The semantics of cardinal versus enumerative existential constructions

Abstract

In this article, I will argue that the conceptual import of existential constructions is not, as has traditionally been held, to locate entities somewhere, but to quantify instances of a general type. This general semantic schema is construed as two more speci®c schemata by the two main types of existential, the unmarked, or ``cardinal'', and the enumerative. A cardinal existential such as There are ®ve weak spots in the human body counts the instances of `weak spots' to be found in the human body. The speaker searches, as it were, the domain delimited by the human body for instances of the general type weak spots and ®nds there are ®ve. Put more technically, this existential quanti®es cardinally the instantiation of the type weak spotsÐthe type speci®cation part of the focal NPÐmanifested within the search domain delimited by the circumstance in the human body. In contrast, an enumerative existential such as There's the theaters, ballets, operas and art exhibitions enumerates instances of ``cultural activities''. It holds up instances for consideration one after the other, i.e., in ordinal fashion. The ``general type'' under which these instances should be classi®ed is not named directly by the focal NPs, but is implied by their higher-order type speci®cations and further speci®ed by contextual information. I will show that these semantic descriptions ow directly and naturally from the grammatical characteristics of cardinal and enumerative existentials, viz. the di€erent kinds of quanti®cation found in their focal NPs, as well as the di€erent type-instantiation mechanisms activated by them. Moreover, I will defend the view that existential there is not an abstract spatial adverb, but functions as a general pronoun with a systemic relation to ambient it.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 51 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.