Syntax

1. Syntax Lecture 11: The Return of the DP

2. Introduction • We have argued that the determiner is a head taking the NP as its complement

3. Introduction • The possessor is in the specifier of the DP

4. Introduction • We will accept this basic analysis • However, there are a number of details that need to be sorted out

5. DPs without determiners • A determiner is not always present in every DP • [DP The men] are leaving • [DP Men] are leaving • [DP John] is leaving • It is standard to assume that in these cases the determiner is present, but phonologically unexpressed • [DP men] • [DP  John]

6. DPs without determiners • In support of this analysis: • nouns themselves are neither definite or indefinite: • The men some men • This John some John • The DP men is indefinite and the DP John is definite • This must be due to some other element • Determiners are responsible for this distinction • Therefore there must be a determiner in these phrases • [DPindef men] • [DP def John]

7. Possessors and determiners • Possessors and determiners are in complementary distribution • John’s dog • The dog • * John’s the dog • This used to be taken as evidence that the possessor sits in the determiner position • It was therefore accepted that words and phrases could occupy the same position

8. Current X-bar assumptions • According to current views: • Words are in head positions • Phrases are in complement, specifier or adjunct positions • The possessor is in the specifier of DP and the determiner is in the head position • So why are they in complementary distribution?

9. The status of ‘’s’ • The English pre-nominal possessor is marked with the possessive morpheme ’s • This is often referred to as the genitive marker • But there are a number of reasons to think that this is not a morpheme of genitive case • Modern English has no other case morphology • The morpheme does not behave like a case morpheme

10. How case morphemes behave • Case morphology can affect the form of nouns, adjectives or determiners (or a combination of these) • Hungarian – nouns and some determiners (pronouns and demonstratives) • (azt) a nagyfiút • Finnish – nouns and adjectives • Minä parka jouduinsiivoamaan. I(Nom) poor(Nom) got to clean `Poor me ended up cleaning.' • German – determiners, adjectives and some nouns • Den jungen Mann the(acc) young(acc) man

11. How case morphemes behave • Importantly, the case morpheme attaches to words, not phrases: • azt az embert akiről te figyelmeztettél engem • * azt az ember akiről te figyelmeztettél engemet • But this is exactly how ’s behaves • John’s dog • A friend of mine’s dog • That man who you warned me about’s dog

12. Another phrasal morpheme • There is one other morpheme in English which behaves like this: • John’d seen it • A friend of mine’ll pay • The man who you warned me about’d do it • This is the contracted auxiliary • John (ha)d seen it • A friend of mine (wi)ll pay • The man who you warned me about (woul)d do it

13. Another phrasal morpheme • This involves a process which: • contracts the auxiliary in I • makes it a phonological dependent (clitic) on the subject

14. Rethinking ‘’s’ • Based on this, an analysis of the possessive marker suggests itself • It is a contracted head (D) • Which becomes a clitic on its specifier (the possessor)

15. Possessors and determiners • When there is a possessor there must be a possessive determiner • So there cannot be another determiner • Other determiners can only appear when there is no possessor • Hence possessors and determiners are in complementary distribution

16. More problematic determiners • X-bar theory claims there can only be one head of a phrase • If the determiner is the head of the DP, we would expect only one determiner • However • Thefew moments after the explosion • The many errors in the report • All the people in the room • Both the locks on the door

17. More problematic determiners • Looking at these examples, it seems that there are some ‘determiners’ which can precede articles, but not follow them: • All the tables * the all tables • And some which can follow, but not precede articles • A few seconds * few a seconds

18. Terminology • Some traditional grammars (e.g. Quirk et al.) have called these: pre-, central and post determiners

19. Central Determiners • These consist of • The articles • All the people a few words • The demonstratives • All this noise these many arguments • The possessives • Both my parents John’s many crimes • Most quantifiers • * each the boats every few seconds

20. Post Determiners • Post determiners have adjectival declensions • Few – fewer – fewest • Many – more – most • They can also be modified like adjectives • Very few so few as few • Very many so many as many • No central determiner behaves like this • * eacher * somest * very the • These observations suggest that not only are post determiners adjectives, but they are APs • A phrase cannot be a head, so they are clearly not heads of DPs

21. Post Determiners • Determiners always have NP complements

22. Post Determiners • Determiners always have NP complements • Therefore the post determiner (AP) must be inside the NP • But it always precedes everything else inside the NP • * These good few men

23. Post Determiners • This suggests that the post determiner sits in the specifier of NP

24. Pre-determiners • Pre-determiners seem to be real determiners (they are not adjectives or phrases) • * aller * bothest * very half • They can appear with an of between them and the central determiner • All of these ideas both of the twins • But so can most central determiners and post determiners • Those of the audience each of my aunts • Few of his followers most of the time

25. Pre-determiners • The of typically appears in front of a nominal complement of a noun: • Destroy [DP the city] destruction of [DP the city] • This might suggest that there is an abstract noun present in this construction • Some N of the time

26. Pre-determiners • If this is correct, then pre-determiners are just determiners • They are only different in that the of is optional • All N (of) the time

27. Support for the analysis • Pre-determiner constructions are similar to ‘group noun’ constructions • All (of) the men • Each member of the committee • Both constructions allow fronting of the of phrase • Of the men, all were over six feet tall • Of the committee, each member was convinced • This is not possible in normal DPs • A student of linguistics • * of linguistics, as student was murdered

28. Support for the analysis • Pre-determiner and group noun constructions have a similar meaning • Some bottles of the wine • The complement DP identifies the set we are talking about • The group noun partitions this set into units • The determiner specifies which of the units we focus on The wine bottles some

29. Support for the analysis • Pre-determiner and group noun constructions have a similar meaning • Some of the crowd • The complement DP identifies the set we are talking about • The abstract noun partitions this set into units • The determiner specifies which of the units we focus on The crowd  some

30. Conclusion • The DP analysis provides interesting solutions to a number of problematic observations • Some nouns appear to be definite/indefinite, though most nouns are neither one or the other • There are abstract determiners with these nouns which provide the definiteness feature

31. Conclusion • The DP analysis provides interesting solutions to a number of problematic observations • The complementary distribution between possessors (phrases) and determiners (words) • What is in complementary distribution is determiners and the possessive marker ‘s (another determiner)

32. Conclusion • The DP analysis provides interesting solutions to a number of problematic observations • There appear to be multiple determiners • Post determiners are not determiners but APs that sit in the specifier of NP • Pre-determiners are determiners which appear with an abstract (group) noun which does not require an of in front of its complement