Cover not available
Part of
Existential Constructions across Languages: Forms, meanings and functions
Edited by Laure Sarda and Ludovica Lena
[Human Cognitive Processing 76] 2023
► pp. 1–32

Chapter 1
Existential constructions

In search of a definition

ORCID logo | LATTICE – CNRS (Ecole Normale Supérieure-PSL and Université Sorbonne Nouvelle)
ORCID logo | Xiamen University | CRLAO (INALCO/EHESS/CNRS)
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.On the form of existentials
    • 2.1The expletive
    • 2.2The proform
    • 2.3The copula
    • 2.4The pivot
    • 2.5The coda
  • 3.Existentials: Definitions
  • 4.Semantic and discourse-functional properties of existentials
    • 4.1The polyfunctionality of existentials
    • 4.2Is the existential construction necessarily a morphosyntactically-marked construction?
    • 4.3Extension of the “non-canonicity” criterion
  • 5.Outline of the volume and main research questions
  • 6.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 5 July 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.76.01sar
References (80)
References
Abbott, B. 1993. A pragmatic account of the definiteness effect in existential sentences, Journal of pragmatics, 19(1), 39–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997. Definiteness and existentials. Language, 73(1), 103–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beaver, D., Francez, I., & Levinson, D. 2005. Bad subject: (Non-) canonicality and NP distribution in existentials. In E. Georgala, & J. Howell (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 15, held March 25–27, 2005, at UCLA. (19–43). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Bentley, D. 2011. Sui costrutti esistenziali sardi. Effetti di definitezza, deissi, evidenzialità. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie (ZrP), 127(1), 111–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Subject canonicality and definiteness effects in Romance there sentences. Language, 89(4), 675–712. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bentley, D., Ciconte, F. M., & Cruschina, S. 2013. Existential constructions in crosslinguistic perspective. Special issue of the Italian Journal of Linguistics, 25(1). Pacini Editore.Google Scholar
2015. Existentials and Locatives in Romance Dialects of Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, V., Bocci, G., & Cruschina, S. 2015. Focus fronting and its implicatures. In E. Aboh, J. Schaeffer, & P. Sleeman (Eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2013: Selected papers from Going romance, Amsterdam 2013 (1–20). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borschev, V., & Partee, B. 2002. The Russian genitive of negation: Theme-rheme structure or perspective structure? Journal of Slavic Linguistics 10(1/2), 105–144.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., & Kanerva, J. M. 1989. Locative inversion in Chicheŵa: A case study of factorization in grammar, Linguistic inquiry, 20(1), 1–50.Google Scholar
Carlson, G. N. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Published in 1980 by Garland.
Cartwright, R. L. 1960. Negative existentials. Journal of Philosophy, 57(20/21), 629–639. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clapp, L. 2009. The problem of negative existentials does not exist: A case for dynamic semantics. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(7), 1422–1434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. V. 1970. Locationals: A study of the relations between existential, locative and possessive constructions. Working papers on language universals, 3, 1–37.Google Scholar
1978. Locationals: Existential, locative, and possessive constructions. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of human language (85–126). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Cornish, F. 2005. A cross-linguistic study of so-called “locative inversion”: evidence for the Functional Discourse Grammar model. In C. de Groot, & K. Hengeveld (Eds.), Morphosyntactic expression in functional grammar (163–202). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creissels, D. 2014. Existential predication in typological perspective. MS, University of Lyon; [URL]
2019. Inverse locational predication in typological perspective. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 31(2), 38–106.Google Scholar
2020. La prédication existentielle et les constructions transpossessives. In T. Bottineau (Ed.), La prédication existentielle dans les langues naturelles : valeurs et repérages, structures et modalités (17–41). Paris: Presses de l’Inalco. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2022. Existential predication and predicative possession in Arabic dialects. STUF – Language Typology and Universals. DOI logo
Croft, W. 1991. The evolution of negation. Journal of Linguistics, 27(1), 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruschina, S. 2012. Discourse-related features and functional projections. [Oxford comparative studies in syntax]. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. Patterns of variation in existential constructions. Isogloss, 1(1), 33–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018. Setting the boundaries: Presentational ci-sentences in Italian. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 32(1), 53 – 85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Czinglar, C. 2002. Decomposing existence: Evidence from Germanic. In A. Werner, & J.-W. Zwart (Eds.), Issues in formal German(ic) typology. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Francez, I. 2007. Existential propositions. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.
Francis, Hartwell S., Michelle L. Gregory & Laura A. Michaelis. 1999. Are lexical subjects deviant? Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 35(1). 85–97.Google Scholar
Freeze, R. 1992. Existentials and other locatives. Language, 68(3), 553–595. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., & R. Zacharski. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69(2), 274–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2021. What do we mean by “existential clause”? Retrieved from the blog Diversity Linguistics Comment, [URL]
Hengeveld, K. 1992. Non-verbal predication: Theory, typology, diachrony. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huumo, T. 2003. Incremental existence: The world according to the Finnish existential sentence, Linguistics, 41(3), 461–493. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1924. Logic and grammar. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Karssenberg, L. 2017. French il y a clefts, existential sentences and the Focus-Marking Hypothesis. Journal of French Language Studies, 27(3), 405–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018a. Non-prototypical clefts in French: A corpus analysis of “il y a” clefts. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018b. Il y a toujours un chameau qui tombe. Les multiples fonctions des clivées en il y a. Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française – CMLF 2018, SHS Web of Conferences, 46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karssenberg, L., Marzo, S., Lahousse, K., & Guglielmo, D. 2017. There’s more to Italian c’è clefts than expressing all-focus. The Italian Journal of Linguistics, 29, 57–86.Google Scholar
Koch, P. 2012. Location, existence, and possession: A constructional-typological exploration. Linguistics, 50, 533–603. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, M., Pelletier, F. J., Carlson, G. N., ter Meulen, A., Link, G., & Chierchia, G. 1995. Genericity: An introduction. In G. N. Carlson, & F. J. Pelletier (Eds.), The generic book (1–124). Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1984. THERE-Constructions: A case study in grammatical construction theory and prototype theory. Berkeley cognitive science technical reports No. 18. Berkeley, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002. Topic, Focus and secondary predication: The French presentational relative construction. In C. Beyssade, R. Bok-Bennema, F. Drijkoningen, & P. Monachesi (Eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2000 (171–212). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Constraints on subject-focus mapping in French and English: A contrastive analysis. In C. Breul, & E. Gobbel (Eds.), Comparative and contrastive studies of information structure (77–100). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leonetti, M. 1998. A relevance-theoretic account of the property predication restriction. In V. Rouchota, & A. H. Jucker (Eds.), Current issues in relevance theory (141–167). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. Definiteness effects and the role of the coda in existential constructions. In H. H. Müller, & A. Klinge (Eds.), Essays on nominal determination: From morphology to discourse management (131–162). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. Definiteness effects: The interplay of information structure and pragmatics. In: S. Fischer, T. Kupisch, & E. Rinke (Eds.), Definiteness Effects: Bilingual, typological and diachronic variation (66–119). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax–lexical semantics interface. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Li, W. 2014. The pragmatics of existential-presentative constructions in Chinese: A discourse-based study. International Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 1(2), 244–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lumsden, M. 1988. Existential sentences: their structure and meaning. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. 1967. A note on possessive, existential and locative sentences. Foundations of Language, 3(4), 390–396.Google Scholar
1968. Existence, location, possession and transitivity. In B. Van Rootselaar, & J. F. Staal (Eds.) Studies in logic and the foundations of mathematics (495–504). Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matić, D., & Wedgwood, D. 2012. The meanings of focus: The significance of an interpretation-based category in cross-linguistic analysis. Journal of Linguistics, 49(1), 127–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNally, L. 1992. An interpretation for the English existential construction. PhD. dissertation. University of California, Santa Cruz, CA. Reprinted: New York: Garland, 1997.
1998. Existential sentences without existential quantification. Linguistics and Philosophy, 21(4), 353–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Existential sentences. In K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn, & P. Portner (Eds), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, Vol. 2. (1829–1848). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016a. Existential. Oxford Bibliographies in Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016b. Existential sentences crosslinguistically: Variations in form and meaning, Annual Review of Linguistics, 2, 211–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019. Existential sentences. In Portner, P., Maienborn, C., & von Heusinger, K. (Eds.), Semantics – Sentence and information structure (281–305). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milsark, G. L. 1974. Existential sentences in English. PhD Dissertation, MIT.
1977. Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis, 3, 1–29.Google Scholar
1979. Existential sentences in English. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Moyse-Faurie, C. 2019. Existential and locative predication in some eastern Oceanic languages. Te Reo, 62(1), 49–74.Google Scholar
Partee, B., & Borschev, V. 2004. The semantics of Russian genitive of negation: the nature and role of perspectival structure. In K. Watanabe, & R. B. Young (Eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 14 (212–234). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Existential sentences, BE, and the genitive of negation in Russian. In I. Comorovski & K. von Heusinger (Eds.), Existence: Semantics and syntax (147–190). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. 1983. Personal versus impersonal constructions. Natural language and linguistic theory, 1, 141–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rando, E. & Napoli, D. J. 1978. Definites in there-sentences, Language, 54(2), 300–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rigau, G. 1997. Locative sentences and related constructions in Catalan: ésser/haver alternation. In A. Mendikoetxea, & M. Uribe-Etxebarria (Eds.), Theoretical issues at the morphology-syntax interface (395–421). Bilbao: Universidad del País Vasco.Google Scholar
Russell, B. 1905. On denoting. Mind, 14(56), 479–493. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Safir, K. 1985. Syntactic chains. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sasse, H.-J. 1987. The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics, 25(3), 511–580. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sluckin, B. L., Cruschina, S., & Martin, F. 2021. Locative inversion in Germanic and Romance: A conspiracy theory. In S. Wolfe, & C. Meklenborg (Eds.), Continuity and variation in Germanic and Romance (165–191). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. 1. Cambridge, Massachusetts: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Tovena, L. 2007. Negative quantification and existential sentences. In I. Comorovski, & K. von Heusinger (Eds.), Existence: Semantics and syntax, 191–219. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Veselinova, L. 2013. Negative existentials: A cross-linguistic study. In D. Bentley, F. M. Ciconte, & S. Cruschina (Eds.), Existential constructions in crosslinguistic perspective (107–145). Special issue of the Italian Journal of Linguistics, 25(1). Pacini Editore.Google Scholar
2014. The negative existential cycle revisited. Linguistics, 52(6), 1327–1389. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Voltolini, A. 2021. A contextualist treatment of negative existentials. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(3), 415–424. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ward, G. & Birner, B. 1995. Definiteness and the English existential, Language, 71(4), 722–742. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeitoun, E., Huang, L. M., Yeh, M. M., & Chang, A. H. 1999. Existential, possessive, and locative constructions in Formosan languages. Oceanic Linguistics, 38(1), 1–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Lena, Ludovica
2024. Encoding indefinite human reference without indefinite pronouns: the case of Chinese presentationals. Folia Linguistica 0:0 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.