Is the Head of a Noun Phrase Necessarily a Noun?

1. Is the Head of a Noun Phrase Necessarily a Noun? 25 July 2003 Jerry Ball www.DoubleRTheory.com Email: Jerry@DoubleRTheory.com

2. Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 1, Theoretical Prerequisites. Langacker, R. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 2, Descriptive Applications. • The head is the profile determinant in a grammatical construction, particularly when it is the autonomous component in a construction showing notable A/D asymmetry; the autonomous profile determinant, A, is the head in such a construction, and the dependent component, D, is a modifier.

3. In a construction showing notable A/D asymmetry, and where the autonomous component, A, is the profile determinant, the dependent component, D, is a modifier of A (A is the head) • In a construction showing notable A/D asymmetry, and where the dependent component D is the profile determinant, the autonomous component A is the complement of D.

4. A basic distinction is drawn between nominal and relational expressions, depending on whether they profile a thing (abstractly defined) or a relationship. • Nominal expressions include nouns and other noun-like elements (e.g. pronouns) • Within the class of relational expressions, verbs are distinguished from such classes as adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, infinitives, and participles in virtue of designating a process as opposed to an atemporal relation.

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

6. The semantic function of a simple noun is limited to specifying a type, whereas a full nominal designates a grounded instance of that type • The head noun provides a type specification and instantiates an instance of that type • A full-fledged nominal is obtained by appending a grounding predication at the highest level of constituency • A determiner is the prototypical provider of the grounding predication in a nominal

7. In an expression like the bull both the and bull “have equal claim to the status of local head since both their profiles correspond to the composite-structure profile (that of the nominal as a whole). To the extent that the is regarded as the head, the other component—which elaborates the head—is a complement. To the extent that the elaborating structure is regarded as the head, the constitutes a modifier. Both views have precedent in grammatical theory.”

8. How does Langacker’s definition of complement work here? • Langacker notes the relationship between his conceptual schema for nominals (and clauses) and X-Bar Theory • In Langacker’s analysis the functional category of specifier is not used • In X-Bar Theory the category of specifier is given a purely syntactic definition • What happens if we add the functional category of specifier to Langacker’s conceptual schema—giving it a semantic basis?

9. The in the bull can function consistently as a specifier and not a head or modifier • The specifier becomes the locus of the grounding predication and determines the referential type of an expression (e.g. object referring expression) • Bull in the bull functions consistently as the head, not a complement • As in Chomsky’s original formulation (“Remarks on Nominalization”, 1970), determiners and auxiliaries are prototypical specifiers (i.e. grounding predications), and the parallel structure of nominals and clauses is revealed.

10. The head is the semantically most significant element of an expression whether it is autonomous or dependent (i.e. relational) • The head of a nominal is a word or expression that describes a type of object or that describes a type of relation or situation viewed objectively • Heads, not complements, consistently project the type specification and determine the semantic type of an expression • No need to view the in the bull as the head!! Such a view may have been proposed (e.g. Abney’s DP Hypothesis), but it wreaks havoc on a semantic basis for the meaning of head

11. Complements do not project either referential or semantic type and can become synonymous with relational arguments (i.e. they are autonomous, full referring expressions, but they are not profiled in the composite expression)

12. Nominals (and clauses) become bipolar having a referential pole and a semantic pole • Modifiers are attracted to the semantic pole and combine with heads to constrain the semantic type of the head • Quantifiers are attracted to the referential pole where they function as specifiers • Quantifiers are attracted to the semantic pole where they function as modifiers (and even as heads)

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

14. The part of speech of the lexical head of a nominal reflects the inherent meaning of the lexical item, not the referential type or the functional role of the lexical item. This provides support for notional definitions of the parts of speech. • It becomes important to distinguish the inherent part of speech of a lexical item from the functional role it fills in a particular expression • The part of speech of a lexical item need not change with the functional role • E.g. A quantifier is a quantifier (POS) based on inherent meaning whether it functions as a specifier, modifier or head in an expression

15. In sum, adding the functional category of specifier as the determinant of the referential type of an expression leads to semantically better motivated definitions of the head, modifier and complement functional categories, brings syntax into closer alignment with morphology and supports the notional definition of parts of speech

16. Lexical Heads of Nominals • The bull (noun) is mean • He (pronoun) is mean • Aurora (proper noun) is nice • This(deictic word) is nice • Some (quantifier) are nice

17. More Heads of Nominals • The running (present participle) of the bulls • The injured (past participle) were taken to the hospital • The sad (adjective) are in need of cheering up • The Fillmores (proper noun) are not at home • The ayes (adverb) have it • The kick (verb) was extremely hard • The cheering up (verb participle + particle) of the sad • The buy out (verb + particle) of the corporation • The up and down (conjoined prepositions) of the elevator

18. Nonce Expressions Clark, H. (1983). “Making sense of nonce sense.” In The Process of Language Understanding. Edited by G. Flores d’Arcais & R. Jarvella. NY: John Wiley. • The porch (noun) • The paperboy porched (past tense verb) the newspaper on the doorstep • The porching (verb participle) of the newspaper on the doorstep was extremely accurate • The paperboy doorstepped (p.t. verb) the newspaper • The doorstepping (verb participle) of the newspaper was impressive

19. Have a Verb, Take a Verb and Give a Verb Constructions Dixon (1992) A New Approach to English Grammar, on Semantic Principles. NY: Oxford University Press • He had a look (verb) at it • He took a walk (verb) around the park • She gave his nose a tweak (verb) • The paperboy made a porch (verb) of the newspaper on the doorstep every morning without fail • The paperboy attempted a doorstep (verb) of the newpaper

20. Clausal Heads of Nominals Pullum, G. (1991) “English nominal gerund phrases as noun phrases with verb-phrase heads” Linguistics Vol 29, 763-799. • Going to the movies (gerund) is fun • Your giving money to strangers (gerund) is nice • Thatyou give money to strangers (that complement) is nice • To go to the movies (infinitive phrase) is fun

21. Referential and Semantic Pole(Prototype Nominal) Referential Pole (specifier) Semantic Pole (head) the bull Grounding Predication (definite) Type Specification (bull) Quantifying Predication (singular)

22. Referential and Semantic Pole(Action Verb Head of Nominal) Referential Pole (specifier) Semantic Pole (head) the kick Grounding Predication (definite) Type Specification (kick) Quantifying Predication (singular)

23. Referential and Semantic Pole(Unified Poles) Referential Pole (specifier) Semantic Pole (head) he Grounding Predication (def) Quantifying Predication (sing) Type Specification (human)

24. Referential and Semantic Pole(Multiple Grounding Predications) Referential Pole (specifier) Semantic Pole (head) the bulls Grounding Predication (definite) Grounding Predication (indef) Quantifying Predication (plural) Type Specification (bull)

25. Referential and Semantic Pole(Multiple Predications) Referential Pole (specifier) Semantic Pole (head) some bulls Grounding Predication (indefinite) Quantifying Predication (plural) Grounding Predication (indef) Quantifying Predication (plural) Type Specification (bull)

26. Referential and Semantic Pole(Modification) Referential Pole (specifier) Semantic Pole (modifier/head) the old bull Grounding Predication (definite) Type Specification (old bull) Quantifying Predication (sing)

27. Referential and Semantic Pole(Modification) Referential Pole (specifier) Semantic Pole (modifier/head) the two old bulls Grounding Predication (definite) Type Specification (old bull) Quantifying Predication (plural) Grounding predication (indef) Quantifying Predication (two)

28. Referential and Semantic Pole(Modification) Referential Pole (specifier) Semantic Pole (modifier/head) the two oldest bulls Grounding Predication (definite) Type Specification (oldest bull) Quantifying Predication (plural) Grounding predication (def) Quantifying Predication (two)