The Syntax of Root Clauses (8) Expletive Subjects Introduction Sentences can have dummy (expletive) subjects.

English has two expletives that function as subjects, there and it. Questions

what is the status of there, i.e. is it an argument or an adjunct, what is the role of there in the sentence?

Introduction (1) a. Three men arrived at the station. b. There arrived three men at the station. (2) a. A few roses budded in the garden. b. There budded a few roses in the garden.

(3) a. A fierce fight started in that room. b. There started a fierce fight in that room. Introduction Sentences (1a), (2a) and (3a) above have one argument, the subject; sentences (1b), (2b) and (3b) have two arguments, there and the nouns that associate with it, i.e. three men, a few roses and a fierce fight, respectively. Terminology there = expletive subject (semantically empty subject) Three men, a few roses, a fierce fight = the associates of the expletive subject Introduction There counts as an argument of the verb for three reasons. First, it occupies the pre-verbal position that is reserved for subjects, in English. Second, there cannot be an adjunct because it cannot be wh-questioned as an adverbial of place: (4) a. Where did the fierce fight start? b. *There. Third, the argument status of there shows in the fact that it is not an optional constituent, it cannot be omitted without causing ungrammaticality.

a. *Arrived three men at the station. b. *Budded a few roses in the garden. c. *Started a fierce fight in the garen There does not bring any semantic contribution to the sentence, i.e. it is semantically empty. This implies that it cannot carry any semantic role as subject usually do. There occupies the pre-verbal subject position in order to have nominative case assigned to that position; its associate, on the other hand, bears the semantic role that the verb has to give. Think of there as the grammatical subject and of its associate as the notional subject. The distribution of there sentences Existential there sentences have unaccusative verbs as predicates.

verbs that denote existence: be, happen, exist, live, occur; verbs of seeming: seem, appear, arise, emerge, ensue, rise, surge; (iii) aspectual verbs: begin, start, stop, cease, end, remain; (iv) motion verbs: come, run, arrive; (v) verbs that denote location in space stand, lie, sit. The distribution of there sentences There is a type of unaccusative verb that is not compatible with there sentences. Unaccusative verbs that denote change of state are not grammatical in there sentences. (6) a. *There was drying a pair of jeans on the clothes-line. b. *There reddened a guys face. c. *There melted all the snow in the streets. The Definiteness Effect Consider the following sentences: (7) a. *There came the policeman to the mysterious house. b. *There exist the serious problem about our tenants. c. *There is my friend/John/him in the room. d. *There is this obnoxious guy in my class. e. *There is each kind of politician represented in the Parliament. f. *There is every student I know in the classroom. The Definiteness Effect The ungrammaticality of all these sentences is due to the nature of the associate of the expletive which has the semantic feature [+ definite]. Types of definite NPs: NPs with the definite article or a possessive adjective (a, b, c), Proper names, pronouns (c), NPs headed by demonstrative pronouns (d), NPs headed by universal quantifiers (e, f). The Definiteness Effect Compare the ungrammaticality of (7) with the well-formedness of (8). (8) a. There are many/some/several pigs in the backyard. b. There arrived three politicians in the hall. c. There are good films on TV this month. d. There are no clever people in the Parliament. e. There is nothing but misery in this house. The Definiteness Effect All the associates of there in the examples above have the semantic feature [-definite]. Types of indefinite NPs: Existential quantifiers (a), Cardinal determiners (b), Bare plurals (c), Negative indefinites (d), Negative exceptives (e). The Definiteness Effect

From the data presented in (7) and (8), we can formulate a constraint on there sentences. The Definiteness Effect (9) Definite post-verbal NPs are not grammatical in there-sentences. The Definiteness Effect The definiteness effect falls in line with the meaning that there sentences convey. More precisely, these sentences denote the existence of an entity at a certain location. Definite DPs denote entities that are already known from the previous discourse. Indefinite DPs, on the other hand, introduce new entities in discourse (they meet the socalled Novelty Condition, cf. Heim) and, because of this, they are compatible with the meaning of there sentences. The Definiteness Effect There are sentences that challenge the Definiteness Effect. (10) a. A: Who do we have to play Othello? B: Well, there is John, his uncle and the man with the limp. b. There walked into the room the man who everyone thought would one day ruled the world. c. As we watched awe-struck and horrified, there destroyed our village a gigantic explosion which lit up the skies for miles around. d. There is the oddest looking man standing at the front door. e. There is the possibility of his having been killed in an accident. f. There is the only picture of Guitar Slim. The Definiteness Effect Let us look more closely at the exceptions to the DE. (10a) shows that, if the associate of the expletive denotes a list or an enumeration, the sentence is grammatical. Similarly, if the associate makes reference to definite NPs that combine with clausal modifiers (i.e. relative clause, see b and c, gerund clause, see d), the sentences are grammatical. Associates that are lexically realized by superlatives are also fine (see d) and so are associates that are modified by PPs (see f). The Definiteness Effect Q: What do all the associates of the expletive in (10) have in common? A: All of them denote hearer new entities (see Avram 1999). Remember that indefinites introduce new entities in discourse. Associates of expletives that denote hearer new entities end up playing the same part as real indefinites. The Definiteness Effect There are other cases in which an expletive associate that is headed by the definite article denotes in fact an indefinite entity. Consider (11). (11) a. There was the air of a shy, clumsy man about him. b. There was the smell of whiskey in the air. c. There was the book by a Booker Prize winner in his library.

The Definiteness Effect Even if the expletive associates in the sentences above are headed by the, the prepositional objects they select are all indefinites, i.e. a shy man, whiskey, a Booker Prize winne. In fact, all these constituents denote indefinite entities (see also Avram) Expletive it The second expletive element that can function as subject is it. Consider the sentences below. (12) a. It is clear that he doesnt know. b. It appears that they have met before. c. It took him three hours to get there. (13) a. It is raining. b. It is said that he is a recluse. c. It is Monday. d. It is three miles to the village Expletive it The sentences in (12) illustrate the so-called introductory-anticipatory it. The name comes from the fact that it anticipates the subject clause that occurs post-verbally (that he doesnt know, that they met before, to get there). Introductory-anticipatory it has no descriptive content. Introductory-anticipatory it shows up in pre-verbal subject position for case reasons and does not take on a semantic role either. Expletive it The sentences in (13) illustrate impersonal it. Impersonal it is used either in the so-called weather sentences or in sentences that refer to time and distance (see d and e). It does not have descriptive content of its own either. There vs. It There sentences are used when one wants to assert the existence of an entity at a certain location. Expletive it, on the other hand, is preferred for a contrastive reading. Consider the sentences below. (14) a. There is a cake left on the tray. b. It is a cake left on the tray. There vs. It (12a) is a statement about the existence of a piece of cake on the tray; (12b) is a statement about the nature of the object that is on the tray, i.e. a cake not a tangerine. Similar examples are given in what follows. (15) a. There is the truth that matters. b. It is truth that matters (not justice or love or any other abstraction). (16) a. There was a lady asking for help. b. It was a lady asking for help (not a man, nor a child). There vs. It

(17)

a. There was an hour before dawn (i.e. we had one more hour). b. It was an hour before dawn (i.e. the time was 4 oclock). (18) a. It is no problem to finish in time (i.e. to finish in time is not a problem). b. There was no problem to finish in time (i.e. no problem exists that could prevent us from finishing in time). The Direct Object The usual situation requires that the direct object of the transitive verb be present, otherwise the sentence is not grammatical. (1) a. Bill kissed Monica b.*Bill kissed.

However, there are cases when the object can be dropped. The Direct Object The Direct Object Direct Object Drop Syntactic contexts that allow direct object drop Direct objects can be dropped in a sequence of verbs (cf. 4), when they are selected by imperative verbs (cf. 5) or by verbs in the infinitive (cf. 6), a tenseless mood. (4) He will steal _, rob _ and murder _ . (5) Push _ hard! . (6) This is a lovely guitar, with an uncanny ability to impress _ and delight _ . Direct Object Drop There is a preference for object drop in case the verb in the sentence is used in the generic present tense (cf. 7). (7) There are those who annihilate _ with violence, who devour _ .

Direct Object Drop The occurrence of indefinite null objects is sensitive to semantic factors as well. Direct objects can be dropped if they are used in a contrastive context (cf. 8) (8) Is it better to reuse _ than to recycle _? Direct Object Drop Q: Do transitive verbs whose direct object have been omitted turn into intransitive verbs? A: No. Even if the direct object is not present any more, we can find arguments that it is syntactically active, so we cannot say that the respective verb has only one argument. Direct Object Drop Null indefinite objects license Resultative Phrases

(9)

Beat _ until thick and lemon-colored.

Null indefinite objects can be coreferent with pronouns (a pronoun always needs an antecedent so it can get an interpretation): (10) His attitude intimidates _ until you figure out hes a phony. The Direct Object Null objects can license parasitic gaps (i.e. a gap that shows up in a subordinate adjunct clause) (11) Which document did the spy memorize _ before eating _?

The gap left by the movement of the object of the verb memorize in (11) makes it possible for a parasitic gap to occur. Cummins & Roberge note that there are various ways for null objects to retrieve their meaning. First of all, it is possible for these objects to retrieve their reference sentence internally. (i) the reference of the null object is retrieved from the lexical properties of the verbs that select them. (12) Where Boulestin never falters or misleads _ is the sureness of his taste and the sobriety of his ingredients. Psych-verbs like that in (12) take an arbitrary third person affected human null object. Here are some Romanian examples in which the null object is identified by means of the lexical characteristics of the verb. (13) Ce ai cautat acolo? Am explorat _ si eu. (14) In graba mea sa despachetez _, am distrus cutia. In (13) the meaning of the null object is predictable, but not in a very precise way, i.e. am explorat zona. In (14) the null object refers to a more narrowly determined entity, i.e. sa despachetez coletul / pachetul. (ii) As already mentioned, the generic present and tenseless verbs also license null object (see example (7) above). Cummins & Roberge also note that null object that a re licensed sentence-internally do not have contextually available referents. (15) What happened to that carrot? *I chopped _ . (16) The door is open. *Didnt you lock _? In (15) and (16), the null object is forced to pick up a referential interpretation (i.e. I chopped that carrot), so it becomes ungrammatical.

The way to repair sentences like (15) and (16) is to build up a context in which no referential interpretation is forced, such as (17): (17) What happed to all the vegetables? Well, Jacques has been chopping _ and dicing _ all afternoon. We dont know exactly what kind of vegetables Jacques chopped. Keep in mind, however, that it is pragmatically possible that a null object ends up being connected to a specific antecedent (Perez_Leroux, Privulescu, Roberge 2008, Tedeschi 2009). (18) What are you going to do while you wait? Ill buy a newspaper and Ill read _ .