The Syntax of Thetic Statements in English
AbstractThis article offers a formal approach to thetic statements in English that focuses on the structural mechanisms available in this language to express a reading of this sort. I explain the opposition categorical/thetic as the result of two alternative ways to value discourse intention [DI], a core intentional feature (CIF) which signals the point of departure of the proposition. This feature is standardly accessed at the phonological component in English, but I argue that it may also be valued through syntactic means, in particular through the insertion of a language particular category, LocP, which serves a double purpose: 1) to keep the subject low in the verbal phrase while still complying with the Extended Projection Principle (EPP); and, 2) to allow a locative phrase to value [DI]. This way, the grammar maintains a balance between the interface need to express a nonpredicative assertion and the computational requirement to have a preverbal subject. I also show how presentational there-sentences and so-called locative inversion (LI) structures result from the structural possibilities opened in LocP, thus offering an analysis that accounts for the similarities and differences between the two constructions in a principled way.
Alexander, Jim, Han Na-Rae and Michelle Fox, eds. 1999. “Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium.” Special issue, University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 6 (1).
Belletti, Adriana and Luigi Rizzi, eds. 1997. Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Bianchi, Valentina and Mara Frascarelli. 2010. “Is Topic a Root Phenomenon?” Iberia 2 (1): 43-88.
Birner, Betty J. 1996. The Discourse Function of Inversion in English. New York: Garland.
Brentano, Franz. 1874. Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkte. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.
Bresnan, Joan. 1994. “Locative Inversion and the Architecture of Universal Grammar.” Language 70 (1): 72-131.
Breul, Carsten. 2004. Focus Structure in Generative Grammar: An Integrated Syntactic, Semantic and Intonational Approach. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bruening, Benjamin. 2010. “Language-Particular Syntactic Rules and Constraints: English Locative Inversion and Do-support.” Language 86 (1): 43-84.
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel. Casielles-Suárez, Eugenia. 2004. The Syntax-Information Structure Interface: Evidence from Spanish and English. London and New York: Routledge.
Chafe, Wallace. 1974. “Language in Consciousness.” Language 50 (1): 111-33.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
—. 2008. “On Phases.” In Freidin, Peregrín-Otero and Zubizarreta 2008, 133-66.
Cole, Peter, ed. 1981. Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic.
Collins, Chris. 1997. Local Economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Coopmans, Peter. 1989. “Where Stylistic and Syntactic Processes Meet: Locative Inversion in English.” Language 65 (4): 728-51.
Culicover, Peter and Robert Levine. 2001. “Stylistic Inversion in English: A Reconsideration.” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19 (2): 283-310.
Daneš, František. 1974. Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective. The Hague: De Gruyter.
Deal, Amy Rose. 2009. “The Origin and Content of Expletives: Evidence from ‘Selection.’” Syntax 12 (4): 285-323.
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Eguzkitza, Andolin and Georg A. Kayser. 1999. “Postverbal Subjects in Romance and German: Some Notes on the Unaccusative Hypothesis.” Lingua 109: 195-219.
Emonds, Joseph. 1969. “Root and Structure-Preserving Transformations.” PhD diss. University of Kansas.
Farkas, Donka, Wesley M. Jacobsen and Karol W. Todrys, eds. 1978. Papers from the 14th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Fernández Soriano, Olga. 1990. “Two Types of Impersonal Sentences in Spanish Locative and Dative Subjects.” Syntax 2 (2): 101-40.
Frascarelli, Mara, ed. 2006. Phases of Interpretation. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Freidin, Robert, Carlos Peregrín-Otero and María Luisa Zubizarreta, eds. 2008. Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Grimshaw, Joan. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gundel, Jeanette 1999. “Topic, Focus and the Grammar-Pragmatics Interface.” In Alexander, Na-Rae and Fox 1999, 185-99.
Gundel, Jeanette and Thorstein Fretheim. 2005. “Topic and Focus.” In Horn and Ward 2005, 175-96.
Hoekstra, Teun and René Mulder. 1990. “Unergatives as Copular Verbs; Locational and Existential Predication.” Linguistic Review 7 (1): 1-79.
Horn, Laurence and Gregory Ward, eds. 2005. The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Huddleston, Rodney and Groffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Irwin, Patricia L. 2012. “Unaccusatives at the Interfaces.” PhD diss., New York University.
Jaeger, Jeri J., ed. 1978. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel Luis and Shigeru Miyagawa. 2014. “A Feature-Inheritance Approach to Root Phenomena and Parametric Variation.” Lingua 145: 275-302.
Kathol, Andreas and Robert Levine. 1992. “Inversion as a Linearization Effect.” In Schaffer 1992, 207-21.
Kim, Jong-Bok. 2003. “English Locative Inversion: A Constraint-Based Approach.” Korean Journal of Linguistics 28: 207-35.
Koopman, Hilda and Dominique Sportiche. 1991. “The Position of Subjects.” Lingua 85: 211-58.
Kuroda, Shigeyuki. 1972. “The Categorical and the Thetic Judgment: Evidence from Japanese Syntax.” Foundations of Language 9 (2): 153-85.
Lasnik, Howard. 1995. “Case and Expletives Revisited: On Greed and other Human Failings.” Linguistic Inquiry 26 (4): 615-33.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity at the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Marty, Anton 1918. Schriften zur Deskriptiven Psychologie und Sprachphilosophie. Gesammelte Schriften II, 1. Halle: Niemeyer.
Mathesius, Vilém. 1928. “On Linguistic Characterology with Illustrations from Modern English.” In Schrijnen 1928, 56-63.
Milsark, Gary. 1974. “Existential Sentences in English.” PhD. diss., Indiana University.
Ojea, Ana. 2017. “Core Intentional Features in the Syntactic Computation: Deriving the Position of the Subject in Spanish.” Lingua 195: 72-91.
—. 2019. “EPP-Satisfaction on Discourse Grounds: The Case of Locative Inversion.” Syntax 22 (2-3): 248-73.
Perlmutter, David. 1978. “Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis.” In Jaeger 1978, 157-89.
Postal, Paul. 1977. “About a Nonargument for Raising.” Linguistic Inquiry 8 (1): 141-54.
Prince, Ellen. 1981. “Toward a Taxonomy of Given/New Information.” In Cole 1981, 223-55.
Quirk, Randolph et al. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. “Pragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics.” Philosophica 27 (1): 53-94.
—. 2006. Interface Strategies: Optimal and Costly Computations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. “On the Fine Structure of the Left Periphery.” In Belletti and Rizzi 1997, 281-337.
Rizzi, Luigi and Ur Shlonsky. 2006. “Satisfying the Subject Criterion by a Non Subject: English Locative Inversion and Heavy NP Shift.” In Frascarelli 2006, 341-61.
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1987. “The Thetic/Categorical Distinction Revisited.” Linguistics 25 (3): 511-80.
Schaffer, Amy J., ed. 1992. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 23. Amherst: U of Massachusetts.
Schrijnen, Joseph, ed. 1928. Actes du Premier Congrès International de Linguistes à La Haye. Leiden: A. W. Sijthoff.
Stowell, Tim. 1978. “What was There before There was There?” In Farkas, Jacobsen and Todrys 1978, 458-71.
—. 1981. “Origins of Phrase Structure.” PhD. diss., University of Toronto.
Vallduví, Enric and Elisabet Engdahl 1996. “The Linguistic Realization of Information Packaging.” Linguistics 34 (3): 459-519.
Zubizarreta, María Luisa. 1998. Prosody, Focus and Word Order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
The authors retain copyright of articles. They authorise AEDEAN to publish them in its journal Atlantis and to include them in the indexing and abstracting services, academic databases and repositories the journal participates in.
Under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0), for non-commercial (i.e., personal or academic) purposes only, users are free to share (i.e., copy and redistribute in any medium or format) and adapt (i.e., remix, transform and build upon) articles published in Atlantis, free of charge and without obtaining prior permission from the publisher or the author(s), as long as they give appropriate credit to the author, the journal (Atlantis) and the publisher (AEDEAN), provide the relevant URL link to the original publication and indicate if changes were made. Such attribution may be done in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the journal endorses the user or their use of the material published therein. Users who adapt (i.e., remix, transform or build upon the material) must distribute their contributions under the same licence as the original.
Self-archiving is also permitted, so that authors are allowed to deposit the published PDF version of their articles in academic and/or institutional repositories, without fee or embargo. Authors may also post their individual articles on their personal websites, again on condition that the original link to the online edition is provided.
Authors are expected to know and heed basic ground rules that preclude simultaneous submission and/or duplicate publication. Prospective contributors to Atlantis commit themselves to the following when they submit a manuscript:
- That no concurrent consideration of the same, or almost identical, work by any other journal and/or publisher is taking place.
- That the potential contribution has not appeared previously, in any form whatsoever, in another journal, electronic format or as a chapter/section of a book.
Seeking permission for the use of copyright material is the responsibility of the author.