1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Evolutionary Linguistic Theory
  4. Volume 6, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 6, Issue 1-2
  • ISSN 2589-1588
  • E-ISSN: 2589-1596
EPUB
PDF

Abstract

Abstract

Locative Inversion (LI) in English is a broad-focus inversion structure in which a spatio-deictic XP seemingly occupies the canonical subject position. An analysis of LI must explain EPP-satisfaction: previous approaches take either a silent expletive (Bruening, 2010; Coopmans, 1989; Postal, 2004) to value EPP or they consider the locative element to do so like expletive . Indeed, LI resembles inversion under , showing pragmatic, lexical-semantic, and syntactic restrictions, being limited mostly to unaccusatives of speaker-directed movement/orientation, while verbs of disappearance or change-of-state are largely unacceptable. However, unlike inversion under , LI does not trigger definiteness effects which are associated with expletives. Moreover, LI is incompatible with negation, -support and the present perfect. We propose that LI is an inherently evidential construction. This behaviour results from an EPP-satisfying logophoric covert perceiver argument dubbed (Sluckin, Cruschina & Martin, 2021) which provides an alternative to the typologically anomalous expletive . moves from a vP-internal position scoping over a Small Clause to Spec,TP and is licensed only by contexts and verbs which can presuppose a perception event on the part of a perceiver. This explains previous observations that LI involves a visual experiential component (Breivik, 1989; Brinton & Stein, 1995). Importantly, derives known pragmatic and lexical-semantic restrictions on LI, e.g., no disappearance unaccusatives, negation (which negates a perceivable event), and the English present perfect which is infelicitous in reports of direct perception. Furthermore, we show that all unergative verbs participating in LI are coerced into an unaccusative structure.

© 2024 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00058.slu
2025-03-06
2025-03-22

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/elt.00058.slu
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/elt.00058.slu.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00058.slu&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Acedo-Matellan, V.
    (2016) The morphosyntax of transitions: A case study in Latin and other languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198733287.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198733287.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Acedo-Matellan, V. & Mateu, J.
    (2014) From syntax to roots: A syntactic approach to root interpretation. InA. Alexiadou, H. Borer & F. Schäfer (Eds.), The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax (pp. 14–32). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665266.003.0002
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665266.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
  3. Alexiadou, A. & Anagnostopoulou, E.
    (1998) Parametrizing AGR : Word order, V-movement and EPP-checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16(3), 491–539. 10.1023/A:1006090432389
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006090432389 [Google Scholar]
  4. (2001) The subject-in-situ generalization and the role of Case in driving computations. Linguistic Inquiry, 32(2), 193–231. 10.1162/00243890152001753
     https://doi.org/10.1162/00243890152001753 [Google Scholar]
  5. Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E. & Schäfer, F.
    (2015) External arguments in transitivity alterations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199571949.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199571949.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Alexiadou, A., Gehrke, B. & Schäfer, F.
    (2014) The argument structure of adjectival participles revisited. Lingua, 1491, 118–138. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.05.018
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.05.018 [Google Scholar]
  7. Alexiadou, A. & Schäfer, F.
    (2011) There-insertion: An unaccusativity mismatch at the syntax-semantics interface. InM. B. Washburn (Eds.), Online proceedings of WCCFL281. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Belletti, A.
    (1988) The case of unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 19(1), 1–34.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. (2004) Aspects of the low IP area. InL. Rizzi (Ed.), The structure of CP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures (Vol.21, pp. 16–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780195159486.003.0002
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195159486.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
  10. Belletti, A. & Rizzi, L.
    (1988) Psych verbs and theta-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 61, 291–352. 10.1007/BF00133902
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133902 [Google Scholar]
  11. Benincà, P.
    (1988) L’ordine degli elementi della frase e le costruzioni marcate. InL. Renzi, G. Salvi & A. Cardinaletti (Eds.), Grande Grammatica Italiana di Consultazione (pp. 115–225). Bologna: Il Mulino.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Bentley, D. & Cruschina, S.
    (2018) The silent argument of broad focus: Typology and predictions. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 3(1).
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Bentley, D., Maria Ciconte, F. & Cruschina, S.
    (2015) Existentials and locatives in Romance dialects of Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198745266.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198745266.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bhatt, R. & Pancheva, R.
    (2006) Implicit arguments. InThe Blackwel l companion to syntax (Vol.21). Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470996591.ch34
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996591.ch34 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2017) Implicit arguments. InM. Everaert & H. C. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Blackwel l companion to syntax (2nd ed.). Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom118
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom118 [Google Scholar]
  16. Bianchi, V.
    (1993) Subject positions and e-positions. Quaderni del Laboratorio di Linguistica, 71, 51–69.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Biberauer, T.
    (2010) Semi pro-drop languages, expletives, and expletive pro reconsidered. InT. Biberauer, A. Holmberg, I. Roberts & M. Sheehan (Eds.), Parametric variation (p.153–199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I. & Sheehan, M.
    (2010) Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Biberauer, T. & Roberts, I.
    (2010) Subjects, tense and verb-movement. InT. Biberauer, A. Holmberg, I. Roberts & M. Sheehan (Eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory (p.263–303). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Birner, B. J.
    (1994) Information status and word order: An analysis of English inversion. Language, 70(2), 233–259. 10.2307/415828
     https://doi.org/10.2307/415828 [Google Scholar]
  21. (1996) The discourse function of inversion in English. New York/London: Taylor & Francis.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Bobaljik, J. D.
    (2008) Paradigms (optimal and otherwise): A case for scepticism. InA. Bachrach & A. Nevins (Eds.), Inflectional identity (pp. 29–54). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199219254.003.0002
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199219254.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
  23. Borschev, V. & Partee, B. H.
    (1998) Formal and lexical semantics and the genitive in negated existential sentences in Russian. InBošković, S. Franks & W. Snyder (Eds.), Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: The Connecticut meeting 1997 (Vol.61, p.75–96). MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Bošković, Ž.
    (2011) On valued uninterpretable features. InS. Lima, K. Mullin & B. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th annual meeting of the north east linguistic society (p.109–120). University of Massachusetts Amherst: GLSA.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Bosse, S., Bruening, B. & Yamada, M.
    (2012) Affected experiencers. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 30(4), 1185–1230. 10.1007/s11049‑012‑9177‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-012-9177-1 [Google Scholar]
  26. Bowers, J.
    (1993) The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry, 241, 591–656.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. (2010) Arguments as relations. Cambridge, MA.: MIT University Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262014311.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262014311.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  28. Breivik, L. E.
    (1989) On the causes of syntactic change in English. InL. E. Breivik & E. H. Jahr (Eds.), Language change. contributions to the study of its causes (p.29–70). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110853063.29
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110853063.29 [Google Scholar]
  29. Bresnan, J.
    (1977) Variables in the theory of transformations. InP. Culicover, T. Wasow & A. Akmajian (Eds.), Formal syntax (p.157–196). New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. (1994) Locative Inversion and the architecture of universal grammar. Language, 70(1), 72–131. 10.2307/416741
     https://doi.org/10.2307/416741 [Google Scholar]
  31. Brinton, L. J. & Stein, D.
    (1995) Functional renewal. InHistorical linguistics, 1993: Selected papers from the 11th international conference on historical linguistics, Los Angeles, 16–20 august 1993 (Vol.1241, pp. 33–47). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.124.04bri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.124.04bri [Google Scholar]
  32. Bruening, B.
    (2010) Language-particular syntactic rules and constraints: English Locative Inversion and do-support. Language, 86(1), 43–84. 10.1353/lan.0.0201
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0201 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2021) Locative Inversion, PP Topicalization, and Weak Crossover in English. Journal of Linguistics, 1–19. 10.1017/S0022226721000414
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226721000414 [Google Scholar]
  34. Cardinaletti, A.
    (2004) Towards a cartogrpahy of subject positions. InL. Rizzi (Ed.), The structure of CP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures (Vol.21, pp. 115–165). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780195159486.003.0005
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195159486.003.0005 [Google Scholar]
  35. Cardinaletti, A. & Starke, M.
    (1999) The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of three classes of pronouns. InClitics in the languages of Europe. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110804010.145
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110804010.145 [Google Scholar]
  36. Carlson, G.
    (1977) A unified analysis of the English bare plural. Linguistics and Philosophy, 11, 413–457. 10.1007/BF00353456
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00353456 [Google Scholar]
  37. Chomsky, N.
    (1982) Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. (1995) The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. (2000) Minimalist inquiries: the framework. InR. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–155). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. (2001) Derivation by phase. InM. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/4056.003.0004
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4056.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2008) On Phases. InR. Freidin, C. P. Otero & M. L. Zubizarreta (Eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory. essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud (pp. 133–166). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/7713.003.0009
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7713.003.0009 [Google Scholar]
  42. Cinque, G.
    (1995) Italian syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Collins, C.
    (1997) Local economy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Coopmans, P.
    (1989) Where stylistic and syntactic processes meet: Locative Inversion in English. Language, 65(4), 728–751. 10.2307/414932
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414932 [Google Scholar]
  45. Corr, A.
    (2016) Wide-focus subject-verb inversion in Ibero-Romance: A locative account. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 1(1), 207–236. 10.5334/gjgl.85
     https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.85 [Google Scholar]
  46. Culicover, P. W.
    (2013) Topicalization, inversion, and complementizers in English (1992). InExplaining syntax: Representations, structures, and computation (p.212–255). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199660230.003.0008
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199660230.003.0008 [Google Scholar]
  47. Culicover, P. W. & Levine, R. D.
    (2001) Stylistic Inversion in English: A reconsideration. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 19(2), 283–310. 10.1023/A:1010646417840
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010646417840 [Google Scholar]
  48. Deal, A. R.
    (2009) The origin and content of expletives: Evidence from “selection”. Syntax, 121, 285–323. 10.1111/j.1467‑9612.2009.00127.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2009.00127.x [Google Scholar]
  49. Diesing, M.
    (1992) Indefinites (No.20). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Dobler, E.
    (2008a) ‘again’ and the structure of result states. Proceedings of ConSOLE XV, 11, 42–66.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. (2008b) Creating as putting something into the world. Proceedings of ConSOLE XVI, 391, 39–50.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Erteschik-Shir, N.
    (1997) The dynamics of focus structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. (2007) Information structure: The syntax-discourse interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199262588.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199262588.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  54. (2019) Stage topics and their architecture. InV. Molnár, V. Egerland & S. Winkler (Eds.), Architecture of topic (pp. 223–248). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781501504488‑008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501504488-008 [Google Scholar]
  55. Fischer, O., Kemenade, A. v., Koopman, W. & Wurff, W. v. d.
    (2001) The syntax of early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511612312
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612312 [Google Scholar]
  56. Fischer, S.
    (2016) Existentials vs. unaccusatives: The definiteness restriction in Romance. InS. Fischer, T. Kupisch & E. Rinke (Eds.), Definiteness effects: Bilingual, typological and diachronic variation (pp. 301–332). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Folli, R. & Harley, H.
    (2019) A head movement approach to Talmy’s typology. Linguistic Inquiry, 1–46. 10.1162/ling\_a\_00351
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling\_a\_00351 [Google Scholar]
  58. Freeze, R.
    (1992) Existentials and other locatives. Language, 68(3), 553–595. 10.2307/415794
     https://doi.org/10.2307/415794 [Google Scholar]
  59. Frey, W.
    (2004) A medical topic position for German. Linguistische Berichte, 1991, 153–190.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Grewendorf, G.
    (2002a) Left Dislocation as movement. Georgetown University Working Papers in Theoretical Linguistics, 2(31–81).
     [Google Scholar]
  61. (2002b) Minimalistische syntax. Tübingen, Basel: Francke Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. (2009) The left clausal periphery: Clitic Left Dislocation in Italian and Left Dislocation in German. InB. Shaer, P. Cook, W. Frey & C. Maienborn (Eds.), Dislocated elements in discourse:syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic perspectives (pp. 57–102). New York, London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Gundel, J. K.
    (1985) ‘shared knowledge’ and topicality. Journal of Pragmatics, 9(1), 83–107. 10.1016/0378‑2166(85)90049‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(85)90049-9 [Google Scholar]
  64. Gutzmann, D. & Castroviejo Miró, E.
    (2011) The dimensions of verum. InO. Bonami & P. C. Hofherr (Eds.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics81 (p.143–165). Paris: Colloque de Syntaxe et Sémantique à Paris.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Haeberli, E.
    (2002a) Features, categories and the syntax of a-positions: Cross-linguistic variation in the Germanic languages. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑010‑0604‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0604-0 [Google Scholar]
  66. (2002b) Inflectional morphology and the loss of V2 in English. InD. Lightfoot (Ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change (pp. 88–106). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199250691.003.0005
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199250691.003.0005 [Google Scholar]
  67. Haider, H.
    (2010) The syntax of German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511845314
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511845314 [Google Scholar]
  68. Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J.
    (1998) The basic elements of argument structure. MIT Working papers in linguistics, 321, 73–118.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. (2000) There-insertion unaccusatives. (Ms. MIT)
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Hartmann, J. M.
    (2008) Expletives in existentials. English ‘there’ and German ‘da’. Utrecht: LOT.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Hinterhölzl, R.
    (2019) Subjects, Topics, and Anchoring to the Context. Syntax, 22(2–3), 199–228. 10.1111/synt.12179
     https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12179 [Google Scholar]
  72. Hoekstra, T.
    (1988) Small clause results. Lingua, 74(2–3), 101–139. 10.1016/0024‑3841(88)90056‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(88)90056-3 [Google Scholar]
  73. Hoekstra, T. & Mulder, R.
    (1990) Unergatives as copular verbs: Locational and existential predication. The Linguistic Review, 71, 1–79. 10.1515/tlir.1990.7.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1990.7.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  74. Hole, D. & Fraser, K.
    (2019, November). At-issue and not-at-issue in the swarm alternation. (presentation atEvent Semantics 2019, Berlin)
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Holmberg, A.
    (2000) Scandinavian Stylistic Fronting: How any category can become an expletive. Linguistic Inquiry, 311, 445–483. 10.1162/002438900554406
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438900554406 [Google Scholar]
  76. Hooper, J. & Thompson, S.
    (1973) On the Applicability of Root Transformations. Linguistic Inquiry, 41, 465–497.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G.
    (2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  78. Husband, M. E.
    (2012) On the compositional nature of states. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/la.188
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.188 [Google Scholar]
  79. Höhle, T. N.
    (1992) Über verum-fokus im deutschen [about verumfocus in german]. Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft, 41, 112–141. 10.1007/978‑3‑663‑12176‑3_5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-12176-3_5 [Google Scholar]
  80. Irwin, P.
    (2012) Unaccusativity at the interfaces (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). New York University, New York, NY. (lingbuzz/001617)
  81. (2018) Existential unaccusativity and new discourse referents. Glossa, 3(1).
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Jayaseelan, K. A.
    (2001) IP-internal topic and focus phrases. Studia Linguistica, 55(1), 39–75. 10.1111/1467‑9582.00074
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9582.00074 [Google Scholar]
  83. Karttunen, L.
    (1973) Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry, 4(2), 169–193.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Kiss, K. É.
    (1998) Identificational focus versus information focus. Language, 74(2), 245–273. 10.1353/lan.1998.0211
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1998.0211 [Google Scholar]
  85. Klein, W.
    (1992) The present perfect puzzle. Language, 525–552. 10.2307/415793
     https://doi.org/10.2307/415793 [Google Scholar]
  86. Ko, H.
    (2005) Syntax of why-in-situ: Merge into [spec, cp] in the overt syntax. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 23(4), 867–916. 10.1007/s11049‑004‑5923‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-004-5923-3 [Google Scholar]
  87. Kratzer, A.
    (1995) Stage level and individual level predicates. InG. N. Carlson & F. J. Pelletier (Eds.), The generic book (p.125–175). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. (1996) Severing the external argument from its verb. InJ. Rooryck & L. A. Zaring (Eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon (Vol.331, pp. 109–138). Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑8617‑7_5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8617-7_5 [Google Scholar]
  89. Kroch, A. S.
    (1989) Function and grammar in the history of english: periphrastic do. InR. W. Fasold & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), Language change and variation (Vol.521, p.133–172). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.52.09kro
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.52.09kro [Google Scholar]
  90. Lahousse, K.
    (2003) Np-subject inversion in French and (preposed) adverbs. InA. T. Pérez-Leroux & Y. Roberge (Eds.), Romance linguistics: Theory and acquisition (p.181–96). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.244.14lah
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.244.14lah [Google Scholar]
  91. (2006) NP subject inversion in French: two types, two configurations. Lingua, 1161, 424–461. 10.1016/j.lingua.2004.08.020
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2004.08.020 [Google Scholar]
  92. (2007) Implicit stage topics. Discour. Revue de linguistique, psycholinguistique et informatique, 11, 1–18. 10.4000/discours.117
     https://doi.org/10.4000/discours.117 [Google Scholar]
  93. (2011) Quand passent les cigognes. le sujet nominal postverbal en Français moderne. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Lambrecht, K.
    (1994) Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  95. Landau, I.
    (2010) The locative syntax of experiencers (No.53). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Levin, B.
    (1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M.
    (1995) Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface (No.261). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  98. (2013) Lexicalized meaning and manner/result complementarity. InB. Arsenijević, B. Gehrke & R. Marín (Eds.), Subatomic semantics of event predicates (pp. 49–70). Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑5983‑1_3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5983-1_3 [Google Scholar]
  99. Marantz, A.
    (1991) Case and licensing. InGerman Westphal, B. Ao & H.-R. Chae (Eds.), Proceesings of ESCOL (pp. 234–253). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, Cornell Linguistics Club.
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Mateu, J. & Acedo-Matellán, V.
    (2012) The manner/result complementarity revisited: A syntactic approach. InM. C. Cuervo & Y. Roberge (Eds.), The end of argument structure (pp. 209–228). Leiden: Brill. 10.1108/S0092‑4563(2012)0000038011
     https://doi.org/10.1108/S0092-4563(2012)0000038011 [Google Scholar]
  101. McFadden, T.
    (2004) The position of morphological case in the derivation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
  102. Milsark, G.
    (1974) Existential sentences in english (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
  103. Miyagawa, S.
    (2017) Agreement beyond phi. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/10958.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10958.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  104. Mohr, S.
    (2005) Clausal architecture and subject positions: Impersonal constructions in the Germanic languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.88
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.88 [Google Scholar]
  105. Moro, A.
    (1997) The raising of predicates: Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511519956
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519956 [Google Scholar]
  106. Ouali, H.
    (2008) On C-to-T-feature transfer: The nature of agreement and anti-agreement in Berber. InR. D’Alessandro, S. Fischer & G. H. Hrafnbjargarson (Eds.), Agreement restrictions (pp. 159–180). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110207835.159
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110207835.159 [Google Scholar]
  107. (2011) Agreement, pronominal clitics and negation in Tamazight Berber. London: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Partee, B. H.
    (1973) Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. The Journal of Philosophy, 70(18), 601–609. 10.2307/2025024
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2025024 [Google Scholar]
  109. Partee, B. H. & Borschev, V.
    (2008) Existential sentences, be, and the genitive of negation in Russian. InI. Comorovski & K. von Heusinger (Eds.), Existence: Semantics and syntax (pp. 147–190). Dodrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑6197‑4_6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6197-4_6 [Google Scholar]
  110. Perlmutter, D. M.
    (1978) Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. In4th annual meeting of the berkeley linguistics society (pp. 157–190). 10.3765/bls.v4i0.2198
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v4i0.2198 [Google Scholar]
  111. Pinto, M.
    (1997) Licensing and interpretation of inverted subjects in Italian (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Utrecht University, Utrecht, NL.
  112. Postal, P. M.
    (2004) Skeptical linguistic essays. Oxford: Oxord University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780195166712.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195166712.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  113. Preminger, O.
    (2011) Agreement as a fallible operation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  114. (2014) Agreement and its failures (No.68). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027403.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262027403.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  115. Pylkkänen, L.
    (2008) Introducing arguments (No.49). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262162548.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262162548.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  116. Radford, A.
    (2009) An introduction to English syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Richards, M. & Biberauer, T.
    (2005) Explaining expl. InM. den Dikken & T. Christina (Eds.), The function of function words and functional categories (p.115–153). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.78.06ric
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.78.06ric [Google Scholar]
  118. Rizzi, L.
    (1982) Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783110883718
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110883718 [Google Scholar]
  119. (1986) Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry, 171, 501–557.
     [Google Scholar]
  120. (1990) Relativized minimality. Cambridge, A.: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  121. (2001) ‘on the position “int (errogative)” in the left periphery of the clause’. InG. Cinque & G. Salvi (Eds.), Current studies in Italian syntax: Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi (Vol.591, p.287–296). Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10.1163/9780585473949_016
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9780585473949_016 [Google Scholar]
  122. (2005) On some properties of subjects and topics. InL. Brugè, G. Giusti, N. Munaro, W. Schweikert & G. Turano (Eds.), Contributions to the xxx incontro di grammatica generativa (p.203–224). Venice: Cafoscarina.
     [Google Scholar]
  123. (2018) Subjects, topics and the interpretation of pro. InR. Petrosino, P. Cerrone & H. van der Hulst (Eds.), Beyond the veil of Maya. from sounds to structures (p.510–529). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9781501506734‑019
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501506734-019 [Google Scholar]
  124. Rizzi, L. & Shlonsky, U.
    (2006) Satisfying the subject criterion by a non subject: English Locative Inversion and heavy NP shift. InM. Frascarelli (Ed.), Phases of interpretation (p.341–361). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197723.5.341
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197723.5.341 [Google Scholar]
  125. Roberts, I.
    (2010) Agreement and head movement: Clitics, incorporation, and defective goals. MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262014304.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262014304.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  126. Roeper, T.
    (1987) Implicit arguments and the head-complement relation. Linguistic Inquiry, 181, 267–310.
     [Google Scholar]
  127. Salzmann, M.
    (2011) Towards a typology of Locative Inversion-Bantu, perhaps Chinese and English-but beyond?Language and Linguistics Compass, 5(4), 169–189. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2011.00270.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2011.00270.x [Google Scholar]
  128. Schäfer, F.
    (2008) The syntax of (anti-)causatives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.126
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.126 [Google Scholar]
  129. Sheehan, M.
    (2007) The EPP and null subjects in Romance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Newcastle University, Newcastle.
  130. Shlonsky, U.
    (1997) Clause structure and word order in Hebrew and Arabic: An essay in comparative Semitic syntax. Oxford, UK.: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780195108668.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195108668.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  131. Sluckin, B. L.
    (2021) Non-canonical subjects and subject positions: locative inversion, v2-violations, and feature inheritance (Doctoral dissertation, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Sprach- und literaturwissenschaftliche Fakultät, Berlin). 10.18452/23715
     https://doi.org/10.18452/23715
  132. Sluckin, B. L., Cruschina, S. & Martin, F.
    (2021) Locative Inversion in Germanic and Romance: a conspiracy theory. InC. Meklenborg & S. Wolfe (Eds.), Germanic and Romance: Continuity and Variation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198841166.003.0007
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198841166.003.0007 [Google Scholar]
  133. Sternefeld, W.
    (2006) Syntax: Eine morphologisch motivierte generative Beschreibung Des deutschen. Mannheim: Stauffenburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  134. Stowell, T.
    (1981) Origins of phrase structure (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
  135. Svenonius, P.
    (2003) Limits on P: filling in holes vs. falling in holes. Nordlyd, 31(2), 431–445.
     [Google Scholar]
  136. (2007) Adpositions, particles and the arguments they introduce. InE. Reuland, T. Bhattacharya & G. Spathas (Eds.), Argument structure (pp. 63–103). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.108.08sve
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.108.08sve [Google Scholar]
  137. Teixeira, J.
    (2016) Locative Inversion and stage topics: a cross-linguistic study. Discours. Revue de linguistique, psycholinguistique et informatique. A Journal of Linguistics, psycholinguistics and computational linguistics, 191. 10.4000/discours.9229
     https://doi.org/10.4000/discours.9229 [Google Scholar]
  138. Tortora, C. M.
    (1997) The syntax and semantics of the weak locative (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Deleware, Newark, DE.
  139. (2001) Evidence for a null locative in Italian. InC. Guglielmo & S. Giampaolo (Eds.), Current studies in Italian syntax: essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi (p.313–326). London: Elsevier. 10.1163/9780585473949_018
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9780585473949_018 [Google Scholar]
  140. van der Wal, J.
    (2021) The BaSiS basics of information structure. Retrieved fromhttps://bantusyntaxinformationstructure.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/the-basis-basics-of-information-structure-complete-6.pdf (Accessed: 01.09.2024)
     [Google Scholar]
  141. von Stechow, A.
    (1996) The different readings of wieder ‘again’: a structural account. Journal of Semantics, 13(2), 87–138. 10.1093/jos/13.2.87
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/13.2.87 [Google Scholar]
  142. Wood, J.
    (2015) Icelandic morphosyntax and argument structure and linguistic theory (Vol.901). Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑09138‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09138-9 [Google Scholar]
  143. Wood, J. & Marantz, A.
    (2017) The interpretation of external arguments. InR. D’Alessandro, I. Franco & À. J. Gallego (Eds.), The verbal domain (p.255–278). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  144. Zhao, R.
    (2019) Deriving the variation and constraints of the present perfect. InA. van Alem, M. De Sisto, E. J. Kerr & J. Wall (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th conference of the student organization of linguistics in Europe (21–23 february 2019, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin) (Vol.XXVII1, pp. 215–327). Leiden: Leiden University Centre for Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  145. Zwart, J.-W.
    (1992) Dutch expletives and small clause predicate raising. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, 221, 477–491.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00058.slu
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): English; EPP; evidentials; expletives; Locative Inversion

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error