There as an Existential Operator

Abstract

In this paper I attempt to show that by analyzing there as an existential operator we can have principled accounts for most of the fundamental questions about there constructions. This amounts to saying that there is equivalent to ∃ in symbolic logic. In other words, ∃ is lexicalized as there in English. Given this, we can interpret the close relation between there and the associate basically to be a reflex of the operator property of there. Thus there requires a variable, and the associate nominal serves as its variable. This enables us to treat many there-related ill-formed sentences as instances of vacuous quantification, hence the ungrammaticality. Based on this, I suggest that there should not be treated as a semantically superfluous element and that there constructions have nothing to do with representational economy. In the course of the discussion, I suggest that there is a D° element and is minimally different from other D elements that appear in subject position. To be more specific, it lacks only the number feature while bearing a Case feature as well as other agreement features. I also suggest that English grammar leaves open the possibility of existential there having the complete set of ø-features and that at least when this option is taken, there should not be treated as a predicate contra Dikken(1995) and Moro (1997).