The Topic Research

1. Theoretical Framework
2. NP and DP analysis
3. Nominal expressions in Serbian and English

1. Theoretical Framework
The issue of examining the nature of nominal elements in the English and Serbian
language will be conducted according to the principles of the Minimalist Program presented
by Chomsky (2015). Some of the basic notions will be presented first.
It is assumed that any language L is an instantiation of the initial state of cognitive
system of the language faculty with options specified (Chomsky, 2015: 201). Furthermore, it
is assumed that L generative procedure that makes pairs (, ) that are interpreted at two
interfaces, the A-P (articulatory- perceptual) and C-I (conceptual- intentional). is a PF
representation and is a LF representation, each consisting of legitimate objects that can

have an interpretation (Chomsky,2015: 201). Representations consisting entirely of such

objects satisfy the condition of Full interpretation (FI). Furthermore, it is considered that
there are no levels of linguistic structure apart from the two interface levels PF and LF
(Chomsky, 2015:201). The language L determines a set of derivations. The derivations is said
to converge if it satisfies the FI condition on both or one interface level. Otherwise, it crashes.
Furthermore, the Minimalist Programme sweeps under the rug questions such as
topic-focus and theme-rheme structures and linearity as well. However, since the topic under
discussion here will include the Serbian language where linearization plays an important part
it will be included as a valuable contribution to the discussion.
What is more, Minimalist Programme introduces additional conditions to describe the
optimal derivation. Chomsky (2015: 202) suggests that less economical computations are
blocked even if they converge. Therefore, the premise is that for a particular language the
phenomena of sound and meaning for L are determined by pairs (, ) formed by admissible
(maximally economical) convergent derivations that satisfy output conditions. Furthermore,
the act of computation CHL that derives (, ) must adhere to computational principles that are
minimalist in spirit both in their character and in the economy conditions that select
derivation.
Another condition is that output consists of nothing but properties of items of the
lexicon, i.e. the interface levels consist of nothing more than arrangements of lexical features.
On the other hand, it is assumed that the principles of UG involve only elements that function
at the interface levels and nothing can be seen in the course of computation.
When discussing the Minimalism Programme Jan-Wouter Zwart (1997: ) stresses that
lexicon is viewed as collections of features and the way sentences are built up by combining
elements from an array of lexical choices (the numeration) via the operations Merge and
Move. Overt movement is forced, not by a PF visibility condition but by the condition that
strong features must be eliminated at once. Furthermore, movement must be a Last Resort
operation, driven by feature checking requirements. The elements that move are not lexical
items (i.e. collections of phonological, formal, and semantic features) but just the formal
features that need to be checked.
Only those features are eliminated (erased) that are not interpretable at the LF
interface. Interpretable features remain active even after feature checking, and may trigger an
additional movement. However, Chomsky allows certain Interpretable features to escape
erasure after checking, so that they, too, may trigger additional movements. This is the
mechanism by which multiple specifiers are allowed.
Movement is described as ATTRACTION of the relevant features by a functional
head (the target)

The possibilities of adjunction, removing the adjunction position from the checking
domain (except for head adjunction). Cases where XP-adjunction seems to occur may fall
outside of the computation from Numeration to LF (i.e. they may be part of the derivation
from Spell Out to PF).
In the discussion on the nature of nominal elements in the Serbian and English, the
possibility of multiple specifiers and adjunctions will be further explored.

2. NP and DP Analysis
The analysis of a nominal element will take into accounts the possibility of a natural
extension that just as propositions are projections of functional categories, so are the
traditional noun phrases. In this case, the functional category will be D, a position filled by a
determiner, a possessive agreement element, or a pronoun (Chomsky, 2015: 53).
1) a. [DP that [NP picture of Bill ]]
b. [John Poss [NP picture of Bill.]]
In the first case, 1) a., the specifier of DP is missing whereas it is filled by the subject of the
DP, John, in 1) b. In the latter case the affix Poss is adjoined by a phonological operation.
Therefore, D head is that in the 1) a. and Poss in 1) b.
Therefore, the idea of the study will build on this premise that traditional noun
phrases can be viewed as projections of functional category of D. The initial investigation in
this matter performed by Abney (1987) will be presented next.
As it is apparent from the example in 1) articles and the possessive genitive phrase are
treated in the similar fashion. Abney (1987) stresses the similarity between NPs and clausal
projections. His conclusions are less obvious in English however he concludes that English

NPs contain a functional head as well. He further assumes that it is this head that assigns a
genitive case. Also, the same position is proposed for the generation of determiners. The
difference that he proposes is in the process of selection i.e. the overt determiners in the form
of articles shall require a nominal complement whereas the pronouns and demonstratives
such as that are considered to be determiners that require no complement.
Tree diagram

Furthermore, what seems as a necessary observation is the fact that determination in Serbian
is not obligatory in most cases. Only in certain cases can we speak of obligatory
determination. The obligatory determination in Serbia is dependent upon a semantic
condition. Namely, we can talk of obligatory determination only when the noun requiring
the obligatory determiner refers to the body part or the inherent quality, whose presence is
understood until it is required to specify that part or quality, when it is necessary to name both
the specifier and the possessor (Piper, 2005: 68)2. Therefore, this is the fact that might lead
one to conclude that since determination is not obligatory it is not plausible to construct a DP
layer in Serbian. However, in the following section an attempt will be made to prove it is not
a significant reason to dismiss it entirely in the Serbian language.

3. Nominal Elements in Serbian and English

The structure of nominal elements in English and Serbian should provide greater
insights into the matter since former but not the latter language has articles as prototypical
determiners.
However, in order to pursue the line of reasoning that traditional noun phrases are in
fact projections of a functional category a detailed structure of Serbian nominal phrases will
be presented in greater detail and it will be concluded that its structure shows a significantly
richer structural possibilities that the English nominal elements.
Following the discussion presented in Piper (2005) the following issues shall be taken
into account. Firstly, the hierarchical structure of nominal elements. Secondly, the
possibilities of stacking of these elements and finally the possibility that perhaps more than
one functional category may project.

First, the focus will be on the structural description of Serbian nominal elements. The
conclusions presented here follow the line of reasoning presented in Piper (2005). The
nominal elements in Serbian consist of a main and subordinate part. The main part is
obligatory while the subordinate is optional. The main part of a nominal element is typically a
noun or other class of words used nominally, such as adjectives in 2)
2) Mladi vole da se zabavljaju.
(The young like to have fun.)
The subordinate part typically consists of an adjective as in the example 3). However,
it is also possible to find a subordinated nominal element in the case as in the example 4)
3) Stara ena je otila.
(The old woman left.)
4) Kua od karata jo uvek stoji.
(The house of cards still stands.)
However, the subordinate part of the nominal element can be inside or outside the nucleus of
the nominal phrase. Therefore, the subordinate elements together with the main part of
nominal elements inside the nucleus can be used to express a part of a meaning structure of
a sentence referring to a concrete or abstract participants in a certain situation (Piper et al,
2005: ). 1
Furthermore, it is considered that referentially- quantificational elements are outside
the nucleus of a nominal element. Therefore, the structure of a nominal element can be
presented hierarchically as:
The main part of a nominal element
The nucleus of a nominal element (the main part+ subordinate elements)
Nominal element as a whole (nucleus +referentially- quantificational elements)
Apart from the basic structural considerations, even more importantly all the
combinatory possibilities will be further explored. That is to say, the options available to
Serbian nominal elements will be examined and compared to those of English nominal
elements.
a. If a pronoun is a main part of the nominal element, it can also be further specified by
the adjectival pronouns sam or sav.
b. Adjectives and numbers can also have the function of a main part of nominal elements
and they can also be further specified.
c. Nouns as the main parts of nominal elements are frequently specified as well.

Attributes are most frequently used to specify the main part of nominal elements. Commonly
adjectives are used as attributes but nouns in the oblique case can be used as attributes as
well.
The issue of the linearization and staking of the prenominal and postnominal
attributes could provide more insight into the structure of nominal elements, together with the
issue of the position of the generation of these elements.
As Caruso (2011) points out demonstratives, possessives and quantifiers are typically
viewed as article substitutes are not categorically adjectival as it is often argued.
Following the line of thought of Caruso (2011) the position of demonstrative determiners
possessives and quantifiers should be examined. Like adjectives these determiners agree in
gender, number and case with the noun, can appear in the predicate position just like
adjectives and also they stack up and display relative free word order. Zlati (1998) mentions
examples such as 5).
5)

a. nekim mladim djevojkama

some FEM.PL.INSTR young FEM.PL.INSTR girls FEM.PL.INSTR
b. nekih mladih
djevojaka
some FEM.PL.GEN young FEM.PL.GEN girls FEM.PL.GEN

Bokovi (2005:6)
However, Caruso (2011) argues that since both the nouns and the determiners are marked for
number it is difficult to say where the number feature is projected from. Apart from this
observation, Caruso (2011: 4) concludes that certain determiner types do not only affect
number feature of their nominal complement, but are responsible for their case marking (case
assigners). This fact leads Caruso (2011) to conclude that if determiners occupy the head
position within DP they act as governers and assign case to their complements. The previous
conclusion is used to suggest that even in Serbian the following structure projects.

Caruso, 2011: 4
Another point in favor of DP analysis Caruso (2011) draws from the semantic component
suggesting that even NPs without determiners still display D- semantics and therefore the
absence of D- elements such as articles is not a reliable criterion for the absence of Dsemantics and D-features within a nominal phrase (Caruso, 2011:8).
6) (i) Generic
(c1) (Some) people know who won the 1967 World Series.
(c2) (Neki) ljudi znaju tko je pobijedio na Svjetskom nogometnom prvenstvu
ove godine.
(Some) people know who won the Soccer World Cup this year.
7)

(ii) Indefinite
(c3) I saw (some) dogs in the lawn.
(c4) (Neke) novinarke su te traile.
(Some) journalists-F.PL. are you searching
(Some) journalists were looking for you.

8) (iii) Definite
(c5) He / Kim knows the answer.
(c6) Ona / Katarina zna odgovor.
She / Katarina knows the answer.
Caruso (2011: 7, 8)
The essential piece of evidence that Caruso (2011) provides is the fact that it is
erroneous to consider determiners as an adjectival category. Morphological differences such
as derivation and inflection are considered first. Next syntactic differences are revised as
well, such as modification, distribution especially the position in predicative constructions
and stacking. These conclusions will be used as an essential starting point to dismiss the idea
that there is no determiner projection in Serbian on the account of the fact that determiners
cannot be subsumed in the adjectival category.
9) a. rouge rougtre rougeaud
b. crven crvenkast zacrvenjen
red reddish red-hot
Caruso is stressing that this is not an option available for determiners.
10)

a. ovaj /* ovajkast / *zaovajjen

this / *thisish
b. taj / * tajkast / *zatajjen

that / *thatish
Next, comparison which is an available syntactic operation for adjectives is not typically
available for determiners.
11) a. lijep ljepi najljepi

beautiful more beautiful the most beautiful

b. taj *tajiji *najtajiji / moj *mojiji *najmojiji

that *thater

*thatest / my *myer * the myest

(Caruso, 2011: 8)
Syntactic differences between determiners and adjectives provide further evidence as to
substantiate the claim that adjectives and determiners are not members of the same category.
Modification by adverbs is possible for descriptive adjectives however it is not a possibility
available for determiners with the exception of certain indefinite quantifiers, such as malo.
12)

a. nevjerovatno lijepo / veoma kratko / totalno uvjerljivo ispriana pria

incredibly nicely / very shortly / totally convincingly told

story
b. lijepo / kratko / uvjerljivo *ova / *moja / *jedna / *malo pria
nicely / shortly / convincingly *this / *my / *one / *little story
c. veoma velik vs. *veoma ova / *veoma moja / *veoma jedna / veoma malo
large / very large vs. *very this / *very
my / *very one / very little
Another important issue is stacking. Caruso (2011) claims that the number of descriptive
adjectives within the nominal complex is, at least theoretically, unlimited. However, the
number of determiners is limited. The number of determiners is limited, since the speaker
can choose only between a few lexical elements that specify the desired reference.
14) a. ona
moja prva crvena kona nogometna lopta
that-DISTAL my first red
leather football
that first red leather football of mine
b.
*ova ona moja prva crvena kona nogometna lopta
*this that my first red leather football
c.
*ona moja tvoja prva crvena kona nogometna lopta
* that my your first red leather football
d.
*ona moja prva druga crvena kona nogometna lopta
* that my first second red leather football
e.
*nekoliko puno previe lopta
*several many too many balls
(Caruso, 2011: 9)
As the previous examples show it is possible to stack determiners however this option is only
available for different types of determiners, not the determiners of the same type c.f. 14a and

Caruso (2011) together with others such as Progovac (1999) makes a plausible claim
that since determiners cannot be considered to be adjectives it is also implausible to consider
that there are no projections above NP.
Finally, the contribution this study can make is the fact that considerations of semantic
content can prove to be beneficial. That is to say, it might be possible to examine the mapping
of certain semantic categories to the syntax of nominal elements. It is possible to discuss the
category of possessiveness, quantification and determination.
The category of quantification can be expressed by means of conjunction and
pluarlization in both Serbian and English. Conjunction forms a complex nominal expression.
15)

Petar i Mara su prijatelji.

Peter and Mary are friends.

Pluralization is the process which assumes that the noun is in plural form. However, as
mentioned earlier since both determiners and the noun in such case agreement is visible on
both further investigation is needed in order to determine how pluralization is achieved on the
nominal elements and can be treated as a proof that there is another projection above NP.
On the other hand, it is possible to use a numeral as the main part of nominal expression in
both languages. Furthermore, they can be further specified as well. Therefore, this is another
point of interest to be further investigated. If numerals can act as the main part of nominal
expression as well as a quantifiers to nouns, this issue must be further investigated.
Possessiveness is another semantic category that merits more attention. In both
languages the category is expressed by using genitive case specifiers. As mentioned earlier, it
is possible to use this fact to further the argument that there is a functional category above
NP.
Literature
1. Abney, .P.(1987), The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect, BA Indiana
University
2. Bokovi, . (2005), On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of
NP. Studia Linguistica, 59: 145.
3. Caruso,D.. ( 2011), In support of a DP-Analysis of Nominal Phrases in Croatian,
University of Stuttgart
4. Chomsky,N., The Minimalist Program, 2015, MIT Press, MIT

5. Haegeman, L., Introduction to Government and Binding Theory, 1994, Blackwell

Publishers Ltd, Oxford
6. Piper i dr. (2005). Sinaksa savremenog srpskog jezika. Prosta reenica. Beograd:
Institut za srpski jezik SANU
7. Progovac. LJ. ( 1995) Determiner Phrase in a Language Without Determiners,
University of Venice Working papers
8. Stevanovi, M. (1989). Savremeni srpskohravtski jezik II sintaksa. Beograd:
Nauna knjiga.
9. Zlati, L.(1998), Slavic Noun Phrases are NPs not DPs, Workshop on
Comparative Slavic Morphosyntax, Bloomington, Indiana.
10. Zwart, J. W. (1997), The Minimalist Program, J. Linguistics 34:213-226.
Notes
1. deo znaenjske strukture reenice, koji se odnosi na na konkretne ili apstraktne
uesnike u odreenoj situaciji (Piper, 2005: ).
2. imenica koju on odreuje imenuje deo tela ili inherentno svojstvo, ije se

prisustvo podrazumeva sve dok nije potrebno dati neku odredbu tog dela ili
svojstva, kada se moraju imenovati i odredba i ono to nju nosi(Piper i dr, 2005:
68).