1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Linguistics
  4. Volume 2, 2016
  5. Article

Annual Review of Linguistics

Volume 2, 2016

Existential Sentences Crosslinguistically: Variations in Form and Meaning

Abstract

Though the term “existential sentence” goes back at least as far as Jespersen (1924, p. 155) and is used in descriptions of many languages to refer to a designated construction, it is difficult to identify exactly what these constructions have in common crosslinguistically. Following McNally (2011, p. 1829), the term is used here to refer to sentence types that are “noncanonical,” whether due to some aspect of their syntax or the presence of a distinguished lexical item (e.g., Spanish ) and that are “typically used to express a proposition about the existence or the presence of someone or something.” I discuss a representative sample of the different structural resources used to build existential sentences: distinguished existential predicates, on the one hand, and copular, possessive, and expletive or impersonal constructions, on the other. I then address the corresponding variation in the compositional semantics of existentials, as well as pragmatic or discourse functional variation. I contrast the variationist perspective with universalist approaches to existentials, such as that by Freeze (2001).

Keyword(s): existence, impersonal constructions, locative constructions, possessive constructions, typology

[Erratum, Closure]

An erratum has been published for this article:
Existential Sentences Crosslinguistically: Variations in Form and Meaning
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040837
2016-01-14
2025-02-09
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/2/1/annurev-linguistics-011415-040837.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040837&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abbott B. 1997. Definiteness and existentials. Language 73:103–8 [Google Scholar]
  2. Abdoulaye M. 2006. Existential and possessive predication in Hausa. Linguistics 44:1121–64 [Google Scholar]
  3. Aissen J. 1975. Presentational-there insertion: a cyclic root transformation. Papers from the 11th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society1–14 Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc. [Google Scholar]
  4. Babby LH. 1980. Existential Sentences and Negation in Russian Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma [Google Scholar]
  5. Barker C. 1995. Possessive Descriptions Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf. [Google Scholar]
  6. Barwise J, Cooper R. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguist. Philos. 4:159–219 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bassaganyas-Bars T. 2015. The rise of haver as the existential predicate and the perfect auxiliary: the case of Old Catalan. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 19107–24 Göttingen, Ger.: Univ. Göttingen [Google Scholar]
  8. Beaver D, Francez I, Levinson D. 2006. Bad subject: (non-)canonicality and NP distribution in existentials. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 1515–43 Ithaca, NY: CLC [Google Scholar]
  9. Chierchia G, Turner R. 1988. Semantics and property theory. Linguist. Philos. 11:261–302 [Google Scholar]
  10. Christie JJ. 1970. Locative, possessive and existential in Swahili. Found. Lang. 6:166–77 [Google Scholar]
  11. Chung S. 1987. The syntax of Chamorro existential sentences. The Representation of (In)definiteness E Reuland, A ter Meulen 191–225 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  12. Chung S, Ladusaw WA. 2004. Restriction and Saturation Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  13. Chvany CV. 1975. On the Syntax of BE-Sentences in Russian Cambridge, MA: Slavica [Google Scholar]
  14. Clark E. 1978. Universals of Human Language J Greenberg 485–126 Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  15. Creissels D. 2014. Existential predication in typological perspective Work. pap., Univ. Lyon [Google Scholar]
  16. Czinglar C. 2002. Decomposing existence: evidence from Germanic. In Issues in Formal German (ic) Typology W Abraham, JW Zwart 85–126 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  17. Davies M. 2008. The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 Million Words, 1990–Present http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/ [Google Scholar]
  18. Demuth K. 1990. Locatives, impersonals and expletives in Sesotho. Linguist. Rev. 7:233–49 [Google Scholar]
  19. Francez I. 2007. Existential propositions PhD thesis, Dep. Linguist., Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA [Google Scholar]
  20. Freeze R. 2001. Existential constructions. Language Typology and Language Universals M Haspelmath, E König, W Oesterreicher, W Raible 941–53 Berlin/New York: de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  21. Gaeta L. 2013. Existential constructions: a semasiological perspective. Argument Structure in Flux E van Gelderen, M Cennamo, J Barðdal 477–509 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  22. Gundel J, Hedberg N, Zacharski R. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69:274–307 [Google Scholar]
  23. Haegeman L. 1991. Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics 1 Introduction to Government and Binding Theory Cambridge, MA: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  24. Hale K. 1986. Notes on world view and semantic categories: some Warlpiri examples. Features and Projections P Muysken, H van Riemsdijk 233–54 Dordrecht, Neth: Foris [Google Scholar]
  25. Hall RA. 1956. How we noun-incorporate in English. Am. Speech 31:83–88 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hazout I. 2004. The syntax of existential constructions. Linguist. Inq. 35:393–430 [Google Scholar]
  27. Heim I, Kratzer A. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar Oxford, UK: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  28. Hopper P. 1998. The paradigm at the end of the universe. The Limits of Grammaticalization AG Ramat, P Hopper 147–58 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  29. Huumo T. 2003. Incremental existence: the world according to the Finnish existential sentence. Linguistics 41:461–93 [Google Scholar]
  30. Jenkins L. 1975. The English Existential Tübingen, Ger: Niemeyer [Google Scholar]
  31. Jespersen O. 2007 (1924). The Philosophy of Grammar Abingdon, UK: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  32. Joyce J. 2003 (1916). Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man Salt Lake City: Project Gutenberg. eBook http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4217 [Google Scholar]
  33. Keenan EL. 1987. A semantic definition of indefinite NP. The Representation of (In)definiteness E Reuland, AG ter Meulen 286–317 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  34. Kratzer A. 1998. Scope or pseudoscope? Are there wide scope indefinites?. Events and Grammar S Rothstein 163–96 Dordrecht, Neth: Kluwer [Google Scholar]
  35. Lamberty A, Schmid HJ. 2013. Verbal compounding in English: a challenge for usage-based models of word-formation?. Anglia 131:591–626 [Google Scholar]
  36. Lumsden M. 1988. Existential Sentences: Their Structure and Meaning London: Croom Helm [Google Scholar]
  37. Lyons J. 1967. A note on possessive, existential, and locative sentences. Found. Lang. 3:390–96 [Google Scholar]
  38. Marten L. 2013. Structure and interpretation in Swahili existential constructions. Riv. Linguist. 25:45–73 [Google Scholar]
  39. McCloskey J. 2014. Irish existentials in context. Syntax 17:343–84 [Google Scholar]
  40. McNally L. 1997. An Interpretation for the English Existential Construction New York: Garland [Google Scholar]
  41. McNally L. 2009. Properties, entity correlates of properties, and existentials. Quantification, Definiteness, and Nominalization A Giannakidou, M Rathert 163–87 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  42. McNally L. 2011. Existential sentences. Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning C Maienborn, K von Heusinger, P Portner 21829–48 Berlin: de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  43. McNally L. Existential. Oxford Bibliographies in Linguistics Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/obo/page/linguistics. Forthcoming [Google Scholar]
  44. Mikkelsen L. 2002. Reanalyzing the definiteness effect: evidence from Danish. Work. Pap. Scand. Syntax 69:1–75 [Google Scholar]
  45. Mikkelsen L. 2011. Copular clauses. Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning C Maienborn, K von Heusinger, P Portner, 2:1805–29 Berlin: de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  46. Milsark G. 1979. Existential Sentences in English New York: Garland [Google Scholar]
  47. Milsark G. 1977. Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English. Linguist. Anal. 3:1–29 [Google Scholar]
  48. Mithun M. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60:847–94 [Google Scholar]
  49. Moro A. 1997. The Raising of Predicates: Predicative Noun Phrases and the Theory of Clause Structure Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  50. Partee BH. 1987. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers JAG Groenendijk, D de Jongh, MJB Stokhof 115–43 Dordrecht, Neth: Foris [Google Scholar]
  51. Partee BH, Borschev V, Paducheva E, Testelets Y, Yanovich I. 2012. The role of verb semantics in genitive alternations: genitive of negation and genitive of intensionality. Oslo Stud. Lang. 4 (spec. issue) 1–29 [Google Scholar]
  52. Partee BH, Borschev V. 2007. Existential sentences, BE, and the genitive of negation in Russian. Existence: Semantics and Syntax I Comorovski, K von Heusinger 147–90 Dordrecht, Neth: Springer [Google Scholar]
  53. Pesetsky D. 1982. Paths and categories PhD thesis, Dep. Linguist., MIT, Cambridge, MA [Google Scholar]
  54. Platzack C. 1983. Existential sentences in English, German, Icelandic and Swedish. Papers from the 7th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics F Karlsson 80–100 Helsinki: Dep. Gen. Linguist., Univ. Helsinki [Google Scholar]
  55. Prince EF. 1992. The ZPG letter: subjects, definiteness, and information-status. Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text WC Mann, S Thompson 295–325 Philadelphia: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  56. Rando E, Napoli DJ. 1978. Definites in there-sentences. Language 54:300–13 [Google Scholar]
  57. Reinhart T. 1997. Quantifier scope: how labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguist. Philos. 20:335–97 [Google Scholar]
  58. Ross JR. 1974. There, There, (There, (There, (There))). Proceedings of the 10th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 569–87. Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc. [Google Scholar]
  59. Silverstein M. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages RMW Dixon 112–71 Canberra: Aust. Natl. Univ. [Google Scholar]
  60. Stowell T. 1978. What was there before there was there?. Proceedings of the 14th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 458–71 Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc. [Google Scholar]
  61. Suñer M. 1982. Syntax and Semantics of Spanish Presentational Sentence-Types Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  62. Van Geenhoven V. 1996. Semantic incorporation and indefinite descriptions: semantic and syntactic aspects of noun incorporation in West Greenlandic PhD thesis, Univ. Tübingen, Ger. [Google Scholar]
  63. Ward G, Birner B. 1995. Definiteness and the English existential. Language 71:722–42 [Google Scholar]
  64. Werning M, Hinzen W, Machery E. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  65. Williams E. 1983. Semantic versus syntactic categories. Linguist. Philos. 6:423–46 [Google Scholar]
  66. Williams E. 1984. There insertion. Linguist. Inq. 15:131–53 [Google Scholar]
  67. Williams E. 2006. The subject–predicate theory of there. Linguist. Inq. 37:648–51 [Google Scholar]
  68. Woisetschlaeger E. 1983. On the question of definiteness in ‘an old man's book’. Linguist. Inq. 14:137–54 [Google Scholar]
  69. Ziv Y. 1982. Another look at definites in existentials. J. Linguist. 18:73–88 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040837
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error