1. Introduction
Much
research in the past two decades (beginning with Abney’s seminal 1987 study)
has concluded that there are significant symmetries between the constituent
structure of nominal and verbal projections. In work within the Minimalist Program, Chomsky (1995, 1998, 1999) has argued (extending earlier
work by Larson 1988, 1990 and Hale and Keyser 1991, 1993, 1994) that verb
phrases have a complex internal structure comprising an outer vP shell headed
by an abstract light-verb (denoted by lower-case v) and an inner VP core headed by a lexical verb. There have been
occasional suggestions in the literature that noun phrases have a similar shell
structure, comprising an outer nP shell headed by a light noun and an inner NP
core headed by a lexical noun (see e.g. Carstens 2000, who builds on earlier
work by Sportiche 1990 and Valois 1991): the nP shell in turn serves as the
complement of higher-level nominal projections (See Cinque 1994 and Longobardi 1994,
1996 for some discussion of nominal superstructure). In this paper, I propose a
specific variant of the NP-shell analysis, focusing mainly on the syntax of
argumental (i.e. argument-selecting) nouns in English.
2. Argument merger
If
there is symmetry between the structure of noun phrases and verb phrases, we
should expect to find a uniform set of UG principles determining how (in the
unmarked case) specific types of argument are first-merged within split xP/XP
projections. For present purposes, I shall assume a simplified argument
projection hierarchy along the lines of (1) below:
(1) [xP bare agent [XP experiencer >
theme > oblique > agentive PP > clause]]
This is intended to indicate that a bare agent (like
John in John killed Fred) is projected as an external argument in spec-xP,
and that other arguments are projected as internal arguments within XP, with
> indicating c-command; where a head
has a single internal argument, this is projected as its complement; where a
head has two internal arguments, the higher of these is projected as its
specifier and the lower as its complement; where a head has three internal
arguments, this requires the projection of a double XP structure with the
highest argument serving as the specifier of the superordinate XP, the
intermediate argument serving as the specifier of the subordinate XP, and the
lowest argument as the complement of the subordinate XP. An agentive PP is a
phrase like by John in Fred was killed by John; oblique
arguments include PP arguments headed by a P other than genitive of or agentive by; a clausal argument is a non-nominal clause (i.e. one which is
case-resistant in the sense of Stowell 1981). The relative ordering of
arguments within the hierarchy (1) has correlates in other work: for example,
the relatively ‘low’ position of agentive PPs correlates with their chômeur status in Relational Grammar
(Perlmutter 1983); and the maximally low position of clausal arguments may be a
consequence of the need to avoid the parsing problems posed by centre-embedded
clauses (see e.g. Chomsky 1965, §1.2).
In order to establish that the hierarchy in (1) is
not specific to nominal projections, I will briefly show how it applies to
verbal projections. In relation to unaccusative sentences such as He has arrived, (1) determines that the theme argument he is first-merged as the highest internal argument of V; since it
is the sole argument of V, it follows (from the binarity of merger) that it will be projected as the complement of V (an
assumption which receives empirical support from the analysis of Italian ne cliticisation in Burzio 1986). In
simple transitives like He ate it,
(1) specifies that theme it is merged as the complement of V and
that the bare agent he is merged as the specifier of v: the
verb raises from V to adjoin to the null light-verb heading vP to derive the
structure shown in simplified form in (2) below at the end of the vP phase[2]:
(2) [vP
he [v ate] [VP [V t] it]]
In sentences like He gave it to her, agent
he is merged in spec-vP by (1), theme it as the highest internal argument (in spec-VP), and oblique goal to her as a lower internal argument in VP-complement position, so
that after V-to-v raising we derive the structure (3) below at the end of the
vP phase:
(3) [vP
he [v gave] [VP it [V
t] to her]]
In He
explained to her that there were complications, agent he is merged
in spec-vP, oblique to her in the
highest internal argument position (spec-VP) and the that-clause in the lowest internal argument position (VP-complement
position), so deriving (4) after V-to-v raising:
(4) [vP
he [v explained] [VP to her [V t] that there were complications]]
In He was
criticised by her, the prepositional agent
by her originates in the lowest
internal argument position (VP-complement position) and the theme argument he in the highest internal argument position (spec-VP),
subsequently raising to spec-TP by A-movement. By contrast, in It was agreed by the committee PRO to delay
the decision, the complement clause PRO
to delay the decision is merged as
the lowest internal argument of V and therefore occupies VP-complement position
and the by-phrase is merged in the
highest internal argument position (spec-VP), so that the by-phrase precedes the infinitive complement and c-commands its PRO
subject[3].
3. Other key assumptions
In
addition to assuming the Argument Projection Hierarchy in (1) above, I shall
make the following assumptions about genitive case-marking in English:
(5)(i) an experiencer
or theme argument of N can be
assigned inherent
genitive case (encoded by of[4])
(ii)
a null f-complete definite
determiner assigns structural genitive case
(encoded by the affix `s or by a genitive pronoun like my) to the closest
nominal which it agrees with[5]
There
are several reasons for thinking that of
genitives mark inherent case and `s
genitives[6]
mark structural case. For one thing, it is characteristic of inherent case in
English that it is encoded via a preposition[7]
(e.g. to encodes inherent dative case
in structures like He lent his car to
Mary), and characteristic of structural case that it is morphologically
encoded (in the case of pronouns like I/me/my,
via inflectional morphology; in the case of genitives like John’s, via an `s affix
which has much the same range of overt allomorphs[8]
as third person singular present tense –s).
Moreover, (structural) `s genitives
can encode a wide range of q-roles, whereas (inherent) of genitives can generally encode only theme/experiencer arguments: hence (e.g.)
the former – but not the latter – can be assigned to an agent argument[9],
as we see from the contrast in (6) below:
(6)(a) the
government’s ban on tobacco advertising
(b)
*the ban of the government on
tobacco advertising
In
addition, a temporal expression like last
week can be assigned structural but not inherent genitive case, as (7)
below shows:
(7)(a) last
week’s announcement that a new peace treaty had been signed
(b)
*the announcement of last week
that a new peace treaty had been signed
The
ungrammaticality of (7b) can be accounted for in a straightforward fashion if
we posit that of encodes inherent
genitive case, and hence can only be assigned to (internal) arguments of N, not
to adjuncts. Moreover, (for some speakers, at least [10])
`s genitives can undergo raising, whereas of genitives cannot: cf.
(8)(a) the
president’s certainty to be re-elected
(b)
*the certainty of the president
to be re-elected
A
final argument in support of treating of
genitives as inherently case-marked comes from contrasts such as:
(9)(a) extensive criticism over the past few
weeks of President Mugabe by
leading Commonwealth
politicians
(b)
*I have come to believe over the past few weeks President Mugabe to be
intransigent
As
the ungrammaticality of (9b) shows, there is a case-adjacency requirement on
structural case-marking in ECM structures to the effect that case-assigner and
case-assignee must be immediately adjacent. However, no such adjacency effect
is found in structures like (9a)[11].
In
addition to the assumptions made in (1) and (5) above, I shall make the further
assumption in (10) below:
(10) The light-noun heading nP is always strong in English, so that nouns
always raise from the head N position in NP to the head n
position of nP
If
V always raises to v (as argued in Radford 1997), it may be that there is a
greater generalisation here, to the effect that a null light head always
triggers head-raising.
Having
outlined the three key assumptions (1/5/10) made here, I now turn to look at
how a range of nominals are derived within the framework outlined above.
4. Unaccusative nominals
Consider
first of all unaccusative nominals such as:
(11)(a) the return of the president from
Cincinnati
(b)
the president’s return from Cincinnati
By
(1), the theme argument the president is projected higher than
the oblique (source) argument from Cincinnati. If the theme argument is assigned inherent
genitive case by (1), we will have the structure (12) below at the end of the
NP cycle:
(12) [NP of the president [N return] from
Cincinnati]
On
the next cycle, the NP in (12) is merged with a strong null light-noun,
triggering raising of the noun return
from N to n, and so deriving:
(13) [nP [n return] [NP of the president [N t]
from Cincinnati]]
Subsequent
merger of the nP in (10) with the determiner the forms the DP:
(14) [DP [D the] [nP [n return] [NP of the president [N t]
from Cincinnati]]]
If
attributive adjectives are contained in some projection intermediate between D
and nP, an attributive adjective like unexpected
can be positioned between the and
return, so giving rise to structures
such as the unexpected return of the president from Cincinnati[12].
In
the case of (8b) the president’s return
from Cincinnati, (1) will once again determine that the theme argument the president is projected higher than the oblique (source) argument from Cincinnati. This time, however, we assume that the president does not receive
(optional) inherent case, so that at the end of the NP cycle we have the
structure (12) below:
(15) [NP the president [N return] from
Cincinnati]
On
the next cycle, the NP in (15) is merged with a strong light noun which triggers
raising of the noun return from N to
n, so deriving the nP (16) below:
(16) [nP [n return] [NP the president [N t]
from Cincinnati]]
On
the final cycle, the nP in (16) is merged with a null f-complete determiner, so forming the DP (17)
below:
(17) [DP [D ø] [nP [n return] [NP the president [N t]
from Cincinnati]]]
This
null determiner agrees with (and assigns structural genitive case to) the DP the president; the null determiner also
carries an EPP-feature which triggers raising of the president to spec-DP, so deriving:
(18) [DP the
president’s [D ø] [nP [n return]
[NP t [N t] from Cincinnati]]]
If
attributive adjectives are contained within a projection intermediate between D
and nP, we correctly predict that the moved genitive DP the president can ‘cross’ intervening attributive adjectives, so
giving rise to structures such as the
president’s unexpected return from Cincinnati.
5. Experiential nominals
Now
consider how we derive experiential nominals such as:
(19)(a) the unwillingness of the chairman to
admit responsibility
(b)
the chairman’s unwillingness to admit responsibility
By
(1), the experiencer argument the chairman will originate in spec-NP
and the clausal argument to PRO admit
responsibility in NP-complement position. If the experiencer argument the
chairman is assigned inherent genitive case by (5i), we will have the
structure (20) at the end of the NP cycle:
(20) [NP of the chairman [N unwillingness] to
admit responsibility]
Merger
of the NP in (20) with a strong light-noun will trigger raising of the noun unwillingness from N to n, thereby
forming:
(21) [nP [n unwillingness] [NP of the chairman [N t] to admit responsibility]]
Subsequent
merger of (21) with the determiner the
will derive the DP (19a) the
unwillingness of the chairman to admit responsibility. In the case of (19b), the noun unwillingness is again merged with its
complement to admit responsibility
and with its specifier the chairman,
but this time the chairman is not
assigned (optional) inherent genitive case by (5i), so that at the end of the
NP cycle we have:
(22) [NP the chairman [N unwillingness] to
admit responsibility]
Merger
of the NP in (22) with a strong light-noun will trigger raising of the noun unwillingness from N to n, thereby
forming:
(23) [nP [n unwillingness] [NP the chairman [N t] to admit responsibility]]
The
resulting nP will in turn be merged with a null determiner, deriving[13]:
(24) [DP [D ø] [nP [n unwillingness] [NP the chairman [N t] to admit resp]]]
Since
the null determiner is (by hypothesis) f-complete, it will agree
with (and assign structural genitive case to) the DP the chairman. Since the determiner also has an EPP-feature, it
triggers movement of the genitive DP the
chairman’s to spec-DP, so deriving (25) below:
(25) [DP the
chair’s [D ø] [nP [n unwillingness]
[NP t [N t] to admit resp]]]
As
would be expected (given our earlier assumptions), the bold-printed genitive DP
can move across an intervening attributive adjective, resulting in structures
like the chairman’s apparent
unwillingness to admit responsibility.
6. Agentive nominals
Now
consider how we derive agentive by-phrase
nominals such as:
(26)(a) the destruction of the city by the enemy
(b)
the city’s destruction by the enemy
By
(1), the theme argument the city is projected as the higher
(specifier) argument of N and the agentive PP by the enemy as its lower (complement) argument; by (5i) the city can be assigned inherent
genitive case and realised as of the city.
If so, at the end of the NP-cycle, we will have the following structure:
(27) [NP of the city [N destruction] by the
enemy]
Merger
of the light-noun n with the NP in
(27) will yield the structure (28) below after N raises to n:
(28) [nP [n destruction] [NP of the city [N t]
by the enemy]]
Merger
of the resulting structure with the overt definite determiner the ultimately derives (26a) the destruction of the city by the enemy.
If
the of-phrase is heavy, it can be extraposed, as in (29) below:
(29) the destruction by the enemy of the city and the surrounding villages
The
word-order in (29) is marked (in the sense that the canonical word-order
illustrated in (26a) is for the of-phrase
to precede the by-phrase), with the
italicised of-phrase showing a
characteristic heaviness effect. One possibility is that structures like (29)
may be the result of a movement operation traditionally termed extraposition: if there is parallelism
between the syntax of nominal and verbal structures and if (as Chomsky 1999,
p.18 suggests) extraposition in the verbal domain involves adjunction to vP, it
seems likely that extraposed nominal arguments are adjoined to nP. However (as
Bob Borsley point out), an extraposition analysis would violate Kayne’s (1994) Linear Correspondence Axiom/LCA by
virtue of involving rightward movement. An alternative in situ analysis which would not involve movement and hence not
violate LCA would be to suppose that heavy constituents occupy the rightmost
position on the hierarchy (1) and are merged in situ without undergoing
movement[14].
Now
consider the derivation of (26b) the
city’s destruction by the enemy. At the end of the NP-cycle, we have the
structure (30) below (with the theme
argument the city not having been
assigned optional inherent genitive case):
(30) [NP the city [N destruction] by the
enemy]]
Merger
of n with the resulting NP and N-to-n raising derives:
(31) [nP [n destruction] [NP the city [N t]
by the enemy]]
Merger
of a null f-complete definite
determiner with this nP in turn derives:
(32) [DP
[D ø] [nP [n destruction] [NP the city [N t] by the enemy]]]
The
head D of DP c-commands (and agrees with) the
city, and values its case-feature as genitive
(with structural genitive case being spelled out as the suffix `s on the city’s); D carries an EPP feature which triggers movement of the city’s from spec-NP to spec-DP, so
deriving:
(33) [DP the
city’s [D ø] [nP
[n destruction] [NP t [N t]
by the enemy]]]
A
genitive expression moving to spec-DP can cross an intervening nP-modifying
adjective, e.g. like recent in a
structure such as the city’s recent
destruction by the enemy.
If
a referential DP is always a strong phase and nP is a strong phase only when it
has an external argument, such a derivation will not lead to violation of
Chomsky’s (1999, pp. 10-11) Phase
Impenetrability Condition which specifies that:
(34) Only the head H and edge a of a strong phase HP (not its domain YP) are
accessible to the head Z of an
immediately superordinate strong phase ZP in
structures of the schematic form
[ZP Z... [HP a [H YP]]
This
is because nP (by virtue of lacking an external argument in spec-nP) is not a
strong phase in (32), and so does not block agreement between D and the city.
Although
movement of the noun destruction from
N to n is not directly visible in (33), some evidence that N-to-n movement does
indeed take place is provided by nominals like (35) below:
(35) the city’s destruction last week by the enemy
If
we assume that expressions like last week
can serve as ‘adverbial’ NP-modifiers (first-merged on the edge of NP), a
nominal like (35) will have the structure (36) below:
(36) [DP the
city’s [D ø] [nP
[n destr] [NP last week t [N t] by the enemy]]]
and
movement of the noun destruction from
N to n thereby becomes directly visible.
7. Transitive nominals
Now
consider the derivation of ‘transitive’ nominals like (37) below:
(37) the enemy’s destruction of the city
Here,
the theme argument the city is merged as the complement of
N by (1) and assigned inherent genitive case by (5i); the external argument the enemy is merged as the specifier of
the light noun n by (1), so that at
the end of the nP cycle (after N-to-n raising), we have the structure:
(38) [nP the enemy [n destruction] [NP [N t] of
the city]]
Merger
of a null f-complete definite
determiner with the resulting nP yields:
(39) [DP [D ø] [nP the enemy [n destruction] [NP [N t]
of the city]]]
The
null f-complete head D of DP agrees with and
assigns structural genitive case to the
enemy; the EPP-feature of D drives movement of the enemy’s to spec-DP, so deriving:
(40) [DP the
enemy’s [D ø] [nP t [n destruction] [NP
[N t] of the
city]]]
As
before, the moved genitive DP the enemy’s
can cross intervening nP-modifying adjectives like recent in structures such as the
enemy’s recent destruction of the city. Agreement between D and the enemy in (39) is not blocked by the Phase Impenetrability Condition (34)
since the enemy is at the edge of nP
and therefore accessible to D.
Next,
consider a more complex (3-argument) transitive structure such as:
(41) the withdrawal of troups from the
occupied territories by the Israelis
By
(1), the theme argument troups is merged as the highest argument
of N (and assigned inherent genitive case by (5i)) and by the Israelis is merged as the lowest argument of N; the oblique
argument from the occupied territories is
an intermediate argument of N. Since merger is a binary operation, a double-NP
structure has to be projected to accommodate the three arguments. At the end of
the inner NP cycle, we will have the following structure:
(42) [NP from the occupied territories [N
withdrawal] by the Israelis]
At
the end of the outer NP cycle, we derive the following structure (after N-to-N
raising[15]):
(43) [NP of troups [N withdrawal] [NP from
the occup territories [N t] by the Israelis]]
Merger
of n with the resulting NP (and N-to-n raising) yields:
(44) [nP [N withdrawal] [NP of troups [N t]
[NP from the occ terr [N t] by the Israelis]]]
Merger
of the determiner the with the
structure in (44) yields (41) the
withdrawal of troups from the occupied territories by the Israelis.
Now
compare the derivation of (41) with that of (45) below:
(45) the Israelis’ withdrawal of troups from
the occupied territories
Here,
of troups and from the occupied territories are the two internal arguments of withdrawal, so that at the end of the
NP-cycle we have the structure (46) below:
(46) [NP of troups [N withdrawal] from the
occupied territories]
The
DP the Israelis is the external
argument of the light noun heading nP, so that at the end of the nP cycle
(after N-to-n raising) we have the structure (47) below:
(47) [nP the Israelis [n withdrawal] [NP of troups [N t]
from the occ territories]]
Subsequent
merger of the nP in (47) with a null determiner, and movement of the Israelis from spec-nP to spec-DP
will derive:
(48) [DP the
Israelis’ [D ø] [nP t [n withdrawal] [NP of troups [N t] from the occ terr]]]
The
analysis in (48) correctly predicts that the genitive DP the Israelis’ can cross an nP-modifier like recent in the Israelis’
recent withdrawal of troups from the occupied territories.
8. Nominals with clausal
complements
Now
consider nominals with clausal complements such as:
(49)(a) the jury’s decision to acquit the
defendant
(b)
the decision by the jury to acquit the defendant
In
(49a), the clausal argument to acquit the
defendant is the only internal argument of decision, and so is merged as its complement; the external agent argument the jury is merged in spec-nP, so that at the end of the nP cycle
we have the following structure (assuming N-to-n raising):
(50) [nP the jury [n decision] [NP [N t] PRO
to acquit the defendant]]
PRO
is c-commanded by its controller the jury
in spec-nP. Subsequent merger of (50) with a null D with abstract agreement
properties, assignment of structural genitive case to the jury and movement of the
jury to spec-DP will derive (49a) the
jury’s decision to acquit the defendant.
However,
the derivation of (49b) is somewhat different. Here, there are two internal
arguments; by (1) the clausal argument must be the lower argument (and hence
the complement of N) and the agentive by-phrase
the higher argument (and hence the specifier of N), so that at the end of the
NP cycle we have:
(51) [NP by the jury [N decision] PRO to
acquit the defendant]
As
required, PRO is c-commanded by its controller, namely the agentive argument by the jury. On the nP-cycle, N will
raise to n, deriving:
(52) [nP
[n decision] [NP by the jury [N t] PRO to acquit the
defendant]]
On
the DP cycle, the resulting nP will be merged with the to derive the DP (49b) the
decision by the jury to acquit the defendant.
9. Temporal genitives
An
interesting variant of (49b) are structures like the following (noted by Fukui
1986) which contain a temporal genitive like yesterday’s:
(53) yesterday’s decision by the jury to
acquit the defendant
One
analysis of temporal genitives (which we adopted earlier in (36) above) is to
suppose that they are NP-modifiers which are first-merged on the edge of NP, so
that at the point where D is merged with nP we have the following structure[16]:
(54) [DP [[D ø] [nP [[n decision] [NP yest [by the jury [[N t] PRO to acquit the def]]]]]]]
D
will then agree with (and assign structural genitive case to) yesterday, and the EPP-feature of D will
drive movement of yesterday’s to
spec-DP, deriving the following structure:
(55) [DP yesterday’s
[[D ø] [nP [[n decision] [NP t [by the jury [[N t] PRO to acquit the def]]]]]]]
Since
nP has no external argument, it is not a strong phase and so will not block
assignment of structural genitive case to yesterday
by D[17].
10. Prenominal arguments
Now
let’s turn to consider the syntax of the italicised prenominal expressions in
structures such as the following:
(56)(a) the government
decision PRO to ban French beef
(b)
the French decision PRO to ban
British beef
The
italicised expressions seem to occupy spec-nP in that they precede the noun decision (which, via N-to-n raising,
comes to occupy the head n position of nP), serve as controllers for PRO and occur
after nP-modifying adjectives like recent,
as the examples below illustrate:
(57)(a) the recent
government decision PRO to ban
French beef
(b)
*the government recent decision PRO to ban French beef
(58)(a) the recent
French decision PRO to ban British
beef
(b)
*the French recent decision PRO to ban British beef
Since
the status of French as an adjective
in (56b) seems relatively clear, it could be that government in (56a) serves a similar (quasi-adjectival) function:
indeed, it might be claimed that French
serves as an argumental adjective in (56b), fulfilling the role of the external
argument of decision. Alternatively,
it may be that government is an N
rather than a DP in (56a), and is projected into spec-nP by virtue of being the
external argument of decision,
escaping the case filter and
consequent raising to spec-DP by virtue of having the categorial status of N
rather than DP. (See Radford 1993, p.79 for a suggestion along these lines.)
One
of the many puzzles surrounding structures like (56) concerns how we account
for contrasts such as the following
(59)(a) the defeat of the government by the
opposition
(b)
the opposition defeat of the government
(60)(a) the opposition’s defeat of the government
(b)
*the government’s opposition defeat
(59a)
seems to have essentially the same derivation as (26a), the destruction of the city by the enemy, and (60a) as (37) the enemy’s destruction of the city. In
(59b), the government is merged as
the complement of defeat by (1) and
assigned inherent genitive case by (5i). On the nP cycle, N raises to n and the
external argument opposition is
merged in spec-nP. The resulting nP is then merged with the determiner the to derive:
(61) [DP
[D the] [nP opposition [n defeat] [NP
[N t] of the government]]]
But
now consider why (60b) is ungrammatical. The derivation of (60b) will proceed
essentially as for (60a) up to the stage represented in (61), except that the
overall DP will be headed by a null f-complete D, and the government will not be assigned
inherent case and so will still be active by virtue of having an unvalued
case-feature. At relevant stage of derivation, we thus have:
(62) [DP [D ø] [nP opposition [n defeat]
[NP [N t] the government]]]
We
might therefore expect that the null determiner occupying the head D position
of DP can agree with (and assign structural genitive case to) the government, and that the EPP feature
of D will drive movement to spec-DP, so deriving:
(63) [DP the
government’s [D ø] [nP
opposition [n defeat] [NP [N t] t]]]
However,
the resulting structure is ungrammatical. Why should this be? The answer is
that the derivation will violate the Phase
Impenetrability Condition/PIC (34) if a referential DP is always a strong
phase, if nP is a strong phase when it has an external argument, and if opposition is the external argument of
nP: this is because PIC will block agreement between D and the government across the intervening strong phase nP[18].
Phase impenetrability means that the case feature of the DP the opposition cannot be LF-erased and
PF-valued (nor indeed can the EPP-feature of D be erased), causing the
derivation to crash at both LF and PF. By contrast, the corresponding agentive
nominal (64) below is grammatical:
(64) the government’s defeat by the
opposition
and
this has a derivation parallel to that of (26b) the city’s destruction by the enemy.
11. Possessive nominals
Although
my main concern in this paper is with the syntax of argumental nominals in
English, I will briefly look at the syntax of possessive nominals[19]
such as:
(65)(a) Mary’s new hat
(b)
*the new hat of Mary
Since
nouns denoting concrete objects like hat
are non-argumental, it is clear that Mary
does not function as an argument of the noun hat. Rather, it seems more likely that Mary originates as the specifier of an abstract possessive morpheme
poss which assigns the role of possessor to its specifier (Mary) and possessum to its complement (new hat). If (as Cinque 1994 argues) attributive adjectives are
specifiers of a superordinate functional projection FP[20],
(65) will have the simplified structure (66) below at the point where D is
first-merged with its possp
complement:
(66) [DP [D ø] [POSSP Mary [POSS ø] [FP new
hat]]]
Since
Mary is not an argument of hat, Mary
cannot be assigned inherent genitive case (marked by of) under (5i) – hence the ungrammaticality of (65b) *the new hat of Mary. Instead, the null f-complete D heading DP agrees with the
nearest nominal which it c-commands (namely, the possessor Mary) and
assigns it genitive case (so that the possessor
surfaces as Mary’s); the EPP-feature
of D forces movement of Mary’s to
spec-DP, so deriving:
(67) [DP Mary’s
[D ø] [POSSP t [POSS ø] [FP new
hat]]]
12. Conclusion
The
overall conclusion argued for here is that there is a significant parallelism
between the structure of (argumental) nominal and verbal projections, and that
both may comprise an inner XP core
with a lexical head X contained
within an outer xP shell with a light
head x. The parallelism also extends
to their superstructure in that both are in turn contained within a
superordinate strong phase (CP for complete clauses, DP for complete nominals),
and if both vP and nP are only strong phases if they project an external
argument in spec-vP/spec-nP.
Abney,
S P (1987) The English Noun Phrase in its
Sentential Aspect, PhD diss,
MIT
Boskovic,
Z (1997) The Syntax of Nonfinite
Complementation: An Economy
Approach, MIT Press
Bowers,
J. (1993) ‘The syntax of predication’, Linguistic
Inquiry 24: 591-656.
Burzio,
L (1986) Italian Syntax, Reidel,
Dordrecht
Carstens,
V (2000) ‘Concord in Minimalist Theory’, Linguistic
Inquiry, vol. 31,
no.2
Chomsky,
N (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax,
MIT Press, Cambridge Mass
Chomsky,
N (1995) The Minimalist Program, MIT
Press, Cambridge Mass
Chomsky,
N (1998) Minimalist Inquiries, MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics no.
15
Chomsky,
N (1999) Derivation by Phase, MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics
Cinque,
G (1994) ‘Evidence for partial N-movement in the Romance DP’, in G
Cinque, J Koster, J-Y Pollock, L Rizzi
& R Zanuttini (eds) Towards Universal
Grammar, Georgetown University Press, Washington DC, pp. 85-110.
de
Wit, P. (1995) ‘Double genitives’, OTS
Yearbook 1995, Utrecht University,
pp.101-113
Fukui,
N. (1986) A Theory of Category Projection
and its applications, PhD
diss,
MIT
Hale,
K & Keyser, S J (1991) On the Syntax
of Argument Structure, Lexicon
Project Working Papers, Center for
Cognitive Science, MIT
Hale,
K & Keyser, S J (1993) ‘On argument structure and the lexical expression of
semantic relations’, in K Hale & S J Keyser
(eds) The View from Building 20,
MIT Press, Cambridge Mass, pp.53-109
Hale, K & Keyser, S J (1994) ‘Constraints on argument structure’, in B Lust, M
Suñer & J Whitman (eds) Heads, Projections and Learnability, Erlbaum,
Hillsdale NJ, vol.1, pp.53-71
Kayne,
R (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax,
MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.
Larson,
R (1988) ‘On the double object construction’, Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335
-91
Larson,
R (1990) ‘Promise and the theory of
control’, Linguistic Inquiry 22:
103-39
Lobeck,
A (1990) ‘Functional heads as proper governors’, Proceedings of NELS
20: 348-362
Longobardi,
G. (1994) ‘Reference and proper names’, Linguistic
Inquiry 25: 609
-666
Longobardi,
G. (1996) ‘The syntax of N-raising: a minimalist theory’, OTS
Working Papers no 5, Research Institute for
Language and Speech, Utrecht
Murusagi,
K & Saito, M (1994) ‘Adjunction and cyclicity’, Proceedings of the 13th
West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pp. 302-317
Perlmutter,
D (1983) Studies in Relational Grammar,
University of Chicago Press
Radford,
A. (1993) ‘Head-hunting: on the trail of the nominal Janus’, in G Corbett,
N M Fraser & S McGlashan (eds) Heads in Grammatical Theory, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp. 73-11
Sportiche,
D (1990) Movement, Agreement and Case,
ms. UCLA
Stowell,
T (1981) Origins of Phrase Structure,
PhD diss, MIT
Valois,
D (1991) The Syntax of DP, PhD diss,
UCLA
Zribi-Hertz,
A (1997) ‘On the dual nature of the “possessive” marker in Modern
English’, Journal of Linguistics 33: 511-537
__________________________________________________________________
[1] I am grateful to Bob Borsley, Claudia Felser and Mike Jones for comments on an earlier draft of this paper. This version appeared in Essex Research Reports in Linguistics (November 2000), vol. 33, pp 2-20.
[2] To simplify exposition, labelled bracketings show only heads and maximal projections, not intermediate projections: null light verbs and light nouns are omitted; traces and their antecedents are printed in the same bold type-face (italic or bold). I am not concerned with the syntax of superordinate (e.g. TP and CP) projections here, or with whether transitive objects move to a higher position.
[3] This will also be the case if PRO remains in situ within VP, as suggested in Bowers 1993 and Boskovic 1997.
[4] This should not be taken to imply that the sole function of the word of is to mark inherent genitive case. Arguably of has a different predicative function in of-phrases such as those italicised in ‘a man of great distinction’ and ‘a portrait of John’s’. (See Kayne 1994, de Wit 1995 and Carstens 2000 on the latter.) The force of or in (5i) is that when a noun has both an experiencer and a theme argument, only one of these two arguments can be assigned inherent genitive case (marked by of). The grammaticality (i) a mother’s love of her children and (ii) the love of a mother for her children and the ungrammaticality of *the love of a mother of her children suggests that when a noun (like love) has both an experiencer and a theme argument, only one of the arguments can be inherently case-marked by genitive of. This presumably follows from a case uniqueness requirement of some kind, requiring each argument of a given head to be assigned a unique case.
[5] The assumption that the relevant determiner is definite accounts for the fact that genitives like John’s car are interpreted as meaning ‘the car belonging to John’ rather than ‘a car belonging to John’. If Lobeck (1990) and Murusagi and Saito (1994) are correct in their observation that only a f-complete functional head allows ellipsis of its complement, the fact that `s possessives allow complement ellipsis (in structures such as ‘John’s car is red, and Mary’s is yellow’) suggests that the relevant determiner is f-complete. For concreteness, the genitive `s affix is here taken to a marker of the genitive case carried by the nominal to which it is affixed, rather than (as in Chomsky 1995, p.263) the head D of DP – though this does not affect the analysis offered here in any significant way. Not taken into account here is the so-called adjectival use of `s discussed in Zribi-Hertz (1997).
[6] Throughout, the term `s genitives should be taken to include pronominal genitives like my. These are arguably the only ‘true’ genitives found in English, for the reasons given in the following footnote.
[7] It is far
from clear that it makes sense to say that (e.g.) inherent dative/genitive case
is encoded via the preposition to/of,
for the obvious reason that the complement of
to/of surfaces with accusative
(not dative/genitive) case. What seems to be meant by saying that a preposition
encodes inherent dative/genitive case is that a given head indirectly
q-marks a given argument via the use of the transitive preposition to/of. From this perspective, it is misleading to talk of prepositions like to/of as encoding dative/genitive case. However, since this traditional terminology is so deeply embedded in the relevant literature on case-assignment, I shall continue to make use of it here.
[8] As is well known, the two differ in that possessive `s has a null allomorph e.g. in the soldiers’ behaviour.
[9] Bob Borsley
points out to me that questions arise about structures in which a possible agent surfaces as an of-phrase, e.g. in nominals such as the shooting of the hunters (where the hunters
has a subject interpretation). However, as Mike Jones observes, such nominals
have a manner interpretation rather
than an event interpretation – hence
we say The shooting of the hunters was
accurate (with hunters
interpreted as a subject) though not (on the same subject interpretation) *The shooting of the hunters took place
yesterday. Also unaccounted for within the present framework are contrasts
like *The decision of the Faculty Board
about the withdrawal of the degree scheme vs. The decision of the Faculty Board to withdraw the degree scheme.
[10] Not all speakers accept (5a), it seems. However, for speakers like me who do, there is a strong contrast between (5a) and (5b). Note also the ungrammaticality of *her belief of him to be innocent, showing that an infinitive subject cannot be realised as an of genitive: this follows if of marks inherent genitive case, since him is not an argument of belief.
[11] An additional argument in support of the analysis in (2) can be formulated in relation to structures such as Mary’s fear of spiders. If (contrary to what is suggested here) both `s and of genitives involved structural case assignment, `s genitives might be case-marked by a null f-complete D, and of genitives by a null f-complete light-noun. But on the nP cycle where we have the structure [nP [n ø] [NP Mary [N fear] spiders]], the light-noun [n ø] would agree with and assign (of) genitive case to the nearest nominal (Mary) which it c-commands. This not only wrongly predicts that Mary will surface as of Mary but also provides no means of case-marking spiders. By contrast, under the analysis in (2) in the main text, spiders is assigned inherent genitive case (so surfacing as of spiders), and Mary is assigned structural genitive case (surfacing as Mary’s and moving to spec-DP) on the DP cycle, via agreement with a null f-complete D with an EPP feature.
[12] As Bob Borsley points out, some potential empirical evidence in support of the analysis in (14) might come from co-ordinate structures such as The return of the President from Cincinnati and of the First Lady from Cleveland.
[13] Where lack of space makes this expedient, I abbreviate words in structural representations.
[14] It may be that binding data from marked-order structures like my presentation to Mary of herself/??my presentation to herself of Mary favour the in situ analysis, since the to-phrase would c-command the of-phrase on the in-situ analysis though not on the extraposition analysis. However, the relevant binding data are somewhat murky.
[15] The noun withdrawal here raises from the subordinate to the superordinate N position in order to q-mark troups, under the assumption that q-marking involves a local relation between a head and its complement or specifier.
[16] In (31/32), intermediate projections are shown (in unlabelled form) as well as heads and maximal projections. The fact that we can say both (i) the decision yesterday by the jury to acquit the defendant and (ii) the decision by the jury yesterday to acquit the defendant might suggest that a temporal expression like yesterday can be first-merged either immediately above or immediately below the argument in spec-NP (hence immediately before or after the agentive argument by the jury). See also the following note.
[17] As Bob Borsley points out, the analysis of temporal modifiers like yesterday presented here would predict that temporal expressions are canonically positioned after head nouns. However, the word order in the return yesterday of the president from Cincinnati seems to me to be more marked than that in the return of the president yesterday from Cincinnati. It may be that yesterday is a temporal argument of the noun return and that the preferred position for temporal arguments is intermediate between theme and oblique arguments on the hierarchy (1).
[18] An alternative answer might be in terms of the minimal link requirement which in effect
requires D to agree with the closest nominal which it c-commands: if (contrary
to the assumption made earlier) opposition
is a f-complete DP with an
unvalued case feature, D will agree with (and assign structural genitive case
to) opposition rather than the government by virtue of being closer
to the former than the latter. However, if opposition
is a f-complete DP, we should
expect it to be modified by the, so
deriving the opposition’s defeat of the
government. The fact that the noun opposition
seems to resist structural case-marking (cf. *the recent opposition’s
defeat of the government) and is bare (i.e. lacks the determiner the) might support the suggestion made
in the main text that it is a caseless N in structures like the recent opposition defeat of the
government.
[19] I am concerned here only with what Zribi-Hertz (1997) terms transitive possessive structures.
[20] It is clear that new cannot be the specifier of hat within a binary-branching framework, and hence that new must be the specifier of a superordinate functional projection FP.