Cover not available
Introduction In:
The Evolution of Expletives: Theoretical and diachronic perspectives
Edited by Eric Fuß and Benjamin Lowell Sluckin
[Evolutionary Linguistic Theory 6:1/2] 2024
► pp. 1–26
Introduction

The evolution of expletives

 | Ruhr-University Bochum
 | Ruhr-University Bochum
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
  • 3.Expletives and the evolution of grammatical categories
  • 4.This special issue: Goals and how they are addressed in the contributions
  • Notes
  • Author queries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (135)
References
Alexiadou, A. & Anagnostopoulou, E. (1998). Parametrizing AGR: word order, V-movement and EPP-checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 161, 491–539. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allan, K. (1971). A note on the source of There in existential sentences. Foundations of Language 7.11, 1–18.Google Scholar
Asher, N. & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2009). The verb-second property in Old High German: Different ways of filling the prefield. In R. Hinterhölzl & S. Petrova (eds.), Information Structure and Language Change. New Approaches to Word Order Variation in Germanic, 17–44. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ball, C. N. (1994). The origins of the informative-presupposition it-cleft. Journal of Pragmatics 22.61, 603–628. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayer, J. & Suchsland, P. (1997). Expletiva und leere Subjekte im Deutschen. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 411, 12–38.Google Scholar
Bentley, D. & Cruschina, S. (2018). The silent argument of broad focus: Typology and predictions. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3(1), 1181, 1–37.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. C. & Chomsky, N. (2017). Why only us. Language and evolution. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. & van der Wal, J. (2014). Expletives beyond English. Ms., University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1990). Language and species. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1977). Meaning and form. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Booth, H. (2018). Expletives and clause structure. Syntactic change in Icelandic. Ph.D. thesis, University of Manchester.
Breivik, L. (1989). On the causes of syntactic change in English. In L. Breivik & E. H. Jahr (eds.), Language change: Contributions to the studies of its causes, 29–70. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bruening, B. (2010). Language-particular syntactic rules and constraints: English Locative Inversion and do-support. Language 861, 43–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brugmann, K. (1917). Der Ursprung des Scheinsubjekts ‘es’ in den germanischen und den romanischen Sprachen. Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Königl. Sächsischen Gesellschaft für Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, 69:5. Leipzig: Trübner.Google Scholar
Burt, M. (1971). From Deep to Surface Structure. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Butler, M. C. (1980). Grammatically motivated subjects in Early English. Ph. D. thesis, University of Texas at Austin.
Bybee, J. L. (1985). Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L., Pagliuca, W. & Perkins, R. (1990). On the asymmetries in the affixation of grammatical material. In W. Croft, K. Denning and S. Kemmer (eds.), Studies in typology and diachrony, 1–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R. & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The evolution of grammar. Tense, aspect and modality in the languages oft the world. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Camacho, J. (2013). Null subjects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. (1990). Impersonal constructions and sentential arguments in German, Padua: Unipress.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. (1984). Topics in the syntax and semantics of infinitives and gerunds. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
(1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
(1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). On phases. In R. Freidin, C. P. Otero & M. L. Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory. Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coopmans, P. (1989). Where stylistic and syntactic processes meet: locative inversion in English. Language 65.41, 728–751. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corr, A. (2017). The grammaticalization of epistemicity in Ibero-Romance: alike processes, unlike outcomes. Journal of Historical Linguistics 7(1). 48–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Czicza, D. (2010). Das simulierende es. Zur valenztheoretischen Beschreibung des nicht-phorischen es am Beispiel eines neuhochdeutschen Textes. In A. Ziegler (ed.), Historische Textgrammatik und Historische Syntax des Deutschen, 1042–1061. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. (2007). Clause types. In T. Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Volume 1: Clause structure, 224–275. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ecay, A. (2015). A multi-step analysis of the evolution of English do-support. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Ellegård, A. (1953). The auxiliary do: The establishment and regulation of its use in English. Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. (1970). Root and structure-preserving transformations. Doctoral dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Espinal, M. T. (1992). Expletive negation and logical absorption. The Linguistic Review 9(4), 333–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). Expletive negation, negative concord and feature checking. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 81, 47–69.Google Scholar
Faarlund, J. T. (1990). Syntactic change. Toward a theory of historical syntax. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Falk, C. (1993). Non-referential subjects and agreement in the history of Swedish. Lingua 89(2–3), 143–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fintel, K. von. (1995). The formal semantics of grammaticalization. Proceedings of NELS 25: Workshop on Language Change, 175–189, Amherst, Mass.: GLSA.Google Scholar
Fintel, K. von & Matthewson, L. (2008). Universals in semantics. The Linguistic Review 251, 139–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fitch, W. T. (2010). The evolution of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freeze, R. (1992). Existentials and Other Locatives. Language, 68.31, 553–595. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). Existential constructions. In M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher & W. Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals, vol. 2, 941–953. Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fuß, E. (2008). Word order and language change. On the interface between syntax and morphology. Habilitation thesis, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main.
(2024a). Exploring the link between expletives and broad focus: A diachronic perspective. Paper presented at the workshop Sentence Grammar — Discourse Grammar, Ca‘ Foscari University of Venice.
(2024b). On the lifecycle of expletives. Paper presented at Diachronic Generative Syntax 25, University of Mannheim.
Fuß, E. & Hinterhölzl, R. (2023). On the historical development of pronouns referring to situations: the case of so-called ‘expletives’ in Germanic. Journal of Historical Syntax 7.21, 1–54.Google Scholar
Gaeta, L. (2013). Existential constructions: A semasiological perspective. In E. van Gelderen, M. Cennamo & J. Barðdal (eds.), Argument structure in flux: The Naples-Capri papers, 477–509. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garzonio, J. (2021). Some considerations on the syntax of expletive subjects in Old Venetan and the emergence of subject clitics. Atti del Sodalizio Glottologico Milanese. 20201, 61–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gast, V. & Haas, F. (2011). On the distribution of subject properties in formulaic presentationals of Germanic and Romance. In A. Malchukov & A. Siewierska (eds.), Impersonal constructions: a cross-linguistic perspective, 127–166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1976). Topic, Pronoun, and Grammatical Agreement. In C. N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 149–188. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1995). Functionalism and grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grewendorf, G. (1989). Ergativity in German. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haeberli, E. (1999). Features, categories and the syntax of A-positions. Synchronic and diachronic variation in the Germanic languages. Doctoral dissertation, University of Geneva.
Haegeman, L., Greco, C. & Phan, T. (2017). Expletives and speaker-related meaning. In M. Sheehan & L. R. Bailey (eds.), Order and structure in syntax II: subjecthood and argument structure, 69–93. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Haider, H. (1993). Deutsche Syntax, generativ. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
(2010). The syntax of German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). “Intelligent design” of grammars — a result of cognitive evolution. In A. Adli, M. G. García & G. Kaufmann (eds.), Variation in language: System- and usage-based approaches, 205–240. Berlin/New York, NY: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). On expletive, semantically void, and absent subjects. In B. Pöll, P. Herbeck & A. Wolfsgruber (eds.), Semantic and syntactic aspects of impersonality (special issue of Linguistische Berichte ), 11–46. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.Google Scholar
(2021). Grammar change — A case of Darwinian cognitive evolution. Evolutionary Linguistic Theory 3(1), 6–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2023). SVO — Attractor in the declarative-to-procedural shift in grammar evolution. Acta Linguistica Academica 701, 195–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haiman, J. (1974). Targets and syntactic change. Den Haag: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Han, C. & A. Kroch. 2000. The rise of do-support in English: implications for clause structure. In M. Hirotani, A. Coetzee, N. Hall and J.-Y. Kim (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 301, 311–326. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Hartmann, J. (2008). Expletives in existentials: English there and German da. (LOT Dissertation Series 181). Utrecht: LOT.
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298 (5598), 1569–1579. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (1990). A parsing theory of word order universals. Linguistic Inquiry 211, 223–261.Google Scholar
(1994). A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hazout, I. (2004). The syntax of existential constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 351, 393–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heck, F. (2022). Empty expletives and the EPP. Paper presented at the workshop The Theory and Historical Development of Expletives (and non-referential arguments), Ruhr-University Bochum.
Heine, B. & Kuteva, T. (2002). World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2007). The genesis of grammar: A reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinterhölzl, R. (2019). Subjects, topics, and anchoring to the context. Syntax 221:199–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinzelin, M.-O. (2009). Neuter pronouns in Ibero-Romance: Discourse reference, expletives and beyond. In G. A. Kaiser & E.-M. Remberger (eds.), Proceedings of the workshop “Null-subjects, expletives, and locatives in Romance”, 1–25. Universität Konstanz: Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Husband, M. E. (2012). On the compositional nature of states. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ingham, R. (2001). The structure and function of expletive there in pre-modern English. Reading Working Papers in Linguistics, 5 1, 231–249.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1999). Possible stages in the evolution of the language capacity. Trends in Cognitive Science 31, 272–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Foundations of Language. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, L. (1975). The English existential. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jin, Y. & Koenig, J.-P. (2020). A cross-linguistic study of expletive negation. Linguistic Typology 25 1, 39–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Julien, M. (2002). Syntactic Heads and Word Formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, E. (2019). Word order patterns in generic ‘zero person’ constructions in Finnish: Insights from speech-act participants. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 4(1). 53–1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kinn, K. (2016). Referential vs. non-referential null subjects in Middle Norwegian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 277–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1995). Stage level and individual level predicates. In G. N. Carlson & F. J. Pelletier (eds.), The generic book, 125–175. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lahousse, K. (2003a). On the non-unitariness of NP subject inversion. In J. Quer, J. Schroten, M. Scorretti, P. Sleeman & E. Verheugd (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2001. Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’, Amsterdam, 6–8 December 2001, 177–192. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003b). NP-subject inversion in French and (preposed) adverbs. In A. T. Pérez-Leroux & Y. Roberge (eds.), Romance linguistics: Theory and acquisition, 181–96. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Implicit stage topics. Discour. Revue de linguistique, psycholinguistique et informatique 11:1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Quand passent les cigognes. le sujet nominal postverbal en Français moderne. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2009). Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsson, I. (2014). Choice of non-referential subject in existential constructions and with weather-verbs. Nordic Atlas of Language Structures (NALS) Journal 11, 55–71.Google Scholar
Legendre, G. (1990). French impersonal constructions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 81, 81–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenerz, J. (1985). Zur Theorie syntaktischen Wandels: Das expletive es in der Geschichte des Deutschen. In W. Abraham (ed.), Erklärende Syntax des Deutschen, 99–136. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Liebermann, P. (1984). The biology and evolution of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Light, C. (2015). Expletive there in West Germanic. In T. Biberauer & G. Walkden (eds.), Syntax over time: Lexical, morphological, and information-structural interactions, 17–35. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, A. & Siewierska, A. (eds.) (2011). Impersonal constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manzini, R. & Savoia, L. (1997). Null subjects without pro. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 91, 301–313.Google Scholar
Mathieu, É. (2006). Quirky subjects in Old French. Studia Linguistica 60(3), 282–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
May, R. (1991). Syntax, semantics, and logical form. In A. Kasher (ed.), The Chomskyan Turn, 334–359. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. (1970). English as a VSO language. Language 46.21, 286–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milsark, G. (1974). Existential sentences in English. Ph.D. dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, MA. Reprinted: New York: Garland, 1979.
Moro, A. (1997). The raising of predicates: Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Narrog, H. & Heine, B. (eds.) (2011). The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (2005). Possible and probable languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Partee, B. H. (1987). Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh & M. Stokhof (eds.), Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers, 115–143. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
(1992). Syntactic categories and semantic type. In M. Rosner & R. Johnson (eds.), Computational linguistics and formal semantics, 97–126. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfenninger, S. E. (2009). Grammaticalization paths of English and High German existential constructions: A corpus-based study. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Poletto, C. (2005). Sì and e as CP expletives in Old Italian. In M. Batllori, M.-L. Hernanz, C. Picallo & F. Roca (eds.), Grammaticalization and parametric variation, 206–235. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Postal, P. M. (2004). Skeptical linguistic essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, E. F. (1978). A comparison of WH-clefts and it-clefts in discourse. Language 54(4), 883–906. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richards, M. & Biberauer, T. (2005). Explaining expl. In M. den Dikken & C. Tortora (eds.), The function of function words and functional categories, 115–153. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I., & Roussou, A. (2003). Syntactic change. A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
(1973). A fake NP squish. In C.-J. Bailey & R. W. Shuy (eds.), New ways of analyzing variation in English, 96–140. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Sells, P. (2005). The peripherality of the Icelandic expletive. In M. Butt & T. Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG’05 conference, 408–428. Standford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Siewierska, A. (2008). Ways of impersonalizing: Pronominal vs. verbal strategies. In G. González, M. de los Ángeles, J. L. Mackenzie & E. M. González Álvarez, (eds.), Current trends in contrastive linguistics. Functional and cognitive perspectives, 3–26. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sigurðardottir, S. S. & Eythórsson, T. (2019). Stability and change in Icelandic weather verbs: Syntax, semantics and argument structure. In A. Breitbarth, M. Bouzouita, L. Danckaert & M. Farasyn (eds.), The determinants of diachronic stability, 69–99. Amsterdam: Benjamin. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sluckin, B. L. (2021). Non-canonical subjects and subject positions: locative inversion, V2-violations, and feature inheritance. PhD Thesis, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.
Sluckin, B. L., Cruschina, S. & Martine, F. (2021). Locative inversion in Germanic and Romance: a conspiracy theory. In C. Meklenborg & S. Wolfe (eds.), Germanic and Romance: Continuity and variation, 165–191. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. D. M. (2011). Grammaticalization and language evolution. In H. Narrog & B. Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization 142–152. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, P. (eds.) 2002. Subjects, expletives, and the EPP. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomaselli, A. & Bidese, E. (2023). Fortune and decay of lexical expletives in Germanic and Romance along the Adige River. Languages 8(1), 441: 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsiakmakis, E. & Espinal, M. T. (2022). Expletiveness in grammar and beyond. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 7.11, 1–36.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. (1995). Verb movement and expletive subjects in the Germanic languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, E. (1994). Thematic structure in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2006). The subject-predicate theory of there . Linguistic Inquiry 371, 648–651. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Witzenhausen, E. (2019). Negation — exception — contrast: the post-cyclical development of ne/en in Middle High German, Middle Low German and Middle Dutch. PhD thesis, Ghent University.
Wouden, T. van der. (1994). Polarity and ‘Illogical Negation’. In M. Kanazawa & C. J. Pin͂ón (eds.), Dynamics, polarity, and quantification, 17–48. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar