Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-c52kr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T01:23:04.036Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Definites in There-Sentences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Emily Rando  and
Donna Jo Napoli
Emily Rando
Affiliation:
Newton Center, Mass
Donna Jo Napoli
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There-sentences in English fall into two types: EXISTENTIAL and LIST. ‘Existential’ there-sentences typically allow only indefinite NP arguments, while ‘list’ there-sentences accept both definites and indefinites. The reason for this difference is that the argument of an existential there-sentence is the NP itself; but the argument of a list there-sentence is the list, not the individual members comprising that list. Once this distinction is noted, only one restriction remains on the arguments of all there-sentences, namely that they be non-anaphoric in the sense discussed in this article.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , June 1978 , pp. 300 - 313
Copyright
Copyright © 1978 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bolinger, Dwight. 1965. Forms of English: accent, morpheme, order. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1976. A case of lexical invariance: there. Paper presented at the Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1970. An argument against pronominalization. LI 1.122–3.Google Scholar
Cannings, Peter. 1977. Definiteness and relevance: the semantic unity of il y a. Paper presented at the Romance Linguistics Symposium, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. Subject and topic, edited by Li, Charles N., 27–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1975. Questions of form and interpretation. Linguistic Analysis 1.75–109.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1975. Pragmatic scales and logical structure. LI 6.353–76.Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge. 1973. There-Insertion and the definiteness of deletion targets. Paper presented at the 4th meeting of the New England Linguistic Society, Brown University.Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge., and Sag, I. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. LI 7.391–428.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1975. French syntax: the transformational cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1972. Functional sentence perspective. LI 3.269–320.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Milsark, Gary. 1974. Existential sentences in English. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Milsark, Gary. 1977. Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis 3.1–30.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1970. On the article in English. Progress in linguistics, edited by Bierwisch, M. & Heidolph, K. E., 233–48. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Pope, Emily. 1976. Questions and answers in English. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1966. On so-called ‘pronouns’ in English. Monograph series in languages and linguistics, Georgetown University, 19.177–206. [Reprinted in Modern studies in English, ed. by D. Reibel & S. Schane, 201–24. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1969.]Google Scholar
Rebstock, Barbara. 1976. The impersonal transformation in French. MS, Georgetown University.Google Scholar