3 Extending X' theory

• Noun phrases
  • Parallels and differences between noun phrases and sentences
  • Noun phrases as DPs
  • More on determiners
  • Modification and related issues
• Adjective phrases
• Prepositional phrases
• Crosslinguistic variation in headedness

In Chapter 2, we introduced the X' schema of phrase structure, according to which lexical items project an elementary tree consisting of a spine of projections and potential argument positions. In this chapter, we extend the X' schema to syntactic categories other than V, I, or C, including N(oun) (see Nouns for some basic information), D(eterminer), Adj(ective), and P(reposition). The final section of the chapter illustrates crosslinguistic variation with regard to the order of heads and complements.

Noun phrases

Predicate-argument structure. Early in the history of generative grammar (Lees 1960), it was observed that sentences like (1a) and noun phrases like (1b) share several important properties.

(1)	a.		The army destroyed the city.
	b.		the army's destruction of the city

The semantically central element of the sentence in (1a) is the verb destroyed, and its semantic arguments, the agent the army and the patient the city, are both expressed as syntactic arguments of the sentence. In a parallel way, the semantically central element in the noun phrase in (1b) is the nominal counterpart of destroy, destruction. Like the verb, the noun is associated with an agent argument and a patient argument that are both overtly expressed---in this case, as the possessive the army's and the prepositional phrase of the city.

The correspondence in (1) is supported by that between the passive sentence in (2a) and its passivelike noun phrase counterpart in (2b).

(2)	a.		The city was destroyed (by the army).
	b.		The city's destruction (by the army)

In both of these examples, the argument preceding the head is now the patient the city('s), and the agent argument is expressed by an optional by phrase.

Modification. In both sentences and noun phrases, the semantically central element---the verb and the noun---can be modified in similar ways, as illustrated in (3) and (4).

(3)	a.	Prepositional phrase		She gives money to the organization on a regular basis.
	b.	Adverb		She regularly gives money to the organization.
(4)	a.	Prepositional phrase		her gifts of money to the organization on a regular basis
	b.	Adjective		her regular gifts of money to the organization

Some cross-categorial differences. Sentences and noun phrases also exhibit certain differences. First, arguments and modifiers are not always expressed by the same syntactic categories across sentences and noun phrases. For instance, the agent argument is expressed as an ordinary noun phrase in a sentence like (1a), but as a possessive noun phrase in a noun phrase like (1b). In a sentence, the patient argument is expressed as a noun phrase, but in a noun phrase, it must be part of a prepositional phrase, usually an of phrase. And although verbs and nouns can both be modified by prepositional phrases, verbs are modified by adverbs, whereas nouns are modified by adjectives. In connection with this difference, notice that adverbs can precede or follow the verb they modify, whereas adjectives are ordinarily restricted to prenominal position.

(5)	a.	Adverb		The kids regularly donate their old toys.
	b.			The kids donate their old toys regularly.
(6)	a.	Adjective		the kids' regular donation of their old toys
	b.		*	the kids' donation of their old toys regular

A second and even more fundamental difference between sentences and noun phrases is that sentences require a subject. Although the subject of a sentence often corresponds to a semantic argument, an expletive subject is necessary even in the absence of a semantic argument (see Expletive elements in English for basic information). This is illustrated in (7) and (8).

(7)	a.		It appears that the manuscript has been found.
	b.		There exists a solution.
(8)	a.	*	Appears that the manuscript has been found.
	b.	*	Exists a solution.

By contrast, noun phrases don't require a subject. In fact, noun phrases containing nouns without an agent argument don't even allow an expletive.

(9)	a.	*	{ it, its } appearance that the manuscript has been found
	b.	*	{ there, there's } existence of a solution

Moreover, even when a noun has an agent argument, it can be expressed, as in (10a), but it needn't be, as in (10b).

(10)	a.		the committee's criticism of the proposal
	b.		the criticism of the proposal

In summary, noun phrases resemble sentences in that their semantic core categories---nouns and verbs, respectively---have semantic arguments that can be expressed as syntactic arguments in partly similar ways. Nouns and verbs can also be modified in largely similar fashion. On the other hand, sentences differ fundamentally from noun phrases in requiring a syntactic subject.

Noun phrases as DPs

A striking fact about nouns is that they cannot in general function as arguments on their own, but must be accompanied by a determiner.

(11)	a.	*	Assignment is not difficult.
	b.	*	You should hand in assignment.
(12)	a.		{ The, this, that } assignment is not difficult.
	b.		You should hand in { the, this, that } assignment.

We conclude from this that noun phrases are the result of composing two projections, one headed by the noun and the other by the determiner, as shown in (13).

(13)

a.

b.

c.

Given the structure in (13c), the term 'noun phrase' is a misnomer since noun phrases are maximal projections of D rather than of N. We will nevertheless continue to use it interchangeably with 'DP' since it is firmly established in usage. However, to avoid confusion, we consistently use the term 'NP' from now on to refer not to the entire noun phrase, but to the maximal projection of the noun.

In the simplest case, the elementary tree for a noun consists of just a spine, as in (13b). But like verbs, nouns can have both complements and specifiers. For instance, depending on which of the noun phrases in (14) it appears in, criticism is associated with one of the elementary trees in (15).

(14)	a.		She took the criticism well.
	b.		They refuted the criticism of the proposal.
	c.		They refuted the committee's criticism.
	d.		They refuted the committee's criticism of the proposal.

(15)

a.

b.

c.

d.

In (14a), the criticism is derived in exactly the same way as the assignment in (13)---by substituting the NP in (15a) as the complement of the determiner. In (15b), the noun phrase containing criticism is derived as in (16). For simplicity, we abstract away from the internal structure of PPs until the section on PPs.

(16)	a.				b.				c.
			Elementary tree for N (15b)				Substitute patient argument				Substitute (16b) in elementary tree for D

In (14c), an agent argument substitutes into the specifier position of the elementary tree for the noun, the resulting NP then substitutes into the complement position of the possessive head 's, and the argument in Spec(NP) moves to Spec(DP) in a manner analogous to subject movement in sentences.

(17)	a.				b.				c.
			Elementary tree for N (15c)				Substitute agent argument				Elementary tree for possessive 's
	d.				e.
			Substitute (17b) in (17c)				Move specifier from Spec(NP) to Spec(DP)

Finally, deriving (14d) involves substituting both the agent and patient arguments in the elementary tree in (15d). The remainder of the derivation is identical to that of (14c), resulting in the structure in (18).

(18)	a.				b.
			Substitute arguments in (15c)				Substitute (18b) in elementary tree for D
	c.
			Move specifier from Spec(NP) to Spec(DP)

In view of the structural parallel between (18c) and the corresponding sentence in (19), we generalize the notion of subject to include both Spec(IP) and Spec(DP). The notion of subject movement then includes movement from Spec(VP) to Spec(IP) as well as movement from Spec(NP) to Spec(DP). We have omitted the internal structure of the proposal in (19) in order to underline the parallel between the noun phrase and the sentence.

(19)

In the noun phrases that we have considered so far, any subjects of the noun phrase have expressed arguments of the noun. However, in noun phrases like Mike's program, there is no reason to assume that Mike is an argument of N or to assume that N projects a specifier. Instead, we will treat Mike as an argument of the possessive morpheme 's and substitute the subject directly into Spec(DP) rather than moving it there. (20) gives the resulting structure.

(20)

In concluding this section concerning the structure of noun phrases, it is worth pointing out that the two-layered structure for noun phrases (NP, DP) introduced here is analogous to the two-layered structure for simple sentences from Chapter 2 (VP, IP). Moreover, both structures are supported by the following semantic parallel. In a formal semantics that is simple but sufficient for our purposes, an NP denotes a set of individuals. For instance, the NP dominating woman denotes the set of all women, and the NP dominating president of the United States denotes the set of all presidents of the United States---past, present, and future. Combining an NP with a determiner like this or those has the syntactic effect of yielding a DP and the semantic effect of picking out a particular individual (or individuals, in the case of a plural noun) from the set denoted by the NP. Which particular individuals are actually picked out depends not just on the meaning of the NP and the determiner, but also on the particular discourse context in which the DP is used, allowing a noun phrase like the cat to refer to different cats in different discourse contexts. In a similar way, we can think of VPs as denoting situations. For instance, a VP like these cats jump onto the dresser denotes the set of all situations in which the individuals denoted by these cats jump onto the piece of furniture denoted by the dresser. Combining a VP with a tense morpheme in I then picks out one of these situations, at least under some theories of tense. For instance, the IP These cats jumped onto the dresser picks out one of the situations that occurred before the time of speaking (how the silent past tense morpheme combines with the verb to yield jumped is discussed in detail in Chapter 4). Once again, the particular situation picked out depends in part on the discourse context, so that one and the same sentence can be used to refer to more than one situation.

More on determiners

More generally, obligatorily intransitive verbs would require two elementary trees rather than one, obligatorily transitive verbs--the case just illustrated---would require four (2 x 2) rather than one, and optionally transitive verbs would require six (4 + 2) rather than two (1 + 1). This result seems unappealing on computational grounds. Moreover, the whole approach just sketched is inconsistent with the Chomskyan perspective on language. Why? The reason is that in the Chomskyan paradigm, what syntax examines is not sentences per se, but the mental capacity to generate sentences. It is this capacity that we are attempting to model by constructing the simplest possible grammar. From this perspective, then, simplifying sentence structures at the expense of making the grammar itself more complicated misses the whole point of constructing grammars.

Modification and related issues

N' as target of adjunction. As we noted in our introductory review of the parallels between noun phrases and sentences, nouns and verbs can be modified in similar ways. In (37), for instance, the same prepositional phrase in the hospital modifies the noun and the related verb.

(37)	a.		Mike's stay in the hospital
	b.		Mike stayed in the hospital.

Extending the approach to representing modification introduced in Chapter 2, we can derive the structure for the noun phrase in (37a) as in (38).

(38)	a.				b.				c.
			Elementary tree for N				Substitute argument				Substitute (38b) in elementary tree for possessive 's
	d.				e.				f.
			Move subject				Select N' as target of adjunction				Adjoin PP at target of adjunction in (38e)

Apart from category labels, the resulting structure in (38e) is analogous to the structure for the corresponding sentence in (39).

(39)

Leftward adjunction. So far, we have discussed modifiers that follow the head, whose representation involves rightward adjunction. Structures for examples like (40), where the modifier precedes the head it modifies, can be derived by leftward adjunction, with the results in (41).

(40)	a.		Kelly's nervous grimace
	b.		Kelly nervously grimaced.

(41)

a.

b.

One substitution. As discussed in Chapter 2, do so substitution allows us to distinguish between complements and adjuncts in the verbal system. A similar diagnostic is available in the nominal system---one substitution, which is illustrated in (42).

(42)	a.		this book on the floor and that one
	b.		this book on the floor and that one on the table

Intuitively, book has no argument structure, and the prepositional phrases in (42) are therefore modifiers. The structure for the first conjunct in both cases---this book on the floor---is then as in (43).

(43)

In (42a), one can be interpreted as either book on the floor or simply as book; that is, it can be interpreted as either the higher or the lower N' in (43). All other things being equal, we would expect the same to be true in (42b), and as expected, one can be interpreted as substituting for the lower N' book. It cannot, however, be interpreted as substituting for the higher N' book on the floor. At first glance, this seems problematic for the structure in (43), but it turns out not to be. The reason is that the interpretation that results from substituting at the higher N'---that book on the floor on the table---is semantically anomalous. So there is no need to rule it out as syntactically ill-formed as well. The upshot is that the interpretations just discussed and summarized in (44) are all consistent with the syntactic structure in (43).

			Sentence			Interpretation
(44)	a.		this book on the floor and that one	i.	ok	this book on the floor and that book on the floor
				ii.	ok	this book on the floor and that book
	b.		this book on the floor and that one on the table	i.	#	this book on the floor and that book on the floor on the table
				ii.	ok	this book on the floor and that book on the table

As in the case of V', adjunction to N' can apply more than once, yielding multiply recursive structures like (45).

(45)

The complement-adjunct distinction in the nominal system. Given the semantic parallel in (46), it is reasonable to treat the of phrase in (46b) as a complement of the noun author.

(46)	a.		This man authors murder mysteries.
	b.		this author of murder mysteries

That is, the elementary tree for author needed to derive (46b) is as in (47a), and the structure for the entire noun phrase is (47b).

(47)

a.

b.

Since one is analogous to do so in substituting for intermediate rather than lexical projections, we expect the contrast between (48) and (49), and this accurately reflects the judgment of many speakers.

(48)	a.		This man authors murder mysteries, and that woman does so, too.
	b.		this author of murder mysteries and that one
(49)	a.	*	This man authors murder mysteries, and that woman does so nature guides.
	b.	*	this author of murder mysteries and that one of nature guides

Some speakers, however, accept (49b), or at least do not completely reject it. How can we make sense of this variation among speakers' judgments? Recall that complements of nouns, unlike those of verbs, are always expressed as prepositional phrases. This means that the evidence whether a particular phrase is a complement or an adjunct is murkier in the case of nouns than in the case of verbs, both for children acquiring the language and for adult speakers. A further, probably related, complication is that even nouns that are related to obligatorily transitive verbs are optionally intransitive (for instance, compare consume, destroy, employ with consumer, destroyer, employer). As a result, the mental grammar of some speakers might include only the intransitive elementary tree in (50a), and not the transitive elementary tree in (47a). Such speakers would not be able to derive the structure in (47b), but they would be able to derive the alternative structure in (50b) by adjoining the of phrase, rather than substituting it.

(50)

a.

b.

(49b) would then be straightforwardly acceptable for such speakers, and (48b) would have the interpretation in (51a) in addition to the one in (51b).

(51)	a.		this author of murder mysteries and that author
	b.		this author of murder mysteries and that author of murder mysteries

Notice that even for speakers whose mental grammar includes the transitive elementary tree in (47a), the intransitive elementary tree in (50a) is available, since all speakers of English accept (52).

(52)

this author and that one

If some of these speakers marginally allow the of phrase to adjoin into the intransitive elementary tree in addition to substituting into the transitive one, they would judge both (49b) and the interpretation of (48b) in (51b) to be marginally acceptable.

Restrictions on one substitution. A cautionary note is in order about one substitution. Although one can substitute for all instances of N' in principle, it is subject to several restrictions, which are important to keep in mind when using one substitution as a diagnostic for syntactic structure. The first, which makes some sense given its meaning, is that one can substitute only for count nouns, as illustrated in (53).

(53)	a.		I have swum in this { ocean, pool, river, } and you have swum in that one.
	b.	*	I have swum in this water, and you have swum in that one.

A second and more idiosyncratic restriction is that one cannot immediately follow the indefinite article, a cardinal number, a possessive noun phrase, or, for many speakers, the plural demonstratives these and those. This restriction is very superficial, since an intervening word renders the ungrammatical (a) examples in (54)-(57) grammatical.

(54)	a.	Indefinite article	*	I bought a book, and you bought a one, too.
	b.			I bought a blue book, and you bought a red one.
(55)	a.	Cardinal number	*	I bought { two , ten } books, and you bought { two, ten } ones, too.
	b.			I bought { two, ten } blue books, and you bought { two, ten } red ones.
(56)	a.	Possessive	*	I like { Mary's, her } book, and you like { John's, his } one.
	b.			I like { Mary's, her } blue shirt, and you like { Mary's, her } red one.
(57)	a.	Plural demonstrative	*	I like these books, and you like those ones (cf. I like this book and you like that one)
	b.			I like these blue books, and you like those red ones.

Structural ambiguity. Having introduced N' as a possible target of modification, we are now in a position to associate structurally ambiguous sentences like (58) with two distinct syntactic representations.

(58)

They ate the pizza in the living room.

(58) has two interpretations, which can be paraphrased as in (59).

(59)	a.	Verbal modifier interpretation		It was in the living room that they ate the pizza (though the pizza may have started out elsewhere).
	b.	Nominal modifier interpretation		It was the pizza in the living room that they ate (though perhaps they ate it elsewhere).

On the verbal modifier interpretation in (59a), the prepositional phrase in the living room modifies the verb ate, and (58) has the structure in (60a). On the nominal modifier interpretation in (59b), on the other hand, the prepositional phrase modifies the noun pizza, and (58) has the structure in (60b). Given the structures in (60), the verbal and nominal modifier interpretations of (58) are often also referred to as the high and low attachment interpretations, respectively.

(60)	a.				b.
			Verbal modifier, high attachment				Nominal modifier, low attachment

The structures in (60) are consistent with the results of relevant constituenthood tests. For instance, substituting the ordinary pronoun it for the pizza and substituting did so for ate the pizza yields (61a) and (61b), respectively.

(61)	a.		They ate it in the living room.
	b.		They did so in the living room.

In both sentences, the prepositional phrase is unambiguously interpreted as a verbal modifier, as expected given that the pizza and ate the pizza are represented as constituents in (60a), but not in (60b).

Conversely, in the question-answer pair in (63), the prepositional phrase is unambiguously associated with a nominal modifier interpretation. Again, this is expected, since the pizza in the living room is represented as a constituent in (60b), but not in (60a).

(63)	a.		What did they eat?
	b.		The pizza in the living room.

Adjective phrases

(66)	a.		They are proud, and we are so, too.
	b.		They are proud of their grandson, and we are so, too.
	c.	*	They are proud of their grandson, and we are so of him, too.
(67)	a.		They are happy, and we are so, too.
	b.		They are happy with their car, and we are so, too.
	c.		They are happy with their car, and we are so with our bikes.

There is also a variant of the test that is more complicated, but that tends to give more natural-sounding results. In the variant, so substitutes for the sequence of interest, just as in (66) and (67), but in addition, so moves to the beginning of the sentence, and the sentence undergoes subject-aux inversion---the same process that makes yes-no questions from declaratives (we discuss this process in detail in a later chapter). The results of this variant test are given in (68) and (69).

(68)	a.		They are proud, and so are we.
	b.		They are proud of their grandson, and so are we.
	c.	*	They are proud of their grandson, and so are we of him.
(69)	a.		They are happy, and so are we.
	b.		They are happy with their car, and so are we.
	c.		They are happy with their car, and so are we with our bikes.

Both variants of so substitution point to the same conclusion---namely, that the of phrase is a complement of proud, but that the with phrase is an adjunct of happy. In other words, the elementary trees for the two adjectives are as in (70).

(70)

a.

b.

c.

Most adjectives in English, like the two just discussed, are optionally or obligatorily intransitive, but fond is obligatorily transitive. (Can you think of other obligatorily transitive adjectives? They're not a dime a dozen, but fond is not the only one.) The contrast in (71) is evidence for the complement status of the of phrase (recall from Chapter 2 that obligatory syntactic dependents are complements), and that status is confirmed by the results of so substitution.

(71)	a.	*	They are fond.
	b.		They are fond of their grandson.
(72)	a.		They are fond of their grandson, and we are so, too.
	b.	*	They are fond of their grandson, and we are so of him, too.
(73)	a.		They are fond of their grandson, and so are we.
	b.	*	They are fond of their grandson, and so are we of him.

In view of the facts in (71)-(73), fond is associated with the single elementary tree in (74).

(74)

Prepositional phrases

(75)	a.		They drove from *(Boston).
	b.		He's the inventor of *(that gizmo).
	c.		She jumped into *(the water), onto *(the bandwagon).

But X' theory leads us to expect that there should also be intransitive Ps, and as the examples in (76) show, this expectation is fulfilled.

(76)	a.		I've never seen him before (this meeting).
	b.		Are you for (the proposal) or against (it)?
	c.		The bird flew { in, out } (the window).
	d.		It's time to get { off, on } (the train).
	e.		They jumped over (the ditch).
	f.		We've been fast friends ever since (that time).
	g.		She came to (her senses).
	h.		Have you looked underneath (the sombrero)?

In their intransitive use, Ps are traditionally referred to as adverbs, but such an approach goes against the spirit of X' theory, which seeks to maximize the parallels among categories. From our point of view, there is as little reason for the syntactic category of an item to depend on whether it takes a syntactic complement in the case of since as there is in the case of eat. In both cases, the intransitive variant has a semantic argument that is not expressed in the syntax, but is supplied in the course of interpretation, based on the discourse context.

The elementary trees for of and over are shown in (77), and the full structures for the PPs in which they occur in (75) and (76) are shown in (78). Note the identity of (77c) and (78c).

(77)	a.				b.				c.
(78)	a.				b.				c.

Clausal complements

(79)	a.		He reported the monkey's dislike of camphor.
	b.		He reported that the monkey dislikes camphor.

The examples of transitive prepositions discussed so far have all had noun phrase complements, but given the parallel between verbs and prepositions concerning transitivity, we would expect Ps to allow clausal complements as well. Once again, this expectation is borne out, as shown in (80).

(80)	a.		{ after, before, since } the war
	b.		{ after, before, since } the war ended

In traditional grammar, Ps that take clausal complements are classified as subordinating conjunctions, together with if and that, but we do not adopt this approach for two reasons. First, it is conceptually uneconomical because the difference between the italicized items in (80a) and (80b) is expressed once in terms of the syntactic category of the item itself (preposition vs. subordinating conjunction) and again in terms of the syntactic category of its complement (noun phrase vs. clause). Second, the items in (80) share roughly the same semantic content, regardless of the categorial status of their complement. In contrast, if and that are relatively contentless and give the impression of functioning purely as 'grammatical glue.'

We have not yet said what the category is of the clausal complement of prepositions. At first glance, examples like (80b) suggest that the complement is an IP. The elementary tree for after in (80b) would then be as in (81), and the elementary trees for before and since would be analogous.

(81)

There is evidence, however, that the category of the complement is CP rather than IP, as illustrated for after in (82a). The clausal complement of after and prepositions like it would then have to headed by a silent counterpart of the complementizer that, resulting in (82b) as the structure for after the war ended (for simplicity, the internal structure of IP is omitted).

(82)

a.

b.

For one thing, this analysis makes English prepositions parallel to their French counterparts, which clearly take DP and CP, but not IP complements.

(83)	a.		{ après, depuis, pendant } la danse after since during the dance '{ after, since, during } the dance'
	b.		{ après, depuis } que Jean ait dansé; pendant que Jean dansait after since that Jean has danced while that Jean was.dancing '{ after, since } Jean danced; while Jean danced'

A second reason for preferring the elementary tree in (82a) over the one in (81) is that even though sentences like (84), with an overt complementizer, are ungrammatical in modern English, such examples occurred freely in Middle English. Some examples are given in (85). '+g' and '+t' stand for the special Middle English characters yogh (corresponding to g and y) and thorn (corresponding to the two phonetic values of th in thorn and this).

(84)		*	{ after, before, since } that the war ended
(85)	a.		And after +tat +tis bataile was done, +te Britons assemblede ham, and went +tens
			'and after this battle was over, the Britons assembled (themselves) and went away' (PPCME2, CMBRUT3,100.3011-3013)
	b.		+Git bifore that Dauith cam to Jerusalem, a new debate roos bitwixe the men of Israel and the men of Juda
			'Yet before David came to Jerusalem, a new debate rose between the men of Israel and the men of Juda' (PPCME2, CMPURVEY,I,11.415)
	c.		Now, sith that i have toold yow of which folk ye sholde been conseilled, now wol I teche yow which conseil ye oghte to eschewe.
			'Now, since I have told you what kind of people you should be advised by, now I will teach you which advice you ought to eschew' (PPCME2, CMCTMELI,223.C1.247)

Despite this crosslinguistic and diachronic evidence, it might seem that analyzing the clausal complements of prepositions as CPs is not worth the cost of allowing an otherwise unmotivated silent equivalent of that. But as we will see later on, it is necessary to assume the existence of the silent complementizer for independent reasons in relative clauses and in certain questions. It is also clear that CP complements of prepositions are possible even in modern English since in requires its clausal complements to be introduced by that, as shown in (86).

(86)

They differ in *(that) they hold sharply opposing views on educational reform.

Given these last two considerations, the analysis embodied in (82b) comes 'for free'; that is, it introduces no unnecessary complications into the grammar of English. We therefore adopt it on the grounds that it minimizes the crosslinguistic difference between French and Middle English on the one hand and modern English on the other.

Crosslinguistic variation in headedness

(87)	a.	V		They [V' pursued [DP their objective. ] ]
	b.			She [V' submitted [DP her application. ] ]
(88)	a.	I		They [I' should [VP pursue their objective. ] ]
	b.			She [I' could [VP submit her application. ] ]
(89)	a.	C		They agreed [C' that [IP they should pursue their objective. ] ]
	b.			She wondered [C' if [I' she could submit her application. ] ]
(90)	a.	N		the [N' pursuit [PP of their objective ] ]
	b.			the [N' submission [ PP of her application ] ]
	c.			Lisa's [N' pride [PP in her work ] ]
(91)	a.	D		[D' the [NP pursuit of their objective ] ]
	b.			[D' the [NP submission of her application ] ]
	c.			Lisa [D' 's [NP pride in her work ] ]
(92)	a.	A		She is [A' proud [PP of her work. ] ]
	b.			He is [A' fond [PP of his children. ] ]
(93)	a.	P		[P' over [DP the next five years ] ]
	b.			[P' with [DP great fanfare ] ]

But universal grammar by no means prescribes head-initial phrase structure. Rather, many languages exhibit consistently head-final phrase structure; two such languages are Japanese and Korean. The examples in (94)-(98) are from Korean. In order to avoid using 'head-final preposition,' which is felt to be a contradiction in terms, linguists have coined the term postposition; the cover term for prepositions and postpositions (that is, for Ps regardless of headedness) is adposition. Examples for I and D are missing because Korean has no overt modals of the English sort or overt articles; the abbreviations in the glosses are listed in the notes, but can be safely disregarded.

(94)	a.	V		kutul-un [V' [DP mokcek-ul ] chukwuha-yess-ta. ] they-Top objective-Acc pursue-Past-Decl 'They pursued their objective.'
	b.			ku-nun [V' [DP ciwonse-lul ] ceychwulha-yess-ta. ] 3.ps.sg-Top application-Acc submit-Past-Decl 'She submitted her application.'
(95)	a.	C		[C' [IP kutul-un mokcek-ul chukwuhayya ha-n ] tako ] tonguyha-yess-ta. they-Top objective-Acc pursue must-Pres that agree-Past-Decl 'They agreed that they should pursue their objective.'
	b.			[C' [IP ku-nun ciwonse-lul ceychwulhayto toy ] nunci ] kwungkumha-yess-ta. 3.ps.sg-Top application-Acc submit be-able if wonder-Past-Decl 'She wondered if she could submit her application.'
(96)	a.	N		kutul-uy [N' [DP mocek-uy ] chukwu ] they-Gen objective-Gen pursuit 'their pursuit of their objective'
	b.			ku-uy [N' [DP ciwonse-uy ] ceychwul ] 3.ps.sg-Gen application-Gen submission 'her submission of her application'
	c.			Lisa-uy [N' [PP il-ey tayhan ] capwusim ] Lisa-Gen work-in regarding pride 'Lisa's pride in her work'
(97)	a.	A		[A' [DP il-i ] calangsule-un ] saram work-Nom proud-Mod man 'a man proud of his work'
	b.			[A [DP aitul-i ] coh-un ] saram children-Nom fond-Mod man 'a man fond of his children'
(98)	a.	P		[P' [DP taum o nyen ] tongan ] next five years over 'over the next five years'
	b.			[P' [DP tay phanphalay-wa ] hamkkey ] big fanfare-with with 'with big fanfare'

Languages tend to be harmonic with respect to headedness; that is, they tend to be consistently head-initial or head-final. However, in certain languages, some syntactic categories project head-initial trees and others project head-final ones. Such mixed phrase structure is found, for instance, in Dutch and German. The examples in (99)-(104) are from German; the reason that the clauses are all given in subordinate clause form is that main clauses in German (and Dutch) involve a complication that is irrelevant here and discussed in a later chapter. As the examples show, V and A are head-final in German, whereas C, N, D, and P are head-initial. I is missing from the examples because German lacks modals of the English type, so that there is no clear evidence for the position of I. Because of this, the position of I in German and Dutch has been the subject of some debate in the syntactic literature.

(99)	a.	V		dass sie [V' [DP ihr Ziel ] verfolgten ] that they their objective pursued 'that they pursued their objective'
	b.			ob sie [V' [DP ihre Bewerbung ] einreichte ] if she her application submitted 'if she submitted her application'
(100)	a.	A		[A' [DP seinen Prinzipien ] treu ] his principles loyal 'loyal to this principles'
	b.			[A' [DP auf seine Kinder ] stolz ] on his children proud 'proud of his children'
(101)	a.	C		[C' dass [IP sie ihr Ziel verfolgten ] ] that they their objective pursued 'that they pursued their objective'
	b.			[C' ob [IP sie ihre Bewerbung einreichte ] ] if she her application submitted 'if she submitted her application'
(102)	a.	N		die [N' Verfolgung [DP ihres Ziels ] ] the pursuit their-Gen objective-Gen 'the pursuit of their objective'
	b.			diese [N' Treue [PP zu seinen Prinzipien ] ] this loyalty to his principles 'this loyalty to his principles'
(103)	a.	D		[D' die [NP Verfolgung ihres Ziels ] ] the pursuit their-Gen objective-Gen 'the pursuit of their objective'
	b.			[D' diese [NP Treue zu seinen Prinzipien ] ] this loyalty to his principles 'this loyalty to his principles'
(104)	a.	P		[P' über [DP die nächsten fünf Jahre ] ] over the next five years 'over the next five years'
	b.			[P' mit [DP großem Trara ] ] with great fanfare 'with great fanfare'

To complicate matters yet further, German allows postpositions, as in (105).

(105)

[P' [DP den Fluss ] entlang ] the river along 'along the river'

And finally, to really liven things up, certain adpositions in Dutch and German can either precede or follow their complements. This is illustrated in (106) and (107), again for German; the (a) and (b) examples share the same meaning.

(106)	a.		[P' wegen [DP des Wetters ] ] because.of the weather 'because of the weather'
	b.		[P' [DP des Wetters ] wegen ]
(107)	a.		[P' gegenüber [DP der Kirche ] ] across.from the church 'across from the church'
	b.		[P' [DP der Kirche ] gegenüber ]

Dutch, too, allows such variation between head-initial and head-final adpositions, and in that language, it is even accompanied by a systematic meaning difference. Specifically, when adpositions with variable headedness are postpositions, their meaning is always directional, but when they are prepositions, their meaning is generally locative. This is illustrated in (108) and (109) (Kroch 1994).

(108)	a.		Ik fiets in de straat. I bike in the street 'I ride my bike in the street.' (locative)
	b.		Ik fiets de straat in. I bike the street in 'I ride my bike into the street.' (directional)
(109)	a.		Ik klim in de boom. I climb in the tree 'I climb in the tree.' (locative) 'I climb into the tree.' (directional)
	b.		Ik klim de boom in. I climb the tree in 'I climb into the tree.' (only directional)

In case the German and Dutch examples just discussed sound exotic, it is worth noting that English sports two postpositions of its own, as illustrated in (110).

(110)	a.		They searched the whole world over.
	b.		They work the whole week through.

It is not uncommon, incidentally, for languages to undergo phrase structure change. For instance, the phrase structure of Old English (ca. 800-ca. 1100 C.E.) is reminiscent of that of modern German and Dutch; in particular, verbs were head-final for most of the Old English period. (The three languages are closely related historically, so the syntactic similarity is not surprising.) The first instances of verb-initial phrase structure appeared in late Old English, and early Middle English was characterized by rampant variation in the verb phrase (Kroch and Taylor, in press), but by ca. 1350, the change from head-final to head-initial verb phrases was essentially complete in all dialects of Middle English. Since Chaucer lived from 1342 to 1400, his language is already modern in this respect, though his syntax differs quite strikingly from that of the modern language in other ways, as we will discuss in later chapters. Among the relics of the old verb-final phrase structure in the modern language is the saying Indictments do not a conviction make.

even in the absence of a semantic argument

In Chapter 2, we saw that semantic arguments are not always expressed in the syntax (as in the case of intransitive eat). Expletive subjects represent the converse case of a syntactic argument without a semantic counterpart.

don't even allow a expletive

Notice also the related contrast in (i); the construction in (i.a) is discussed in a later chapter.

(i)	a.		The manuscript appears to have been found.
	b.	*	the manuscript's appearance to have been found

the abbreviations in the glosses are listed in the notes

Acc = accusative (case of direct object), Gen = genitive (possessive case), Decl = declarative clause, Mod = modifier, Pres = present tense, ps = person, sg = singular, Top = topic of sentence.

Among the relics of the old verb-final phrase structure in the modern language

Cf. the parallel token:

There had appeared to him something rather fine in his policy of refusing to identify himself in any way with Sedleigh, a touch of the stone-walls-do-not-a-prison-make sort of thing.
(P.G. Wodehouse. 1974. The world of Psmith. Lodon: Barrie & Jenkins. 114.)