4th Tutorial: Noun Phrases II

LT 3209 Syntax
Prof. Matthias GERNER
Room B 7622
mgerner@cityu.edu.hk
http://www4.lt.cityu.edu.hk/~mgerner/
Q-8

Instructor:
Office:
e-mail:
Web:
Assignment Locker:

Outline of session:
1 Exercise on Noun Phrase Structure (Radford 1988: 217)
2

Exercise on Noun Phrase Structure (Radford 1988: 220-21)

1. Exercise on Noun Phrase Structure (Radford 1988: 217)

(1) I met [a specialist in fibreoptics from Paris].
The head noun N is [specialist] and [a] the determiner D. Is [in fibreoptics] a complement and [from
Paris] an adjunct? A first syntactic test is whether [in fibreoptics] and [from Paris] can be exchanged
which is not the case:
(2) *I met [a specialist from Paris in fibreoptics].
This supports the idea that [in fibreoptics] is probably a complement and [from Paris] an adjunct.
There are also some semantic guidelines. Roughly speaking the semantic difference between
Complements and Adjuncts is that complements specify something essential about the head noun,
whereas adjuncts do not contain essential information. What essential and unessential information is
depends very much on the semantics of the head noun. If for example the head noun is derived from
a verb, it is reasonable to ask whether the PP in question (for which we wish to decide whether it is
Complement or Adjunct) is somehow the Direct Object of the corresponding verb. This is the case
indeed for [in fibreoptics] but not for [from Paris] as the following paraphrases show:
(3) He is specialist in fibreoptics.
(4) He has specialized in fibreoptics.
(5) *He has specialized from Paris.
It follows that [in fibreoptics] is a complement and [from Paris] an adjunct.
(6) [The girl on the stage in jeans] is a friend of mine.
For the NP, [the girl] is not derived from a verb. There is no semantic evidence that either [on the
stage] or [in jeans] constitutes essential information for [the girl]. Semantically, both PPs seem to
1

detail some unessential information about the noun [the girl]. Furthermore, both PPs may be
exchanged without great change in meaning.
(7) [The girl in jeans on the stage] is a friend of mine.
Both PPs [on the stage] and [in jeans] constitute therefore adjuncts.
(8) [The journey from Paris to Rome on Sunday] was tiring.
The head noun [the journey] refers to an activity of motion. The path of direction of a motion seems
to constitute an essential information rather than unessential information. A motion always requires
some locative or directional information, so [from Paris to Rome] would be probably the
complement. But what about the noun phrase [on Sunday], which indicates the time of the activity?
Is a time Noun Phrase essential or unessential information. Semantically, it depends on the meaning
of the N. In an NP such as [the National Day on Sunday in Hong Kong], the constituent [on Sunday]
would probably have predominance over the place [in Hong Kong].
As for (8), we cannot inverse the time NP and the Directional NP without encountering
ungrammaticality.
(9) *[The journey on Sunday from Paris to Rome] was tiring.
Therefore the path NP [from Paris to Rome] is the complement of [the journey], and [on Sunday] the
adjunct NP.

2. Exercise on the Structure of Other Phrases (Radford 1988: 281)

A Noun Phrase such as
(1) the English king
might be argued to be open to the two interpretations paraphrased in (26) below:
(2) (a) the king who is English
(b) the King of England
Compare and contrast the two flowing accounts (A and B below) of this dual interpretation:

Analysis A: a structural ambiguity analysis

On interpretation (2)(a) English is an Attribute, whereas on interpretation (2)(b) English is a
Complement.
Analysis B: a pragmatic analysis
On both interpretations, English is an Attribute: there is no structural ambiguity. The relationship
between English and king is left vague, so that English king means more or less king connected in
some unspecified way with England (so that the phrase could mean all sorts of things, including
king born in England, king who rules over England, king who behaves in a typically English
fashion etc.)
Discuss the structures assigned by each of these two accounts to (3).
What predictions would each of the two analyses (A and B) make about possible and impossible
interpretations of English in the italicized phrases below, and why?

(3) (a) Why do philosophers always use examples involving a bald French king, rather than a bald
English one?
(b) Theres not much to choose between the present English and French kings, except that the
French king is less bald than the English one.
(4) (a) Henry VIII is the best known English Protestant king.
(b) Weve had relatively few English septuagenarian kings (= kings whose age is in the 70s).

Discussion:
(3) (a) Why do philosophers always use examples involving a bald French king, rather than a bald
English one?
Analysis A:
According to the structural analysis, the proform one is an N-bar proform as we have seen in
previous examples. Since it replaces the constituent king, it follows that king is an N-bar constituent.
If king in a bald French king is an N-bar constituent, then [French] and also [English] cannot be a
complement, as complements always expand N-constituents in N-bar constituents, but never N-bar
constituents into N-bar constituents. The constituents [French] and [English] are therefore Attributes
and not Complements. This analysis is supported by the ungrammaticality of the following sentence
where [French] is replaced by [of France] and [English] by [of England]. The expression a bald one
of England is unacceptable.
(3) (a) (i) *Why do philosophers always use examples involving a bald king of France, rather than
a bald one of England?
3

On the other hand, the replacement [French] by [who is French] and [English] by [who is English] is
compatible with the N-bar status of one, and indeed we get a grammatical replacement:
(3) (a) (ii) Why do philosophers always use examples involving a bald king who is French, rather
than a bald one who is English?
Analysis B:
The pragmatic analysis would have difficulties to account for the ungrammaticality of (3) (a) (i) and
the grammaticality of (3) (a) (ii), since it predicts that [of England] and [who is English] do not
present any structural difference.
Discussion:
(3) (b) Theres not much to choose between the present English and French kings, except that the
French king is less bald than the English one.
Analysis A:
The analysis presented for (3a) also holds for (3b). As one is an N-bar proform, [French] and
[English] in the second part of the sentence must be Attributes. If both were replaced by [of France]
and [of England], the resulting sentence would be ungrammatical. If both were replaced by [who is
French] and [who is English], then the resulting sentence would be grammatical.
(3) (b) (i) * Theres not much to choose between the present English and French kings, except that
the king [of France] is less bald than the one [of England].
(3) (b) (ii) Theres not much to choose between the present English and French kings, except that
the king [who is French] is less bald than the one [who is English].
Analysis B:
Again, the pragmatic analysis would not be able to account for the ungrammaticality of (3) (b) (i)
and the grammaticality of (3) (b) (ii), since it predicts that [of England] and [who is English] do not
present any structural difference.

Discussion:
(4) (a) Henry VIII is the best known English Protestant king.
Analysis A:
The constituent [Protestant] cannot be understood as complement, only as attribute because it
provides additional not essential information for [king].
(4) (a) (i) *Henry VIII is the best known English king [of Protestantism]. {Protestant interpreted as Complement}
4

If [Protestant] must be interpreted as attribute, then [English] must be understood as attribute too,
since as complement it would be separated from the head [king] by the attribute [Protestant].
Example (4)(a) can be paraphrased as the following sentence.
(4) (a) (ii) Henry VIII is the best known Protestant king [who is English]. {English as Attribute}

The structural analysis has the advantage of showing that one of two meanings of [English] being
deleted (the meaning of complement) by its position before [Protestant].

Analysis B:
In the pragmatic analysis, [English] and [Protestant] are both taken invariantly as Attributes without
structural ambiguity, but only with pragmatic ambiguity. Though this analysis is correct, it fails to
show that this interpretation is forced by [Protestant] and the position of [English] before
[Protestant].
Discussion:
(4) (b) Weve had relatively few English septuagenarian kings.
Analysis A:
Again, the constituent [septuagenarian] cannot be understood as complement, only as attribute
because it provides additional not essential information for [king].
(4) (b) (i) We have had relatively few English kings [of septuagenarian age]. {septuagenarian as Attribute}

In the same vein, it implies that [English] must be understood as attribute too, since as complement it
would be separated from the head [king] by the attribute [septuagenarian]. Example (4)(b) can be
paraphrased as the following sentence.
(4) (b) (ii) We have had relatively few septuagenarian king [who are English]. {English as Attribute}

The structural analysis has the advantage of showing that one of two meanings of [English] being
deleted (the meaning of complement) by its position before [septuagenarian].
Analysis B:
Same comments as for (4a).