Earticle

This paper explores what case is assigned to associates in there constructions. It has been generally accepted that T agrees with an associate under probe goal relation in there constructions. This argument is supported bt the fact that T reflects uninterpretable number feature of the associate. This matters here. In the minimalist view, Case assignment takes place with probe goal agreement. Generally speaking, T is responsible for Nominative Case and transitive V is for Accusative Case. On the basis of these assumptions, the associate should obtain Nominative case however this prediction is out by following examples. (1) a. There is only me/*I in the room. b. There are only us. c. There’s certainly her/she. As clearly to say, associates with Nominative Case are certainly not licensed but represented with Accusative Case form. These data contradict the assumption made by Chomsky(2000). What interesting is that T agrees with associates with number, Nominative case is assigned to expletive there in the sentence. There fore we must figure out why Nominative Case assignment is impossible and how associates is checked its case in there constructions.

In this paper, we will consider how Labeling Algorithm in Chomsky(2013, 2015) can explain the syntax of there- constructions. To capture this, we will consider the previous analyses of there-constructions and their problems. Especially, we will show Goto’s (2016) analysis of there-constructions under Labeling Algorithm in Chomsky(2013, 2015) and point out his problems. Given this, we will propose the novel analysis of there-constructions under the theory of Labeling Algorithm in Chomsky(2015), suggesting the following assumptions. First, the expletive there is inserted to [Spec, T] to fill the subject position in conformity with the Extended Projection Principle. Second, since the Root(R) in there-constructions is unaccusative verb, the associate DP can not be raised to [Spec, R] but is directly merged with R. Third, since T in there-constructions is too weak to serve as a label, the expletive there can strengthen T. Thus, T in there-constructions can label TP after there-insertion. Given this, we can explain the anti that-trace effect in there-constructions.

English exhibits a peculiar agreement phenomenon in thereconstructions, where T agrees with the first conjunct of conjoined nominals rather than the entire conjoined phrase. Based on Lasnik’s (1995) proposal that the expletive there is an LF affix, Bošković (1997) suggested an account for this phenomenon. While attractive, Bošković’s analysis does not align with the latest syntactic theory. This paper proposes a solution for this phenomenon within Chomsky’s (2013, 2015) labeling algorithm framework, maintaining Bošković’s explanatory point. Specifically, it argues that the expletive there merges externally with the associate, forming {there, associate}, and undergoes obligatory movement due to the labeling algorithm. This reduces the issue to split phi-feature agreement of T. The analysis is further validated by explaining three challenging cases: lack of adjacency between there and its associate, unergatives and ergatives’ unsuitability for there-constructions, and a case difficult to explain without the Merge-over-Move Principle. This paper’s analysis offers a cohesive explanation for variations across different syntactic structures involving there-constructions. If this paper’s discussion is on the right track, it supports the validity of Chomsky’s labeling algorithm framework.

Chomsky (2000, 2001a, b)는 이동을 일치, 확정 그리고 동반이동 이라는 복합적 작용으로 정의한다. 그러나, 일치를 전제한 이동은 문법의 연산의 짐을 더욱 가중시키고 있음을 there-구문에서 볼 수 있다. 즉, 허사 there는 Xo이고 그것의 [인칭] 자질은 비해석성 자질임을 허용할 때, there-구문에서 일치의 과정으로부터 파생되는 많은 문제점들은 이동이 일어날 때 일치와 관계가 없음을 보여준다. 그러므로 there의 자질을 비해석성 [인칭] 자질을 가진 것이 아니라, 기능 범주의 확대투사원리 자질을 가진 것으로 가정하면, 많은 문제점이 간단하게 해결됨을 알 수 있다. 본 논문에서 허사 there는 일치의 과정을 겪지 않고 동시 삭제 적용 가설 하에 DP의 지정어 위치에서 T의 지정어 위치로 기능 범주의 확대투사자질을 충족시키기 위해서만 외현적으로 이동하는 것임을 주장한다. 결과적으로, 허사 there-구문에서 이동은 일치를 반드시 전제조건으로 설정할 필요가 없어진다.

Based on the Chomsky's (1995) Attract theory, Chomsky (1998, 1999) presents Agree theory. This Agree theory proposes a locality condition such as Defective Intervention Constraint (DIC), which is the counterpart of Minimal Link Condition (MLC) in Chomsky (1995). Although this Agree theory is better than the Attract theory in that there's no concept like feature movement, it also has some problems. In particular, this Agree theory is not successful in explaining various expletive constructions without relying on such stipulations as the Maximization Principle and the Blocking Principle. In addition, there are some inconsistencies in analyzing these constructions within this framework. Following Hiraiwa's(2001) Multiple Agree, Chomsky (2001) introduces a new locality condition called Intervention Constraint (IC). Unlike the former mechanism, in this framework, there is no need to posit such stipulations as the Maximization Principle and the Blocking Principle. This paper points out some inconsistencies in Chomsky's (1998, 1999) Agree theory in analyzing various expletive constructions and argues that in order to analyze the above expletive constructions more economically, Hiraiwa's Multiple Agree and Chomsky's Intervention Constraint should be adopted.

This paper is to review the meaning and function of there through an analysis of the notion of information structure and show that there-constructions are basically independent of the so-called corresponding constructions, as both the constructions should be used in their respective situations in discourse. In particular, it is argued that there as non-expletive is a presupposedly situational indicator, representing given information as a meaningful unit, not a meaningless one. This assumption will be made from these facts that there should always be placed at the subject position in a sentence and, in general, the subject position stands for given information on the basis of information structure.

This paper begins with a brief review of the previous analysis in pre-minimalist framework concerning the relation between the expletive there and its associate argument in expletive constructions in English. According to Chomsky's(1999, 2000) Agree-based theory and the “Merge over Move(MoM)” principle, expletives can check the EPP feature of T only by Merge. As a consequence, under Agree, I analyze various expletive there constructions with a rather straightforward explanation by accepting Chomsky's(1999, 2000) MoM principle.

Dae-Ik Kim. 2006. There-Constructions without EPP and MOM. Studies in Modern Grammar 44, 51-69. This article attempts to show a new approach to the syntactic analysis of there-constructions with the so-called Spilt-Matching Conditions between a probe and a goal during AGREE in the minimalist framework, revised on Chomsky (2005). The advantage of this analysis predicts well the (un)grammaticality of there-constructions without resorting to EPP and MOM. With the assumption that the matching operation of T's [person] is different from that of T's [number], T' [person] attracts Merge or Move of a lexical category in order to match for AGREE whereas T's [number] holds a long-distance match for AGREE. Thus various relevant issues regarding there-constructions- double there-constructions, ECM constructions and expletive it-constructions as well as the (un)grammaticality of there-constructions are accounted for by this proposed analysis.

The purpose of this study is to specify a principled explanation for the syntactic puzzling phenomena of the expletive there-constructions. For this, expletive there pure-merged in the vP-Spec as a defective Goal argument is posited on the basis of Chomsky's (2001, 2005b) Agree-based Strong Minimalist Thesis. In addition, Interpretive Complex (Chomsky 1999, 2001) for the Bare Output Condition satisfying surface structure semantic effects of edge feature is adopted in the vein of Chomsky's (2005b) semantic Duality of the interface and Diesing's (1992) Mapping Hypothesis. As a result, an unspecific reading of associate NP and the Definite reading problem in the expletive there-constructions are specified. The inconsistent role of Probe expletive there is also solved without maximizing matching effect. In addition, the merge of expletive there in the Raising structure and ECM is explained in the same manner. Furthermore, Merge over Move Principle is not needed any longer in the locality of the phase level.

This study addresses the lack of comprehension data in second language acquisition research by focusing on English existential there-constructions (ETCs) with a locative extension (e.g., there is an X on the Y). The post-copular noun X used in the present study consisted of two types: actual and nonsense. Participants included 40 native speakers, as well as 40 advanced and 40 intermediate Korean learners of English, who completed an online picture selection task. In one picture, X was placed on the nearby Y; in another picture, X was placed on the far Y. The choice of both pictures was the correct response because ETCs are used to describe the existence of something regardless of its distance. There was a statistically significant relationship between English proficiency and the interpretation of ETCs. However, there was no relationship between the noun type and the interpretation of ETCs. In the Korean English curriculum, the distinction between expletive there and locative there must be emphasized.

Despite its conceptual elegance, the probe-goal theory established in the current version of the Minimalist Program faces some problems in analyzing there- constructions where the clause is headed by defective T. An analysis of treating the postcopular nominal as a kind of predicate can solve these problems, but it also falls short of explanatory adequacy in dealing with some other aspects in there-constructions where an unaccusative verb is selected. This paper identifies two different types of there- constructions, arguing that only one of them involves a multiple Agree relation. While discussing what it takes to operate an effective Case- assigning mechanism, the paper introduces the Revised Maximization Principle and the Feature-Based Relativized Minimal Link Condition.

This paper offers a raising analysis for English Existential Constructions (ECs) under the copy theory of movement within the recent minimalist framework: ECs are viewed as involving usual raising operation plus deletion of the higher copy, thereby resulting in hidden raising, or backward raising. Consequently, agreement in ECs can naturally be captured under this movement approach. The higher copy in the subject position is then replaced by the expletive there especially when the lower copy survives, and this expletive element satisfies the EPP. Particularly, behind there-replacement lies something like dethematization of the subject position. What is considered desirable is that the logically possible option of backward raising under the copy theory of movement is not excluded. This paper thus argues against Hornstein's (2009) doubling analysis and obviates the need for any other LF movement approaches.

It is well-known that the existential there-constructions are subject to the definiteness constraint, but intriguingly, the definiteness effect disappears when the post-copular NP is extraposed. The two phenomena are quite puzzling, in that they contradict each other. This paper explores the possibility of explaining the seemingly contradictory phenomena on the basis of the principle of economy. The main claim of this paper is that the definiteness effects of the existential there-sentences arises from the fact that there has a third person feature and no redundant feature checking is permitted, and the anti-definiteness effects of the presentational there-sentences follows from the fact that the extraposed constituent consists of a variable and its content.

In this paper it is proposed that there is merged on vP-SPEC; that there inherits an uninterpretable Case feature to be checked via linking to the associate; and that linking between there and the associate must be done in the same vP. Under these proposals Agree can still be maintained as a proper mechanism of feature checking in there constructions. It is easily accounted for why an NP argument on TP-SPEC is ambiguous between the specific and the unspecific reading whereas an NP argument in the corresponding there constructions has only the unspecific reading. It is also systematically accounted for why a raised subject can antecede an anaphor or license a polarity item in the higher clause, whereas the associate of a raised expletive cannot. Moreover, nothing need be said concerning the relative cheapness of Merge over Move.

The primary goal of this paper is to show the proper syntactic position for the generation of the expletive there. We advocate the "low origin" hypothesis in which it is argued that the expletive there is merged in the specifier position of v and agree locally with its associate NP. We employ the strict successive cyclicity to explain the peculiar behaviors of the expletive constructions. We also argue that the expletive there has Case and its associate NP bears partitive Case, providing a way to dispense with the EPP or Inverse Case Filter.

The purpose of the paper is to explain why universal quantified nominals cannot be qualified as associate of the expletive there. The argument begins with the explication of why the indefinite nominal associate cannot take a wide scope reading in the expletive there-constructions. It will be first shown that the formula with the wide scope of the existential quantifier operator yields a definite interpretation just as the definite nominal associate does in an expletive there-sentence. Therefore, the wide scope reading of the indefinite nominal associate cannot be acceptable due to the definiteness effect. Likewise the unavailability of universal quantified nominals as associate can be accounted for by the same reason, namely, the definiteness effect on the basis of the semantic interpretation. It will be concluded that the definiteness effect is the only constraint working on various types of unacceptable associates in the expletive there-constructions.

To explain the Definiteness Effect (DE) in English there constructions, I assumed, following Yang's (1999) Set Linearization Condition (SLC), that the D of of DP must raise to v in transitive vP constructions and the N of a post-verbal subject DP must move to the D in unaccusative VP constructions for linearization. The DE in English there constructions straightforwardly follows from the impossibility of the N-to-D raising in the unaccusative DP, which entails failure of the DP linearization at PF. However, Yang's approach cannot provide a way for establishing the expletive-argument link in there constructions and fails to provide an account for lack of the Transitive Expletive Constructions (TEC) in English. In order to compensate for Yang's problems, I argued for a syntactic device such as AGREE (Chomsky 1998, 1999, 2001) and for the hypothesis that an expletive there originates from a vP-internal position like an external argument, following Radford (1997, 2004), Bowers (2002), and Kim and Lee (2004).

This paper discusses the nature of the associate NP of English there constructions and attempts to capture the underlying similarity between the associate NP in English and the nominative object in Korean. Specifically, this paper is centered on the Case property of the associate NP. As the first step, previous proposals on the case of the associate NP are critically reviewed. Through the criticism, this paper opposes to Chomsky's (1995, 2000, 2001) analysis and to Lasnik's (1999) partitive Case analysis. In particular, convincing reason for the partitive Case assignment to the associate NP, other than other cases, cannot be found. This paper, therefore, adopts a recent claim of Boeckx (2000) that the Case under consideration is nominative by Agree. His idea is extended to the analysis of the presentational expletive construction. This paper draws a conclusion that the associate NP of the presentational expletive construction has accusative by Agree. This dichotomy (or split) is also observed in the nominative object construction in Korean. In the nominative object construction, the nominative object has nominative Case by Agree, whereas the regular object has accusative by Agree.

In this paper it is illustrated that unlike φ-features, the Case feature of a postverbal NP moves to expletive there in there constructions. We have tried to declare why a Case feature moves even though Agree is generally accepted as a proper mechanism of feature checking. According to the PIC, an unchecked uninterpretable feature moves by itself to the edge of a phase anticipating for the future checking in the next phase. This is the reason only a Case feature, which is uninterpretable, moves to there. After all, there is a device to receive the unchecked uninterpretable Case feature of the associate, occupying the edge position of the same phase that the associate is merged. We conclude that unlike Chomsky (2000, 2005), vP in there constructions constitutes a phase, and that there is merged on vP-Spec in order to receive the Case feature of the associate.