On the interpretation of existential there

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF EXISTENTIAL THERE Leiv Egil Breivik University of Tromsè, Norway This paper examines John Lyons' version of the widely postulated theory that existential there derives synchronically from a locative adverbial. It is argued that Lyons' hypothesis (and by implication other synchronic locative-based analyses of existential there) is false. An alternative analysis is offered, in which it is claimed that existential there is an NP, inserted for syntactic and pragmatic reasons. Diachronic and crosslinguistic evidence is cited in support of this view.* Introduction 1. It is well known that present-day English has two kinds of there: existential (there,) and locative (there2). The two kinds are exemplified in the following sentences: (1)There, are polar bears in Norway. (2)Look! There2's a polar bear. Over there2. The relationship between the two types of there has been discussed by Lyons (1967, 1968a, 1968b : 389-90, 1975, 1977 : 722-3). It is his hypothesis that there, , as in ex. 1, derives (both synchronically and diachronically) from an adverbial of place. The present paper argues that the synchronic part of Lyons' hypothesis is false, because it fails to account for a range ofgrammatical phenomena. An alternative analysis will be offered, attempting to show that there, is not what Lyons calls a non-proximal adverb, but rather an NP, inserted for syntactic and pragmatic reasons. Historical and cross-linguistic evidence will be cited in support of the analysis. The view that there, derives (synchronically) from a locative constituent has enjoyed considerable popularity in recent years. Thus Anderson 1971 , Fillmore 1968, Kuno 1971 , G. Sampson 1972, and Walters 1974, 1975 all claim that there, is a syntactic remnant of a locative adverbial. An alternative locative-based analysis is presented by Kimball 1973, who postulates the verb locate in the underlying form of r/ierevsentences. I have chosen to concentrate on Lyons' version ofthe locative-based analysis because the relationship between locative and existential constructions is most fully dealt with in his publications. However , the arguments brought against Lyons' position can also be used against other synchronic analyses which derive there, from a locative constituent. Since Lyons' view on there, is most fully explicated in his 1975 article, my discussion will be based mainly on that. But Lyons' there, hypothesis forms an integral part of his theory on the ontogenesis of referring expressions in English; so, before embarking on a detailed discussion of his hypothesis, it is necessary to place it briefly in the context of the rest of his theory. * I am indebted to Dwight Bolinger, Pamela Munro, Randolph Quirk, Robert Stockwell, and Sandra Thompson for help and criticism at various stages in the preparation of this paper. 1 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 57, NUMBER 1 (1981) Lyons' there, hypothesis 2.1. PS rules and lexicon. Lyons (1975 : 75) posits the following base rules (D stands for 'deictic'): (3)a. S -» NP NP b.S -> NP VP c.NP -> {Nm, N, D} d.VP ^ {N, V, D2} e.D2-* t + D, -entity] f.D-* [ + D, ± entity] g.[ + entity] —» [ ± person] h.[ + person] -» [ ± female] [ -person]1 [-entity] J j. [ - proximate] -» [ ± distal] The associated lexicon has the following form (75-6): (4)a. Nm: {John, Daddy, ...} b.N: {dog, house, table, ...}n c.V: {big, bark, swim, ...} + D [ ± proximate] e. g. - entity + proximate + D - entity - proximate + distal + D - entity - proximate - distal + D + person + female here : there2 : there, she + D + person - female he + D + entity - person + proximate + D + entity - person - proximate + distal + D + entity - person - proximate - distal this that-. that. For the sake of clarity, it should be pointed out that [-entity] is synonymous with [ + locative]. It will be seen that Lyons operates with two there's and two that's, each pair being distinguished by the feature [distal]. There,lthere2 and that,lthat2 are semantically unmarked in relation to the two other terms in the deictic distinction of proximity, viz. here and this. Note in this connection the following statement by Lyons (1975:76): 'This grammar is not entirely satisfactory: apart from anything else, the usual problems with binary features in relation to Boolean conditions have led me to introduce [ ± distal] into the deictic system. Using [ - entity] rather than [ + locative ] might also be regarded as unsatisfactory...