Hostname: page-component-77c78cf97d-hf2s2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-24T12:39:57.890Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Existentials and Other Locatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Ray Freeze
Ray Freeze*
Affiliation:
University of Utah
*
Linguistics Program, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84102
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A theory is proposed that unites the universal locative paradigm consisting of the predicate locative, the existential, and the ‘have’ predication. This is accomplished by deriving all three from a single underlying structure in which a preposition is the head of the predicate phrase. The existential and the ‘have’ structure, both having a derived locative subject, are differentiated from the predicate locative by the definiteness effect. ‘Have’ predications of various kinds, including those with ‘have’ copulas, are claimed to differ from existentials because their locative constituent contains a [+human] argument. Apparently disparate facts from many languages are accounted for and a general explanation is offered for the distinction between a ‘have’ copula and a ‘be’ copula.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 68 , Issue 3 , September 1992 , pp. 553 - 595
Copyright
Copyright © 1992 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

Footnotes

*

This paper represents a view of locative predications that I have been developing over the last ten years. I am grateful to Mark Baker, Ken Hale, Gary Milsark, and Ken Safír for discussion of an early version of this work. A debt is also owed to two anonymous reviewers for urging me to clarify certain aspects of my argumentation. I am especially grateful to Carol Georgopoulos, for her patience and our critical discussions over a period of more than two years. She encouraged me to greatly deepen my understanding of the data and its theoretical importance; without her encouragement and generous help, this paper would still only exist in my mind. What I have done with it, however, be on my own head.

References

Albo, Xavier S. J. 1964. El Quechua a su alcance. Cochabamba, Bolivia: Centro Audio Visual USAID, Alianza para el progreso.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1982. Where’s morphology? Linguistic Inquiry 13. 571–612.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1988. Morphological change. Linguistics: The Cambridge survey, ed. by Newmeyer, Frederick, vol. 1.324–62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1990. The grammar of Icelandic verbs in -st. In Maling & Zaenen (eds.), 235–73.Google Scholar
Anward, Jan. 1982. Basic Swedish. Readings in unbounded dependencies in Scandinavian languages, ed. by Engdahl, Elisabet and Ejerhed, Eva, 47–75. Stockholm: Umeå Studies in the Humanities, distributed by Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1967. Have and be in English syntax. Lg. 43.462–85.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana, and Rizzi, Luigi. 1981. The syntax of ne: Some theoretical implications. The Linguistic Review 1. 117–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belletti, Adriana, and Rizzi, Luigi. 1988. Psych-verbs and theta-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6. 291–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bender, Ernest. 1968. Hindi grammar and reader. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Bills, Garland, Vallejo, Bernardo; and Troike, Rudolph C. 1969. Spoken Bolivian Quechua. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Blair, Robert, and Vermont-Salas, Refugio. 1965. Spoken (Yucatec) Maya. Chicago: University of Chicago Department of Anthropology.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Kanerva, Jonni M. 1989. Locative inversion in Chichewa: A case study of factorization in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 1–50.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1985. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 1990. VPs and verb movement in Chamorro. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8. 559–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchward, C. Maxwell. 1953. Tongan grammar. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1968. The case for case. Universais in linguistic theory, ed. by Bach, Emmon and Harms, Robert, 1–88. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Freeze, Ray. 1991. Existential in Austronesian. Paper presented at the Sixth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Honolulu.Google Scholar
Fukui, Naoki, and Speas, Margaret. 1986. Specifiers and projection. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 8. 128–72.Google Scholar
Georgopoulos, Carol. 1986. Palauan as a VOS language. FOCAL: Papers from the Fourth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, ed. by Geraghty, Paul, Carrington, Lois, and Wurm, S. A., 187–98. Canberra: Linguistic Circle of Canberra, The Australian National University Printing Service.Google Scholar
Georgopoulos, Carol. 1991. On psych predicates. Interdisciplinary approaches to language: Essays in honor of S.-Y. Kuroda, ed. by Georgopoulos, Carol and Ishihara, Robert, 217–38. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane, and Riemsdijk, Henk van. 1986. Verb projection raising, scope, and typology of rules affecting verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 417–66.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun, and Mulder, Rene. 1990. Unergatives as copular verbs: Locational and existential predication. The Linguistic Review 7. 1–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Walter G. 1952. Beginning Swedish. Rock Island, IL: Augustana Book Concern.Google Scholar
Käyne, Richard. 1975. French syntax: The transformational cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda. 1984. The syntax of verbs. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda, and Sportiche, Dominique. 1988. Subjects. Los Angeles: UCLA, ms.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumo. 1971. The position of locatives in existential sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 2. 333–78.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumo. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1986. Whether we agree or not. Lingvisticae Investigationes 12. 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Language in the inner city. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lepschy, Anna, and Lepschy, Giulio. 1988. The Italian language today. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Lewis, G. L. 1953. Teach yourself Turkish. Bungay: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1967. A note on possessive, existential, and locative sentences. Foundations of Language 3. 390–96.Google Scholar
Mackinnon, Roderick. 1971. Teach yourself Scots Gaelic. Bungay: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar
Maling, Joan. 1987. Existential sentences in Swedish and Icelandic: Reference to thematic roles. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 9. 175–92.Google Scholar
Maling, Joan. 1990. Inversion in embedded clauses in Modern Icelandic. In Maling & Zaenen (eds.), 71–91.Google Scholar
Maling, Joan, and Zaenen, Annie. 1990. The nonuniversality of a surface filter. In Maling & Zaenen (eds.), 383–407.Google Scholar
Maling, Joan, (eds.) 1990. Syntax and semantics 24: Modern Icelandic syntax. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinez Hernandez, Juan. 1929. Diccionario de Motul. Mérida: Talleres de la Compañía Tipográfica de Yucatan.Google Scholar
Marva, Jeroni. 1968. Curs superior de gramática Catalana. Barcelona: Editorial Barcino.Google Scholar
Milsark, Gary. 1974. Existential sentences in English. Cambridge, MA; MIT dissertation. [Distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.]Google Scholar
Reuland, Eric, and Meulen, Alice ter. 1987. The representation of (in)definiteness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ritkonen-Bell, Aili. 1987. Conversational Finnish. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of State, Foreign Service Institute.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Eiríkur, Rögnvaldsson, and ThrAinsson, Höskuldur. 1990. On Icelandic word order once more. In Maling & Zaenen (eds.), 3–40.Google Scholar
Rouveret, Alain, and Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1980. Specifying reference to the subject: French causatives and conditions on representations. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 97–202.Google Scholar
Safir, Ken. 1982. Syntactic chains and the definiteness effect. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1981. The possessive construction in Hungarian: A configurational category in a non-configurational language. Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientia- rum Hungaricae 31. 261–89.Google Scholar
Thiersch, Craig. 1978. Topics in German syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Topping, Donald M. 1973. Chamorro reference grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travis, Lisa. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Visser, Fredericus Theodorus. 1963. An historical syntax of the English language, vol. 1. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Wick, Stanley, and Cochojil-Gonzalez, Remijio. 1966-67. Spoken Quiché Maya, books 1 and 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Department of Anthropology.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 203–38.Google Scholar
Yates, Alan. 1975. Teach yourself Catalan. Bungay: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar