Expletive Constructions Are Not "Lower Right Corner" Movement Constructions

Bobaljik (2002) proposes that covert and overt A-movement may be distinguished at the PF interface rather than in the syntax. In his proposal, movement takes place uniformly in the syntax, leaving a full copy in the moved-from position. In "overt" movement, PF privileges the higher copy (i.e., this copy is pronounced), and in "covert" movement, PF privileges the lower one. LF may also independently privilege a higher or lower copy (though a principle called Minimize Mismatch (Bobaljik 2002:251, Diesing 1997) exerts pressure toward PF and LF privileging the same copy).This results in four logically possible combinations: PF and LF both privileging the higher copy (overt movement with no reconstruction effects); PF privileging the higher copy, and LF the lower copy (overt movement with reconstruction effects); LF privileging the higher copy, and PF the lower copy (covert/LF movement); and both PF and LF privileging the lower copy (LF movement with reconstruction effects).

Examples of the first three types are widely recognized. Bobaljik argues (2002:246ff.) that the fourth possibility, which he labels Lower Right Corner (LRC) constructions, are exemplified by expletive constructions (ECs) with there. In this squib, I will offer evidence that movement of the sort that Bobaljik proposes does not take place in ECs, and hence that ECs do not exemplify LRC movement constructions. This result does not cast doubt on his general analysis or conclusions, but only on the status of ECs as movement constructions. In fact, economy considerations offer reasons to think that LRCs may exist in theory but not in reality, preserving the full underlying logic of Bobaljik's analysis.

1 The Case for Expletive Constructions as Lower Right Corner Movement Constructions

There is some evidence from agreement suggesting that ECs may be movement constructions. For example, in standard English, sentences like (1) show agreement forms of the verb coinciding with the number feature of the associate DP.¹

(1)

1. a. There is/*are a frog in the pond.

2. b. There are/*is frogs in the pond.

If normal subject-verb agreement is specifier-head agreement involving I⁰ or Agr⁰, and if the agreement patterns in (1) are to be explained as normal subject-verb agreement, then such data suggest covert movement of the associate DP to the requisite specifier position.

Other data, however, suggest that movement has not taken place (under earlier interpretations of such facts), or that the lower position is privileged (in Bobaljik's terms).Thus, in ECs, it is the lower (surface-positioned) DP that is significant for binding purposes, as in (2) (from Den Dikken 1995:348-349).

(2)

1. a. Some applicants_i seem to each other_i to be eligible for the job.

2. b. *There seem to each other_i to be some applicants_i eligible for the job.

Here, then, we appear to have an example of an LRC movement construction, one where the associate DP has raised for the purpose of agreement, but where both PF and LF privilege the lower copy. To account for the presence of there in such constructions, Bobaljik claims that it is inserted in PF, much as do is inserted in the PF process of do-support.

2 Other Crucial Expletive Construction Agreement Data

However, a problem for Bobaljik's proposal is that agreement phenomena in ECs are not nearly as clear as set forth in (1). One significant set of EC agreement facts involves coordinated DPs. As I will show, these facts cast serious doubt on whether agreement in (1) is an indicator of movement.

2.1 Coordinated Associates versus Coordinated Subjects

Elsewhere (Sobin 1997), I have offered empirical evidence showing that when the associate in an EC is a coordination of DPs (NPs in that work), plural agreement on the verb is strongly triggered by the coordinate DP that is adjacent to (to the immediate right of) the agreeing verb, as indicated in table 1.² That the associate itself is a coordination has little effect. The same is not true with a coordinated subject. The coordination itself strongly induces a plural verb form (though this effect does seem...