Table Of ContentPOSSESSORS, PREDICATES AND MOVEMENT
IN THE DETERMINER PHRASE
LINGUISTIK AKTUELL
This series provides a platform for studies in the syntax,
semantics, and pragmatics of the Germanic languages
and their historical developments.
The focus of the series is represented by its German title
Linguistik Aktuell (Linguistics Today).
Texts in the series are in English.
Series Editor
Werner Abraham
Germanistisch Instituut
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
Oude Kijk in 't Jatstraat 26
9712 EK Groningen
The Netherlands
E-mail: [email protected]
Advisory Editorial Board
Guglielmo Cinque (University of Venice)
Günther Grewendorf (J.W. Goethe-University, Frankfurt)
Liliane Haegeman (University of Geneva)
Hubert Haider (University of Stuttgart)
Christer Platzack (University of Lund)
Ian Roberts (University of Stuttgart)
Ken Safir (Rutgers University, New Brunswick NJ)
Höskuldur Thráinsson (University of Iceland, Reykjavik)
Lisa deMena Travis (McGill University)
Sten Vikner (University of Stuttgart)
C. Jan-Wouter Zwart (University of Groningen)
Volume 22
Artemis Alexiadou and Chris Wilder (eds)
Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase
POSSESSORS, PREDICATES
AND MOVEMENT IN
THE DETERMINER PHRASE
Edited by
ARTEMIS ALEXIADOU
CHRIS WILDER
ZAS, Berlin
JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY
AMSTERDAM / PHILADELPHIA
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of
American National Standard for Information Sciences — Permanence of Paper
for Printed Library Materials, ANSI 239.48-1984.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Possessors, predicates, and movement in the determiner phrase / edited by Artemis Alexiadou,
Chris Wilder.
p. cm. -- (Linguistik aktuell / Linguistics today, ISSN 0166-0829; v. 22)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Grammar, Comparative and general-Possessives. 2. Grammar, Comparative and general-
Verb phrase. 3. Grammar, Comparative and general-Determiners. I. Alexiadou, Artemis. II.
Wilder, Chris. III. Series: Linguistik aktuell ; Bd. 22.
P299.P67P67 1998
415--dc21 98-35296
ISBN 90 272 2743 8 (EUR) / 1 55619 906 6 (us) (Hb; alk. paper) CIP
© Copyright 1998 - John Benjamins B.V.
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other
means, without written permission from the publisher.
John Benjamins Publishing Co. ■ P.O.Box 75577 ■ 1070 AN AMSTERDAM · The Netherlands
John Benjamins North America · P.O.Box27519 · Philadelphia PA 19118-0519 · USA
Contents
List of Contributors vi
Introduction
Artemis Alexiadou & Chris Wilder 1
On the deficient/strong Opposition in Possessive Systems 17
Anna Cardinaletti
Possessors, Articles and Defmiteness 55
Maaike Schoorlemmer
Possession in Germanic 87
Lars-Olof Delsing
Attributive Genitive Constructions in German 109
Thomas Lindauer
Case Underspecification in Morphology, Syntax and the Lexicon 141
Peter Gallmann
Predicate Inversion in DP 177
Marcel den Dikken
Predicate Movement in Pseudopartitive Constructions 215
Norbert Corver
A Theoy of Kinds, Partitives and of/z Possessives 259
Roberto Zamparelli
Adjectival Modification and Multiple Determiners 305
Artemis Alexiadou & Chris Wilder
Fragments of Balkan Nominal Structure 333
Mila Dimitrova-Vulchanova & Giuliana Giusti
A Note on Rigidity 361
Juan Uriagereka
Subject Index 383
List of contributors
Peter Gallmann
Artemis Alexiadou University of Zürich
Zentrum für Deutsches Seminar, Schönberggasse 9
Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft CH-8001 Zürich, Switzerland
Jägerstr. 10/11 [email protected]
10117 Berlin, Germany
artemi [email protected] Giuliana Giusti
University of Venice
Anna Cardinaletti Seminario di Linguistica, Universita di
University of Venice Venezia,
Seminario di Linguistica, Universita di San Marco 3417,
Venezia, 30124 Venezia, Italy
San Marco 3417, [email protected]
30124 Venezia, Italy
[email protected] Thomas Lindauer
University of Zürich
Norbert Corver Deutsches Seminar, Schönberggasse 9
Grammar Models/CLS CH-8001 Zürich, Switzerland
Tilburg University [email protected]
P.O.Box 90153
5000 LE Tilburg Maaike Schoorlemmer
The Netherlands UiL OTS, Trans 10,
[email protected] NL-3512 jk Utrecht
[email protected]
Marcel den Dikken
Grammar Models/CLS Juan Uriagereka
Tilburg University Dept. of Linguistics
P.O.Box 90153 University of Maryland
NL-5000 LE Tilburg College Park, Maryland
The Netherlands 20742, U.S.A.
M. [email protected] [email protected]
Lars-Olof Delsing Chris Wilder
Departmenrt of Scandinavian Zentrum für
Languages Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft
Helgonabacken 14 Jägerstr. 10/11
223 62 LUND, Sweden 10117 Berlin, Germany
[email protected] [email protected]
Mila Dimitrova-Vulchanova Roberto Zamparelli
The Norwegian University of Science Human Communication Research
and Technology Centre, University of Edinburgh
7055 Dragvoll, Trondheim 2, Baccleuch Place,
Norway Edinburgh EH8 9LW, Scotland
[email protected] [email protected]
Introduction
Artemis Alexiadou& Chris Wilder
Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin
This volume presents a cross-section of current research on the internal syntax
of nominal expressions ('Determiner Phrases' / DPs), with special emphasis on
the analysis of DPs modified by genitival adjectival and other non-fnite
attributes.1 In the past few years, generative syntax has seen a period of rapid
change in the wake of the minimalist program (Chomsky 1995) and Kayne's
antisymmetry hypothesis (Kayne 1994). The present collection illustrates
clearly the ongoing debate over older and more recent approaches to the syntax
of DPs in particular.
A central theme is the parallel between DPs and clauses, instantiated on
the one hand by the subject-like properties of genitives and possessors; and on
the other by Kayne's (1993,1994) proposals to handle complex DPs modified
by APs and genitives in terms of determiner complementation and DP-internal
predication. In both cases, the assumption of DP-internal movement processes
turns out to play a key role, and the nature of these processes—in particular,
their relation to better-studied movement processes in the clausal domain—is a
topic of intense investigation.
The relative theoretical coherence among the contributions permits
detailed comparison of specific syntactic proposals, providing a solid basis for
further debate. Several of the papers address the syntactic questions in parallel
with related semantic or morphological issues. The value of this collection to
the study of Universal Grammar is also underlined by its comparative bias.
Analyses of Germanic, Romance and Balkan languages figure prominently,
and a number of new empirical generalizations within and between languages
are discussed.
Before introducing the contributions individually, we briefly outline the
theoretical context and central themes of the book.
2 ARTEMIS ALEXIADOU AND CHRIS WILDER
1. Background
In the generative tradition, the parallel internal structure of noun phrases and
clauses, based on subject-properties of genitives (especially in
nominalizations), has been on the agenda at least since Chomsky (1970) laid
the foundation for X-bar theory. Later proposals on the status of
complementizers, verb inflection and determiners that gave rise to the C-I-V
hypothesis for the clause (Chomsky 1986b) and the DP hypothesis for the noun
phrase (Abney 1987), permitted unification of nominal and verbal projections
under X'-theory.
Much work in the late 1980's was devoted to establishing the correctness
of the 'DP-hypothesis', i.e. that the determiner heads the Det-Noun constituent,
by bringing cross-linguistic facts to bear on the issue. Alongside arguments
concerning the grammatical and distributional properties of determiners (e.g.
Haider 1988 on German), arguments concerning noun movement were crucial.
Thus some languages display evidence that Ν raises to D in overt syntax (cf.
Delsing 1988, Taraldsen 1990 on Scandinavian, Ritter 1991 on Hebrew), an
instance of head movement within an extended projection paralleling verb
movement to I or C. Longobardi (1994) generalizes the proposal by arguing
that N-raising to D occurs covertly elsewhere.
The DP-hypothesis has since achieved broad consensus, not least since it
permits the conceptual unification alluded to; without it, the now general view
of the extended projection (Grimshaw 1991) as the basic constructional unit in
natural language would not have taken hold. Subsequent attempts to improve
our understanding of the D-N extended projection (including the present
volume) have been concerned with three main issues:
(1) a. the articulation of the D-N extended projection
b. the status of subjects in DP
c. the status of modifiers in DP
l.l The functional structure of DP
With regard to (la), a number of proposals have been made to identify
additional functional structure within DP. Two sources of evidence, similar to
those adduced in the case of the verbal C-I-V-projection, have been sequencing
constraints among functional elements and modifiers, and the placement of the
noun with respect to its subject, complements, determiners and adjectival
modifiers. Ritter (1991) argues on the basis of N-placement facts in Hebrew for
the need for an additional functional head between Ν and D to act as a landing
site for N-raising, which she identifies as Num(ber), hosting number
information and quantifiers. This yields the more articulated structure (2):
INTRODUCTION 3
(2) [DPD°[ Num°NP]]
Num
Valois (1991) and Cinque (1994) provide similar evidence for an additional
head between Ν and D in Romance. Sequencing among cooccurring
determiners, whereby a definite or universal quantifier precedes an indefinite
or 'cardinal' determiner {the many I *many the; etc.), suggests that the former
class (D°) be separated from the latter (Ritter's Num°; Q° in Kayne 1994).
Evidence for a different kind of additional functional head between D
and Ν is to be found in languages like Hungarian (cf. Szabolcsi 1983, 1994).
Abney orginally proposed that the possessive inflection 's of English be
analyzed an an instantiation of D, with the possessor DP in Spec,DP.
Hungarian facts however support the view that possessor morphemes are
located below D in the extended projection and that there is a structural subject
position below D, so that D is to be regarded as parallel to C rather than I.
Possessors in Hungarian can surface between the determiner and the noun,
entering person-number agreement with the possessive suffix on Ν (examples
from Szabolcsi 1994:180):
(3) a. a te kalap-ja-i-d
the you hat-POSS-PL-2SG
'your hats'
b. (a) Mari kalap-ja-i-0
the Mary hat-POSS-PL-3SG
'Mary's hats'
The fact that the subject appears in the same (nominative) form as subjects of
finite clauses, together with the appearance of person-number agreement, can
be argued to support the existence of a separate agreement head, as in the split-
Infl model of the clause pioneered by Pollock (1989).2
Several authors argue for combining both proposals, such that both a
possessor-agreement (Pos or Agr) projection, defining a structural subject
position, and a NumP (or QP) intervene between NP and DP—see e.g. Kayne
1993, De Wit 1997, and the papers by Cardinaletti, Delsing, Lindauer and
Schoorlemmer in this volume:3
(4) [DP D [posP SU Pos [ Num NP ]]]
NumP
Cinque (1994) goes further in proposing that prenominai adjectives also each
occupy the specifier of a dedicated functional head, i.e. that the full extended
projection incorporates at least as many functional heads as there are pre-NP
modifier (and subject) positions, hierarchically arranged.
4 ARTEMIS ALEXIADOU AND CHRIS WILDER
1.2 Subjects and Possessors
Key evidence for the clausal nature of the internal structure of noun phrases is
provided by the subject-like behaviour of possessors (prenominai 's-genitives
in English). This includes their role as antecedent and intervener in A-binding
dependencies, and as moved NPs in 'passive nominals' like (5b).
(5) a. their destruction of the city
b. the city's destruction (by the Romans)
c. the destruction of the city (by the Romans)
However, the issue (lb) of the status of the nominal subject posed questions in
earlier frameworks and continues to do so.
(5c) illustrates two differences between clauses and DPs. DPs need not
contain a subject, i.e. do not underlie the Extended Projection Principle (EPP)4;
and the 'object' in passive nominals need not move. This optionality is prima
facie problematic for the view that NP-movement is forced by the Case Filter,
but can be related directly to the difference between clauses and DPs with
respect to the EPP.
A third difference concerns the absence of Exceptional Case Marking
and Raising to Subject in nominals (6).
(6) a. * John's appearance to be sick
b. * their assumption of John (to be) dangerous
Chomsky (1986a) proposes that Genitive case is an inherent Case rather than a
structural (or lexical) Case, assignable only if the Case assigner (here: N) is
identical to the theta-role assigner. This condition is met in (5b) but not in (6).
However, the analysis does not sit easily with the idea that the subject position
is located in the functional domain above the lexical NP, cf, (4). Moreover, the
need for the distinction structural vs. inherent Case is put in doubt to the extent
that there are plausible alternative accounts for (6). Several authors have
suggested that (6) reflects a deficiency of Ν (as opposed to V) in its capacity as
a 'governor'. In minimalist approaches dispensing with the government notion,
the idea can be retained if, like 'clause union' phenomena generally, ECM and
Raising are contingent on the incorporation of the head of the complement,
triggered by verbs but not nouns (de Wit 1997:121ff).
Coupled with the assumption that possessors are theta-marked by (hence
must be generated within a projection of) N, the assumption of an NP-external
subject position entails that not only subjects of nominalizations but possessors
generally are derived subjects. The hypothesis that the Case of the noun-
internal subject is structural is supported by similarities in many languages
(e.g. Hungarian) between possessors and clausal subjects with respect to
