The Interaction of Th/Ex and Locative Inversion

In English expletive constructions involving passive participles, the (highest) object surfaces in the pre-participial position (1b), rather than in the post-participial one expected from active constructions such as (1a). Following Chomsky (2001), I refer to the pre-participial position as the Th(ematization)/Ex(traction) position and to the movement if there is one as Th/Ex.¹ The proper analysis of Th/Ex plays a crucial role in recent discussion of phases (Svenonius 2000, Chomsky 2001, Holmberg 2002), which harks back to its earlier role in discussions of cyclicity (see Milsark 1974:173-179, 235n6), of the Extended Projection Principle (EPP) and specifier-head agreement (Lasnik 1992, 1999:chap. 4, Holmberg 1994, 2002), and of the analysis of expletive constructions (Milsark 1974, Burzio 1986:154-158, Boeckx 1999, Law 1999, Caponigro and Schütze 2003).

(1)

1. a. Kate has 〈*three fish〉 caught 〈three fish〉
   in the lake.

2. b. There were 〈three fish〉 caught 〈*three fish〉      Th/Ex
   in the lake.

In this squib, I draw attention to (2), where both (2a) and (2b) contain a passive participle Prt_pass, (2a) in the passive expletive construction (PEC) and (2b) in locative inversion (LI) on a passive. Both involve Prt_pass, but Th/Ex occurs only in the PEC.

(2)

1. a. There were 〈three fish〉 caught 〈*three fish〉      Th/Ex
   in the lake.

2. b. In the lake were 〈*three fish〉 caught          *Th/Ex
   〈three fish〉.

This paradigm affects three recent approaches. First, analyses that assimilate expletive constructions and LI have difficulty capturing it, whether they treat the expletive as an inverted locative (Hoekstra and Mulder 1990) or posit a covert expletive in LI; see section 2. Second, it can be used to show that Th/Ex is not the regular object position that is masked in (1a) by participle raising (Boeckx 1999, Caponigro and Schuütze 2003); see section 3, where I also argue that (2) cannot be analyzed easily in terms of Prt_pass raising higher in (2b) than in (2a). Finally, in section 4 I show that it is difficult to differentiate (2a) from (2b) if Th/Ex is an operation of the phonological component (Chomsky 2001). Instead, a successful account of (2) seems to require that the Th/Ex position be a derived A-position (as in Lasnik 1999: chap. 4, Holmberg 1994, 2002), which the PP occupies in the derivation of LI. I start with such an account in section 1.

Throughout this squib, I assume that the PEC is a verbal (presenta-tional) construction formed on Prt_pass as the lexical core that selects the DP, (3a) (omitting irrelevant structure), rather than a construction of the type there be DP (called "ontological" in Milsark 1974:154) where Prt_pass heads a reduced relative clause modifying the DP, (3b). The latter position is taken by Williams (1984), McNally (1992), Moro (1997:chap. 2), and Law (1999), and it is certainly clear that (2a) has this analysis. However, contrasts between the PEC and undoubted relative clauses show that (2a) must have the verbal analysis as well. Milsark (1974:70), Lasnik (1999:90), and Chomsky (2001:25-26) show that adjunct extraction and PP-extraction out of PECs are fine, (4a-b).² Chomsky (2001:25-26) shows that the existence of the DP is entailed in there be DP but not in the PEC, which also means that the latter allows idiom chunks that cannot head relatives, (4c) (also see Chomsky 1995:384n42). Milsark (1974:77-85) and Caponigro and Schütze (2003:303) show that only PECs are compatible with an eventive interpretation, (4d).

(3)

1. a. Passive expletive construction
   [_TP there BE_auxiliary [DP_i [_PrtP Prt t_i]]]

2. b. There be DP construction
   [_TP there BE_copula [_DP NP_i [_RC Op_i Prt t_i]]]

(4)

1. a. To whom was there a present (*which was) given t?

2. b. (?)How were there some men (*which were) arrested t?

3. c. There were tabs (*which were) (being) kept on Kate.

4. d. There have just been several fish (*which were) caught.

1 Accounting for the Contrast

An account of (2) presupposes a...