head noun - Double R Theory

Download Report

Transcript head noun - Double R Theory

Is the Head of a Noun Phrase Necessarily a Noun?

25 July 2003

Jerry Ball

www.DoubleRTheory.com

Email: [email protected]

Langacker, R. (1987).

Foundations of Cognitive Grammar

, Volume 1, Theoretical Prerequisites.

Langacker, R. (1991).

Foundations of Cognitive Grammar,

Volume 2, Descriptive Applications.

• The

head

is the profile determinant in a grammatical construction, particularly when it is the autonomous component in a construction showing notable A/D asymmetry; the autonomous profile determinant, A, is the head in such a construction, and the dependent component, D, is a

modifier

• In a construction showing notable A/D asymmetry, and where the autonomous component, A, is the profile determinant, the dependent component, D, is a

modifier

of A (A is the

head

) • In a construction showing notable A/D asymmetry, and where the dependent component D is the profile determinant, the autonomous component A is the

complement

of D.

• A basic distinction is drawn between

nominal

and

relational

expressions, depending on whether they profile a thing (abstractly defined) or a relationship.

• Nominal expressions include

nouns

and other noun-like elements (e.g.

pronouns

) • Within the class of relational expressions,

verbs

are distinguished from such classes as

adjectives

adverbs

prepositions

, infinitives, and participles in virtue of designating a

process

as opposed to an

atemporal relation

Nominal (autonomous) • Noun • Pronoun • Proper Noun Relational (dependent) • Verb • Adjective • Preposition • Adverb

• The

semantic function

of a

simple noun

limited to specifying a type, whereas a

full

nominal

designates a

grounded instance

of that type • The

head noun

provides a type specification and instantiates an instance of that type • A full-fledged nominal is obtained by appending a

grounding predication

at the highest level of constituency • A

determiner

is the prototypical provider of the grounding predication in a nominal

• In an expression like

the bull bull

both

the

and “have equal claim to the status of local head since both their profiles correspond to the composite-structure profile (that of the nominal as a whole). To the extent that

the

is regarded as the

head

, the other component —which elaborates the head—is a

complement

. To the extent that the elaborating structure is regarded as the

head

the

constitutes a

modifier

. Both views have precedent in grammatical theory.”

• How does Langacker’s definition of

complement

work here?

• Langacker notes the relationship between his conceptual schema for nominals (and clauses) and X-Bar Theory • In Langacker’s analysis the functional category of

specifier

is not used • In X-Bar Theory the category of

specifier

given a purely syntactic definition is • What happens if we add the functional category of specifier to Langacker’s conceptual schema —

giving it a semantic basis

•

The

the bull

can function consistently as a

specifier

and not a head or modifier • The

specifier

becomes the locus of the grounding predication and determines the

referential type

of an expression (e.g.

object referring expression

) •

Bull

the bull

functions consistently as the

head

, not a

complement

• As in Chomsky’s original formulation (“Remarks on Nominalization”, 1970),

determiners

and

auxiliaries

are prototypical specifiers (i.e. grounding predications), and the parallel structure of nominals and clauses is revealed.

• The

head

is the semantically most significant element of an expression whether it is autonomous or dependent (i.e. relational) • The

head of a nominal

is a word or expression that describes a type of object or that describes a type of relation or situation viewed objectively •

Heads

, not

complements

, consistently project the type specification and determine the

semantic type

of an expression • No need to view

the

the bull

as the head!! Such a view may have been proposed (e.g. Abney’s DP Hypothesis), but it wreaks havoc on a semantic basis for the meaning of head

•

Complements

do not project either referential or semantic type and can

become synonymous with relational arguments

(i.e. they are autonomous, full referring expressions, but they are not profiled in the composite expression)

• • • • Nominals (and clauses) become

bipolar

having a

pole referential pole

and a

semantic Modifiers

are attracted to the semantic pole and combine with heads to constrain the semantic type of the head

Quantifiers

are attracted to the referential pole where they function as specifiers

Quantifiers

are attracted to the semantic pole where they function as modifiers (and even as heads)

• Semantic type is

endocentric

—the head determines the semantic type of the composite expression • Referential type is

exocentric

—the specifier, not the head, determines the referential type of the composite expression • The strong endocentricity of X-Bar Theory is forsaken • Syntax and morphology (which has exocentric as well as endocentric constructions) are brought into closer alignment

• The

part of speech

of the lexical head of a nominal reflects the inherent meaning of the lexical item, not the referential type or the functional role of the lexical item. This provides support for notional definitions of the parts of speech.

• It becomes important to distinguish the inherent

part of speech

of a lexical item from the

functional role

it fills in a particular expression • The

part of speech

of a lexical item need not change with the functional role • E.g. A

quantifier

is a quantifier (POS) based on inherent meaning whether it functions as a specifier, modifier or head in an expression

• In sum, adding the functional category of

specifier

as the determinant of the referential type of an expression leads to semantically better motivated definitions of the

head

modifier

and

complement

categories, brings

syntax

functional into closer alignment with

morphology

and supports the notional definition of

parts of speech

Lexical Heads of Nominals

• • • • • The

bull

(noun) is mean

(pronoun) is mean

Aurora This

(deictic word) is nice

Some

(proper noun) is nice (quantifier) are nice

More Heads of Nominals

• The

running

• The

injured

hospital (present participle) of the bulls (past participle) were taken to the • The

sad

(adjective) are in need of cheering up • The

Fillmores

(proper noun) are not at home • The

ayes

• The

kick

(adverb) have it (verb) was extremely hard • The

cheering up

sad • The

buy out

(verb participle + particle) of the (verb + particle) of the corporation • The

up and down

elevator (conjoined prepositions) of the

Nonce Expressions

Clark, H. (1983). “Making sense of nonce sense.” In

The Process of Language Understanding

. Edited by G. Flores d’Arcais & R. Jarvella. NY: John Wiley.

• The

porch

(noun) • The paperboy

porched

(past tense verb) the newspaper on the doorstep • The

porching

(verb participle) of the newspaper on the doorstep was extremely accurate • The paperboy

doorstepped

newspaper (p.t. verb) the • The

doorstepping

(verb participle) of the newspaper was impressive

Have a Verb, Take a Verb and Give a Verb Constructions

Dixon (1992)

A New Approach to English Grammar, on Semantic

Principles. NY: Oxford University Press • He had a

look

• He took a

walk

(verb) at it (verb) around the park • She gave his nose a

tweak

(verb) • The paperboy made a

porch

(verb) of the newspaper on the doorstep every morning without fail • The paperboy attempted a

doorstep

newpaper (verb) of the

Clausal Heads of Nominals

Pullum, G. (1991) “English nominal gerund phrases as noun phrases with

verb-phrase heads

”

Linguistics

Vol 29, 763-799.

•

Going to the movies

(gerund) is fun • Your

giving money to strangers

(gerund) is nice • • That

you give money to strangers

complement) is nice (that

To go to the movies

(infinitive phrase) is fun