Testing theoretical accounts
- On left-peripheral particle to in Polish and Czech: A focus, a topic head, or neither?
- A note on lexicalizing ‘what’ and ‘who’ in Russian and in Polish
- Cardinal numerals and complex numerals as specifiers
- Clause structure, case and agreement in Polish existential, possessive and locative sentences: A phase-based account