Transcript Lecture 11 PP

Syntax
Lecture 11:
The Return of the DP
Introduction
• We have argued that the determiner is a head
taking the NP as its complement
Introduction
• The possessor is in the specifier of the DP
Introduction
• We will accept this basic analysis
• However, there are a number of details that
need to be sorted out
DPs without determiners
• A determiner is not always present in every DP
– [DP The men] are leaving
– [DP Men] are leaving
– [DP John] is leaving
• It is standard to assume that in these cases
the determiner is present, but phonologically
unexpressed
– [DP  men]
– [DP  John]
DPs without determiners
• In support of this analysis:
– nouns themselves are neither definite or indefinite:
• The men
• This John
–
–
–
–
some men
some John
The DP men is indefinite and the DP John is definite
This must be due to some other element
Determiners are responsible for this distinction
Therefore there must be a determiner in these
phrases
• [DP indef men]
• [DP def John]
Possessors and determiners
• Possessors and determiners are in
complementary distribution
– John’s dog
– The dog
– * John’s the dog
• This used to be taken as evidence that the
possessor sits in the determiner position
• It was therefore accepted that words and
phrases could occupy the same position
Current X-bar assumptions
• According to current views:
– Words are in head positions
– Phrases are in complement, specifier or adjunct
positions
• The possessor is in the specifier of DP and the
determiner is in the head position
• So why are they in complementary
distribution?
The status of ‘’s’
• The English pre-nominal possessor is marked
with the possessive morpheme ’s
• This is often referred to as the genitive marker
• But there are a number of reasons to think
that this is not a morpheme of genitive case
– Modern English has no other case morphology
– The morpheme does not behave like a case
morpheme
How case morphemes behave
• Case morphology can affect the form of nouns,
adjectives or determiners (or a combination of these)
– Hungarian – nouns and some determiners (pronouns and
demonstratives)
• (azt) a nagy fiút
– Finnish – nouns and adjectives
• Minä parka
jouduin siivoamaan.
I(Nom) poor(Nom) got
to clean
`Poor me ended up cleaning.'
– German – determiners, adjectives and some nouns
• Den
jungen
Mann
the(acc) young(acc) man
How case morphemes behave
• Importantly, the case morpheme attaches to
words, not phrases:
– azt az embert akiről te figyelmeztettél engem
– * azt az ember akiről te figyelmeztettél engemet
• But this is exactly how ’s behaves
– John’s dog
– A friend of mine’s dog
– That man who you warned me about’s dog
Another phrasal morpheme
• There is one other morpheme in English which
behaves like this:
– John’d seen it
– A friend of mine’ll pay
– The man who you warned me about’d do it
• This is the contracted auxiliary
– John (ha)d seen it
– A friend of mine (wi)ll pay
– The man who you warned me about (woul)d do it
Another phrasal morpheme
• This involves a process
which:
– contracts the auxiliary in
I
– makes it a phonological
dependent (clitic) on the
subject
Rethinking ‘’s’
• Based on this, an
analysis of the
possessive marker
suggests itself
– It is a contracted head
(D)
– Which becomes a clitic
on its specifier (the
possessor)
Possessors and determiners
• When there is a possessor
there must be a possessive
determiner
• So there cannot be another
determiner
• Other determiners can only
appear when there is no
possessor
• Hence possessors and
determiners are in
complementary distribution
More problematic determiners
• X-bar theory claims there can only be one
head of a phrase
• If the determiner is the head of the DP, we
would expect only one determiner
• However
– The few moments after the explosion
– The many errors in the report
– All the people in the room
– Both the locks on the door
More problematic determiners
• Looking at these examples, it seems that there
are some ‘determiners’ which can precede
articles, but not follow them:
– All the tables
* the all tables
• And some which can follow, but not precede
articles
– A few seconds
* few a seconds
Terminology
• Some traditional grammars (e.g. Quirk et al.)
have called these: pre-, central and post
determiners
Predeterminer
Central
Determiner
Post
Determiner
Noun
all
these
many
words
Central Determiners
• These consist of
– The articles
• All the people
a few words
– The demonstratives
• All this noise
these many arguments
– The possessives
• Both my parents
John’s many crimes
– Most quantifiers
• * each the boats
every few seconds
Post Determiners
• Post determiners have adjectival declensions
– Few – fewer – fewest
– Many – more – most
• They can also be modified like adjectives
– Very few
– Very many
so few
so many
as few
as many
• No central determiner behaves like this
– * eacher
* somest
* very the
• These observations suggest that not only are post
determiners adjectives, but they are APs
• A phrase cannot be a head, so they are clearly not heads of
DPs
Post Determiners
• Determiners always
have NP
complements
Post Determiners
• Determiners always
have NP
complements
• Therefore the post
determiner (AP) must
be inside the NP
• But it always
precedes everything
else inside the NP
– * These good few men
Post Determiners
• This suggests that
the post determiner
sits in the specifier
of NP
Pre-determiners
• Pre-determiners seem to be real determiners
(they are not adjectives or phrases)
– * aller
* bothest
* very half
• They can appear with an of between them and
the central determiner
– All of these ideas
both of the twins
• But so can most central determiners and post
determiners
– Those of the audience
– Few of his followers
each of my aunts
most of the time
Pre-determiners
• The of typically appears in
front of a nominal
complement of a noun:
– Destroy [DP the city]
destruction of [DP the city]
• This might suggest that
there is an abstract noun
present in this
construction
– Some N of the time
Pre-determiners
• If this is correct, then
pre-determiners are just
determiners
• They are only different in
that the of is optional
– All N (of) the time
Support for the analysis
• Pre-determiner constructions are similar to
‘group noun’ constructions
– All (of) the men
– Each member of the committee
• Both constructions allow fronting of the of phrase
– Of the men, all were over six feet tall
– Of the committee, each member was convinced
• This is not possible in normal DPs
– A student of linguistics
– * of linguistics, as student was murdered
Support for the analysis
• Pre-determiner and
group noun
constructions have a
similar meaning
• Some bottles of the wine
– The complement DP
identifies the set we are
talking about
– The group noun
partitions this set into
units
– The determiner specifies
which of the units we
focus on
The wine
bottles
some
Support for the analysis
• Pre-determiner and
group noun
constructions have a
similar meaning
• Some of the crowd
– The complement DP
identifies the set we are
talking about
– The abstract noun
partitions this set into
units
– The determiner specifies
which of the units we
focus on
The crowd

some
Conclusion
• The DP analysis provides interesting solutions
to a number of problematic observations
– Some nouns appear to be definite/indefinite,
though most nouns are neither one or the other
• There are abstract determiners with these nouns which
provide the definiteness feature
Conclusion
• The DP analysis provides interesting solutions
to a number of problematic observations
– The complementary distribution between
possessors (phrases) and determiners (words)
• What is in complementary distribution is determiners
and the possessive marker ‘s (another determiner)
Conclusion
• The DP analysis provides interesting solutions
to a number of problematic observations
– There appear to be multiple determiners
• Post determiners are not determiners but APs that sit in
the specifier of NP
• Pre-determiners are determiners which appear with an
abstract (group) noun which does not require an of in
front of its complement