Ward & Birner 95

Question 1

Topic of paper

Answer 1

Definiteness and English existential

Question 2

Definiteness restriction/effect

Answer 2

Claim that there sentences disallow a lexically definite postverbal NP

Question 3

W&B’s view of definiteness in postverbal NPs in there constructions epiphenonmenal

Answer 3

Result of imperfect correlation b/w cognitive status to which definiteness in general is sensitive and that to which the referent of postverbal NP of there sentence is sensitive

Question 4

Semantic definiteness and grammatical definiteness

Answer 4

Formally defined def NPs (proper names, personal pronouns, NPs headed by determiner (this, that, those, our, her) or certain quantifiers (all, every) are not categorically excluded from position in there sentences

Question 5

One problem with previous studies

Answer 5

Definite said to require that referent be known, given or inferrable and this is incompatible with pragmatic condition on there sentences that postverbal NP represent unfamiliar or new discourse entity BUT Difference in categories for “new”

Question 6

Rando & Napoli 78

Answer 6

Correct restriction on there sentences is not that postverbal NP must not be formally definite, but rather it must be non-anaphoric defined as:
What is familiar to both speaker and hearer

Example LIST sentences
A. What’s worth visiting here?
B. there’s the park, a very nice restaurant, and the library.

Question 7

Abbot 92 versus R&N

Answer 7

Function of all there sentences, list or otherwise, is to draw addressee’s attention to the existence of the entity denoted by the postV NP. It would be anomalous to assert the existence of an entity presumed to be familiar to the addressee.

But if the existence of this entity is pointed out as a response to a request for entities of a certain type or for entities of a certain role, then asserting existence of such an entity is fine.

Relevant example:
A. I guess we’ve called everybody.
B. no, there’s still Mary and John.

Question 8

Holmback 84

Answer 8

The definite description must not be such that it can be seen to refer inclusively independent of the immediate context in order for an existential to have a definite description (postverbal NP).

Ex: #there is the man at the front door
There is the village idiot at the front door

Question 9

Hannay 85

Answer 9

A postV NP of a there -S can be definite just if it does not represent the sentence-topic.
A. What about the beans? V. What about John?
B. John ate the beans.
Topic differs by question.

Question 10

Lumsden 88

Answer 10

When the hearer expects the set of objects denoted by the post V NP to be already accessible, the sentence is infelicitious.

Question 11

Ward & Birner’s 5 cases where a definite but HN NP can occur in there sentence (postV)

Answer 11

1. HO treated as HN (reminder type/ shared knowledge)
   There were those neighbors at the city council meeting yesterday.
2. HN tokens of HO types (platonic shadows/instantiatons)
   There is the perfect man for Mary in my class.
3. HO entities newly instantiating a variable (OP type- answer wh question and license?/allow/explain? DefiniteWho should we invite to moms birthday party?
   Well, there’s Al, there’s Mr. Bibb, etc.
4. HN entities c/ uniquely identifying variables (UI)
   In kitterages latest book there is the claim THAT syntactic structure is Inferrable from pragmatic principles
5. False definites
   …there was this huge sheet of ice…