5 Extending the X' schema

• 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
• Notes
• Exercises and problems
• Supplementary material
  • Nouns

In Chapter 4, we introduced the X' schema of phrase structure, according to which lexical items project an elementary tree consisting of a spine of projections along with 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

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 theme 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, the noun destruction. Like the verb, the noun is associated with an agent argument and a theme argument that are both overtly expressed---in this case, as the possessive expression 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 passive-like 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 theme 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 or 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 in exactly the same way 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 theme argument is expressed as a noun phrase, but in a noun phrase, it must be part of a prepositional phrase, usually an of phrase. Finally, 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 concerns the subject requirement. As we saw in Chapter 3, all sentences require a syntactic subject, even when it corresponds to no semantic argument, as is evident from the contrast between (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 never require a subject. For instance, the agent argument of a noun can be expressed, but it needn't be, as shown in (9).¹

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

What is even more striking is that sentences with expletive subjects have no noun phrase counterparts. As (10) shows, the very expletive expressions that are obligatory in (7) are ungrammatical in noun phrases.²

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

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. In the remainder of this part of the chapter, our focus will be on how to represent these parallel aspects of noun phrases and sentences. As we have seen, however, the two categories also differ fundamentally with respect to the subject requirement.

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 traditional term 'noun phrase' is a misnomer since noun phrases are maximal projections of D rather than of N. Because the term 'noun phrase' is firmly established in usage, we continue to use it as an informal synonym for 'DP'. However, in order to avoid confusion, we will use the term 'NP' only to refer to the subconstituent of a noun phrase that is the complement of a determiner, and never to an entire noun phrase.

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.		They refuted the criticism.
	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 phrase 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 for the moment.

(16)	a.				b.				c.
			Elementary tree for N (15b)				Substitute theme 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 theme arguments in the elementary tree in (15d). The remainder of the derivation is identical to that of (14c), as shown in (18).

(18)	a.				b.				c.
			Elementary tree for N (15d)				Substitute arguments				Elementary tree for possessive 's (17c)
	d.				e.
			Substitute (18b) in elementary tree for D				Move specifier from Spec(NP) to Spec(DP)

In (19), we repeat the tree for the noun phrase in (18e) side by side with the tree for the corresponding sentence. (In order to underline the topological parallel between the two trees, we have omitted the internal structure of the theme DP in (19b).) As is evident, apart from the labels for the syntactic categories, the two-layered structure for noun phrases (NP, DP) presented here is analogous to the two-layered structure for simple sentences from Chapter 4 (VP, IP).

(19)

a.

b.

In view of the structural parallel in (19), it is convenient to generalize the notion of subject to include both Spec(IP) and Spec(DP). Accordingly, the notion of subject movement then includes movement from Spec(VP) to Spec(IP) as well as movement from Spec(NP) to Spec(DP).

The structural parallel between the two trees in (19) is further supported by the following semantic parallel. In a formal semantics that is simple but sufficient for our purposes, an NP constituent 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. This is what allows 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 6). Once again, the particular situation picked out depends in part on the discourse context, so that the same sentence can be used to refer to more than one situation.

In concluding this section, we draw attention to the fact that in the noun phrases that we have considered so far, any constituents in Spec(DP) have expressed arguments of the noun and have hence undergone subject movement. However, subjects of noun phrases don't necessarily originate in the NP projection. In a noun phrase like the student's program, for instance, it makes sense to treat the student as an argument of the possessive morpheme rather than of the noun. Accordingly, we give the noun phrase the structure in (20), where N doesn't project a specifier and the subject of the noun phrase is substituted directly into Spec(DP). (For simplicity, we omit the internal structure of the specifier.)

(20)

More on determiners

Subcategories of determiners. Like verbs and nouns, determiners have different degrees of transitivity. For instance, the definite article the and the indefinite article a(n) are obligatorily transitive, whereas the demonstratives this and that are optionally so.

(21)	a.		I'll buy { the, a } book.
	b.	*	I'll buy { the, a. }
(22)	a.		I'll buy { this, that } book.
	b.		I'll buy { this, that. }

Certain ordinary pronouns pattern just like demonstratives, as shown in (23), and so we will treat them, too, as optionally transitive determiners.

(23)	a.		we Americans, you fool(s)
	b.		we, you

Finally, ordinary pronouns can also behave like obligatorily intransitive determiners, as shown in (24).

(24)	a.		I, he, she, it, they
	b.	*	I idiot, he fool, she linguist, it piece of junk, they traitors

In this connection, recall the warning in Chapter 1 that the term 'pronoun' is potentially misleading. It suggests that pronouns are a subclass of nouns. But if that were so, then pronouns should combine with articles and demonstratives in the same way that other nouns do. In fact, however, pronouns behave exactly like complete noun phrases in this regard, as shown in (25). The facts in (25) thus provide strong evidence for the analysis of pronouns as determiners just presented.

(25)	a.	Noun		the people, this woman, that addressee
	b.	Pronoun	*	the they, this she, that you
	c.	Noun phrase	*	the these people, this the woman, that the addressee

Elementary trees for the various types of determiners that we have just discussed are given in (26).

(26)

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

Silent determiners. As shown in (27), plural indefinite count nouns and indefinite mass nouns are apparently not accompanied by an article, in contrast to their singular and definite counterparts.

(27)	a.		___ cars, ___ apples; ___ rice
	b.		a car, an apple; the rice

However, we assume for conceptual reasons that the examples in (27a) contain a silent article that is semantically roughly comparable to the unstressed some in I would like some apples and some rice. The silent article has a singular and a plural form, as shown in (28). The singular combines with mass nouns, and the plural with plural count nouns.

(28)

a.

b.

Our reasons for assuming the existence of silent determiners are as follows. First, this assumption allows us to minimize the difference between English and a language like Spanish, where the indefinite article has singular and plural forms that are both overt. The resulting correspondence between English and Spanish determiners is shown in (29); the plural indefinite articles are highlighted. For simplicity, we give only the masculine forms of the Spanish determiners.

(29)				English		Spanish
				Sg	Pl	Sg	Pl
			Demonstrative	this	these	este	estos
				that	those	ese	esos
			Definite article	the	the	el	los
			Indefinite article	a(n)	[indef pl]	un	unos

Second, assuming the silent determiner allows us to maintain that all noun phrases are DPs. Sentences like (30) can then all be derived using the single elementary tree for brought in (31).

(30)	a.		Some butlers brought some tea.
	b.		Some butlers brought tea.
	c.		Butlers brought some tea.
	d.		Butlers brought tea.

(31)

We show the complete structure for the apparently articleless butlers and tea in (32), but in (33) we simplify the structure for the noun phrases in order to make it easier to focus on the structural similarity across all four sentences.

(32)

a.

b.

(33)	a.				b.
	c.				d.

In principle, it would be possible to take an alternative tack. We might adopt the goal of assigning the least possible amount of structure to each sentence in (30). This would lead us to reject the silent determiner in (28) and to represent butlers and tea using the trees in (34) rather than those in (32).

(34)

a.

b.

The alternative structures for (30d) are given in (35). (35a) is simply (33d), but with the internal structure of both DPs fully shown.

(35)

a.

b.

Clearly, the tree in (35b) is simpler than its counterpart in (35a). However, this simplicity would come at the price of a veritable explosion in the number of elementary trees in our grammar, since every argument position that can be filled by a noun phrase would need to be associated with two elementary trees (one with a DP substitution node, and one with an NP substitution node). For instance, instead of the single elementary tree for brought in (36a), we would need the three additional trees in (36b-d).

(36)

a.

b.

c.

d.

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 idea of simplifying the representations of individual sentences is inconsistent with the Chomskyan paradigm of language. Why? From a Chomskyan perspective, what syntactic theory attempts to model and understand is not sentences per se, but rather the mental capacity to generate sentences. A reasonable working hypothesis is that the best model for this capacity is the simplest possible grammar. From this perspective, then, focusing on simplifying the representations of sentences at the expense of complicating the grammar itself misses the whole point of constructing grammars in the first place.

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 stay and the morphologically related verb stayed.

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

Extending the approach to representing modification introduced in Chapter 4, we can derive the structure for the noun phrase in (37a) as in (38). (For simplicity, we omit the internal structure of the proper noun in the specifier.)

(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 (38f) 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 4, 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

In the most natural interpretation of (42a), one is interpreted as book on the floor. In (42b), on the other hand, one is interpreted as simply book. We can represent these facts by assuming that the first conjunct in both cases has the structure in (43).

(43)

According to (43), the noun book has no complement, and the PP on the floor is an adjunct. The pro-form one substitutes for instances of N', just as do so substitutes for instances of V'. One substitutes for the higher N' in (42a), and for the lower N' in (42b).

As in the case of V', adjunction to N' can apply more than once, yielding multiply recursive structures like (44).

(44)

The complement-adjunct distinction in the nominal system. Given the semantic parallel in (45), it is reasonable to treat the of phrase in (45b) as a complement of the noun author.

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

That is, the elementary tree for author needed to derive (45b) is as in (46a), and the structure for the entire noun phrase is (46b).

(46)

a.

b.

Since one is analogous to do so in substituting for intermediate rather than for lexical projections, we expect the contrast between (47) and (48), and this accurately reflects the judgment of many speakers.

(47)	a.		This man authors murder mysteries, and that woman does so, too.
	b.		this author of murder mysteries and that one
(48)	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 (48b), 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 themselves optionally intransitive (for instance, compare consume, destroyer, employ with consumer, destroyer, employer). Moreover, the intransitive use of these nouns might be more frequent than their transitive use. As a result, the mental grammar of some speakers might include only the intransitive elementary tree in (49a), and not the transitive elementary tree in (46a). Such speakers would not be able to derive the structure in (46b), but they would be able to derive the alternative structure in (49b) by adjoining the of phrase, rather than by substituting it.

(49)

a.

b.

(48b) would then be straightforwardly acceptable for such speakers.

Notice furthermore that even for speakers whose mental grammar includes the transitive elementary tree in (46a), the intransitive elementary tree in (49a) is available, since all speakers of English accept (50).

(50)

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 (48b) 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 (51).

(51)	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 mysterious 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 (52)-(55) grammatical.³

(52)	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.
(53)	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.
(54)	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.
(55)	a.	Plural demonstrative	*	I like these books, and you like those ones.
	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 (56) with two distinct syntactic representations.

(56)

They ate the pizza in the living room.

(56) has two interpretations, which can be paraphrased as in (57).

(57)	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 took it and ate it elsewhere).

On the verbal modifier interpretation in (57a), the prepositional phrase in the living room modifies the verb ate, and (56) has the structure in (58a). On the nominal modifier interpretation in (57b), on the other hand, the prepositional phrase modifies the noun pizza, and the sentence has the structure in (58b).

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

The structures in (58) 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 (59a) and (59b), respectively.

(59)	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 (58a), but not in (58b).

Conversely, in the question-answer pair in (61), 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 (58b), but not in (58a).

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

Adjective phrases

Recall from Chapter 2 that the pro-form so substitutes for adjective phrases. More specifically, examples like those in (64) and (65) allow us to conclude that the of phrase is a complement of proud in (64), but that the with phrase is an adjunct of happy in (65).

(64)	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.
(65)	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.

We can represent these facts by associating the two adjectives with the elementary trees in (66) and by stating that so substitutes for instances of A'.

(66)

a.

b.

c.

Most adjectives in English, like the two just discussed, are optionally or obligatorily intransitive, but fond is obligatorily transitive.⁴ The contrast in (67) is evidence for the complement status of the of phrase (recall from Chapter 4 that obligatory syntactic dependents are complements), and that status is confirmed by the results of so substitution.

(67)	a.	*	They are fond.
	b.		They are fond of their grandson.
(68)	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.

In view of the facts in (67) and (68), fond is associated with the single elementary tree in (69).

(69)

Prepositional phrases

(70)	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 (71) show, this expectation is fulfilled.

(71)	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 traditional grammar, Ps that are used intransitively are known as adverbs or particles, rather than as prepositions, but this terminology 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 a lexical item to depend on its transitivity in the case of a P like since as in the case of a V like 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 (72), and the full structures for the PPs headed by them in (70) and (71) are shown in (73). Note the identity of (72c) and (73c).

(72)	a.				b.				c.
(73)	a.				b.				c.

Clausal complements

(74)	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 might expect Ps to allow clausal complements as well. Once again, this expectation is borne out, as shown in (75).

(75)	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 (along with if and that), but as in the case of intransitive Ps, we again reject the traditional approach. First, it is conceptually uneconomical. Specifically, it redundantly expresses the difference between (75a) and (75b) in terms of the syntactic category of the italicized items (preposition vs. subordinating conjunction) and again in terms of the syntactic category of the complement (noun phrase vs. clause). Second, the items in (75) 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 (75b) suggest that the complement is an IP. The elementary tree for after in (75b) would then be as in (76), and the elementary trees for before and since would be analogous.

(76)

It is arguable, however, that the category of the complement is CP rather than IP, as illustrated for after in (77a). The clausal complement of after and prepositions like it would then have to headed by a silent counterpart of the complementizer that, resulting in (77b) as the structure for after the war ended (for simplicity, the internal structure of IP is omitted).

(77)

a.

b.

One reason for preferring the analysis in (77) over that in (76) is that it makes English prepositions parallel to their French counterparts, which clearly take DP and CP, but not IP complements.⁵

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

A second reason for preferring the elementary tree in (77a) over the one in (76) is that even though sentences like (79), with an overt complementizer, are ungrammatical in modern English, such examples occurred freely in Middle English. Some examples are given in (80). '+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).

(79)		*	{ after, before, since } that the war ended
(80)	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 silent complementizers 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 (81).

(81)

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

Given these last two considerations, the analysis embodied in (77) 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 difference between modern English on the one hand and French and Middle English on the other.

Crosslinguistic variation in headedness

(82)	a.	V		They [V' pursued [DP their objective. ] ]
	b.			She [V' submitted [DP her application. ] ]
(83)	a.	I		They [I' should [VP pursue their objective. ] ]
	b.			She [I' could [VP submit her application. ] ]
(84)	a.	C		They agreed [C' that [IP they should pursue their objective. ] ]
	b.			She wondered [C' if [I' she could submit her application. ] ]
(85)	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 ] ]
(86)	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 ] ]
(87)	a.	A		She is [A' proud [PP of her work. ] ]
	b.			He is [A' fond [PP of his children. ] ]
(88)	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 (89)-(93) are from Korean. In order to avoid using 'head-final preposition,' which is an etymological contradiction in terms, linguists have coined the term postposition for vocabulary items like hamkkey 'with' in (93). The term adposition is a cover term for prepositions and postpositions (that is, for Ps regardless of headedness). Examples for I and D are missing because Korean has neither overt modals of the English sort nor overt articles; the abbreviations in the glosses are explained in the notes,⁶ but are not crucial for present purposes.

(89)	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 'He submitted his application.'
(90)	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 'He wondered if he could submit his application.'
(91)	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 'his submission of his application'
	c.			Lisa-uy [N' [PP il-ey tayhan ] capwusim ] Lisa-Gen work-in regarding pride 'Lisa's pride in her work'
(92)	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'
(93)	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 (94)-(99) are from German; the reason that they are all subordinate clauses is that main clauses in German (and Dutch) involve a complication that obscures the position of finite verbs (see Chapter 12). 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 conclusive evidence for the position of I.

(94)	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'
(95)	a.	A		[A' [DP seinen Prinzipien ] treu ] his principles-Dat loyal 'loyal to this principles'
	b.			[A' [PP auf seine Kinder ] stolz ] on his children proud 'proud of his children'
(96)	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'
(97)	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'
(98)	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'
(99)	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 (100).

(100)

[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 (101) and (102), again for German; the (a) and (b) examples share the same meaning.

(101)	a.		[P' wegen [DP des Wetters ] ] because.of the weather 'because of the weather'
	b.		[P' [DP des Wetters ] wegen ]
(102)	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 (103) and (104) (Kroch 1994).

(103)	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)
(104)	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 (105).

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

In conclusion, we note that it is not uncommon 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. Early Middle English was characterized by rampantly variable headedness in the verb phrase (Kroch and Taylor 2001), 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. In the modern language, only isolated relics of the old verb-final phrase structure survive, like the saying Indictments do not a conviction make.⁷

1. It is not just the expression of agent arguments that is freer in noun phrases than in clauses. As the contrast between (i) and (ii) shows, the same is true of theme arguments.

(i)	a.		The mills employed thousands; their practices damaged the environment.
	b.	*	The mills employed; their practices damaged.
(ii)	a.		an employer of thousands; the damage of/to the environment
	b.		an employer; the damage

2. Notice also the related contrast in (i); the construction in (i.a) is discussed in Chapter 8.

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

3. More evidence for the extremely idiosyncratic constraint against (52a) comes from the acceptability of (i) (at least in formal registers).

(i)

not a one, such a one

4. Strictly speaking, this statement is true only of fond in predicative position, not in prenominal position.

(i)	a.	Predicative:	*	Their parents are fond.
	b.	Prenominal:	ok	their fond parents

5. In (78), some French speakers prefer or require the subjunctive form of the auxiliary (ait) rather than the indicative form (a). For present purposes, this variation, which is comparable to that found in English between If I was a rich man and If I were a rich man, is irrelevant.

6. 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.

7. Cf. the parallel token in (i).

(i)

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. London: Barrie & Jenkins. 114.)

A. Using the grammar tool in treebuilder 2, build trees for the (a) examples in (1)-(3). You don't have to show structures for the examples after (a); they're there to provide guidance concerning the intended interpretation and structure for the (a) examples.

(1)	a.		the monster's mother's lair
	b.		the monster
	c.		the monster's mother
(2)	a.		the hero of the poem's name
	b.		the hero
	c.		the hero of the poem
(3)	a.		the mother of the monster's dislike of the poem's hero
	b.		the monster
	c.		the mother of the monster
	d.		the poem
	e.		the poem's hero

B. Using the same grammar tool, build structures for the noun phrases in (4).

(4)	a.		yesterday's lecture
	b.		this week's unseasonably high temperatures

Exercise 5.4

B. Can you think of plausible candidates for obligatorily intransitive prepositions?

Exercise 5.5

A. What is the syntactic difference between the prepositions in (1a) and (1b)? You should be able to answer in a sentence or two.

The exercise calls for a syntactic difference, so don't give a semantic difference as your answer.

(1)	a.		at, despite, during, of
	b.		along, besides, between, by, plus, under

B. Does with belong with the prepositions in (1a) or in (1b)? Explain.

Exercise 5.6

(1)			the houses on the corner with a sign
(2)	a.		the houses on the corner that have a sign
	b.		the houses on the corner that has a sign

A. Using the grammar tool in treebuilder 2, build two distinct structures for the noun phrase in (1), and indicate which structure goes with which interpretation in (2).

B. Give paraphrases for the two interpretations available for (3), and use the grammar tool to build the structures corresponding to them, indicating which structure goes with which interpretation.

(3)

I enthusiastically recommend this candidate with no qualifications.

Exercise 5.7

Given this historical sketch, use the grammar tool in variable headedness 2 to build trees for all of the phrase structure variants of (1) that were possible during the course of the history of English. (For the non-modern stages, simply use modern vocabulary items, but arranged according to the parameter settings of interest.)

(1)

The hero of the poem will slay the monster's mother.

Exercise 5.8

(1)	a.		I disapprove of Kim's impulsive hiring of incompetents.
	b.		I disapprove of Kim's impulsively hiring incompetents.

B. Using the grammar tool in treebuilder 2, build structures for both of the underlined gerund phrases in (1).

C. Point out any unusual properties of the structures that you built in (B).

Problem 5.1

Hint: Think carefully about Exercise 5.6, B.

Problem 5.2

For all speakers of English, the sentence in (1) can have either of the interpretations in (2).

(1)			Jane has a big black dog, and Jean has a small one.
(2)	a.		Jane has a big black dog, and Jean has a small dog.
	b.		Jane has a big black dog, and Jean has a small black dog.

On the other hand, (3) means only (4a) for most speakers of English. However, some speakers are able to interpret (3) as (4b) (Radford 1988) (such variable judgments among different speakers are conventionally indicated by a percent sign).

(3)			Jane has a big black dog, and Jean has a brown one.
(4)	a.		Jane has a big black dog, and Jean has a brown dog.
	b.	%	Jane has a big black dog, and Jean has a big brown dog.

A. Which of the interpretations of (1) and (3) is problematic? Explain.

B. Can you think of a way of resolving the problem you laid out in your answer to (A)?