Wednesday, October 22
Sharpe and Hackworth
3 links sent out about DP-hypothesis
Note: IP and CP components developed around this time also
Abney (1987)
example: “John’s building a spaceship”
gerundive construction that can be either a
sentence or an NP
gerundive constructions can have either “nouny”
or “verby” subjects and objects
“nouny” subject = genitive, “verby” subject =
accusative
“nouny” object = “of a ___”, “verby subject = NP,
no “of”
nouny/nouny, nouny/verby, and verby/verby
constructions are all possible, but not verby/nouny
suggests an inside/outside asymmetry, with objects
more inside and subjects more outside of the clause
this is the basis on which Abney develops parallelism
(see page 19 of the article)
in NP, a functional AGR (agreement) projection is
needed --- Identity of X is a determiner  DP
Important to remember: simplification in one area
leads to complexity in another, so there is no real
simple analysis of English syntax
Pullum
reasons for not thinking NPs are DPs
DP hypothesis is that all these phrases like “the man”
or “these eggs” have D as head, not just some of them
phrases like “your every move”, which Abney bases his
argument on are archaic and nonrepresentative
rare survival of “every” in adjective use”
no lexical item has been found that syntactically
requires a DP complement with specific determiner
(Dubinsky notes: except idiomatic phrases like “don’t
give a damn”)
Semantic selection: no verb has been found to select
an object that is universally quantified, downwardentailing, or indefinite
verbs often need a subject or object NP with a
certain semantic sort of noun as head
if the determiner is head, verb should be able to
select for certain quantifier
Determiner-less constructions: by DP-hypothesis, noun
phrases without determiners must have heads that are
phonologically and semantically empty
Larson
cognate objects: “laugh a laugh” 
parallels with “he himself”—“a laugh” is a
complement of “laugh,” which is the head of the
phrase
thus, if these are parallel, “he” should be the
head of “he himself”—argues that “he” is a
determiner here
other notes on DP-hypothesis
languages differ with respect to this
Japanese, Korean, and Chinese are thought to
have no DPs at all
Larson conflates syntax and semantics in these past few chapters
As we have seen before, semantic aspects are very separable
from syntax, e.g. “pass” and “throw”
Theta roles
“Marge wrote a letter to Homer.”
“to Homer” is the goal, and a complement of “wrote”
“A letter to Homer was written by Marge.”
goal incorporated in NP
Jackindoff—verbs have LCS: Lexical-Conceptual Structure
Dowty:
there is both a thematic tier and an action tier
“themes” must involve movement
“Sue hit Fred.”
thematic tier: “Sue” is theme, “Fred” is goal
action tier: “Sue” is actor, “Fred” is patient
“Pete threw the ball.”
thematic tier: “Pete” is source, “the ball” is
theme
action tier: “Pete” is actor, “the ball” is
patient
“Bill entered the room.”
thematic tier: “Bill” is theme, “the room” is
goal
action tier: “Bill” is actor.
Assignment for next class: pgs 273-276, exercises 5, 10, and 14
Tori will present