existence: semantics and syntax - Institut für Linguistik/Germanistik ...

TOWARDS ADYNAMIC ACCOUNT OF BE IN ENGLISH 39
?Ty(t)
Fo( , x, Keys ′ (x) ∧ Poss(Bill ′ ,x)) Fo(BE SK )
∋
Fo(λy.LOC(x, V)), ?∃x.Fo(x)
⇑
Fo(λx.On ′ (x, ( , y, T able ′ (y))))
Figure 14. Parsing Bill’s keys are there
∋
Generally, there may be interpreted as projecting an underspecified locative relation
involving an object and a location: LOC(THING, PLACE) (see Jackendoff
1983, etc.). In the predicative example in (32a) the expression will project a predicate
version of this (λx.LOC(x, PLACE)) which can be substituted by a specific
locative predicate that locates the keys (such as, for example, being on the table),
as illustrated in Figure 14, where the output propositional formula is (33).
(33) Fo(On ′ ((ɛ, x, Keys ′ (x) ∧ POSS(Bill ′ , x)), (ɛ, y, Table ′ (y))))
As a locative anaphor operating as an adjunct, the locativity of there may be treated
not as projecting an underspecified locative predicate, but as an underspecified
term, i.e. a metavariable, but with the locative content of the adverbial acting
as a constraint on substitution in exactly the same way as we have seen with
pronouns and definite noun phrases. In the case of a locative anaphor, the constraint
restricts potential substituends to PLACEs, things that can act as locations:
U ❀LOC(THING,U) . I do not discuss adjuncts in this paper, but adopt the general
hypothesis of Marten (2002) that such expressions are analysed as optional arguments
of type e. In interpreting (32b), therefore, the metavariable projected by
there appears as an argument of the verb meet and is substituted with the content of
the clubhouse with a presupposition that something (in this context, I or Bill) isat
that place: Fo(ɛ, x, Clubhouse ′ (x) ❀LOC(John ′ ,ɛ,x,Clubhouse ′ (x))). We thus get an
interpretation in which John often meets Bill at the clubhouse (when John is at the
clubhouse). 40
What of the expletive uses of there? One hypothesis is that some remnant
of the locative constraint remains with the expletive, but that the projected
metavariable satisfies not the PLACE of the locative relation, but the THING:
40 I do not provide a full analysis of this example, as the discussion would take me too far from
the current topic, nor do I address the question of the variability in type associated with PPs by this
hypothesis.