Projection of noun phrases I: complementation
2.1. General observations
This section starts with the formulation of a number of observational generalizations with respect to complementation of nouns concerning optional or obligatory presence of the complement, word order, etc. These generalizations can be found scattered throughout the following sections, but for ease of reference the complete set of generalizations is also given as (52) in Section 2.1.7.
2.1.1. Complementation of nouns: complements and modifiers
Section 1.1.2 has shown that the noun phrase can be divided into two subdomains, the NP- and the DP-domain: the NP-domain is headed by the noun and determines the denotation of the noun phrase, whereas the DP-domain is headed by a determiner or a quantifier/numeral and determines the referential and/or quantificational properties of the noun phrase. Thus, the internal structure of the noun phrase as a whole can be represented as in (1), where Determiner (D) and Noun (N) are the heads of the °projections DP and NP, respectively, and where the dots indicate the possible positions of other elements. In this section, as well as in Chapter 3, we will concentrate on the projection of the noun, that is, the NP-domain.
(1) [DP ... D ... [NP ... N ...]]
Each NP contains an obligatory head N and, optionally, one or more other elements, which can be further categorized according to their function, i.e., according to whether they function as complements or as restrictive modifiers. COMPLEMENTs are elements whose presence is required by the semantics of the head noun; the idea is that these complements are obligatory arguments of the nominal head, comparable to the complements of verbs. Restrictive MODIFIERs, on the other hand, are not required by the semantics of the head.
Complements are generally closer to the nominal head than the restrictive (as well as the non-restrictive) modifiers. Example (2a) illustrates this for the nominal complement tomaten ‘tomatoes’ and the adjectival modifier gebruikelijk ‘usual’ in
prenominal position, example (2b) for the PP-complement van Jan ‘of Jan’ and the PP-modifier in het ziekenhuis ‘in hospital’ in postnominal position, and example (2c) for the clausal complement dat Jan ziek geworden was and the restrictive relative clause dat net binnenkwam in postnominal position.
(2) a. Het gebruikelijke tomaten gooien bleef niet uit.
the customary tomatoes throwing remained not prt.
‘The customary throwing of tomatoes followed.’
b. de langdurige behandeling van Jan in het ziekenhuis the protracted treatment of Jan in the hospital
c. het bericht dat Jan ziek geworden was dat net binnenkwam the report that Jan ill become has that just arrived
‘the report that Jan has become ill that just arrived’
These word order facts lead to the generalization in (3), according to which complements and modifiers are inserted at different levels within NP: complements are immediate sisters of the head noun, whereas modifiers are °adjuncts inserted at some higher level in the NP. According to this assumption, the structures of the noun phrases in (2) are as indicated in (4).
(3) Generalization I: Complements are closer to the nominal head of the NP than modifiers; the former are immediate sisters of the head noun, whereas the latter are adjoined at some higher lever within NP.
(4) a. het [NP gebruikelijke [tomaten gooien]]
b. de [NP langdurige [behandeling van Jan] in het ziekenhuis]
c. het [NP [bericht dat Jan ziek geworden was] dat net binnenkwam]
The difference between complements and restrictive modifiers is often hard to determine, as the two may be categorically identical. This is not so much the case in prenominal position, where the modifier typically takes the form of an AP and the complement takes the form of a noun phrase or a PP, as in (5a), but this problem does occur in postnominal position, where complements and modifiers both may take the form of a PP or a clause, as in (5b&c).
(5) a. [NP AP-modifier [ NP/PP-complement N]]
b. [NP [N PP-complement] PP-modifier]
c. [NP [N Clausal complement] Clausal modifier]
Although the present section will be mainly concerned with complements, it is necessary to first address more extensively the difference between complements and modifiers: Section 2.2.1 will discuss the difference between prepositional complements and modifiers in (5b), and Section 2.3.3 the difference between clausal complements and modifiers in (5c). Modification within the NP will, however, be the main topic of Chapter 3.
2.1.2. Nouns as predicates
The notion of complementation is usually associated with the verbal domain. Verbs have argument structures, specifying the number and °thematic roles of their
°arguments. Arguments of verb must be divided into (i) INTERNAL ARGUMENTs or
COMPLEMENTs and (ii) EXTERNALARGUMENTs. The former in a sense complete the predicate, as a result of which it can be predicated of the latter. In the lexical frames in (6), the external argument is underlined in order to distinguish it from the complements. The semantic arguments of the verb are normally realized as syntactic arguments: internal arguments generally surface as the objects of the verb, whereas the external argument normally corresponds to the subject.
(6) • Predicate • Example a. LOPENV (Agent): a′. [Jan]Agent [loopt]Pred
walk Jan walks
b. LEZENV (Agent, Theme): b'. [Marie]Agent [koopt een krant]Pred
read Marie buys a newspaper c. GEVENV (Agent, Theme, Recipient) c′. [Jan]Agent [geeft Marie een boek]Pred
give Jan gives Marie a book Nouns may function as predicates as well, and are therefore also able to take arguments. This is shown in (7), where the nominal noun phrase genie ‘genius’ is predicated of the noun phrase Jan, which therefore functions as the external argument. Since the usual labels for semantic roles are especially created for expressing the roles of the arguments in the EVENT structure denoted by verbal predications, we will simply refer to the external argument of nouns as the
REFERENT (Ref), that is, the entity to which the property denoted by the nominal (or adjectival) predicate applies.
(7) •GENIEN (Ref)
a. [Jan]Ref is [een genie]Pred. Jan is a genius
b. Ik vind [Jan]Ref [een genie]Pred. I consider Jan a genius
The syntactic mapping of the external arguments of nouns is more complicated than that of verbs. When the noun is used as the head of a nominal predicate in a copular or vinden-construction, the mapping is rather straightforward: in (7), for example, the external argument corresponds to the noun phrase Jan, which functions respectively as the subject and the object of the clause. However, when the noun is used as the head of a noun phrase in argument position, it typically tends to be syntactically avalent: rather than behaving like a predicate with one or more arguments, the noun phrase it is part of acts as an argument of some other predicate.
Correspondingly, such noun phrases do not denote a property, but typically have a referential function: they identify the entity or set of entities about which something is predicated. In (8), for instance, the noun phrase de man has the same function as Jan in (7), that is, it acts as the external argument of the nominal predicate.
(8) a. [De man]Ref is [een genie]Pred. the man is a genius
b. Ik vind [de man]Ref [een genie]Pred. I consider the man a genius
This does not mean, however, that nouns heading a noun phrase in argument position do not have a predicative function: such nouns can be said to predicate something of their referential argument, that is, of the entity or set of entities referred to by means of the noun phrase. The noun phrase een man in (9a), for example, can be paraphrased as ∃x man (x): there is an entity x such that the predicate MAN applies to x. Correspondingly, (9a) is normally assigned the semantic interpretation in (9b), which involves the conjunction of two predicates: there is an entity x such that the predicates MAN and WALKING IN THE STREET both apply to x.
(9) a. Er loopt een man op straat.
there walks a man in the.street b. ∃x (man (x) & walks on the street (x))
The discussion above, which is based on Williams (1981), shows that nouns always have an external argument, but that this argument is not syntactically expressed when the noun is the head of a noun phrase functioning as the syntactic argument of some other predicate, as in (9). The external argument of the noun can (and must) be syntactically realized only when the noun is heading a noun phrase that syntactically functions as a predicate, as in (7). This is given as generalization II in (10).
(10) Generalization II: The external argument (Ref) of a noun cannot be syntactically realized unless the noun syntactically functions as a predicate in, for instance, a copular or a vinden-construction.
2.1.3. Complementation of non-derived nouns
Complementation is not a typical property of non-derived nouns. There are, however, at least two classes of basic nouns that normally require the presence of an argument. The first is the class of relational nouns, which includes kinship nouns like vader ‘father’, broer ‘brother’, nicht ‘niece’, and nouns denoting physical properties of objects like vorm ‘shape’, gewicht ‘weight’ or kleur ‘color’; see Section 1.2.3 for more examples. These relational nouns can successfully fulfill their referential function only when related to some other entity. This is illustrated in (11a) for the noun vader: this example is only acceptable when a noun phrase is present carrying the “child” role assigned by the noun vader. Another example is given in (11b): the noun vorm ‘shape’ cannot refer independently but requires the syntactic realization of the noun phrase referring to a physical object that has some shape. Note that in accordance with generalization II in (10), the “Ref” role only needs to be expressed syntactically when the noun phrase headed by vader functions syntactically as a predicate. Complementation of the relational nouns will be discussed more extensively in Section 2.2.2.
(11) •VADERN (Ref, child)
a. [Jan]Ref is [de vader *?(van Marie)]Pred
Jan is the father of Marie
a′. Ik ontmoette gisteren de vader *?(van Marie).
I met yesterday the father of Marie b. Jan bewonderde de vorm *?(van de ijsberg).
Jan admired the shape of the iceberg
Other non-derived nouns that may take complements are the so-called picture and story nouns. Some examples are given in (12): in (12a), the noun schets ‘sketch’
assigns a theme role to de Amstel (it is the object depicted) and an agent role to Rembrandt (he is the maker of the painting); in (12b) something similar holds for the story noun gedicht. Complementation of the picture/story nouns will be discussed more extensively in Section 2.2.5.
(12) a. SCHETSN (Ref, Agent, Theme) a′. Rembrandts schets van de Amstel
Rembrandt’s sketch of the Amstel b. GEDICHTN (Ref, Agent, Theme) b′. Boons gedicht over de kleine Eva
Boon’s poem about the little Eva
2.1.4. Derived nouns: inheritance of argument structure
Whereas non-derived nouns typically do not take complements, derived nouns do.
The arguments of these derived nouns are typically “inherited” from the input stem.
Take as an example the transitive verb behandelen ‘to treat’ and the noun behandeling ‘treatment’, which is derived from the former by adding the suffix -ing.
As is illustrated in (13), the verb and the noun can take the same arguments: an agent and a theme. The main difference between the verbal and the nominal predicate is that, whereas the agent is the external argument of the verb, it is an internal argument of the noun: the external argument of the noun is assigned the
“Ref” role. In accordance with Generalization II in (10), the argument bearing the agent role can be expressed within the noun phrase (whereas the “Ref” role need not be syntactically expressed).
(13) • Transitive
a. BEHANDELENV (Agent, Theme) a′. Jan behandelde de patiënt.
to treat Jan treated the patient b. BEHANDELINGN (Ref, Agent, Theme) b′. Jans behandeling van de patiënt
treatment Jan’s treatment of the patient The same applies to nouns derived from intransitive verbs, as shown by example (14). Here, too, the agent argument of the verb is inherited by the noun as an internal argument, with the addition of a new external argument that is assigned the
“Ref” role. Again, the argument bearing the agent role can be expressed within the noun phrase.
(14) • Intransitive
a. HUILENV (Agent) a′. De kinderen huilen.
to cry the children cry
b. HUILENN (Ref, Agent) b′. het huilen van de kinderen crying the crying of the children
In the nominalizations in (13) and (14), the external argument of the verb is transformed into an internal argument of the derived noun. In the case of deverbal person nouns derived by the suffix -er, however, the external argument of the verb
is similar to the external argument of the noun: the argument assigned the “Ref”
role of the derived noun schrijver ‘writer’ in (15b) corresponds to the argument that is assigned the agent role by the predicate een boek schrijven in (15a). In accordance with this, the argument that corresponds to the argument assigned the agent role by the verb cannot be expressed within the noun phrase; it can only be realized as the subject or the object of a clause in which the noun phrase is used as a syntactic predicate.
(15) • Deverbal -er nouns:
a. SCHRIJVENV (Agent, Theme) a′. Jan schrijft een boek.
to write Jan writes a book ‘Jan is writing a book.’
b. SCHRIJVERN (Ref, Theme) b′. de schrijver van het boek writer the writer of the book
Inheritance of argument structures can also found with deadjectival nouns In example (16), for instance, the external argument of hoog, which we call “RefA” in order to distinguish it from the “RefN” role of the noun, functions as an internal argument of the noun hoogte ‘height’.
(16) a. HOOGA (RefA) a′. De toren is hoog.
high the tower is high b. HOOGTEN (RefN, RefA) b′. de hoogte van de toren
height the height of the tower
Since adpositions cannot readily be used as the input of a nominalization process, we will not discuss these here; see 1.3.4 for examples.
This section has shown that nominalization generally involves the internalization of the external argument of the input form; only when we are dealing with a deverbal noun derived by -er does the external argument of the verb seem to correspond to the external argument of the derived noun. This is expressed as generalization III in (17).
(17) Generalization III: Nominalization implies the internalization of the external argument of the input form, unless we are dealing with a deverbal
ER-noun.
2.1.5. The form of the arguments
This section discusses the various ways in which the internal arguments of a noun can be realized. Within the verbal domain, agentive arguments appear as nominative noun phrases in active clauses, and, optionally, as agentive door-PPs in passive clauses. Arguments with the semantic function of theme normally appear as accusative noun phrases in active clauses and as nominative noun phrases in passive clauses. Arguments with the semantic function of goal/benefactive can be realized as a dative noun phrase or as an aan/voor-PP. The remaining arguments are realized as PPs. However, given that a noun normally does not assign case, we expect that its internal arguments are typically realized as PPs. As will be shown below, this is indeed possible, but it is certainly not the case that this exhausts the possibilities.
I. Realization of the internal argument as a PP or genitive noun phrase
The discussion below will show that there are often two ways to realize the agentive and theme arguments of the noun: they can be expressed by means of either a postnominal PP or a prenominal genitive noun phrase or possessive pronoun.
Arguments carrying other thematic roles are always realized by means of a PP.
A. Realization of the internal argument as a van-PP
A theme argument of a deverbal noun that corresponds to a direct object of the input verb can be realized by means of a van-PP, as shown by (18a), and the same thing holds for the theme argument of a picture noun like schilderij ‘painting’ in (18b).
The theme argument of a story noun like gedicht ‘poem’ in (18c), however, is preceded by the preposition over ‘about’.
(18) • Theme arguments of deverbal nouns and picture/story nouns a. de behandeling van JanTheme
the treatment of Jan
b. het schilderij van de AmstelTheme
the painting of the Amstel
c. het gedicht over/??van de kleine EvaTheme
the poem about the little Eva
The agentive argument of a deverbal noun can also be realized as a postnominal van-PP, as is shown by (19a&b). It must be noted, however, that this leads to a marked result when the input verb is transitive, in which case the argument is preferably realized as an agentive door-PP, as is shown by the (c)-examples in (19).
(19) • Agentive arguments of deverbal nouns a. het gehuil van JanAgent
the crying of Jan
b. het zoeken van JanAgent naar de waarheidTheme
the looking of Jan for the truth
c. ??de behandeling van de dokterAgent van JanTheme
the treatment of the doctor of Jan c′. de behandeling van JanTheme door de dokterAgent
the treatment of Jan by the doctor
The examples in (20) show that the agentive argument of a picture/story noun can also be realized as a van-PP, and those in (21) show that the same thing holds for the internal arguments of relational nouns.
(20) • Agentive arguments of picture/story nouns a. het schilderij van RembrandtAgent
the painting of Rembrandt
‘the painting by Rembrandt’
b. het gedicht van Louis-Paul BoonAgent
the poem of Louis-Paul Boon
‘the poem by Louis-Paul Boon’
(21) • Related arguments of relational nouns a. de vader van Marie
the father of Marie b. de vorm van de ijsberg
the shape of the iceberg
B. Realization of the internal argument as a possessive pronoun/genitive noun phrase Internal arguments of a noun that can be realized as van-PPs can often also be realized as prenominal possessive pronouns or genitive noun phrases (with the genitive suffix -s). The examples in (19) and (20), for instance, alternate with the primeless examples in (22) and (23), in which the agent is realized in prenominal position as a genitive noun phrase. Since noun phrases like de dokter ‘the doctor’ in (22b) normally give rise to a marked result when they are used as genitive possessor (see the discussion below (25)), we also give examples with a prenominal possessive pronoun.
(22) • Agentive arguments of deverbal nouns
a. JansAgent gehuil a′. zijnAgent gehuil Jan’s crying his crying
b. ?de doktersAgent behandeling van Jan ` b′. zijnAgent behandeling van Jan the doctor’s treatment of Jan his treatment of Jan
c. JansAgent zoeken naar de waarheid c′. zijnAgent zoeken naar de waarheid Jan’s looking for the truth his looking for the truth (23) • Agentive arguments of picture/story nouns
a. RembrandtsAgent schilderij a′. zijnAgent schilderij Rembrandt’s painting his painting b. Louis-Paul BoonsAgent gedicht b′. zijnAgent gedicht
Louis-Paul Boon’s poem his poem
Example (24) shows that a theme argument can also be realized as a prenominal genitive noun phrase or possessive pronoun. This prenominal realization is, however, restricted to theme arguments that can be realized as van-PPs; since the theme argument of a story noun is normally expressed by an over-PP, (25b) is unacceptable under the intended non-agentive reading.
(24) a. Jans/zijnTheme behandeling Jan’s/his treatment b. Jans/zijnTheme foto
Jan’s/his photo
(25) a. het gedicht over de kleine EvaTheme
the poem about the little Eva b. *de kleine Eva’s/haarTheme gedicht
the little Eva’s/her poem
There are additional restrictions on the realization of the agent/theme argument as a genitive noun phrase or a possessive pronoun. In fact, the prenominal position in (24) is only accessible to (i) possessive pronouns and (ii) a limited set of
[+HUMAN] nouns including proper nouns and a number of kinship and professional nouns; see Sections 5.2.2.1 and 5.2.2.5.1 for more details. This is shown by the fact that whereas the primeless (a)-examples in (26) and (27) alternate with the primed ones, the primeless (b)-examples do not.
(26) a. de foto van Jan Theme a′. JansTheme foto the photo of Jan Jan’s picture b. de foto van de AmstelTheme b′. *de AmstelsTheme foto
the photo of the Amstel the Amstel’s photo (27) a. de vader van Marie a′. Maries vader
the father of Marie Marie’s father b. de vorm van de berg b′. *de berg’s vorm
the shape of the mountain the mountain’s shape
the shape of the mountain the mountain’s shape