Basic English Syntax with Exercises

expletive subject

2.2.1 The subject

These meaningless subjects are often called expletive or pleonastic subjects, both terms meaning meaningless.

2.2.1 The subject

The appearance of an expletive element is restricted to the subject position. We do not get an expletive in a complement position of intransitive verbs, which do not subcategorise for a complement:

2.2.1 The subject

The subject of non-finite clauses is a little more complex as there are occasions where they are necessary and hence an expletive must appear if there is no semantic subject, and there are other cases where the position must be left empty, even though there is semantic interpretation for it:

2.2.1 The subject

In (49) the situation is exactly like the subject of the finite clause and the expletive subject must be present. In (50) however, the subject is obligatorily absent, though it is clear that the clause is interpreted as though Terry is the subject: the one who is escaping. We will investigate these observations later in this book. For now, however, what all this shows is that subjects are treated rather differently from other arguments from a grammatical point of view.

2.2.1 The subject

However, although this may be true for a lot of sentences, there are many occasions when it is not so. For example, sentences with expletive subjects could hardly be claimed to be about the subject as otherwise they would not be about anything at all. Moreover, other sentences can just as easily be said to be about arguments other than the subject:

5.2.3.3 Unaccusatives and ergatives

In order to evaluate this suggestion, let us consider the properties of the there construction. The most obvious property is the fact that in this construction the subject position is taken by there. This is a meaningless subject that bears no thematic role. Such things are often called pleonastic or expletive subjects and their function seems to be to act as a ‘place holder’ for the subject when no thematic element will occupy this position. For example, consider the following:

5.2.3.3 Unaccusatives and ergatives

This is a case of raising, as introduced in chapter 3. In (62a) the subject of the lower clause is raised into the subject position of the raising verb seem, demonstrating that this position must have been empty at D-structure. In (62b), however, the thematic subject of the lower clause does not move out of this clause. In this case the subject position is filled by another expletive element it. It would be ungrammatical for this position to be left empty, an indication that all English sentences must have subjects regardless of whether one is semantically demanded or not. We will return to this observation in the next chapter. Note however that this expletive subject differs from the one used in there constructions, though their function (to fill a vacant subject position) seems to be similar. It would be ungrammatical to use a there in raising structures and it in there constructions:

5.2.3.3 Unaccusatives and ergatives

This observation clearly calls out for an explanation. Another thing in need of explanation is the fact the post-verbal theme obviously receives Case in this position and does not have to move to subject position. It seems that this fact goes hand in hand with the presence of the there subject as, in its absence, the theme must move to the subject position to get Case. This has led some to the conclusion that the there somehow has a role in the assignment of Case to the theme. One possibility is that the difference between an expletive there and an expletive it is that the former has the ability to transmit the Case that it receives by occupying the subject position. If this is so, then the post-verbal theme should get nominative Case as this is the Case that the expletive gets:

5.2.3.3 Unaccusatives and ergatives

This observation clearly calls out for an explanation. Another thing in need of explanation is the fact the post-verbal theme obviously receives Case in this position and does not have to move to subject position. It seems that this fact goes hand in hand with the presence of the there subject as, in its absence, the theme must move to the subject position to get Case. This has led some to the conclusion that the there somehow has a role in the assignment of Case to the theme. One possibility is that the difference between an expletive there and an expletive it is that the former has the ability to transmit the Case that it receives by occupying the subject position. If this is so, then the post-verbal theme should get nominative Case as this is the Case that the expletive gets:

5.2.3.3 Unaccusatives and ergatives

The observation that the post-verbal DP is limited to indefinites has led to the claim that neither nominative nor accusative Case is assigned to this position, but a special Case which can only be born by indefinite DPs. Belletti (1988) proposed that partitive Case is incompatible with definite DPs for semantic reasons and therefore only indefinites can bear it. Thus if we assume that partitive Case is assigned to the post-verbal position in there constructions, we can account for why only indefinite DPs can appear in this position. The problem with this is that under these assumptions it is not entirely clear why we have a there expletive and not an it. It would seem then that the key to the proper analysis of this construction is the link between the there subject and the Case marked indefinite DP in the post-verbal position.

5.2.3.3 Unaccusatives and ergatives

The it subjects that accompany weather predicates are clearly not arguments as they have no referential content, but they are somehow not quite as empty as the expletive it in examples like (62b).

5.2.3.3 Unaccusatives and ergatives

One indication of the difference between the quasi-argument it and the expletive it is that only with the former is a purpose clause licensed, i.e. a clause that acts to modify a predicate by providing a purpose for the described event:

5.2.3.3 Unaccusatives and ergatives

The intended interpretation of (70b) is that Rob pretends to be rich in order to impress the neighbours, an thus it is the ‘seeming’ rather than the ‘being rich’ that is being modified by the purpose clause. The ungrammaticality of this sentence with this interpretation demonstrates that expletive it is unable to license this kind of modifier. When the thematic subject is raised, however, the purpose clause is grammatical. The quasi-argument weather predicate it appears to behave like a thematic argument in this respect as it does license a purpose clause. Obviously I do not want to claim that the there subject in there constructions is the same thing as a weather predicate’s quasi-argument subject.

5.2.3.3 Unaccusatives and ergatives

But I have discussed this phenomenon to demonstrate that there are different degrees of argumenthood and the claim I want to make is that there is somewhere between a thematic argument and an expletive, which is supported by the fact that purpose clauses can appear with there subjects: