Possessive Nominal Expressions in GB: vs. Daniel W. Bruhn December 8, 2006 1 Introduction 1.1 Background Since Steven Abney 1987 MIT dissertation, The English Noun Phrase in Its Sentential Aspect, socalled Hyposis has gained acceptance in eld of Government and Binding (GB) syntax. This hyposis proposes that a nominal expression 1 is headed by a determiner that takes a noun phrase as its complement. The preexisting Hyposis, on or hand, diagrams nominal expressions as headed by nouns, sometimes taking a determiner phrase as a specier. 2 This basic dierence is illustrated in following trees for nominal expression dog: dog dog The number of dierent types of nominal expressions that could serve as basis for an vs. Hyposis comparison is naturally quite large, and to address every one would be quite a feat for this squib. I have refore chosen to concentrate on possessive nominal expressions because y exhibit a certain array of properties that pose challenges for both hyposes, and will present se according to following structure: Section 2.1 (Possessive) nominals posing no problem for eir hyposis Section 2.2 Problem nominals for Hyposis Section 2.3 How Hyposis accounts for problem nominals of Hyposis Section 2.4 Problem nominals for Hyposis Section 2.5 How Hyposis accounts for problem nominals of Hyposis By problem nominals, I mean those which expose some weakeness in ability of eir hyposis to: 1. Conform to principles of GB selection, 2. Generate only grammatical nominal expressions, 1 Nominal expressions, or nominals, are best described as types of things that can be subjects. 2 A note on terminology in this paper: When an element is said to take XP as a/its specier, that element may be eir a phrase or head of a phrase, but such will be clear from context and re is no structural dierence involved. However, when an element is said to take XP as a/its complement, said element is head of a phrase. 1
3. Avoid inserting elements into a structure that do not exist in surface form, 3 or 4. Account for all semantic interpretations of nominal. The principles of GB selection mentioned above are as follows: GB Selection Heads of phrases can determine... 1. Wher a complement is present, 2. Wher a specier is present, 3. The syntactic category of complement/specier, and 4. Properties of head of complement. To put it colloquially, GB selection principles guarantee that heads have only selectional power in ir phrases. Note that Hyposis grants such power to determiners, which exert selectional control over nouns in nominal expressions. In contrast, Hyposis grants this power to nouns, which exert selectional control (to some extent, as will be seen) over ir determiners. With se criteria and principles in place, I begin with a few important, hyposis-neutral observations regarding nature of possessive nominal expressions, after which I present specic data according to outline given above and end with a note about performance of each hyposis. 1.2 Some Possessive Principles The following observations have relevance to both hyposes and aect tree structures for each. 1.2.1 Determiner reference At rst glance, entity modied by determiner in following nominal expression is ambiguous: (i) X Y (e.g. pig snout) Without additional experimentation, it is dicult to determine wher initial determiner ( ) should be syntatically diagrammed as modifying only posessing entity X or entire description of possessed entity (X Y ). These two possibilities are illustrated below: (ii) [ X] Y (iii) [X Y] To put it simply, in a sentence such as barber friend, is giving deniteness to barber or to friend? I will attempt to show that this syntactic ambiguity can be resolved by an appeal to semantic felicity. Consider following nominal expression in which initial determiner is a possessive pronoun: (iv) my child parent Most English readers would agree that this nominal is self-referential in absence of a contrived context. That is, if I refer to my child parent, I am talking about myself. However, assuming determiner ( my) modies entire possessed entity (child parent) yields following interpretation: 1. my [child parent] There exists an entity I consider mine, and this entity happens to be parent of a child. This reading conicts with naturally-assumed semantic interpretation described above, bringing with it possibility that speaker is referring to his/her own parents. Consider reading that arises when my is assumed instead to strictly modify child: 3 That is, WYSIWYG-ness is optimal and null elements are undesirable. 2
2. [my child] parent There exists a parent of an entity, and that entity is a child belonging to me. The second reading matches initial semantic assumption, as it makes parent coreferential with speaker. I refore choose to treat rst determiner in such a nominal expression as modifying possessing entity instead of entire possessor-possessed string. In practice, this yields tree structures for both hyposes in which a string such as my child (or, additionally, my child) exists as a constituent of mor phrase my child parent. 1.2.2 The category & structure of Also of relevance to both hyposes is syntactic category to be assigned to possessive marker. In previous section, I referred to possessive pronoun my as a determiner, which I support here by noting that my seems to be in complementary distribution with obvious determiners: (v) my table (vi) * my table (vii) * a my table Observe also that possessive marker exhibits same behavior, appearing to be in complementary distribution with determiners: (viii) * John chair (ix) * chair (x) * my chair Given this evidence, one may conclude that is a determiner itself, heading its own. To esh out nature of, I examine following examples, which contain incomplete nominal expressions involving : (xi) * desk (xii) * Mary (xiii) * a dog (xiv) * dog bone It refore appears that a nominal expression involving is ungrammatical without following elements in ir specied order: [nominal expression] + [] + [noun phrase] This structure is illustrated in following example: (xv) [ computer] nom exp [] [hum] Under Hyposis, se required elements are totally contained within structure of, as shown: (xv) dp computer hum computer hum 3
The nominal expression computer resides as specier of nominal, while D heading takes hum as its complement. Note that this structure grants selectional control in to determiner, per GB selection principles. The Hyposis incorporates se elements with a slightly dierent structure: (xv) np computer hum computer hum The nominal expression headed by hum has as its specier -headed computer, which itself has as its specier nominal expression computer. In contrast to Hyposis, this structure grants selectional control in nominal expression to noun hum. Each hyposis, refore, accommodates structure of -nominals in a distinct manner. 2 Data I will present following set of possessive nominal expressions under both and Hyposes and make note of ecacy of ir analyses: Problem-less Nominals (1) barber friend (2) man and woman car Problem Nominals (3) * a women rights Problem Nominals (4) women rights (5) man and woman cars 4
2.1 Problem-less Nominals 2.1.1 nominal possessor (1) barber friend barber friend barber friend Hyposis In this nominal dierences between two hyposes are clearly shown. The Hyposis proposes an alternating sequence of - speciers: The noun friend heads nominal and selects for a specier. This specier is headed by, which itself requires an specier. Its specier is phrase barber, headed by noun barber, which selects for specier headed by, which itself needs no specier (unlike ). The most-deeply embedded specier could alternatively be a, my, her, etc., yielding a barber friend, my barber friend, or her barber friend. The seeming ungainliness of treating barber as a phrasal constituent can be remedied by noting that barber is in complementary distribution with accepted s, and is refore a itself (c.f. friend, my friend, her friend, our friend, a friend, barber friend ). Under Hyposis, a cannot stand by itself as a nominal expression, and is taken by some noun heads as a specier to form a complete nominal expression. Hyposis The head of nominal expression in (1) is determiner, which requires both a complement and a specier under Hyposis. The determiner takes as its complement headed by friend and as its specier anor, namely barber. Within barber, is head and selects for complement headed by barber. Similar to Hyposis, specier could be headed by eir of determiners a, my, her, etc., each of which requires an complement and could take barber. The following table summarizes selectional properties of each LI in (1): LI Category Hyposis Hyposis Selects for: D comp barber N [sg] spec D spec spec, comp friend N [sg] spec 5
2.1.2 coordinated nominal possessors Hyposis The Hyposis conjoins nouns man and woman to instantiate noun head man and woman, which takes a specier headed by : 4 (2) man and woman car car man CONJ and woman Hyposis The Hyposis, in contrast, conjoins man and woman at level to instantiate man and woman, which is selected as a complement by determiner : (2) man and woman car CONJ and car man woman 4 To restate full pattern of selection for each tree would be redundant, and so I will discontinue practice here. 6
The selectional propertes of each element are shown in following table: LI Category Hyposis Hyposis Selects for: D comp man N [sg] and CONJ (conjoins two s) (conjoins two s) woman N [sg] D spec spec, comp car N [sg] spec No weaknesses of eir hyposis are exposed by this coordinated posssessive nominal. Although tertiary branching may cause binary-minded X-bar syntacticians to cringe, this is an issue of GB framework, not of se hyposes. 2.2 Problem Nominals The following nominal expression has same structure as analysis of barber friend in (1), and yet it is ungrammatical: (3) * a women rights a women rights The issue with (3) is that noun women, which heads possessor, can only select for a specier: It has no control over properties of head of that specier, and cannot prevent from being headed by determiner a, which should only appear with singular nouns. The Hyposis, unfortunately, has no mechanism for excluding such ungrammatical nominals without undergenerating: Suppose claim were made that plural noun heads select for no specier. This would account for ungrammaticality of (3) and grammaticality of (3 ), but would rule out grammatical nominal in (3 ): (3) * a women rights (3 ) women rights (3 ) women rights Forbidding plural nouns from taking speciers is refore an untenable solution. It is tempting, however, to rescue Hyposis in this situation by modifying GB principles of selection, granting a head power to determine certain properties of head of its specier. This would allow plural noun women to select for a specier headed by any determiner not restricted to singular nouns, preventing generation of (3) while sanctioning that of (3 ). In addition, one could propose that noun in (3 ) is a dierent version of women that takes no specier. 7
Syntacticians are naturally (and rightly) loath, however, to drastically alter accepted GB principles simply to tilt scales in favor of a particular hyposis. As a result, this selectional problem plagues every plural noun selecting for a specier under Hyposis. 2.3 Solution The Hyposis analysis of (3) prohibits this ungrammatical nominal expression without violating GB selection principles. Consider table of LIs for (3) under Hyposis: LI Category Hyposis Selects for: a D comp headed by singular N women N [pl] D spec, comp rights N [pl] The determiner a heads its own phrase and selects for an complement headed by a singular nounyet no singular noun exists in structure: (3) * a women rights a women rights (3) is refore ungrammatical under Hyposis because determiner a prohibits plural noun women from heading its complement. Hence, Hyposis trumps in successfully accommodating GB selection principles. 2.4 Problem Nominals 2.4.1 plural possessor The Hyposis, which so cleanly dispenses with ungrammatical (3), has some unfortunate problems of its own. Consider nominal presented previously in (3 ) and restated here in (4): (4) women rights As described in Section 1.1, Hyposis operates by granting selectional power in a phrase to determiner. The entire is headed by determiner, but no determiner head exists in phrase women, which is a constituent of (4). In order to remain consistent with its notion of determiner headship, refore, analysis of this nominal must insert anor determiner into phrase, which it accomplishes with a null element: 8
(4) women rights Ø women rights This null determiner takes as its complement headed by women. Note it cannot simply take any complement, but only those headed by nouns that can stand alone: (4) [pl] Ø women rights (are inalienable.) (4 ) [sg] * Ø woman rights (are inalienable.) (4 ) [mass] Ø mankind rights (are inalienable.) The s selected for by null determiner are headed by mass (mankind) or plural (women) nouns. These features may be collapsed into a single property called independent, allowing one to posit that null determiner selects for independent on head of its complement, a property that all plural and mass nouns bear: LI Category Hyposis Selects for: Ø D comp headed by N bearing property independent women N [pl] [independent] D spec, comp rights N [pl] [independent] While this solution conforms to GB selection principles, it exposes a serious weakeness of Hyposis: inability of analysis to explain a structure without positing an element that does not exist in surface form ( null determiner). 2.4.2 coordinated possessors, part two Anor problem of Hyposis is revealed in its analysis of following coordinated possessive nominal: (5) man and woman cars Note that for (2) ( man and woman car ), Hyposis conjoins man and woman at level to instantiate single man and woman, while determiner heads entire nominal. The structure for nominal in (5), however, is complicated by presence of two determiners, both of which require an complement, as shown in following table of selectional properties: 9
LI Category Hyposis Selects for: D comp man N D spec, comp and CONJ D comp woman N D spec, comp cars N The cars must refore be shared between two determiners. Structurally, this yields two conjoined s, with ellipsis utilized to explain fact that only one cars appears in surface form: (5) man and woman car CONJ and man i cars woman i cars This analysis is burdened by same problem that plagues (4): The Hyposis must posit an element that does not exist in surface output, namely elided cars. Notice also that (5) stirs up some interesting semantic issues. When observed in wild without lens of eir hyposis, nominal expression in (5) has se two possible readings: 1. There exists a set of two or more cars, jointly possessed by man and woman. This is illustrated in following conceptual image: 10
2. Given a set of two or more cars, one subset belongs to man and complement subset to woman: The most natural and real-world use of this interpretation involves a set of exactly two cars, one of which belongs to man and or to woman. The analysis of (5) in above tree accommodates rst reading by coindexing two possessed s. This results in interpretation that re exists a set of two or more cars (represented by leftmost cars) which man fully possesses, and re also exists a set of two or more cars (represented by rightmost cars) which woman fully possesses, and se two sets are actually one single set (represented by coindexing). This reading is equivalent to #1 and is is illustrated by following gure, in which horizontal dotted lines depict coindexing relation: Full possession is indicated by presence of each cars as a separate complement. For example, since man cars is a single phrasal constituent in nominal, everything to which cars refers is possessed by man: There is no sense in which man owns only a portion of set represented by plural cars. Because of this, Hyposis cannot yield second reading: that man owns a portion of cars, while woman owns rest. Instead, with coindexing removed, following reading arises: The man fully possesses a set of two or more cars, and woman fully possesses anor set of two or more cars: The analysis is unable to extract a subset of cars from cars to become a complement in man and leave remaining set of cars as a complement in woman. Because of this inadequacy, analysis fails to account for both possible semantic interpretations of (5). 11
2.5 Solution The Hyposis, on or hand, accounts for two problem nominals of Hyposis with greater ease. 2.5.1 plural possessor The analysis of (4) is burdened by its introduction of a null determiner that selects for women, since it analyzes every nominal expressions as headed by a determiner. (4) women rights The Hyposis, however, circumvents this problem altoger by granting headship to a noun in each nominal expression, which consequently has power to select for presence of a determiner-headed specier. The plural noun women has two versions: one that selects for a specier, and one that disallows a specier. The noun head in (4) is version of women that does not take a specier, as shown in table of selectional properties: LI Category Hyposis Selects for: women N [pl] no spec D spec rights N [pl] spec Note that noun rights, which heads entire nominal expression, is also plural and could exist without a specier, but which in (4) manifests itself as version that selects for a specier. These selectional properties yield following tree: women rights The noun women selects for no specier, and thus Hyposis here trumps by avoiding introduction of such non-surface elements as null determiners into tree structure. 2.5.2 coordinated possessors, part two revisited The Hyposis analysis of (5) resorts to ellipsis and cannot account for both semantic interpretations of nominal expression. (5) man and woman cars As with (4), analysis of (5) avoids problems of analysis by granting headship to nouns, instead of determiners. Thus, noun cars heads entire nominal expression, and man and woman are conjoined to instantiate a single specier: 12
(5) man and woman cars cars CONJ and man woman Notice that, unlike structure of (5), no non-surface elements exist in structure. The analysis also yields both semantic interpretations of (5). Recognition of rst reading (joint possession of a set of two or more cars) is fairly straightforward: There exists a set of two or more cars, represented by noun head cars. This noun has as its specier coordinated s man and woman. Semantically, refore, set of cars is specied as belonging to both man and woman: Derivation of second reading (complementary possession) is less straightforward but still possible. Notice that structure species set of cars as belonging to both man and woman, but makes no claims regarding distribution of that possession. This is in contrast to analysis, whose duplication of cars yields full possession of a set of cars by man and full possession of a set of cars by woman, where coindexing indicates that sets are same. In structure, however, any distribution of possession is possible, because only condition to be satised is that both man and woman can be said to have some share in ownership of set: The Hyposis, refore, in contrast to Hyposis, avoids forcing a single semantic interpretation of (5). 13
3 Conclusion Both and Hyposes exhibit specic weaknesses in ir analyses of possessive nominal expressions. The Hyposis, in granting headship and selectional power to nouns, necessarily overgenerates while conforming to accepted GB selection principles, producing such ungrammatical nominals as * a women rights. The Hyposis, by contrast, avoids such ungrammatical nominals by granting headship and selectional power to determiners, which select for appropriate properties on heads of ir complements. However, in doing so, Hyposis must insert a determiner where re is none in surface form of a nominal, because nominal expression s must always be headed by determiners. The Hyposis also fails to capture all possible semantic interpretations of certain coordinated possessive nominals because its commitment to determiner headship of a nominal forces instantiation of two separate phrases where re are two determiners. Both problems of Hyposis are avoided in Hyposis. With regards to rst, absence of a determiner in surface form of a nominal does not jeopardize a structure whose form is based on headship of noun. As to second problem, headship of possessed noun results in no specic relationship to any individual member of coordinated possessor, preserving ambiguity of construction and allowing all possible semantic interpretations to be obtained from tree structure. It is not my intent to declare eir hyposis superior to or, but merely to note following: The complementary nature of and Hyposes observed here, that where one is strong or is weak (and vice versa), should be enough to prevent any serious syntactician from rejecting eir outright. 14