���������������������
������������
��������������������������
94
The syntax of Spanish
also be pre-nominal or post-nominal. Specifiers are a heterogeneous class,
whose structure will be discussed below.
2.5
Determiners of argument NPs
We turn now to discussion of the Specifiers of argument NPs. Recall
from 2.2 that NP can function either as an argument or as a predicate, and its
distribution and licensing vary accordingly. It was noted there that the status
of NP as an argument or predicate can also affect the internal structure of the
phrase. As we will see, the determiner system is centrally affected. In this
section and in 2.6 below, specifiers of argument NPs will be discussed. We then
return to predicative NPs in 2.7.
2.5.1
Distribution of specifiers
Argument NPs allow all of the specifier types listed in (41) above:
(43)
a. Mi/ese/el/un libro está en la mesa.
“My/that/the/a book is on the table.”
b. Dos libros están en la mesa.
“Two books are on the table.”
c. Algunos libros están en la mesa.
“Some books are on the table.”
d. ¿Cuántos libros están en la mesa?
“How many books are on the table?”
Specifiers that have definite interpretations (possessives, demonstratives and
definite determiners) cannot co-occur with each other in pre-nominal position:
(44)
a. *el mi libro
“the my book”
b. *ese su libro
“that his book”
Based on the uniqueness of the pre-nominal specifier position for these determiners, earlier versions of X�-theory analyzed NP as having a unique
“Determiner” position as a daughter of X�, the maximal phrasal projection
(see (45)). This structure generally predicts that any NP will have a single position for specifiers, which occurs as the first (leftmost) constituent of the
phrase. However, determiners of the first subclass can co-occur if one is postnominal with strong stress:
The Noun Phrase
95
N”
(45)
Det
N’
el
N
libro
(46)
a. el libro tuyo
the book your
“the book of yours”
b. el libro ese
the book that
“THAT book”
The grammaticality of sequences in (46) shows that it is not the items themselves that must be unique within NP, but rather that there is a single prenominal position in which a determiner of this class can surface. This is
problematic for a purely phrase structure account of the distribution of determiners as in (45) since, in order to generate sequences like (46), the category
Det must be possible in post-nominal positions, as shown in (47):
(47)
N”
Det
N’
Det
el
N
ese
libro
Given this possibility, additional constraints are needed to exclude phrases
with only a post-nominal determiner (*libro ese).
Another issue is that Specifiers of other types can co-occur pre-nominally.
Consider the sequences in (48), which contain “pre-determiners” and “postdeterminers” in boldface:
(48)
a. los varios libros
the several books
b. todos esos libros
all
those books
96
The syntax of Spanish
c. unos tres libros
some three books
d. cuáles de mis libros
which of my books
e. ninguno de esos libros
none
of those books
Traditional (and generative) accounts of these sequences have typically analyzed the “extra” specifiers as modifiers of a separate category, such as “predeterminer,” Quantifier or Adjective. Under this approach, the Determiner
position is unique, but it can co-occur with modifiers that specify quantity. For
example, (48a) and (48b) might have the structures shown in (49a) and (49b).
(49)
N”
a.
Det
los
b.
N’
N”
Q
A”
N’
varios
N
Det
N’
todos esos
N
libros
libros
Notice that varios in (49a) is analyzed as an Adjective, based on its position
between the determiner and the noun – a position where adjectives may typically appear – while todos is analyzed as a Quantifier. Todos could not be an
adjective, since adjectives cannot appear before a Determiner (*buenos los
libros “good the books”). An analysis based on the category of these specifiers does account for (a) their distribution, and (b) their co-occurrence with
Det. However, one generalization remains unexpressed: the fact that these
items can also satisfy the requirement for a determiner. That is, they can also
appear without a separate determiner, unlike other optional modifiers:
(50)
a. Varios libros están en la mesa.
several books are on the table
b. *Buenos libros están en la mesa.
good
books are on the table
Another issue is that this approach does not account for the appearance of the
Case marker de in examples like (48d), (48e). We return to the topic of “preand “post-determiners” in Section 2.6.
The Noun Phrase
97
Summarizing to this point, we have seen that specifiers of NP are not
strictly optional, like other modifiers of nouns. This suggests that specifiers
have a particular function in licensing the NP, so that, without a specifier, the
NP is not fully interpretable as a phrase. However, we have seen that the specifier “function” cannot be accounted for simply by positing a Determiner
position as in (45), since certain subclasses of specifiers can co-occur with
each other as pre- and post-nominal constituents, and others can co-occur
pre-nominally. In 2.5.2 and in 2.6, we will consider ways of accounting for
these co-occurrences.
There is one further point to be noted with regard to the distribution of
specifiers: the obligatoriness of specifiers of argument NPs depends on
phrase-internal as well as phrase-external factors. Phrase-internally, the
choice of noun is relevant; unmodified proper nouns do not co-occur with
specifiers in most dialects of Spanish:
(51)
*el Juan llegó.
“The Juan arrived.”
Phrase-external factors are also relevant. Argument NPs in certain positions
in a sentence can lack a specifier:
(52)
a. Cantaron canciones toda la noche.
sang
songs
all the night
“They sang songs all night.”
b. *Canciones fueron cantadas toda la noche.
songs
were sung
all the night
“Songs were sung all night.”
In (52a), canciones is the object of the verb; in (52b), it is the subject of the
passive sentence. The possibility of an “absent” specifier thus depends on the
surface position of NP. There are two possible analyses of NPs without overt
specifiers. One is that there is simply no Det position present; the other is that
there is a Det position present filled by an empty (covert) specifier. One argument supporting the latter analysis is that NPs lacking overt determiners such
as (52a) have essentially the same interpretation as though a specifier were
present – in this case, the indefinite determiner unos “some.” If the NP has an
interpretation other than indefinite, an appropriate specifier must be present:
(53)
Cantaron *(las) canciones que aprendieron en Málaga.
sang
*(the) songs
that learned
in Malaga
“They sang the songs that they learned in Malaga.”
In (53), where the object NP has a definite interpretation, the Det position
must be filled. This points to an analysis of (52a) in which the specifier position is filled by a covert specifier.
98
The syntax of Spanish
2.5.2
The DP hypothesis
We saw above that there are two limitations of the analysis of specifiers in (45) above, where specifiers are generated under a Det node as a daughter of N�. One problem is that specifiers are not strictly optional, but the
analysis in (45) predicts that the Det node, like other adjunct positions, should
be optional. The second problem is that, although the specifier is in some cases
unique, there are also instances of co-occurring specifiers. These problems
(and related ones) have been addressed in recent years under a theory of functional categories, which explores structural and grammatical relations
between the lexical categories (nouns, verbs and adjectives) and related grammatical or functional elements such as specifiers. A foundational work in this
vein is Abney (1987), which proposes that D (=determiner) heads a phrase DP
(Determiner Phrase). D selects NP as its complement, as shown in (54).
(54)
DP
D’
D
NP
los
N
libros
This structure posits a head–complement relation between Det and NP;
however, because D is a functional category rather than a lexical category, it
does not select NP as a complement – NP is not theta-marked by D. Here, the
head–complement relation is a “functional” relation. This function can be
thought of in the following way: assuming the NP itself to be basically predicative, the determiner function “translates” the NP into an expression which
has reference, i.e., refers to definite or indefinite individuals.15
15
Higginbotham (1985) proposes a mechanism by which this function is carried out,
which he terms “theta-binding.” This mechanism is a form of variable binding.
Recall that the licensing of predicative NPs (2.3) was stated in terms of Predication,
the syntactic relation between subject and predicate. Theta-binding is similar to
Predication in certain respects: both processes “complete” or “saturate” the predicate via a grammatical relationship with a constituent external to the predicate. The
processes differ at least syntactically, in that Predication operates between full
The Noun Phrase
99
The DP hypothesis accounts for the failure to co-occur of definite, indefinite and demonstrative specifiers, on the assumption that these are all generated under D, with features of either [+()] or [- ]. The DP
hypothesis also provides a means of accounting for the co-occurrence of definite determiners with post-nominal, but not pre-nominal, possessives and
demonstratives:
(55)
a. los libros esos/míos
the books those/mine
b. *los esos/mis libros
the those/ my books
This contrast can be accounted for on the assumption that “strong” (stressed)
and “weak” (unstressed) forms differ structurally, and perhaps categorially.
Suppose, for example, that weak forms are simple determiners, and are always
generated in the head of DP. This head is a non-lexical category, and items
inserted there may be devoid of word-level stress. Strong forms must therefore
be generated elsewhere, perhaps as adjuncts, as shown in (56).16
(56)
DP
D’
D
los
NP
NP
XP
N’
estos
libros
It is possible that XP (the category of the post-nominal strong form) is also
DP, and that, due to its position within NP, it can inherit phrasal stress associated with the NP.
16
phrases, while theta-binding is a relation between a (functional) head and a lexical
head.
The structure shown in (56) distinguishes NP (a noun phrase) from N�, in line with
the traditional three levels of structure of phrases assumed under X�-theory. It is frequently assumed in more recent work that lexical categories have only two projections, the head and X� level, so that X� is non-distinct from “phrase.”
100
The syntax of Spanish
The structure (56) accounts for the surface order and co-occurrence of
demonstratives and possessives with definite determiners, but does not explain
why the phrase is well formed with two specifiers. Here, however, the more
articulated structure of DP, which has a specifier position of its own, is useful.
We may suppose that the definite determiner los in (56) is a purely formal
element, akin to pleonastic pronouns. In recent work, it has been proposed
that such elements must be eliminated in the course of a derivation, because
they have no semantic interpretation. If they were to remain, the sentence
would contain a semantically uninterpretable element. This replacement must
occur at an abstract level of representation referred to as “Logical Form,”
which is the form of a sentence which provides the input to semantic interpretation. If a “pleonastic” determiner occurs then, it must be eliminated in favor
of a true determiner. In (56), the post-nominal strong form is such an element.
The manner in which it “becomes” the determiner in Logical Form is by movement to the Specifier of the higher DP “leaving a trace” (t) in its original position, as shown in (57).
(57)
DP
DP i
estos
D’
D
[+DEF ]
NP
NP
DP
N
ti
libros
Here, the post-nominal demonstrative DP has moved to the Specifier position
of the higher DP. Once there, its presence allows the pleonastic to be eliminated.
The notion of “replacement” of definite determiners may also provide a
basis for explaining the absence of determiners with proper names. Compare
(58a,b):
(58)
a. los libros
the books
b. *el Juan
the J.
The Noun Phrase
101
This contrast suggests that another means of replacing a definite determiner
is by movement of the head noun to the head of DP (see (59)).
(59)
DP
D’
D
NP
Ni
D
N’
Juan
–
N
ti
Here, the head of NP has moved, adjoining to D. There are various possible
explanations for the fact that common nouns do not undergo this movement.
These might appeal either to differences in the inherent features of common
versus proper nouns, or to differences in the structure associated with the two
types of nouns.17 For example, some proper nouns may be inherently definite
singular, while common nouns are not inherently specified for definiteness or
for number. It must be borne in mind, however, that the explanation for the
contrast must be language-specific, or even dialect-specific, as is the contrast
between (58a) and (58b).
Summarizing to this point, we have seen that the DP hypothesis makes two
significant claims about the structure of determiners in relation to NP. First,
DP, like other categories, has full phrasal structure, including its own Specifier,
head and complement positions. Second, the structural relationship between
the determiner and NP is a head–complement relation. Movement out of the
NP complement is possible, both for XP and Xo (phrases and heads). On the
hypothesis that some functional elements must be eliminated, the order and
co-occurrence of determiners with definite interpretations can be accounted
for.
17
Notice that the movement of a specific subcategory of nouns (proper nouns) is
similar to the phenomenon of V-movement in English, where only the subcategory
of Aux can move to INFL. The movement analysis of proper nouns is due to
Longobardi (1994).