Cover not available
Part of
Existential Constructions across Languages: Forms, meanings and functions
Edited by Laure Sarda and Ludovica Lena
[Human Cognitive Processing 76] 2023
► pp. 102–138

Chapter 4
Pure existentials vs. pure presentationals

Finding an existence out(side) of place

ORCID logo | University of Turin, Italy
Existential constructions are usually defined as sentences in which an entity is associated with some location. In the paper, a semasiological approach is adopted, which is essentially constructional in nature and assumes that existential constructions result from the grammaticalization of other (more basic) source constructions. This allows us to show that in spite of the basic nature of the spatial dimension, other source constructions are possible which are not directly based on space. They can be contrasted with pure presentationals which in a way represent their conceptual counterpart in the sense that the existence of the entity involved is presupposed only with regard to the specific utterance and is not independently established in the spatial dimension.
Keywords: grammaticalization, semasiological approach, spatial dimension
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.A semasiological approach for ECs
    • 2.1The semasiological view
    • 2.2Contrasting languages in the semasiological approach
      • 2.2.1PARTs as semasiological components
      • 2.2.2PREDs as semasiological objects
      • 2.2.3ENTs as semasiological objects
    • 2.3Interim conclusion
  • 3.Existential or presentational?
    • 3.1Pure existentials
    • 3.2Pure presentationals
  • 4.The curious case of the pure presentational ecco and voilà
    • 4.1The syntactic entrenchment of pure presentationals
      • 4.1.1The internal syntax of pure presentationals
      • 4.1.2The external syntax of pure presentationals
    • 4.2Phylogeny of pure presentationals
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • List of glosses
  • References
Published online: 5 July 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.76.04gae
References (55)
References
Bauer, W. 1997. The Reed reference grammar of Maori. Auckland: Reed.Google Scholar
Bech, G. 1968. Über das niederländische Adverbialpronomen er. In J. Hoogteijling (Ed.), Taalkunde in artikelen. Een verzameling artikelen over het Nederlands (147–174). Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Bentley, D. 2013. Subject canonicality and definiteness effects in Romance there-sentences. Language 89(4), 675–712. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. “Existentials and locatives in Romance dialects of Italy. Introduction”. In D. Bentley, F. M. Ciconte, & S. Cruschina (Eds.), Existentials and Locatives in Romance Dialects of Italy (1–42). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bentley, D., Ciconte, F. M., & Cruschina, S. 2013. Existential constructions in crosslinguistic perspective. Rivista di Linguistica 25(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
Bergen, B. K., & Plauché, M. C. 2005. The convergent evolution of radial constructions: French and English deictics and existentials. Cognitive Linguistics 16(1), 1–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonhoeffer, D. 1988. Werke. Band 2. München: Kaiser.Google Scholar
Carlson, G. N. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. PhD Diss. University of Massachusetts, Amherst [Published in New York & London: Garland, 1980].
Comrie, B. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Syntax and Morphology. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Creissels, D. This volume. Existential predication and have-possessive constructions in the languages of the world. In Sarda, L. & Lena, L. (Eds.), Existential constructions across languages: Forms, meanings and functions (34–67). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. Typology and universals. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Czinglar, C. 2002. Decomposing existence: Evidence from Germanic. In W. Abraham, & J-W. Zwart (Eds.), Issues in Formal German(ic) Typology (85–126). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Vaan, M. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of Latin (and the other Italic Languages). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Devoto, G. 1974. Lezioni di sintassi prestrutturale. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.Google Scholar
Diez, F. 1882. Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen. 5th ed. Bonn: Weber.Google Scholar
Donaldson, B. 2008. Dutch. A Comprehensive Grammar. 2nd ed. London & New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, P. 2013. Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik. Band 2: Der Satz. Unter Mitarbeit von Rolf Thieroff. 4th ed. Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar
Francez, I. 2007. Existential Propositions. PhD. Diss. Stanford University.
Freeze, R. 2001. Existential constructions. In M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher, & W. Raible (Eds.), Language Typology and Language Universals Vol. 2 (941–953). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gaeta, L. 2005. Hilfsverben und Grammatikalisierung: Die fatale Attraktion von geben. In T. Leuschner, T. Mortelmans, & S. De Groodt (Eds.), Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen (193–209). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013a. Existential constructions: a semasiological perspective. In E. van Gelderen, J. Barðdal, & M. Cennamo (Eds.), Argument Structure in Flux: The Naples-Capri Papers (477–509). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013b. Ecco, ecco, l’ho trovata: La tenace persistenza di un’impalcatura cognitiva primaria. In S. De Knop, F. Mollica, & J. Kuhn (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik in den romanischen Sprachen (45–74). Frankfurt/Main: Lang.Google Scholar
2021. Comparative constructions across the German minorities of Italy: a semasiological approach. Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads (LTC) 1(1), 288–332.Google Scholar
Forthcoming. Evolutionary steps for linguistic signs: The place of indexicality.
Gast, V., & Haas, F. 2011. On the distribution of subject properties in formulaic presentationals of Germanic and Romance. A diachronic-typological approach. In A. Malchukov, & A. Siewierska (Eds.), Impersonal constructions. A cross-linguistic perspective (127–166). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. 2010. Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Glynn, D. 2015. Semasiology and onomasiology. In J. Daems, E. Zenner, K. Heylen, D. Speelman, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Change of Paradigms – New Paradoxes. Recontextualizing Language and Linguistics (47–79). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Gécseg, Z. & Sarda, L. This volume. On a continuum from categorical to thetic judgment: Indefinite subjects and locatives in Hungarian and French. In Sarda, L. & Lena, L. (Eds.), Existential constructions across languages: Forms, meanings and functions (180–218). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Grimm, J. 1837. Deutsche Grammatik. Vierter Teil. Erste Hälfte. Göttingen: Dieterich.Google Scholar
Hartmann, J. M. 2008. Expletives in existentials. English there and German da. Utrecht: LOT Dissertation Series.
Haspelmath, M. 2001. The European linguistic area: Standard Average European. In M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher, & W. Raible (Eds.), Language Typology and Language Universals Vol. 2 (1492–1510). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. 1993. Auxiliaries. Cognitive forces and grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1997. Cognitive foundations of grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, K. 1992. Non-verbal Predication. Theory, Typology, Diachrony. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huumo, T. This volume. The Finnish existential clause: Aspect, case marking and the quantification of the S argument. In Sarda, L. & Lena, L. (Eds.), Existential constructions across languages: Forms, meanings and functions (220–244). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karssenberg, L., Lahousse, K., & Marzo, S. 2018. Les clivées en voici / voilà: une analyse de corpus. Linguisticae Investigationes 41(2), 129–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koch, P. 2003. From subject to object and from object to subject: (De)personalization, floating and reanalysis in presentative verbs. In G. Fiorentino (Ed.), Romance objects: Transitivity in Romance Languages (153–185). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Location, existence, and possession: A constructional-typological exploration. Linguistics 50(3), 533–603. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. Topic, focus and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lazard, G. 1994. L’actant H: sujet ou objet?. Bulletin de la Societé de Linguistique de Paris, 89, 1–28.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2009. Grammatica diacronica del napoletano. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McNally, L. 2016. Existential sentences cross-linguistically: Variations in form and meaning. Annual Review of Linguistics, 2, 211–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morin, Y-C. 1985. On the two French subjectless verbs voici and voilà. Language 61(4), 777–820. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newman, J. 1998. The origin of the German es gibt construction. In J. Newman (Ed.), The linguistics of giving (307–325). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pokorny, J. 2002. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 5th ed. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
REW = Romanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch by Wilhelm Meyer-Lübcke. Heidelberg: Winter, 1911.Google Scholar
Sasse, H-J. 2006. Theticity. In G. Bernini, & M. L. Schwartz (Eds.), Pragmatic organization of discourse in the languages of Europe (255–308). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stolz, Th. 2013. Competing comparative constructions in Europe. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tao, H. 2007. Subjectification and the development of special-verb existential/presentative constructions. Language and Linguistics 8(2), 575–602.Google Scholar