6. Noun Phrases (NP)
The first five sections have been concerned mostly with method, and with the analysis of
sentences at sentence level. We have, however, begun the overall topic of the next sections by
also talking a little about objects, which are functions at bar level rather than sentence level.
As indicated by the question marks scattered throughout [Tree7], the following sections will
be concerned with the analysis of the structure of the various phrases, NP (this section), VP
(section 7), AP, AdvP, and PP (section 8) – and particularly with the functional relationships
holding between them and their constituents.
Basically, the analysis of these follows the steps already taken in the analysis at sentence
level, and the methods and tests are the same. Naturally, if a phrase contains just one word, we
have reached word level, and we can simply note the lexical category that defines it. You have
two examples in [Tree7]. The subject NP contains just the word someone, which is a pronoun.
We therefore just note this in the manner indicated. The AdvP contains the single word on,
consequently classified as an Adv. In all other cases, however, the phrases in [Tree7] are
complex and need further analysis before word level is reached.
6.1. The structure of NP
We have already given a first rough indication of the internal structure of NP in [Tree7],
where there are several occurrences - one functioning as subject, one as object and two as so
called prepositional complements (this function is not spelled out in [Tree7]). We have
already dealt with the subject NP. The object NP has two constituents, [the] and [radio].We
begin with that.
We have said all along that a NP is defined categorially by the occurrence inside it of at least a
N - in other words that N is an obligatory constituent of NP. Notice, however, what happens if
we delete [the]:
[36] *someone had turned on the radio by the touch of that button
The deletion test - which we have so far used to distinguish obligatory from optional
constituents - doesn’t seem to be working here, for the result of deleting [the] is ungrammatical. From the point of view of obligatoriness there is no difference between [the] and [radio].
When the phrase is nevertheless a Noun Phrase it is because N is a major lexical category.
From a semantic point of view, it is the most important one of the two words.
39
Topic for discussion: Heads and Projections
In general, the lexical item that defines a phrase functions as the Head of the
phrase. N functions as the head of NP, V as the head of VP, A as the head of AP,
Adv as the head of AdvP, and P as the head of PP.
Perhaps a better way to explain this is to say that the lexical categories N, V, A, Adv
and P are all categories that may project into bar- and phrase-categories, like an
old fashioned telescope. The following projections are all valid:
[36] a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
N ≺ N´ ≺ NP
V ≺ V´ ≺ VP
A ≺ A´ ≺ AP
Adv ≺ Adv´ ≺ AdvP
P ≺ P´ ≺ PP
The idea behind this notion of projection is that you can take any N, V, A, P, or Adv
and extend it by adding something to it, either before or after. Having done that,
you have a N´, V´, etc., which may again be extended by the addition of further
material, to give you a NP, VP, etc.
It is easy to see that [radio] functions as the head of the object NP [the radio], for it is the only
N present. But what is the function of the determiner?
6.1.1. Specification
On this question classical grammatical theory lets us down. In general, the further ‘down’ we
get towards word level in the analysis, the less inclined traditional grammar is to distinguish
between category and function. More recent grammar introduces the term specification,
which we shall borrow for the purpose, so we shall say that determiners function as specifiers
of NP. However, the term determiner (Det) itself - which we have here taken to be the name
of a particular category of words - is often used as if it was the name of a function. This is
because the determiners can only function as specifiers within NP:
[37] the, a(n), my, your, our, their, every, no
These must always be followed by a N (though not necessarily in the immediately following
position - there may be certain intervening elements between Det and N). The two words the
and a(n) are often regarded as forming their own exclusive word-class, called article,
respectively the definite and indefinite article (Danish kendeord).
But there are a great many other words - all members of minor lexical categories - that may
function as specifiers of NP:
40
[38] a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
all, some, any, each, both, many, few, much, either, neither
this, that, these, those,
which, what, whose
we, you
one, two, three, ....
first, second, third, ...
last, next, little
You may recognize some or all of these as belonging to traditional categories like indefinite
pronouns (a), demonstrative pronouns (b), interrogative pronouns (c), personal pronouns (d),
numerals (e), ordinals (f), and adjectives (g). Nevertheless, all of them will fit into at least one
of the following three frameworks. When they do, we shall also regard these as determiners
until further notice.
[39] a. ____ hat
b. ____ hats
c. ____ water
Taking [39] as the diagnostic frame for the establishment of a paradigm for elements that may
function as specifiers, we find that also the following italicized bits will fit in:
[40] a. ladies’ hats
b. the boy next door’s hat
But it would go against intuition (and usual practice) to call these elements determiners. They
belong to a special category of NPs known as Genitive Phrases (GenP). Nevertheless, they
always function as specifiers.
6.1.2. Multiple-word specification
Look at the following subject NPs:
[41] a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
boys were playing football in the field
the boys were playing football in the field
five boys were playing football in the field
all the boys were playing football in the field
all five boys were playing football in the field
all the five boys were playing football in the field
all the five other boys were playing football in the field
*the all boys were playing football in the field
*five all boys were playing football in the field
*five the boys were playing football in the field
*all five other boys were playing football in the field
In [a] we have a NP without any overt specification. In [b] and [c] we have NPs with single
words (the and five) functioning as specifiers. In [c]-[g] we have NPs with specifiers realized
by more than one word. The ungrammatical examples [h]-[j] indicate that there are constraints
of word order in a multiple-word specification, while the ungrammatical [k] indicates that 41
although the relative order of words is okay - there are syntactic (or semantic) rules at play
within a sequence of specifier words.
This - apparently small - area of English syntax has proved remarkably tough to analyse
precisely, partly because of many exceptions to (what might be assumed to be) general rules,
partly because it is an area that falls halfway between syntax and semantics. Notice, for
example, that there is no difference in the interpretations of [e] and [f] despite the absence vs.
presence of the definite article, whereas there is a great deal of difference in the interpretations
of [a] and [b] because of the absence vs. presence of the definite article. For now we just say
that the general semantic function associated with specification is to enable the listener to
figure out which, and how many, things the NP as a whole is meant to apply to. We return to
these issues when we come to deal with the relationships between structure and meaning. In
the meantime we just note that the specifier function may be realized by 0 up to 4 words
(disregarding Genitive Phrases for the moment), and give the following maximal structure for
it (notice that we for simplicity classify all the specifiers as determiners):
Tree 8
NP
Specifier
Head
Det
Det
Det
Det
N
All
the
five
other
boys
With a Genitive phrase functioning as specifier, the structure looks like this:
Tree 9
NP
Specifier
GenP
Specifier
N
Head
Gen
NP
Specifier Head
42
Det
N
the
boy
Head
’s
hat
It is the genitive morpheme {’s} which is the syntactically important part of the Genitive
Phrase, so this is the head, whereas the NP in front of it functions as its specifier.
6.1.3. N´
In the Topic for Disussion box in section 5.4.1., we introduced the bar level of analysis, and
the justification for it was given in relation to V´. But as we explained then, also N projects
into N´ (and further into NP). It is time now to have a look at N´. Consider the NPs in the
following sentence:
[42] my impudent nephew kissed the lady in the fancy hat with all the flowers
There are in fact four:
[43] a.
b.
c.
d.
my impudent nephew (subject)
the lady in the fancy hat with all the flowers (object)
the fancy hat with all the flowers (complement to the preposition in)
all the flowers (complement to the preposition with)
Here [c] and [d] are instances of recursion, so far only noted in connection with sentences (cf.
5.2.6.). As you can see, [c] and [d] are NPs in their own right, but they occur as constituents of
larger NPs, respectively [b] and [c]. This is precisely what recursion is: the occurrence of a
given category as a constituent of a larger constituent of the same category.
By familiar tests of constituency (deletion) we find that [my] and [nephew] are obligatory in
[a], that [the] and [lady] are obligatory in [b], that [the] and [hat] are obligatory in [c], and
finally that [flowers] is obligatory in [d], for each of the following is grammatical:
[44] a. my impudent nephew kissed the lady in the fancy hat with all the flowers
b. my impudent nephew kissed the lady in the fancy hat with all the flowers
c. my impudent nephew kissed the lady in the fancy hat with all the flowers
If you delete any of the constituents that we listed as obligatory, however, the result will be
ungrammatical. Try it!
Each of the four NPs in [44] must have a Head, which in each case is the N that defines the
phrase as an NP. They are, respectively:
[46] a.
b.
c.
d.
nephew
lady
hat
flowers
Likewise, each NP has a specifier:
[47] a.
b.
c.
d.
my
the
the
all the
43
There are two questions: what is the function of N´, and how does it help us to fit the optional
constituents into the overall structure of NP?
We said above that the important semantic function of specification was to provide the
listener with information about which and how many things the whole NP was supposed to
apply to. But it doesn’t provide any information about what kind of thing the NP as a whole is
supposed to apply to. This information is crucially provided by the Head N. The Head Ns in
[46] provide information for the listener about the kinds of things talked about: nephews (as
opposed to sons, for example), ladies (as opposed to women in general, for example), hats (as
opposed to other items of clothing, for example) and flowers (as opposed to fruits, for
example).
Now, in addition to this, the optional constituents (impudent, fancy; in the fancy hat with all
the flowers; with all the flowers) provide futher information to the listener about the
properties of the things talked about. Not just nephews, but impudent nephews; not just ladies,
but ladies in fancy hats; and not just fancy hats, but fancy hats with flowers, and so on). All
this is information concerning the classification of things, and all this is information
associated with N´. We shall say, consequently, that the primary function of N´ is classification.The second question can best be answered by simply drawing tree-structures for the four
NPs:
Tree 10
Tree 11
NP
Spec
NP
Spec
Classification
Det
Det
N´
?
Classification
N´
Head
Head
AP
?
N
N
PP
Head
the
A
my
Tree 12
impudent
Tree 13
Spec
NP
Classification
Det
Spec
N´
?
?
N
N
hat
N´
?
all
PP
Head
fancy
Classification
Head
N´
Head
A
Det
Classification
AP
P
with
44
in
nephew
NP
the
[Tree12]
P
lady
Complement
Complement
[Tree13]
the
flowers
As you can see, [Tree11] and [Tree12] have ‘slots’ in them for, respectively, [Tree12] and
[Tree13]. The reason for drawing the trees like this is to make it quite clear what recursion is,
and also to demonstrate that it is precisely the same analytical procedures that are used for the
description of NP no matter where it is placed in a tree-structure. The full tree-structure for the
object NP in the original sentence would look like this:
Tree 14
NP
Spec
Class
Det
N´
Head
the
N
?
PP
Head
lady
Compl
NP
P
Spec
in
Class
N´
Det
?
the
Class
AP
N´
Head
A
?
N
PP
Head
fancy
hat
Compl
P
NP
Spec
with Det
Det
Class
N´
Head
N
all
the
flowers
45
6.1.3.1.The functions of AP and PP: Modification
There are a number of question marks for functions in [Tree14], those performed by AP and
those performed by PP. As optional constituents, they don’t have to be there, as we saw
above. However, when they are present, they perform the syntactic function of modification,
and very often these phrases are referred to as modifiers. APs in English typically precede the
Head N and are therefore often called premodifiers, whereas PPs typically follow the Head N
and are consequently called postmodifiers. This doesn’t really matter. What matters is that
there can be several modifiers, before, after, or both, to the same Head N, as you can see in
[Tree12]. Notice we have used two N´ nodes, one inside the other, to accommodate this.This
means that N´ is recursive. The interpretation thereby indicated as valid is [fancy] + [hat-withflowers]. But there are other possibilities as well. We could have used only one N´ to give the
representation in [Tree15]:
Tree 15
NP
Det
N´
Modification
the
Modification
AP
N
A
hat
PP
P
NP
Specifier
fancy
with Det
Det
N´
Head
N
all
the
flowers
This would favour an interpretation like [fancy-hat-with-flowers]. Or we could still use two
N´s, only organize them differently, as in [Tree16]:
Tree 16
NP
Det
N´
Modification
N´
the
PP
Modification
AP
N
P
A
hat
with
NP
Specifier
Det
Det
fancy
N´
Head
N
all
the
flowers
In this case, the tree would favour an interpretation like ‘[fancy-hat] + [with-flowers]’.
You may find it whimsical (or confusing) that there can be three different structures for the
same phrase. It is nevertheless quite an important fact, even though in this particular case it
doesn’t make much difference which interpretation we choose. It is an example of so called
structural ambiguity. A more striking example of this is in fact illustrated by the same NP.
Up to now we have taken for granted that it was the hat that had flowers on it. But that is not
the only possible interpretation of the object NP. Look carefully at [Tree17] and compare it to
[Tree14]:
Tree 17
NP
Spec
Class
Det
N´
Class
Modification
the
PP
N´
Class
N
NP
Spec
Compl
with Det
NP
P
Spec
in
Compl
P
PP
Head
lady
Head
Mod
N´
Mod
AP
N´
Head
Class
Det
the
Det
Class
N
Class
all
the
flowers
N´
Head
A
N
fancy
hat
The interpretation associated with this structure is that it is the lady who (holds, or has) all the
flowers, which makes quite a difference. But notice that the background for this ambiguity is
of precisely the same nature as that discussed above, only now we have made the uppermost
N´ recursive. This kind of ‘loose’ behaviour by modifiers is a pervasive phenomenon of
English (and Danish) syntax. With direct reference to tree-structures it is generally known as
the attachment problem: which among several possible nodes should a modifer be attached
to? In most instances, only the context (either textual or situational) will resolve the
ambiguity, if it can be resolved at all.
6.1.3.2. Relative clauses
Recall first our discussion of the difference between sentences and clauses above, in section
5.5., the outcome of which was that a clause is a sentence seen in terms of its internal
composition. The term relative clause is a fixture in grammar books, and we shall stick with it.
It is the term for a special kind of sentence structure which not only has a quite specific
function, but also quite specific internal characteristics in that one of its non-verbal
constituents is realized by a relative pronoun. It is relevant here, because the specific function
that it has is that of (post)modifier in NP. Consider
[48] my impudent nephew kissed the lady who was wearing the fancy hat with the flowers
This sentence means very nearly the same as [43], but with one important difference: where
[43] - as we have just seen - was structurally ambiguous, [48] is not: here it can only be the
hat which has flowers on it. Why? Because the postmodification is now realized, not by a PP
as in [43], but by the relative clause who was wearing the fancy hat with the flowers. And this
involves an important structural difference. The tree-structure for the object NP in [48] is
Tree 18
Spec
NP
Class
N´
Det
Head
the
Mod
N
lady
S´
S
?
Subject
Predicate
Ø NP
Pro
VP
Aux
V´
Head
who
was
Compl
V
NP
Spec
Class
wearing Det
N´
Mod
the
Class
N´
AP
Mod
Head
A
PP
N
fancy hat
P
NP
with
flowers
Now, all the syntactic relationships we have been concerned with so far are defined to hold
within the same sentence. But here [lady] and [with the flowers] appear in different sentences,
[lady] in the uppermost sentence (which we haven’t shown in the tree), [with the flowers] in
the encircled, lower S. Therefore, it cannot modify [lady], for it would have to cross a
sentence boundary to do so. This is a very important structural difference between PPs and
relative clauses as modifiers of nouns, for the use of a relative clause will help to solve the
attachment problem always posed by PPs.
A second important point concerns the question mark dominating ‘Ø’ and the status of the
first word in the relative clause, who. As appears from the tree, it is a (relative) pronoun which
functions as the subject of the clause [who was wearing the fancy hat with the flowers].
Consider now another example:
[49]
The hat (which) she was wearing was fancy
This, too, contains a relative clause – and the tree-structure for it looks like this:
Tree 19
S
VP
NP
Spec
Class
Det
N´
Head
the
N
hat
Aux
Mod
V´
V
AP
was
A
Ø
S´
COMP
S
Subject
{Ø|
which}
Predicate
NP
Pro
fancy
VP
Aux
V´
Head
she
was
Object
V
NP
wearing
Ø
The relative clause may either contain a relative pronoun, which, or it may not (‘Ø’). In either
case, however, we interpret this element as the object of [was wearing]: she was wearing the
hat. This interpretation is in fact evidence that the structure of the clause is as indicated, that
is, with the relative pronoun which (or its zero realization) occupying what is known as the
Complementizer (COMP) position – the position that marks a clause as subordinate. In
English (as in Danish) a relative pronoun representing the object of its clause, must either be
moved up in front of the subject (she, in the example), or be left out.
Returning to [Tree 18], it can now be argued that here, too, the relative pronoun who in fact
occupies the COMP position (marked there as ‘?’), and that it has been moved up there from
the subject position. The reason would be that it is important to mark a clause as subordinate.
But notice that it cannot be left out! It is (no longer) possible in English to say *the lady was
wearing the fancy hat was my sister. English finite clauses must contain a subject, even if it
has been moved from its original structural position.
6.1.4. Summary of main points
This concludes our first introduction to the structural properties of the basic NP. The main
points have been these:
• The basic structure of NP is:
Tree 20
NP
Specification
Classification
Det
N´
Modification
(AP)
Head
N
Modification
(PP | S´)
• There are two immediate, obligatory constituents of NP, one functioning as specifier, one
functioning as classifier.
• The specifier function is usually realized by one or more determiners, among which there
are fixed rules of both word order and semantics. These will be taken up at a later time.
The specifier function may also be realized by Genitive Phrases.
• The classifier function is performed by the intermediate category N´ (N-bar) which –
apart from the obligatory Head N – may contain a number of optional constituents.
• The function of these optional constituents is that of modification. Some modifiers appear
in front of the Head N, some after it.
• Those appearing in front of N are realized by AP, while those appearing after N may be
realized by either PP or a relative clause.
• There are important structural differences between these two types of postmodifier. In
particular, the use of a relative clause instead of a PP may reduce structural ambiguity of
the whole sentence.
• From the point of view of projection, it should now be clear that modifiers expand N into
N´, whereas specifiers expand N´ into NP.