Transcript head noun - Double R Theory

Is the Head of a Noun Phrase
Necessarily a Noun?
25 July 2003
Jerry Ball
www.DoubleRTheory.com
Email: [email protected]
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.
• 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.
• 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.
Nominal (autonomous)
• Noun
• Pronoun
• Proper Noun
Relational (dependent)
•
•
•
•
Verb
Adjective
Preposition
Adverb
• 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
• 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.”
• 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?
• 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.
• 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
• 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)
• 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)
• 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
• 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
• 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
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
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
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
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
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
• That you give money to strangers (that
complement) is nice
• To go to the movies (infinitive phrase) is fun
Referential and Semantic Pole
(Prototype Nominal)
Referential Pole
(specifier)
the
Grounding Predication
(definite)
Semantic Pole
(head)
bull
Type Specification (bull)
Quantifying Predication
(singular)
Referential and Semantic Pole
(Action Verb Head of Nominal)
Referential Pole
(specifier)
the
Grounding Predication
(definite)
Semantic Pole
(head)
kick
Type Specification (kick)
Quantifying Predication
(singular)
Referential and Semantic Pole
(Unified Poles)
Referential Pole
(specifier)
Semantic Pole
(head)
he
Grounding Predication (def)
Quantifying Predication (sing)
Type Specification (human)
Referential and Semantic Pole
(Multiple Grounding Predications)
Referential Pole
(specifier)
the
Grounding
Predication
(definite)
Semantic Pole
(head)
bulls
Grounding Predication (indef)
Quantifying Predication (plural)
Type Specification (bull)
Referential and Semantic Pole
(Multiple Predications)
Referential Pole
(specifier)
some
Semantic Pole
(head)
bulls
Grounding Predication Grounding Predication (indef)
(indefinite)
Quantifying Predication (plural)
Quantifying Predication
Type Specification (bull)
(plural)
Referential and Semantic Pole
(Modification)
Referential Pole
(specifier)
the
Grounding Predication
(definite)
Semantic Pole
(modifier/head)
old
bull
Type Specification (old bull)
Quantifying Predication (sing)
Referential and Semantic Pole
(Modification)
Referential Pole
(specifier)
the
Semantic Pole
(modifier/head)
two
Grounding Predication
(definite)
Quantifying Predication
(two)
old
bulls
Type Specification (old bull)
Quantifying Predication (plural)
Grounding predication (indef)
Referential and Semantic Pole
(Modification)
Referential Pole
(specifier)
the
two
Grounding Predication
(definite)
Quantifying Predication
(two)
Semantic Pole
(modifier/head)
oldest
bulls
Type Specification (oldest bull)
Quantifying Predication (plural)
Grounding predication (def)