Cover not available
Article In:
The Evolution of Expletives: Theoretical and diachronic perspectives
Edited by Eric Fuß and Benjamin L. Sluckin
[Evolutionary Linguistic Theory 6:1/2] 2024
► pp. 93–120

Locative-based expletives as situation proforms

Dutch er, German da and English there

 | Bielefeld University
This paper addresses the question to what extent locative/situational proforms such as German da, Dutch er/daar and English there are to be considered expletives. It considers the main contexts of use for all three languages, their appearance as modifiers, in existential constructions and in other potential expletive positions, such as Spec,TP and Spec,CP, as well as the uses as correlates to clauses. The paper argues that all three locative-based proforms act as situation proforms, though they show differences in their syntax. English there is restricted to locative modifier uses and can only appear as situation proform in the existential constructions; German da appears in existential contexts, and it also has a situation proform use in modifier position. Dutch er has the broadest distribution ranging from existential to Spec,TP and — resulting from that — Spec,CP positions. Finally, Dutch er and German da occur as correlate with prepositional object clauses. The paper offers a comparative analysis in which the difference between those elements result from different base positions and other general differences between the languages.
Keywords: expletive, existential, situation proform, correlate, modifiers
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data: Locative proforms in German, Dutch and English
    • 2.1German da
    • 2.2Dutch er & daar
    • 2.3English there
    • 2.4Summary
  • 3.Proposal
    • 3.1The syntax of anaphoric da, er, daar, there
    • 3.2 Da, er, there in existential contexts
    • 3.3 Er as situation topic in Spec,TP
    • 3.4A note on Bayer and Suchsland (1997)
    • 3.5Cataphoric expletives
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (64)
References
Alexiadou, A. & Schäfer, F. (2019). An unaccusativity diagnostic at the syntax-semantics interface: ’there’-insertion, indefinites and restitutive ’again’. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, 15 1, 101–116.Google Scholar
Barbiers, S. & Rooryck, J. (1999). On the interpretation of there in Existentials. In K. Shahin, S. Blake & E.-S. Kim (Eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 17 1 (pp. 59–73). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Bayer, J. & Suchsland, P. (1997). Expletiva und leere Subjekte im Deutschen. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik, 41 1, 12–38.Google Scholar
Bennis, H. (1987). Gaps and Dummies (Reprint 2010). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T. (2004). Reconsidering the EPP and Spec-TP in Germanic. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics COPiL, 1 1, 15–40.Google Scholar
Breindl, E. (1989). Präpositionalobjekte und Präpositionalobjektsätze im Deutschen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broekhuis, H. (2013). Syntax of Dutch. Adpositions and Adposition Phrases. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broekhuis, H. & Corver, N. (2019). Syntax of Dutch. Verbs and Verb Phrases. Volume III. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H. & Dikken, M. d. (2012). Syntax of Dutch. Nouns and Noun Phrases: Bd. 2. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
COSMAS II (Corpus Search, Management and Analysis System). (1991–2012). Institut für Deutsche Sprache, Mannheim.Google Scholar
Deal, A. R. (2009). The Origin and Context of Expletives: Evidence from ‘Selection’. Syntax, 12 (4), 285–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeReKo — Das Deutsche Referenzkorpus, Ausgabe 2006-I. (2006). [URL]. Institut für Deutsche Sprache, Mannheim.
Diesing, M. (1992). Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Donaldson, B. (2008). Dutch. A Comprehensive Grammar (2nd ed.). London / New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Dutch: A Comprehensive Grammar (3rd ed.). London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehrich, V. (1982). Da and the System of Spatial Deixis in German. In J. Weissenborn & W. Klein (Eds.), Here and There: Cross-linguistic Studies on Deixis and Demonstration (pp. 43–63). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1992). Hier und Jetzt: Studien zur lokalen und temporalen Deixis im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elliott, P. (2020). Elements of clausal embedding (Doctoral dissertation, University College London, London).
Felser, C. & Rupp, L. (1997). A Minimalist Approach to Existential Constructions in Germanic. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, 45–80.Google Scholar
(2001). Expletives as Arguments: Germanic Existential Sentences Revisited. Linguistische Berichte, 187 1, 289–324.Google Scholar
Frey, W. (2004). A Medial Topic Position for German. Linguistische Berichte, 198 1, 153–190.Google Scholar
(2016). On properties differentiating constructions with inner-sentential pro-forms for clauses. In W. Frey, A. Meinunger & K. Schwabe (Eds.), Inner-sentential propositional proforms (pp. 73–103). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frey, W. & Pittner, K. (1998). Zur Positionierung der Adverbiale im deutschen Mittelfeld. Linguistische Berichte, 176 1, 489–534.Google Scholar
Fuß, E. (2024). Some remarks on the properties and analysis of expletive ‘es’ in German. Manuscript, University of Bochum.Google Scholar
Fuß, E. & Hinterhölzl, R. (2023). On The Historical Development Of Pronouns Referring To Situations: The Rise Of Pre-Finite ‘Expletives’ In German. Journal of Historical Syntax, 7 1, 1–54.Google Scholar
Gunkel, L. & Hartmann, J. M. (2020). Remarks on prepositional object clauses in Germanic. Nordlyd, 44 (1), 69–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021). Präpositionalobjektsätze im europäischen Vergleich. In H. Lobin, A. Witt & A. Wöllstein-Leisten (Eds.), Deutsch in Europa (pp. 111–134). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haider, H. (1997). Projective Economy: On the Minimal Functional Structure of the German clause. In W. Abraham & E. van Gelderen (Eds.), German: Syntactic Problems — Problematic Syntax (pp. 83–103). Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). The Syntax of German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartman, J. (2012). Varieties of clausal complementation (Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA).
Hartmann, J. M. (2008). Expletives in Existentials: English there and German da. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
(2011). Predicate Inversion and English there-sentences. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 58 (3), 221–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022). Clausal arguments of adjectival predicates: Evidence from wh- movement. In G. Alboiu, D. Isac & A. Nicolae (Eds.), A Life in Linguistics: A Festschrift for Alexandra Cornilescu on her 75th Birthday (pp. 359–368). Bucharest: Bucharest University Press.Google Scholar
Hazout, I. (2004). The Syntax of Existential Constructions. Linguistic Inquiry, 35 1, 393–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinterhölzl, R. (2019). Subjects, topics, and anchoring to the context. Syntax, 22 1, 199–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2024). Giving content to expletive ‘es’ in German. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 27 (1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huijbregts, R. (1991). Clitics. In J. Model (Ed.), Grammatische analyse: Syntactische verschijnselen in het Nederlands en het Engels (pp. 227–269). Dordrecht: ICG publications.Google Scholar
Jenkins, L. (1975). The English Existential. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jong, F. d. & Verkuyl, H. (1985). Generalized quantifiers: The properness of their strength. In J. van Benthem & A. G. B. ter Meulen (Eds.), Generalized quantifiers in natural language (pp. 270–285). Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kirsner, R. S. (1979). The problem of presentative sentences in Modern Dutch. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Koster, J. (1978). Why Subject Sentences Don’t Exist. In S. J. Keyser (Ed.), Recent Transformational Studies in European Languages (pp. 53–64). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (2007). Situations in Natural Language Semantics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2007 Edition). Stanford: The Metaphysics Research Lab, University of Stanford.Google Scholar
Maienborn, C. (2001). On the Position and Interpretation of Locative Modifiers. Natural Language Semantics, 9 1, 191–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milsark, G. L. (1974). Existential Sentences in English. New York/ London: Garland.Google Scholar
(1977). Toward an Explanation of Certain Peculiarities of the Existential con-struction in English. Linguistic Analysis, 3 (1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Moro, A. (1997). The Raising of Predicates: Predicative Noun Phrases and the Theory of Clause Structure. Cambridge/ New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moulton, K. (2009). Natural Selection and the Syntax of Clausal Complementation (Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst).Google Scholar
(2015). CPs: Copies and Compositionality. Linguistic inquiry, 46 (2), 305–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, A. & Weerman, F. (1999). Flexible Syntax: A Theory of Case and Arguments. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 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 (pp. 115–153). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, P. S. (1967). The Grammar of English Predicate — Complement Constructions. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
Ruys, E. G. (2001). Dutch Scrambling and the Strong-Weak Distinction. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 4 1, 39–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sluckin, B. L. (2021). Non-canonical subjects and subject positions: Locative inversion, v2-violations, and feature inheritance. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sternefeld, W. (2009). Syntax: Eine morphologisch motivierte generative Beschreibung des Deutschen (31., überarb. Aufl.). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Sudhoff, S. (2003). Argumentsätze und es-Korrelate: Zur syntaktischen Struktur von Neben-satzeinbettungen im Deutschen. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin.Google Scholar
(2016). Correlates of object clauses in German and Dutch. In W. Frey, A. Meinunger & K. Schwabe (Eds.), Inner-sentential propositional proforms (pp. 23–48). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thráinsson, H. (2007). The Syntax of Icelandic. New York: Cambridge Univ Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Noord, G., Schuurman, I., & Vandeghinste, V. (2006). Syntactic Annotation of Large Corpora in STEVIN. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, A. Gangemi, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, J. Odijk, D. Tapias (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC) (pp. 1811-1814). Genoa, Italy: ELRA.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1994). Thematic Structure in Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
(2006). The Subject-Predicate Theory of there. Linguistic Inquiry, 37 (4), 648–651. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zamparelli, R. (2000). Layers in the Determiner Phrase. New York/ London: Garland.Google Scholar
Zifonun, G., Hoffmann, L. & Strecker, B. (1997). Grammatik der deutschen Sprache: Band 1. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar