Of special relevance for the NP vs. DP debate are nominals in which the determiner has other values for number, gender, case and/or person than the noun, for depending on whether such nominals share these values with the noun or with the determiner they provide evidence in favor of either the NP or the DP approach. This paper discusses some nominals of this kind and shows that they share the relevant feature values with the noun. It then develops an NP analysis for these nominals which is cast in the notation of Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. It also shows what a DP analysis would look like. A comparison reveals that the NP analyses are less complex, more uniform and less stipulative. Examples are taken from Dutch, English, German, French, Italian, Spanish, Polish and Serbo-Croatian.
Using the term in a theory-neutral sense, we assume that the bracketed strings in (1) are all nominals.
(1) | [the [blue [box]]] is empty |
For the analysis of nominals there are –broadly speaking– two approaches in generative grammar. One treats the noun as the head all the way through. In that analysis the largest bracketed string in (1) is an NP. The other makes a distinction between a nominal core, consisting of the noun with its complements and modifiers, if any, and a functional outer layer, comprising determiners, quantifiers and numerals. In that analysis the noun is the head of
The
The choice for one or the other approach mainly depends on which framework one adopts, and the arguments pro and con are often based on theory-internal considerations. It is therefore a welcome initiative of the editors of this volume on
Throughout we assume that determiners are words which are in complementary distribution with the articles. As such, they comprise both definite and indefinite determiners, and both quantifying and non-quantifying determiners. Numerals, by contrast, are not included, since they co-occur with articles in the same nominal, as in
This section discusses two types of nominals in which the determiner and the noun show (partial) disagreement. Both are taken from Dutch.
Dutch has a number of quantifying determiners which combine with either a singular mass noun or a bare plural. They include
(2)
a.
Ze
they
hebben
have
[wat/veel/meer/genoeg
[some/much/more/enough
soep]
soup.
gegeten.
eaten
‘They have eaten some/much/more/enough soup.’
b.
Ze
they
hebben
have
[wat/veel/meer/genoeg
[some/many/more/enough
aardappelen]
potato.
gegeten.
eaten
‘They have eaten some/many/more/enough potatoes.’
These determiners are in complementary distribution with the articles: They cannot be preceded by one, as in *
(3)
a.
Er
there
is/*zijn
is/*are
nog
still
[wat/veel/meer/genoeg
[some/much/more/enough
soep]
soup.
in
in
de
the
pot.
pot
‘There is still some/much/more/enough soup in the pot.’
b.
Er
there
zijn/*is
are/*is
nog
still
[wat/veel/meer/genoeg
[some/many/enough
aardappelen]
potato.
in
in
de
the
pot.
pot
‘There are still some/many/more/enough potatoes in the pot.’
The agreement facts are the same if the determiner is omitted.
(4)
a.
Er
there
is/*zijn
is/*are
nog
still
soep
soup.
in
in
de
the
pot.
pot
‘There is still soup in the pot.’
b.
Er
there
zijn/*is
are/*is
nog
still
aardappelen
potato.
in
in
de
the
pot.
pot
‘There are still potatoes in the pot.’
By contrast, if the noun is omitted, the finite verb must be singular, as shown in (5).
(5)
Er
there
is/*zijn
is/*are
nog
still
wat/veel/meer/genoeg
some/much/more/enough
in
in
de
the
pot.
pot
‘There is still some/much/more/enough in the pot.’
This suggests that the determiners are singular. Confirming evidence is provided by (6), where the subject precedes the finite verb.
(6)
Veel
much
hangt/*hangen
depends/*depend
af
van
of
hoe
how
er
there
morgen
tomorrow
gestemd
voted
wordt.
is
‘Much depends on how people will vote tomorrow.’
An anonymous reviewer points out that the addition of the quantitative
(7)
Er
there
zijn/*is
are/*is
er
nog
still
wat/veel/meer/genoeg
some/many/more/enough
in
in
de
the
pot.
pot
‘There are still some/many/more/enough in the pot.’
This, (s)he adds, suggests that the determiner is unspecified for number, rather than singular. The problem with that proposal, though, is that it does not account for the ill-formedness of the starred combinations in (5) and (6): If the determiner is unspecified for number, it is expected to be compatible with a plural verb. Moreover, the subject in (7) is not a nominal from which the noun is omitted, as in (5), but a nominal from which the noun is extracted, as made explicit in (8).
(8)
Er
there
zijn/*is
are/*is
er
nog
still
[wat/veel/meer/genoeg
[some/many/more/enough
in
in
de
the
pot.
pot
‘There are still some/many/more/enough in the pot.’
Such nominals have other properties than those in (5) and (6), as will be demonstrated in more detail in Section 4.3.2.
Taking stock, the quantifying determiners
Genitive nominals in Dutch typically take the form of a case marked noun preceded by a determiner which shows case, number and gender agreement with it. In
(9)
a.
Ken
Know
jij
you
[[’s
[[the.
lands]
land.
grootste
largest
kruidenier]?
grocer]
‘Do you know the country’s largest grocer?’
b.
[[’s
[[the.
werelds]
world.
hoogste
highest
bergen]
mountains]
liggen/*ligt
lie/*lies
in
in
Azië.
Asia
‘The world’s highest mountains lie in Asia.’
In this position they are in complementary distribution with the determiners: They cannot be preceded by one, as in *
In sum, the case, number and gender values of the bracketed NPs in (9) are not shared with the genitive prenominal, but with the rightmost noun. This provides confirming evidence for the assumption that an analysis along the lines of the NP approach might be more straightforward than one which adopts the DP approach.
To pave the way for an analysis of the (dis)agreement data we make a distinction between morpho-syntactic agreement, also known as concord, and index agreement. This distinction was introduced in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) in Pollard & Sag (
(10) | morphology ⇔ |
“We recognize two distinct grammaticalization ‘portals’, one each via semantics and morphology. These two sources of grammaticalization lead to two distinct bundles of agreement features for a given noun. The morphology-related agreement bundle will be called
An example of
(11)
a.
questo
this.
libro
book.
b.
questa
this.
scatola
box.
c.
questi
this.
libri
book.
d.
queste
this.
scatole
box.
An example of concord which also involves case agreement is provided by the Polish data in (12).
(12)
a.
mój
my.
brat
brother.
b.
mojego
my.
brata
brother.
c.
mojemu
my.
bratu
brother.
An example of
(13) | She |
The reflexive pronoun and its antecedent refer to the same entity and must share their person, number and gender, in this case 3rd person singular feminine. Case agreement is not required. In (13), for instance,
The two types of agreement are distinct in the sense that concord includes case and not person, while index agreement includes person and not case, but there is also some overlap since both include number and gender. Notice, though, that the number and gender values which are relevant for concord are not always identical to those which are relevant for index agreement. To illustrate the relevance of the distinction for
(14)
Su
His
Majestad
majesty
suprema
supreme.
está
is
contento.
pleased.
‘His supreme Majesty is pleased.’
(15)
Ovi
this.
stare
old.
vladike
bishops
su
are
me
me
juce
yesterday
posetili.
visited.
‘These old bishops visited me yesterday.’
The noun
To illustrate the relevance of the distinction for
(16)
a.
Vous
you
êtes
be.2.
loyal.
loyal.
‘You are loyal.’
b.
Vous
you
êtes
be.2.
loyaux.
loyal.
‘You are loyal.’
The pronoun
Applying the distinction between concord and index agreement to the [Det + Nom] combinations, we get four possibilities. The determiner and the noun may show both concord and index agreement (A), they may show index agreement but no concord (B), they may show concord but no index agreement (C), and they may show neither concord nor index agreement (D), see Table
Four types of (dis)agreement.
index agreement | no index agreement | |
---|---|---|
concord | A | C |
no concord | B | D |
Starting from the observation in Section 2 that an analysis along the lines of the NP approach seems more promising to deal with the disagreement data than one which adopts the DP approach, we develop an NP treatment in this section. It is cast in the framework of Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. This implies that it is monostratal and surface-oriented. It also implies that it conforms to the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis: Syntactic atoms are words, rather than –possibly silent– morphemes. Representations take the form of Attribute Value Matrices (AVMs). Their use inevitably renders the presentation somewhat technical, but in order to keep it accessible we only use those bits of notation that are needed for the purpose at hand, and introduce them in a piece-meal and example-based manner. We start with the treatment of single nouns (Section 4.1), show how the addition of adnominal adjectives is modeled (Section 4.2), and then turn to the central issue of the paper, i.e. the combination of the resulting nominals with a determiner (Section 4.3).
For the sake of concreteness we adopt the functor treatment of adnominal dependents. This was first proposed in Van Eynde (
As an example let us take the Italian noun
(17)
Inspired by the Saussurean definition of the sign as a unit of form and meaning (
(18)
The subtypes may have additional attributes. Nouns, for instance, have an
The semantic properties are modeled in terms of the
(19)
In the case of nouns the relevant type is
A conspicuous property of the AVM in (17) is the amount of internal structure that it displays. The various attributes that it contains are not just listed, but organized in terms of a fine-grained hierarchy of types.
Continuing with the Italian example, let us add an adnominal adjective, as in
(20)
The
Phrase formation is modeled in terms of cross-categorial constraints on phrase types. These types are organized in a hierarchy, part of which is given in (21).
(21)
The basic distinction is that between headed and non-headed phrases. The former have an extra attribute, called
(22)
Since (22) concerns the whole of the
Within the class of headed phrases a further distinction is made between those in which the head daughter selects its dependent(s) (
(23)
(24)
What this says is that a head-argument-phrase shares its
(25)
Another subtype of
An illustration of the functor treatment is the analysis of
(26)
The noun is treated as the head and the adjective as a functor. Technically, the nominal shares its
(27)
Since the
Semantically,
(28)
The sharing of the index between the phrase and the noun is captured in terms of a general constraint on headed phrases, known as the
(29)
Notice that this sharing includes the values of the attributes that are declared for the indices, i.e.
Continuing with the Italian example, let us add a determiner, as in
(30)
The resulting combination is, hence, incompatible with a functor that selects an unmarked nominal, as in *
In this example the determiner shows concord with the nominal, just like the adjective. Moreover, it also shares the index of the nominal, since it does not introduce another discourse referent than the one that is introduced by the noun. In terms of the distinctions that were made in Section 3, this determiner shows both concord and index agreement with the noun. It is an instance of type A. For our purpose, though, the interesting combinations are those in which the determiner does not show agreement with the noun. These are the topic of the rest of this section. We first discuss determiners which do not show index agreement –but possibly concord–with the noun (Section 4.3.1) and then determiners which show index agreement but no concord with the noun (Section 4.3.2). The former are instances of types C and D, the latter of type B.
In contrast to articles and demonstrative determiners, possessive determiners do not share the index of the nominal which they select. In
(31)
What this says is that the determiner selects a nominal whose index
(32) | [My |
The lack of index agreement does not imply a lack of concord, though. The Italian possessive
(33)
a.
nostro
our.
zio
uncle.
b.
nostra
our.
zia
aunt.
c.
nostri
our.
zii
uncle.
d.
nostre
our.
zie
aunt.
In terms of the distinctions made in Section 3, it is of type C, showing concord but no index agreement. The same holds for the other Italian possessives
(34)
a.
loro
their
zio
uncle.
b.
loro
their
zia
aunt.
c.
loro
their
zii
uncle.
d.
loro
their
zie
aunt.
It is, hence, of type D, showing neither concord nor index agreement. In this case the difference coincides with a part of speech distinction. While
(35)
Luigi
Luigi
ha
has
dato
given
dei
fiori
flowers
a
to
loro/*nostro/*mio/*tuo/*vostro/*suo
them/*our/*my/*your/*his
‘Luigi gave them flowers.’
Their well-formed counterparts take the form of formally distinct personal pronouns, as in (36).
(36)
Luigi
Luigi
ha
has
dato
given
dei
fiori
flowers
a
to
noi/me/te/voi/lui/lei
us/me/you.
‘Luigi gave flowers to us/me/you/him/her.’
Interestingly, the assumption that determiners can be adjectives or pronouns would be an anomaly in an analysis that treats D as a separate part of speech, but in the present treatment no such anomaly arises, since the class of determiners is not defined in part of speech terms, but in terms of their
Another [Det + Nom] combination in which the determiner shows neither concord nor index agreement concerns the Dutch genitive NPs in (9), repeated in (37).
(37)
a.
Ken
Know
jij
you
[[’s
[[the.
lands]
land.
grootste
largest
kruidenier]?
grocer]
‘Do you know the country’s largest grocer?’
b.
[[’s
[[the.
werelds]
world.
hoogste
highest
bergen]
mountains]
liggen/*ligt
lie/*lies
in
in
Azië.
Asia
‘The world’s highest mountains lie in Asia.’
These genitives have the same kind of relation with the noun as the possessive determiners, and are in complementary distribution with them: *
(38)
The top node shares its
An instance of index agreement without concord (type B) is provided by the Serbo-Croatian (15), repeated in (39).
(39)
Ovi
this.
stare
old.
vladike
bishops
su
are
me
me
juce
yesterday
posetili.
visited.
‘These old bishops visited me yesterday.’
While the
(40)
The adjective
(41)
Su
his
Majestad
majesty
suprema
supreme.
está
is
contento.
pleased.
‘His supreme Majesty is pleased.’
Also here, the noun’s
Another instance of determiners that show index agreement but no concord are the Dutch quantifying determiners in (2), repeated in (42).
(42)
a.
Ze
they
hebben
have
[wat/veel/meer/genoeg
[some/much/more/enough
soep]
soup.
gegeten.
eaten
‘They have eaten some/much/more/enough soup.’
b.
Ze
they
hebben
have
[wat/veel/meer/genoeg
[some/many/more/enough
aardappelen]
potato.
gegeten.
eaten
‘They have eaten some/many/more/enough potatoes.’
When used adnominally, they share the index of the nominal they select: The discourse referent of
(43)
When combined with a singular noun, as in
(44)
Er
there
zijn/*is
are/*is
nog
still
[wat/veel/meer/genoeg
[some/many/more/enough
aardappelen]
potato.
in
in
de
the
pot.
pot
‘There are still some/many/more/enough potatoes in the pot.’
For the sake of concreteness, let us inspect the representation of (44) in (45).
(45)
The index is shared between the determiner, the noun and the resulting NP (
When combined with an extracted nominal, as in (8), repeated in (46), the bracketed string is unambiguously plural.
(46)
Er
there
zijn/*is
are/*is
er
[wat/veel/meer/genoeg
[some/many/more/enough
in
in
de
the
pot.
pot
‘There are still some/many/more/enough in the pot.’
To model this we employ a distinction, introduced in Ginzburg & Sag (
(47)
The fact that these determiners require their extracted head to be plural accounts for the incompatibility with the singular form of the verb, as shown in (46).
When the quantifying determiners are used nominally, they do not select a nominal, so that their
(48)
a.
Er
there
is/*zijn
is/*are
nog
still
wat/veel/meer/genoeg
some/much/more/enough
in
in
de
the
pot.
pot
‘There is still some/much/more/enough in the pot.’
b.
Veel
much
hangt/*hangen
depends/*depend
af
van
of
hoe
how
er
there
morgen
tomorrow
gestemd
voted
wordt.
is
‘Much depends on how people will vote tomorrow.’
An interesting issue, raised independently by two of the reviewers, concerns the use of the quantifying determiners in partitive constructions, such as (49).
(49)
a.
Er
there
staat/*staan
stands/*stand
nog
still
[wat/veel/meer/genoeg
[some/much/more/enough
van
of
dat
that
lekkere
good
bier]
beer.
in
in
de
the
koelkast.
fridge
‘There is still some/much/more/enough of that good beer in the fridge.’
b.
Er
there
staan/*staat
stand/*stands
nog
still
[wat/veel/meer/genoeg
[some/much/more/enough
van
of
die
that
lekkere
good
taartjes]
cake.
in
in
de
the
koelkast.
fridge
‘There are still some/much/more/enough of those good cakes in the fridge.’
The verb shows number agreement with the noun, but the latter is rather deeply embedded in the nominal, separated from the determiner by the preposition
(50)
a.
Er
there
staat/*staan
stands/*stand
nog
still
[van
[of
dat
that
lekkere
good
bier]
beer.
in
in
de
the
koelkast.
fridge
‘There is still of that good beer in the fridge.’
b.
Er
there
staan/*staat
stand/*stands
nog
still
[van
[of
die
those
lekkere
good
taartjes]
cake.
in
in
de
the
koelkast.
fridge
‘There are still of those good cakes in the fridge.’
A peculiar property of the bracketed strings in these examples is that they have the distribution of an NP, rather than of a PP: They are not only used as subjects, as in (50), but also as complements of transitive verbs and prepositions, as in (51).
(51)
a.
Heb
Have
jij
you
nog
still
[van
[of
dat
that
lekkere
good
bier]
beer.
in
in
je
your
koelkast?
fridge
‘Do you still have some of that good beer in your fridge?’
b.
Ze
they
zijn
are
dol
fond
op
of
[van
[of
die
those
lekkere
good
taartjes].
cake.
‘They are fond of those good cakes.’
This suggests that the head of the bracketed strings is not the preposition
(52)
The net result is that the phrases which are introduced by this
This section has presented an NP analysis of nominals, with special attention for combinations in which the determiner shows (partial) disagreement with the noun. It may be worth stressing that the functor treatment, on which it builds, has not been developed specifically to deal with disagreement data. Instead, it has been used to deal with a broad range of phenomena that are relevant for the analysis of nominals, including nominals with idiosyncratic properties. The Big Mess Construction, for instance, as exemplified by
Having developed an NP treatment for the instances of disagreement that were presented in Section 2, we now turn to the issue of how they are dealt with in the DP treatment. For the quantifying
(53)
The reason that is given for treating
(54)
Ik
I
heb
have
wat
some
veel
many
boeken
books
gelezen.
read
‘I have read quite a bit too many books.’
Barbiers et al. (
(55)
Er
there
is/*zijn
is/*are
nog
still
wat
some
in
in
de
the
pot.
pot
‘There is still some in the pot.’
To deal with this the authors “assume a privative system with the features [plural], [non-neuter] and [definite]. For an item to bear no specification for these features means that this item is not endowed with the relative features.” (
For the prenominal genitive, as in
(56)
The reason that is given for treating the genitive as a specifier of D, rather than as D itself, is that heads are required to be X0 rather than XP. Another reason is that the position of D may be filled, as in (57), where
(57) | The Emperor’s every wish was immediately carried out. |
The issue of how the case and number values of the higher DP are identified is not addressed in Adger (
Having shown how the DP approach can be made to deal with the [Det + Nom] combinations that were discussed in Section 2, it is time now for a comparison with the NP approach. This reveals various differences. One concerns the structures themselves. The NP analyses do not employ empty Ds or Qs, and treat the unmarked nominal (which corresponds to the NP in (53) and (56)) as a daughter –rather than as a granddaughter– of the top node.
Another difference concerns the feature sharing. In the NP analyses the sharing of the
A third difference concerns the definition of syntactic categories. In the NP analyses categories are decomposed and represented as Attribute Value Matrices. Part of speech is one of the relevant attributes, but the
In sum, while the DP approach can be made to fit the facts, the NP approach does so in a way that is simpler (no empty Ds or Qs), less stipulative (no sharing of feature values between head and complement), and more uniform (no disjunctive statement for referring to nominal phrases).
An interesting case for the NP vs. DP debate is the treatment of [Det + Nom] combinations in which the determiner does not show agreement with the noun. We have identified a number of such combinations and demonstrated that they share their case, number, gender and/or person values with the noun (Section 2). Paving the way for an analysis we have made a distinction between morpho-syntactic agreement, also known as concord, and index agreement. In terms of that distinction we have differentiated four types of [Det + Nom] combinations, depending on whether or not they show concord and whether or not they show index agreement (Section 3). In a next step, we have developed an NP analysis of the [Det + Nom] combinations. It is cast in the notation of Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar and adopts the functor treatment of adnominal dependents, as proposed in amongst others Van Eynde (
2 = second person,
English uses different equivalents for
The same affix is used for singular neuter nominals, as in
The need for a distinction along these lines is also felt in Transformational Grammar. Sauerland & Elbourne (
I thank one of the anonymous reviewers for these data.
The determiner
Attributes are written in small capitals and their values in italics.
At the lexical level, the values are not always fully specified. In the AVM of
The members of the
Non-headed phrases do not have a head daughter. They include amongst others coordinate phrases, such as
The AVM is converted into a tree, since that format is more familiar to syntacticians.
Boxed Greek capitals are used for objects of type
There are languages in which a noun can have both a demonstrative and a definite article, such as Modern Greek and Hungarian. In such languages the demonstratives have a
Further evidence against the practice of treating D as a separate part of speech is provided in Abeillé et al. (
A difference with the Serbo-Croatian example is that the determiner
Notice that (47) does not contradict anything of what is contained in (43). It only adds the further constraint that the selected nominal is plural if its
That the selected nominal must not only be marked but also definite can be modeled in two ways. Either, one can add
This work was first presented at the workshop on
The author has no competing interests to declare.