Are expletives in existential sentences actually expletives?

Abstract

In this paper we draw attention to empirical data conforming to a consistent crosslanguage pattern in existential constructions [ECs], with special focus on the grammatical role of the mandatory preverbal particle [PLP]. Particularly, we suggest that hypothesis built on expletive insertion and raising may not be empirically suitable when Romance languages engaged in this pattern are considered. Apart from the questions raised in terms of representation and derivational economy, the main argument behind our proposal is provided by the (grammatically instantiated) semantic underpinning of the PLP, which proves to be morphologically, syntactically and even pragmatically relevant in a fashion not predicted by transformational derivations or repair operations (expletive insertion). We will claim that expletive/raising approaches do not account for formal differences between ECs and alternative (copular) counterparts touching on: (i)syntactic structure (ergative vs. copular predicate), (ii)meaning (existence vs. spatial situation), (iii)semantically-driven constrains on the DP (Definiteness Effect), (iv)oversaturation effects triggered by co-occurrence of the locative morpheme and the spatial PP and (v)optionality and syntactic status of the latter; all these facts conforming to the (vi)semantic and syntactic consequences of the absence of the PLM in minimal pairs.