Theoretical Issues About Existential Constructions

¶ … theoretical issues about Existential Constructions (ECs) in regards to the Copy Theory of Movement (CTM) and Pronouncing the Lower Copies (PLC).

We put forward four main propo sals.

It is first proposed that the existential-be has the properties of an unaccusative verb both syntactically and semantically.

Although unnaccusatives features largely in the syntax, its nature is determined by the semantic.

It is firstly argued that the existential-be has the primary semantic properties of an unnaccusative verb.

Then it is also argued that the existential-be has a ?- grid of an unaccusative verb. It appears to be a copula (or, as most researchers have noticed, informationally light) because of the formation of a monadic predicate with the PP. The detailed reason is that the formation of the monadic predicate will effect the dominant position of the verbal predicate to some extent.

It is then proposed that the existential verb and the PP form a monadic predicate via the movement of DP. The forming of such a monadic predicate can cause unergative verbs to be allowed in Ecs, whereas other unaccusative s cannot.

We argue that the process of forming such a monadic predicate in the EC is as follows: DP base generated at the spec position of pP. Then, pP is taken as the complement of the unnaccusative verb. DP is the external argument of p and its ?-role is THEME. It cannot get case at [Spec, Pp], so it moves to [Spec, VP], where it also cannot get Case checked. So it moves further to [Spec, ?P], becoming the external argument of the verb and receives its second ?-role, w hich is AGENT. T

he lowest copy is that on [Spec, pP]. As

it is a position that receives the presentational focus, if it is not pronounced, there will be a PF violation which causes PF crash. So PLC applies, an d it rescued such a violation. The lower copy is also realized in LF instead of the highest copy, since the convergence in LF of a sentence requires the linking of presentational focus to a designated 'constructional focus' position.

An Outline, the Unaccusativity of Existential-Be

In earlier forms of the verb "to be" in English, unaccusative verbs were used that slightly changed the meaning of the sentence from more modern constructions. Sentence construction is a lyrical interplay of various "parts" of the sentence that reflect the spirit of the time, and ways in which people think. "For example, many unaccusatives alternate with a corresponding transitive construction where the unaccusative subject appears in direct object position: The ice melted. The sun melted the ice," or "The window broke. The golf ball broke the window" ("Unaccusative Verb" Wikipedia).

The unaccusative past participle can act as a nominal modifier: "the melted snow, the departed guests, the fallen soldiers"; this takes the subject dependent on the unaccusative past participle in content. Coincidentally, unaccusative unergative past participles seem all the more archaic, "the shouted victim, *the slept child, *the hesitated leader"; this grammatical justaposition lends a certain jarring, dissonant tone and idea to the sentence, whereby the unergative past partiple precedes the subject ("Unaccusative Verb" Wikipedia).

Unaccusative subjects can also be influenced by direct objects and passive subjects through the resultative adjunct: "unaccusative subject: The vase broke into pieces. direct object: John broke the vase into pieces. passive subject: The vase was broken into pieces. unergative subject: *John dined full/to death/two pounds heavier. subject of transitive verb: *John ate the brownies full/to death/two pounds heavier" ("Unaccusative Verb" Wikipedia).

Work Cited

"Unaccusative Verb." Wikipedia. Website Link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unaccusative_verb#Unaccusativity_in_English

I would specify "we" here

Again, specify "we"

I would put a colon [:] after "proposals" and then briefly denote what those are.

The wording "It is first proposed is unnecessary"; I would eliminate it.

I would first describe/introduce what the "existential-be" is

I would further clarify what you mean in the first part of the sentence here- I think you might have typed something wrong