Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton November 16, 2018

Clause structure, case and agreement in Polish existential, possessive and locative sentences: A phase-based account

Joanna Błaszczak

Abstract

In this paper it will be argued that the difference between existential and locative sentences is primarily structurally encoded at the vP/VP level (at the first phase of a derivation). The crucial question is which argument of the verb BE (the Location or the nominal argument (“Theme”)) is projected as the “external argument”, i.e., which argument is the subject of inner predication. In the case of existential sentences it is the Location argument which is the subject of inner predication, and in the case of locative sentences it is the nominal argument. The subject of inner predication becomes by default also the subject of outer predication, i.e., the topic of the sentence. Hence, in the case of locative sentences the nominal argument is the subject of outer predication, i.e., the topic of the sentence, and in the case of existential sentences it is the Location which becomes the topic. (Or, alternatively, the actual topic (the subject of outer predication) might be the situational/ event variable, and the Location functions as a restriction on it.) However, the actual arrangement of constituents in the sentences under discussion, as in any other Polish sentence, is determined by the pragmatic/communicative principles. Given this, it is reasonable to think that the NOM/GEN case alternation in negated existential/locative sentences is primarily a matter of syntax, and not one of information structure or scope of negation. The analysis will be modeled in accordance with the phasal model of Chomsky (2000 et seq.).


Joanna Błaszczak Institute of English Studies University of Wrocław Kuźnicza 22 50-138 Wrocław Poland

References

Alexiadou, A. and E. Anagnostopoulou. 1998. “Parametrizing AGR: Word order, V-movement, and EPP-checking”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16(3). 491–539.10.1023/A:1006090432389Search in Google Scholar

Babby, L.H. 1980. Existential sentences and negation in Russian Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.Search in Google Scholar

Belvin, R. and M. den Dikken. 1997. “There happens, tobehave”. Lingua 101. 151–183.10.1016/S0024-3841(96)00049-6Search in Google Scholar

Benveniste, É. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale Paris: Gallimard.Search in Google Scholar

Bjorkman, B. and E. Cowper. 2015. “Where there is, and why”. Paper presented at the Congrès de l’ACL de 2015 / 2015 CLA meeting, May 30–June 1, 2015.Search in Google Scholar

Błaszczak, J. 2001. Investigation into the Interaction between the Indefinites and Negation (Studia grammatica 51.) Berlin: Akademie Verlag.10.1515/9783050080093Search in Google Scholar

Błaszczak, J. 2007. Phase syntax: The Polish Genitive of Negation. (Habilitation thesis, University of Potsdam.)Search in Google Scholar

Błaszczak, J. 2008a. “Differential subject marking in Polish: The case of ‘X was not at Y’ constructions”. In: de Hoop, H. and P. de Swart (eds.), Differential subject markingStudies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 72). Dordrecht: Springer. 113–149.Search in Google Scholar

Błaszczak, J. 2008b. “What HAS to BE used? Existential, locative, and possessive sentences in Polish”. In: Antonenko, A., J. Bailyn and C. Bethin (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 16: The Stony Brook 2006 Meeting Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. 31–47.Search in Google Scholar

Błaszczak, J. 2009. A spurious genitive puzzle in Polish. In: Hanneforth, T. and F. Gisbert (eds.), Language and logos. Studies in theoretical and computational linguistics. Festschrift for Peter Staudacher for his 70th birthday. Studia grammatica 72.) Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. 17–47.Search in Google Scholar

Boeckx, C. 2007. “Phases and explanatory adequacy: Contrasting two programs”. Theoretical Linguistics 33(1). 43–48.10.1515/TL.2007.002Search in Google Scholar

Boneh, N. 2010. “Deconstructing possession”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28. 1–40.10.1007/s11049-009-9087-zSearch in Google Scholar

Borschev, V. and B. Partee. 2002. The Russian genitive of negation in existential sentences: The role of theme-rheme structure reconsidered”. In: Hajičova, E., P. Sgall, J. Hana and T. Hoskovec (eds.), Travaux de Cercle Linguistique de Prague (nouvelle série) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 185–250.10.1075/plcp.4.11borSearch in Google Scholar

Broekhuis, H. and L. Cornips. 1997. “Inalienable possession in locational constructions”. Lingua 101. 185–209.10.1016/S0024-3841(93)00022-ZSearch in Google Scholar

Chierchia, G. 2004. “A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences”. In: Alexiadou, A., E. Anagnostopoulou and M. Everaert (eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle: Explorations of the syntax–lexicon interface Oxford: Oxford University Press. 22–59.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.003.0002Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program Cambridge: The MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 2000. “Minimalist inquiries: The framework”. In: Martin, R., D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (eds.) Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik Cambridge: MIT Press. 89–155.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In: Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language Cambridge: MIT Press. 1–52.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 2004. “Beyond explanatory adequacy”. In: Belletti A. (ed.), Structures and beyond – The cartography of syntactic structure (Vol. 3). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 104–131.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 2007. “Approaching UG from below”. In: Sauerland, U., and H.-M. Gärtner (eds.), Interfaces + recursion = language? Berlin: De Gruyter. 1–30.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 2008. “On phases”. In: Freidin, R., C. Otero and M.L. Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 133–166.Search in Google Scholar

Clark, E.V. 1970. “Locationals: A study of ‘existential,’ ‘locative’, and ‘possessive’ sentences”. Stanford University Working Papers in Language Universals 3. 1–36.Search in Google Scholar

Clark, E. 1978. “Locationals: Existential, locative and possessive constructions”. In: Greenberg, J. H. (ed.), Universals of human language. (Vol. 4: Syntax. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 85–126.Search in Google Scholar

den Dikken, Marcel. 1997. “The syntax of possession and the verb ‘have’”. Lingua 101 (3/4).129–150.10.1016/S0024-3841(96)00054-XSearch in Google Scholar

den Diken, Marcel. 2006. Relators and linkers. The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5873.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

den Dikken, Marcel. 2007a. “Phase extension. Contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction”. Theoretical Linguistics 33(1). 1–41.10.1515/TL.2007.001Search in Google Scholar

den Dikken, Marcel. 2007b. “Phase extension: A reply”. Theoretical Linguistics 33(1). 133–163.10.1515/TL.2007.010Search in Google Scholar

Dziwirek, K. 1994. Polish subjects New York: Garland Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

É. Kiss, K. 2002. “The EPP in a topic-prominent language”. In: Svenonius P. (ed.), Subjects, expletives, and the EPP Oxford: Oxford University Press. 107–124.Search in Google Scholar

Erteschik-Shir, N. 1997. The dynamics of focus structure Cambridge: CUP.10.1017/CBO9780511519949Search in Google Scholar

Freeze, R. 1992. “Existentials and other locatives”. Language 68. 553–595.10.2307/415794Search in Google Scholar

Grzegorek, M. 1984. Thematization in English and Polish. A study in word orderFilologia angielska 18.) Poznań: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu.Search in Google Scholar

Hajičová, E. 2003. “Information structure and syntactic complexity”. In: Kosta, P., J. Błaszczak, J. Frasek, L. Geist and M. Żygis (eds.), Investigations into Formal Slavic LinguisticsContributions of the Fourth European Conference on Formal Description of Slavic Languages (FDSL IV), held at Potsdam University, November 28–30, 2001. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 169–180.Search in Google Scholar

Harley, H. 1995. Subjects, Events and Licensing. (PhD dissertation, MIT.)Search in Google Scholar

Hartmann, J.M. and N. Milićević. 2008. “The syntax of existential sentences in Serbian”. In: Antonenko, A., J. Bailyn and C. Bethin (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 16: The Stony Brook 2006 Meeting Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. 168–184.Search in Google Scholar

Harves, S. 2002. Unaccusative syntax in Russian. (PhD dissertation, Princeton Univ.)Search in Google Scholar

Hazout, I. 2004. “The syntax of existential constructions”. Linguistic Inquiry 35(3). 393–430.10.1162/0024389041402616Search in Google Scholar

Heycock, C. and A. Kroch. 1998. “Inversion and equation in copular sentences”. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 10. 71–87.Search in Google Scholar

Hoekstra, T. 1994. “HAVE as BE plus or minus”. In: Cinque, G., J. Koster, J.-Y. Pollock, L. Rizzi and R. Zanuttini (eds.), Paths towards Universal Grammar. Studies in honor of Richard S. Kayne. Washington: Georgetown University Press. 199–215.Search in Google Scholar

Hoekstra, T. and R. Mulder. 1990. “Unergatives as copular verbs: Locational and existential predication”. The Linguistic Review 7. 1–79.10.1515/tlir.1990.7.1.1Search in Google Scholar

Hornstein, N. 1999. “Movement and control”. Linguistic Inquiry 30. 69–96.10.1075/la.154.01horSearch in Google Scholar

Jiménez-Fernándes, Á. and V. Spyropoulos. 2013. “Feature inheritance, VP phases and the information structure of small clauses”. Studia Linguistica 67(2). 185–224.10.1111/stul.12013Search in Google Scholar

Jung, H. 2011. The syntax of the be-possessive Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.172Search in Google Scholar

Junghanns, U. 2002. Prinzipien der Informationsstrukturierung in slavischen Sprachen. (Habilitation thesis, University of Leipzig.)Search in Google Scholar

Junghanns, U. 2003. “Fokussierungsstrategien in slavischen Sprachen”. In: Kosta, P., J. Błaszczak, J. Frasek, L. Geist, and M. Żygis (eds.), Investigations into Formal Slavic LinguisticsContributions of the Fourth European Conference on Formal Description of Slavic Languages (FDSL IV), held at Potsdam University, November 28–30, 2001. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 181–199.Search in Google Scholar

Krifka, M. 2007. “Basic notions of information structure”. In: Féry, C., G. Fanselow and M. Krifka (eds.), Working papers of the SFB632, Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure (ISIS) 6. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam. 13–56.Search in Google Scholar

Legate, J. 2005. „Phases and cyclic agreement”. In: McGinnis M. and N. Richards (eds.), Perspectives on phases. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49.) Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. 147–156.Search in Google Scholar

Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax–lexical semantics interface Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lindert, P. 2017. New insights into Polish Control: Evidence from predication, NP-ellipsis, and case. (PhD Dissertation, University of Stuttgart.)Search in Google Scholar

Maienborn, C. 1996. Situation und Lokation. Die Bedeutung lokaler Adjunkte von VerbalprojektionenStudien zur deutschen Grammatik 53). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Search in Google Scholar

Marantz, A. 1991. “Case and licensing”. In: Westphal, G., B. Ao and H.-R. Cae (eds.), ESCOL’91: Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics 234–253.Search in Google Scholar

Matushansky, O. 2006. “Head movement in linguistic theory“. Linguistic Inquiry 37(1). 69–109.10.1162/002438906775321184Search in Google Scholar

Matushansky, O. 2007. “Predication and escape hatches in phase extension theory”. Theoretical Linguistics 33(1). 93–104.10.1515/TL.2007.007Search in Google Scholar

Miyagawa, S. 2005. “On the EPP”. In: McGinnis, M. and N. Richards (eds.), Perspectives on phases. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49.) Cambridge, MA: MIT-WPL. 201–236.Search in Google Scholar

Moro, A. 1997. The raising of predicates Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511519956Search in Google Scholar

Muromatsu, K. 1997. “Two types of existentials: Evidence from Japanese”. Lingua 101. 245–269.10.1016/S0024-3841(96)00051-4Search in Google Scholar

Myler, N.J. 2014. Building and interpreting possession sentences. (PhD dissertation, New York University.)Search in Google Scholar

Nash, L. 1995. “The internal ergative subject hypothesis”. In: Kusumoto K. (ed.), Proceedings of NELS 26. Amherst, MA: GLSA. 195–209.Search in Google Scholar

Partee, B. 2000. “Topics under negation: ‘But the answer never came’”. In: Dölling J. and T. Pechmann (eds.), Prosodie – Struktur – Interpretation. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 74.) Leipzig: Universität Leipzig, Institut für Linguistik. 43–57.Search in Google Scholar

Partee, B. and V. Borschev. 2002. “Genitive of negation and scope of negation in Russian existential sentences”. In: Toman, J. (ed.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Ann Arbor Meeting Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications. 181–200.Search in Google Scholar

Partee, B. and V. Borschev. 2004. “The semantics of Russian genitive of negation: The nature and role of perspectival structure”. In: Watanabe, K. and R.B. Young (eds.), Proceedings of SALT XIV Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. 212–234.Search in Google Scholar

Partee, B. and V. Borschev. 2007. “Existential sentences, BE, and the genitive of negation in Russian”. In: Comorovski I. and K. von Heusinger (eds.), Existence: Semantics and syntax Dordrecht: Springer. 147–190.Search in Google Scholar

Pesetsky, D. 2007. “Property delay. (Remarks on “Phase Extension” by Marcel den Dikken.)” Theoretical Linguistics 33(1). 105–120.10.1515/TL.2007.008Search in Google Scholar

Pesetsky, D. and E. Torrego. 2007. “The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features”. In: Karimi, S., V. Samiian and W. Wilkins (eds.), Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation Amsterdam: Benjamins. 262–294.10.1075/la.101.14pesSearch in Google Scholar

Richards, M. 2007. “On feature inheritance: An argument from the phase impenetrability condition”. Linguistic Inquiry 38(3). 563–572.10.1162/ling.2007.38.3.563Search in Google Scholar

Rosengren, I. 1993. “Wahlfreiheit mit Konsequenzen – Scrambling, Topikalisierung und FHG im Dienste der Informationsstrukturierung“. In: Reis, M. (ed.), Wortstellung und InformationsstrukturLinguistische Arbeiten 306.) Tübingen: Niemeyer. 251–312.10.1515/9783111658469.251Search in Google Scholar

Sasse, H.-J. 1987. “The thetic/categorical distinction revisited”. Linguistics 25. 511–580.10.1515/ling.1987.25.3.511Search in Google Scholar

Sigurðsson, H.Á. 2006. “The nominative puzzle and the low nominative hypothesis”. Linguistic Inquiry 37(2). 289–308.10.1162/ling.2006.37.2.289Search in Google Scholar

Sgall, P. 2003. “Slavistics and the history of topic-focus studies”. In: Kosta, P., J. Błaszczak, J. Frasek, L. Geist, and M. Żygis (eds.), Investigations into Formal Slavic LinguisticsContributions of the Fourth European Conference on Formal Description of Slavic Languages (FDSL IV), held at Potsdam University, November 28–30, 2001. Linguistik International 10.) Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 201–212.Search in Google Scholar

Stepanov, A. 2004. “Ergativity, case and the minimal link condition”. In: Stepanov, A., G. Fanselow and R. Vogel (eds.), Minimality effects in syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 367–399.10.1515/9783110197365.367Search in Google Scholar

Stroik, T. 2009. Locality in minimalist syntax. (Ms.) Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 51.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262012928.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Stroik, T. and M.T. Putnam. 2005. “One step closer to a crash-proof syntax”. Paper presented at DEAL Workshop held in Berlin December 17–19, 2005.Search in Google Scholar

Surányi, B. 2007. “On phase extension and head movement”. Theoretical Linguistics 33(1). 121–132.10.1515/TL.2007.009Search in Google Scholar

Szwedek, A. 1974. “Some aspects of definitness and indefinitness of noun in Polish”. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 2. 203–211.Search in Google Scholar

Topolińska, Z. 1981. Remarks on the Slavic Noun PhrasePrace Instytutu Języka Polskiego 37.) Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk.Search in Google Scholar

Trask, R.L. 1979. “On the origins of ergativity”. In: Plank F. (ed.), Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations London: Academic Press. 385–404.Search in Google Scholar

van Schooneveld, C.H. 1951. “The aspect system of the Old Church Slavonic and Old Russian verbum finitum byti”. Word 7(2). 96–103.10.1080/00437956.1951.11659396Search in Google Scholar

Witkoś, J. 1998. The syntax of clitics: Steps towards a minimalist account Poznań: Motivex.Search in Google Scholar

Witkoś, J. 2000. “Nominative-to-genitive shift and the negative copula nie ma Implications for checking theory”. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 8(1–2): 295–327.Search in Google Scholar

Witkoś, J. 2010. “Movement theory of control and CP-infinitives in Polish”. In: Hornstein, N. and M. Polinsky (eds.), Movement theory of Control Amsterdam: Benjamins. 45–66.10.1075/la.154.02witSearch in Google Scholar

Woolford, E. 1997. “Four-way case systems: Ergative, nominative, objective, and accusative”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15. 181–227.10.1023/A:1005796113097Search in Google Scholar

Wood, J. 2012. “Against the movement theory of control: Another argument from Icelandic”. Linguistic Inquiry 43. 322–330.10.1162/LING_a_00089Search in Google Scholar

Woolford, E. 2003. “Burzio’s generalization, markedness, and locality constraints on nominative objects”. In: Brandner E. and H. Zinsmeister (eds.), New perspectives on case theory Stanford: CSLI Publications. 301–329.Search in Google Scholar

Woolford, E. 2006. “Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure”. Linguistic Inquiry 37(1). 111–130.10.1162/002438906775321175Search in Google Scholar

Zamparelli, R. 1995. Layers in the Determiner Phrase. (PhD dissertation, University of Rochester, NY.)Search in Google Scholar

Zwart, J.-W. 2007. “Uncharted territory? Towards a non-cartographic account of Germanic syntax”. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik (GAGL) 45. 55–75.Search in Google Scholar

Zwarts, J. 1992. X′-syntax – X′-semantics. On the interpretation of functional and lexical heads. (PhD dissertation, University of Utrecht.)Search in Google Scholar

Zybatow, G. and U. Junghanns. 1998. Topics im RussischenSprache und Pragmatik 47.) Lund: Germanistisches Institut der Universität Lund.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2018-11-16
Published in Print: 2018-11-27

© 2018 Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland

Scroll Up Arrow