MIT dissertations: Abney (1987)

The English Noun Phrase in Its Sentential Aspect

Steven Paul Abney

May 1987

This dissertation is a defense of the hypothesis that the noun phrase is headed by a functional element (i.e., “non-lexical” category) D, identified with the determiner. In this way, the structure of the noun phrase parallels that of the sentence, which is headed by Infl(ection), under assumptions now standard within the Government–Binding (GB) framework.

The central empirical problem addressed is the question of the proper analysis of the so-called “Poss-ing” gerund in English. This construction possesses simultaneously many properties of sentences, and many properties of noun phrases. The problem of capturing this dual aspect of the Poss-ing construction is heightened by current restrictive views of X-bar theory, which, in particular, rule out the obvious structure for Poss-ing, [_NP NP VP_ing], by virtue of its exocentricity.

Consideration of languages in which nouns, even the most basic concrete nouns, show agreement (AGR) with their possessors points to an analysis of the noun phrase as headed by an element similar to Infl, which provides a position for AGR; I call this Infl-like element “d.” D and Infl belong to the class of non-lexical categories, which I prefer to call functional categories. The analysis in which D heads the noun phrase I call the “DP analysis.”

Importing the DP analysis into English yields an immediate solution for the problem of the Poss-ing gerund: Poss-ing gerunds (and by extension, noun phrases generally) have a more sentence-like structure than hitherto thought, namely, [_DP DP’s D VP_ing]. (In non-gerundive noun phrases, “VP” is replaced by a projection of N. This projection of N, despite being a maximal X-bar projection, corresponds to N-bar in the standard analysis.)

Current trends in the treatment of minor categories—so-called “non-lexical” categories—lead us to a similar conclusion. Until recently, minor categories like complementizers and modals had been treated as syncategorematic. Under current assumptions, however, they participate fully in the X-bar schema. In this way, two simplifications are achieved simultaneously: we eliminate syncategorematic elements, and we acquire endocentric analysis of the sentence, which had been exceptional in being the only exocentric major category. To make these results fully general, we are led to treat the remaining syncategorematic elements—in particular, determiners in noun phrases and degree words in adjective phrases—as heads of full phrases. The analogy with complementizers and modals indicates that determiners and degree words should head noun phrases and adjective phrases, respectively. In other words, determiners are lexical instantiations of “D” in the same way that modals are lexical instantiations of Infl.

However, despite the conceptual links, the question of the existence of a functional head of the noun phrase (the DP analysis), and the question of the place of the determiner, are independent questions, and I treat them separately: Chapters One through Three are concerned predominately with the former question, Chapter Four with the latter.

Chapter One provides a brief introduction. In Chapter Two I present the DP analysis, motivating it by examining languages with agreement between noun and possessor. I also discuss issues raised by the DP analysis, with emphasis on the parallelism between noun phrase and sentence hypothesized under the DP analysis. In particular, I treat the question of PRO in noun phrase; and I show that the numerous differences between sentence and noun phrase do not invalidate the parallelism of structure proposed under the DP analysis. In Chapter Three I apply the analysis to the three gerundive constructions, Acc-ing, Poss-ing, and -ing of. Finally, in Chapter Four, I turn to the question of whether the determiner is the lexical instantiation of D, the functional head of the noun phrase.

Thesis Supervisor: Dr. Richard K. Larson, Assistant Professor of Linguistics

1	Introduction			14
1.1	A puzzle and its solution			14
	1.1.1	The puzzle		14
	1.1.2	An apparently unrelated fact		17
	1.1.3	The solution		21
	1.1.4	The identity of X		23
	1.1.5	Sentence and noun phrase		25
1.2	Overview			28

2	Noun phrase and sentence			30
2.1	General similarities			30
2.2	Infl in the noun phrase			37
	2.2.1	Yup’ik		39
	2.2.2	Mayan		42
	2.2.3	Hungarian		44
	2.2.4	Digression: Comp in the noun phrase		46
	2.2.5	Turkish		49
2.3	The DP analysis			54
	2.3.1	Concepts and terminology		54
		a.	“Inflectional” elements	54
		b.	C-projection and S-projection	57
		c.	“D” vs. “Det”	58
		d.	Syntactic features	60
	2.3.2	Functional selection		63
	2.3.3	Two notions of command		68
	2.3.4	Det as head		71
	2.3.5	The position of ’s		78
		a.	Morphological Case affix	78
		b.	Determiner	79
		c.	Postposition: N Case-assigns	79
		d.	Postposition: AGR Case-assigns	81
	2.3.6	Appendix: Selection of DP		85
2.4	PRO in the noun phrase			89
	2.4.1	PRO book		89
	2.4.2	θ-theory		92
		a.	Derived nominals	92
		b.	Rationale clauses	93
	2.4.3	Control theory		97
	2.4.4	Binding theory		97
	2.4.5	Arguments against PRO in the noun phrase		101
		a.	Yesterday’s destruction	101
		b.	Obligatoriness of control	103
2.5	Differences between noun phrase and sentence			107
	2.5.1	Predication in the noun phrase		107
	2.5.2	Catalog of differences		115
		a.	A preliminary: process vs. result	115
		b.	Oligatoriness of subject	121
		c.	Pleonastics	122
		d.	Case	122
		e.	Restrictions on passive	123
		f.	Psych nouns	125
		g.	Raising	129
		h.	Exceptional Case Marking	129
		i.	Small clauses	131
		j.	Ditransitivity	131
		k.	Object control	134
		l.	Tough constructions	135
		m.	John’s breaking his leg	139
		n.	Pseudo-passive	142
		o.	Particles, particle movement	143
		p.	Resultative secondary predicates	143
		q.	Object pleonastics	145
		r.	Concealed questions	146
		s.	Indirect questions	146
		t.	Complementizer deletion	147
	2.5.3	Appendix: reducing the differences		149

3	Gerunds			165
3.1	Introduction			165
	3.1.1	The range of gerund constructions		167
	3.1.2	Reuland’s analysis of Acc-ing		168
3.2	Noun phrase aspects of Poss-ing			171
	3.2.1	External evidence		171
		a.	Distribution	171
		b.	Agreement	175
		c.	Long-distance binding	175
	3.2.2	Internal evidence		176
		a.	Subject	176
		b.	Specificity	178
		c.	Pied piping	179
		d.	Scope	179
		e.	Sentential adverbs	180
3.3	Sentential aspects of Poss-ing			182
	3.3.1	VP in Poss-ing		182
	3.3.2	PRO in the gerund		183
	3.3.3	“N-bar” deletion		188
3.4	Analyses I: finding the seam			190
	3.4.1	Schachter		190
	3.4.2	Horn		192
	3.4.3	The D–VP analysis		193
		a.	-ing as functional head	193
		b.	Turkish again	196
		c.	’s and determiners	197
	3.4.4	The D–IP analysis		199
		a.	Determiners	201
		b.	The positions of -ing	201
		c.	Spanish el + infinitive	202
		d.	Scope of not	203
		e.	’s as θ-assigner	205
3.5	Analyses II: the morphological angle			210
	3.5.1	Jackendoff		210
		a.	The deverbal rule schema	210
		b.	The history of the English gerund	211
		c.	-ing of	214
	3.5.2	Pesetsky/Lebeaux		217
	3.5.3	Baker		219
3.6	Conclusion: Syntactic affixation			222
	3.6.1	A final analysis		222
		a.	The “scope” of -ing	222
		b.	Acc-ing	225
		c.	Poss-ing	228
		d.	The site of -ing	231
		e.	Lowering -ing	238
		f.	Appendix: VP- and NP-deletion	244
	3.6.2	Affixes in the syntax		248
		a.	The “new morphology”	248
		b.	Turkish gerunds and the Mirror Principle	249
		c.	Generalizing the Mirror Principle	251
	3.6.3	Verbal and adjectival passive		253
		a.	Distribution	254
		b.	Internal evidence	257
		c.	A digression on Case absorption	258
		d.	More internal evidence	262

4	Lexical determiners			265
4.1	Determiners as head			268
	4.1.1	Arguments for the standard analysis		268
		a.	Selectional restrictions	268
		b.	Determiners and possessors	270
		c.	Hungarian	272
	4.1.2	Sundry evidence for Det as head		277
		a.	Dets that cannot stand alone	277
		b.	Dets that can stand alone	278
		c.	Pronouns	281
		d.	Dets as functional elements	285
		e.	Head-to-head movement	285
	4.1.3	The range of specifiers		287
		a.	Two bars vs. three bars	287
		b.	Noun phrase specifiers	290
		c.	Pseudo-partitive	295
4.2	The adjective phrase			298
	4.2.1	Deg as head		298
	4.2.2	Adjective, adverb, and quantifier		301
	4.2.3	The “subject” of Deg		304
	4.2.4	Extent clauses		312
	4.2.5	Two specifiers in adjective phrase		315
	4.2.6	Overview of structures		320
4.3	The positions of prenominal adjectives			322
	4.3.1	Two hypotheses		322
	4.3.2	Adjective as head of NP		323
		a.	Too big a house	323
		b.	Complements	326
		c.	Mere and utter	328
		d.	Semantics	328
		e.	Comparatives	331
		f.	Determination of noun phrase type	333
		g.	Idioms	334
	4.3.3	Two more hypotheses		335
		a.	AP vs. DegP	335
		b.	Quantifiers	338
		c.	Problems	341
4.4	Conclusion			351

5	Bibliography			355

1

Introduction

14

2

Noun phrase and sentence

30

3

Gerunds

165

4

Lexical determiners

265

5

Bibliography

355