Table Of ContentASyntax ofSubstance
LinguisticInquiryMonographs
SamuelJayKeyser,generaleditor
AcompletelistofbookspublishedintheLinguisticInquiryMonographsseries
appearsatthebackofthisbook.
ASyntax ofSubstance DavidAdger
TheMITPress
Cambridge,Massachusetts
London,England
(cid:2)c 2013MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthisbookmaybereproducedinanyformbyanyelectronicorme-
chanicalmeans(includingphotocopying,recording,orinformationstorageandretrieval)without
permissioninwritingfromthepublisher.
MITPress books maybepurchased at special quantity discounts forbusiness orsales promo-
tionaluse.Forinformation,[email protected]
Department,TheMITPress,55HaywardStreet,Cambridge,MA02142.
ThisbookwassetinTimesRomanbyWestchesterbooksgroup.PrintedandboundintheUnited
StatesofAmerica.
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Adger,David.
Asyntaxofsubstance/DavidAdger.
p. cm.—(Linguisticinquirymonographs)
Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.
ISBN978-0-262-01861-6(alk.paper)—ISBN978-0-262-51830-7(pbk.:alk.paper)
1.Phrasestructuregrammar. 2.Grammar,Comparativeandgeneral—Syntax. 3.Semantics.
I.Title.
P158.3.A34 2013
415—dc23
2012020867
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Contents
SeriesForeword vii
Preface ix
Chapter1
Introduction 1
Chapter2
LabelsandStructures 9 2.1 Introduction 9
2.2 TheSpecifierProblem 9
2.3 Diagnosis:TheProblemIsHeads,
NotLabels 18
2.4 Conclusion 34
Chapter3
SyntacticInterpretation 37 3.1 Introduction 37
3.2 I-Complementsand
I-Specifiers 38
3.3 LabeledStructuresandthe
ImpossibilityofRoll-up
Derivations 40
3.4 SemanticInterpretation 46
3.5 Linearization 48
3.6 Conclusion 50
vi Contents
Chapter4
PuzzlesintheSyntaxof 4.1 ASettledView 51
RelationalNominals 51
4.2 Optionalityof“Arguments”of
RelationalNominals 57
4.3 RelationalityinFunctional,Not
Lexical,Structure 70
4.4 Conclusion 89
Chapter5
ThePPPeripherality 5.1 Introduction 91
Generalization 91
5.2 PPComplements 96
5.3 Head-InitialLanguages 97
5.4 DeterminersandPossessives 113
5.5 Conclusion 132
Chapter6
TheEtiologyofthe 6.1 Introduction 135
PPArgument 135
6.2 AnalyzingPPPeripherality 136
6.3 Bound-Pronoun
Interpretations 145
6.4 Variable-OrderPPs 146
6.5 PPPeripheralityRedux 158
6.6 Head-FinalLanguages 162
6.7 Conclusion 166
Chapter7
Conclusion 167
Notes 169
References 177
Index 187
Series Foreword
Wearepleasedtopresentthesixty-fourthintheseriesLinguisticInquiryMono-
graphs.Thesemonographspresentnewandoriginalresearchbeyondthescope
ofthearticle.Wehopetheywillbenefitourfieldbybringingtoitperspectives
thatwillstimulatefurtherresearchandinsight.
Originallypublishedinlimitededition,theLinguisticInquiryMonographs
arenowmorewidelyavailable.Thischangeisduetothegreatinterestengen-
deredbytheseriesandbytheneedsofagrowingreadership.Theeditorsthank
thereadersfortheirsupportandwelcomesuggestionsaboutfuturedirections
fortheseries.
SamuelJayKeyser
fortheEditorialBoard
Preface
This book arose because two shorter papers I was working on separately
wouldn’tleave each other alone. One was to be an attemptat defendingand
analyzinga new crosslinguistic generalization(PPPeripherality:PP comple-
ments are always more peripheral to their noun heads than adjectives). The
otherwas tobe a theoreticalsolutionto a problemofphrasestructuretheory
(howtolabelspecifier–headstructures)thathadtheaddedconsequenceofrul-
ingoutroll-upandremnantroll-upderivations.However,itbecamecleartome
thatthetheoreticalarticleneededanin-depthcasestudyofaparticulardomain
to give it bite, whereas the more empirical paper relied heavily on theoreti-
calproposalsarticulatedintheotherarticle.Eachneededtobecomplemented
withtheother.However,doingthatwouldhaveledtofartoomanywordsfor
any self-respecting journal editor to accept. I hope, however, that the result
makesforareasonablereadinbookform.
Thebook,ofcourse,islongerthanIhadplanned,butitisalsofartooshort
in thatit leaves manyquestionsopen.I have nottouchedonclausal comple-
ments to nouns (but see Moulton 2009 for a proposal that fits well with the
system developed here) nor on analyses of complementation that treat it as
relativization(Arsenijevic´2009;Kayne2010),andalthoughthediscussionof
head-initiallanguages has some depth, there is still much work to do on the
realization of no minal relations in head-final (and Ezafe) languages. I have
alsoleftasidemuchoftheliteraturethattakescertainnominalrelationstobe,
at heart, a form of predication (den Dikken 2007a;Boneh and Sichel 2010).
Furthermore,Ionlybrieflytouchoneventnominalizations,whichhavegener-
atedahugeliteratureinthehistoryofgenerativegrammar,choosingtofocus
insteadonwhatBarkerandDowty(1993)call“ultra-nominal”nouns).
Thematerialpresentedhere,has,invariousincarnations,beenpresentedat
thefollowingvenues,andI’dliketothanktheparticipantsforhelpfulandstim-
ulatingfeedback:theLISSIMSummerSchool,Kausani,Uttarachand(2009);
the6thCelticLinguisticsConference,Dublin(2010);theComparativeGermanic
