The English construction there from the point of view of communicative syntax

Types of impersonal sentences
Recently, on the pages of the press, the opinion has been put forward that in impersonal sentences, the form of the indirect case acts as a subject. This assumption, it seems to us, is not supported by the facts of language. Take, for example, the sentences Evening or (Winds) blew the roof off. If we proceed from the concept of the theme as a predicative actant, then indeed, the winds should act as a subject, despite the presence in it of the form of the creative case. However, we must not forget that with this approach there is a violation of grammatical integrity. Let's start with the form of supper, in which it is not clear what is the topic and subject of the sentence. Obviously, the obligatory division into topic and rhema is impossible within the framework of language conditions, and what is a logical or psychological subject is not equivalent to a grammatical subject and a predicate. It is also obvious that it is not indirect cases (by the way, insignificant and not at all mandatory for sentences of this kind), but the structure of the predicate itself that includes the subject. This is most clearly seen in the second example (The winds blew the roof off), where the predicate is an exponent of the singular neuter gender, not correlated with the indirect case, in which there is a plural noun of the masculine gender. The lack of agreement allows you to freely vary the place of this noun, which can equally well occupy both predicative and postpredicative positions. Structural redesign of the proposal (The winds blew the roof away) does not mean its grammatical equality with the previous one and once again testifies to the inadmissibility of reducing grammatical meaning to logical.
Returning to the predicative location of the topic as a supposedly universal form of expression of the subject, it is necessary to mention the well-known fact that the Indo-European languages, as is known, are languages of the nominative system, i.e., they are characterized by the obligatory use of the subject in the nominative case. Therefore, the use of only the first place in the sentence is a possible way of expressing the subject, but not the only and not mandatory. If the predicative position in the sentence emphasizes the logical significance of the subject, and the meaning of the nominative case is either a duplication of this significance (in the presence of a postpredicative position), or a conflict with it, then what is the internal structure of the connection between the name and the verb, revealing the reasons for the evolution of the sentence?
It is no accident that the division of a sentence into members is fraught with a number of objective difficulties arising from the confusion of grammatical, logical and psychological relations. In particular, the finding of the main and minor members of the sentence in constructions with introductory 1) it is, 2) this , 3) there - there is still not summed up under the framework generally legalized by grammar.
2. Вводящая конструкция there

2.1 Cases of use of the construction

Возьмем третий тип конструкций с there — там (There Is a house in the wood). (Там) есть дом в лесу. Грамматическим подлежащим конструкции выступает вводящее слово (в данном случае there), грамматическим сказуемым — is a house, логическим субъектом высказывания является a house, логической связкой is, психологической темой there is a house — там есть дом.

Thus, the subject there is completely desemantized. It approaches the desemantized it in the construction with the modal value of the object, but differs from it in much greater semantic emptiness. To a certain extent, there is correlated with the omission of the subject type in Russian impersonal phrases: it is difficult to breathe, it is impossible to walk etc., where the sharpening and focusing on the modal nature of the object in terms of revealing the psychologically significant features of the latter resulted in the development of such a syntactic model in which the subject is superfluous. However, in the case of there, the spatial bridgehead is preserved, although it acts not as a concrete-embodied pointer, but as a representative of abstract-perceivable relations. Since every phenomenon of language is a unity of the abstract and the concrete, it is natural that the abstraction in the grammatical subject must be filled by the concreteness of the two forms associated with it.
It is characteristic that from a grammatical point of view, sentences with the subject there do not consist of one center, but, as it were, break up into two autonomous ones. The first consists of a predicate (is a house), which includes its own object (a house), forming with it the so-called compound predicate. The second consists of the subject, which in turn tends to include its object, its revealing. For example, there is in the wood, where in the wood acts as a determinant of a desemantized and indefinitely-indicative subject. It is in this sense that each of the two centers (is a house and there - in the wood) can independently develop in the rhema: 1) A house that has three' windows; 2) There — in the wood that is thick. It turns out that the compound predicate not only distinguishes the subject with a temporal characteristic, but also in the information-concrete sense is disconnected from the subject, which is determined by itself independently and separately from the group of the predicate, which is also determined by itself in the rhema.