THE SYNTAX OF ATTRIBUTIVE ADJECTIVES IN ENGLISH AND THE PROBLEMS
OF INHERITANCE*
Andrew Radford, University of Essex (1989)
In an influential MIT PhD thesis, Abney (1987) has recently proposed an interesting (and largely
novel) account of the syntax of attributive adjectivals in English (ibid. chapter 4). The particular
aspect of his work which will be the focus of this paper is how Abney deals with the two different
uses of premodifying attributive adjectivals illustrated in (1) and (2) below:
(1)(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
It was [a difficult question]
There was [a rather large discrepancy]
He is [a very experienced operative]
I've never seen [a really big spider]
(2)(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
It was [too difficult a question]
I didn't expect [so/as large a discrepancy]
[How experienced an operative] is he?
I've never seen [this/that big a spider]
Since the italicised adjectival expression precedes a nominal in the examples in (1), we shall refer
to this as the prenominal use of adjectivals; since the adjectival precedes a Determiner in (2), we
shall refer to this as the predeterminer use of adjectivals.
Abney proposes an interesting and imaginative analysis of the syntax of these two types of
premodifying adjectival. The essence of his analysis is the assumption that in structures such as
those bracketed in (3) below (from (1a/2a) above):
(3)(a)
a difficult [question]
(b)
too difficult [a question]
the bracketed nominal expression functions as the complement of the italicised Adjective in both
types of structure: the main difference between the two structures is that the (bracketed)
complement of the Adjective has the status of an NP (= Noun Phrase) in the first example, and a
DP (= Determiner Phrase) in the second. A second difference noted by Abney (1987: 336) is that
only in their predeterminer use (and not in their prenominal use) can Adjectives be preceded by a
(functional) DEG (= Degree) constituent such as so/as/too/how/this/that – hence the contrast
between the grammaticality of (3)(b) above and the ungrammaticality of (4) below:
______________________________________________________________________________
*This is a slightly revised version of a paper entitled 'The Syntax of Attributive Adjectives in
English: Abnegating Abney' presented at the Colloquium on Noun Phrase Structure, University
of Manchester, 1989. It is to be published in J. Payne (ed.) Empirical Approaches to Language
Typology, Mouton, The Hague. I am grateful to Bob Borsley, Andrew Carstairs, Wynn Chao,
Annabel Cormack, Dick Hudson, Mike Jones, and Anna Szabolsci for helpful discussion of some
of the points raised in this paper.
(4)
*a too difficult question
Abney also posits that adjectivals premodified by DEG constituents have the status of APs which
function as the complements of DEG, and which combine with DEG to form a DEGP constituent
(in much the same way as D combines with NP to form a DP constituent). On the basis of these
assumptions, Abney concludes that sequences such as (3)(a) and (b) above have the respective
structures (5)(a) and (b) below (Here and elsewhere, we simplify structural representations by
omitting single-bar constituents not immediately relevant to the discussion at hand):
(5)(a)
(b)
[DP [D a] [AP [A difficult] [NP [N question]]]]
[DEGP [DEG too] [AP [A difficult] [DP [D a] [NP [N question]]]]]
Thus, under Abney's analysis the essential differences between the two uses of attributive
Adjectives would be that (i) prenominal Adjectives take NP complements, whereas predeterminer
Adjectives take DP complements, and (ii) AP has a further projection into DEGP it its
predeterminer use, but not in its prenominal use.
Although Abney's analysis provides an interesting account of the dual use of attributive
Adjectives, an additional principle is required in order to overcome problems which will
otherwise arise under the analysis. One such potential problem (relating to Abney's analysis of
prenominal Adjectives) concerns the assumption in (5)(a) that D subcategorises an AP
complement. If this is so, then we need to find some way of handling contrasts such as those in
(6) below:
(6)(a)
(b)
He caught [DP a [AP big [NP fish]]]
*He caught [DP a [AP big]]
Given that (on Abney's analysis) the Determiner a takes an AP complement in both structures, we
need to explain why (6)(a) is grammatical, but (6)(b) ungrammatical.
Abney's solution to this problem is to posit an Inheritance Principle which we might
characterise informally in the following terms (Abney does not attempt any formulation of the
principle):
(7)
INHERITANCE PRINCIPLE
A matrix phrase inherits the categorial features of the complement of its head, iff the
head f-selects the complement
The key to (7) lies in the distinction between f-selection (= functional selection, a relation
between functional modifiers and their complements), and l-selection (= lexical selection, a
relation between lexical predicates and their complements). Abney (1987: 54-5) points to two
main differences between lexical and functional heads: firstly, functional heads 'select a unique
complement' - i.e. they do not permit more than one complement (unlike lexical heads); and
secondly, functional heads 'do not describe a distinct object from that described by their
complement'. Given these criteria, Determiners like the are functional categories, firstly because
the permits only one complement (= NP), and secondly because tomatoes and the tomatoes both
describe objects (and so are NPs), whereas eat the tomatoes does not describe an object but rather
an action, and so is a VP.
Abney posits that the relation between an attributive Adjective and its nominal (NP or DP)
complement is one of f-selection, whereas the relation between a predicative (or postnominal)
Adjective and its complement is one of l-selection. One reason for assuming this (as Abney
himself notes, 1987: 326) is that it provides a straightforward account of why Adjectives which
(when used predicatively) take non-nominal (e.g. prepositional or clausal) complements cannot
take such complements in their attributive (prenominal or predeterminer) uses, as illustrated by
paradigms such as the following:
(8)(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
She is proud of her son
She is a proud woman
*She is a proud of her son woman
*She is a proud woman of her son
(9)(a)
She is so proud of her son
(b)
I have never met so proud a woman
(c) *I've never met so proud of her son a woman
(d) *I've never met so proud a woman of her son
In (8)(a), proud is used as a predicate (not as a modifier), and thus l-selects its PP complement of
her son: in consequence, the AP proud of her son does not inherit the PP-hood of its complement,
but remains an AP. In (8)(b), proud is used as a modifier rather than a predicate, and thus
f-selects its NP complement woman; in consequence, the AP proud woman inherits the NP-hood
of its complement woman. Because functional heads 'select a unique complement' (Abney 1987:
54), and because Adjectives always f-select an NP (or DP) complement, it follows that proud
when used attributively can only take a nominal complement like woman, and not also a
prepositional complement like of her son (hence the ungrammaticality of examples like (8)(c/d)).
Data like (9) can be accounted for in an analogous fashion. We might note in passing that Abney
also posits that the relation between DEG and its AP complement is likewise one of f-selection:
the more general idea underlying Abney's analysis would seem to be that predicates l-select their
complements, whereas modifiers f-select their complements.
Having clarified the assumptions which Abney makes in relation to the operation of the
Inheritance Principle, we can now turn to see how it would work in the case of structures such as
(5). In (5)(a) a difficult question, the Adjective difficult f-selects its NP complement question,
with the result that the overall AP difficult question inherits the NP-hood of its complement, so
satisfying the subcategorisation requirement for D to have an NP complement. In (5)(b), DEG
f-selects AP, and A likewise f-selects DP: in consequence, the AP difficult a question inherits the
DP-hood of its complement a question; in turn, the DEGP too difficult a question inherits the
(inherited) DP-hood of its complement difficult a question; the result is that the overall sequence
too difficult a question is correctly predicted to have the status (and distribution) of a typical DP.
It should be immediately obvious that Abney's Inheritance Principle provides a solution to the
problems posed by data such as (6) above. Given the assumption that prenominal Adjectives
f-select their NP complements, it follows from the INHERITANCE PRINCIPLE (7) that the AP
big fish will inherit the NP-hood of its complement fish, so satisfying the subcategorisation
requirement for DP to have an NP complement. By contrast, the Adjective big in (6)(b) has no
NP complement, so that the AP big cannot become an NP by inheritance, but rather remains an
AP – so leading to violation of the requirement for D to subcategorise an NP.
However, intriguing and imaginative though Abney's analysis of the syntax of attributive
adjectivals may be, I shall argue in the remainder of this paper that the analysis proves
problematic in a number of respects, both from a descriptive viewpoint, and from a theoretical
viewpoint. For example, one key descriptive claim which Abney makes is that predeterminer
adjectivals have the status of DEGP (and so can be premodified by a Degree expression), whereas
prenominal adjectivals have the status of AP (and so cannot be premodified by a Degree
expression): this claim is illustrated in (3) and (4) above. However, the claim that prenominal
adjectivals cannot take premodifying Degree expressions like too/so/as etc. is clearly falsified by
examples such as the following (the bracketed nominal in (10)(g) is ironically taken from Abney
1987: 74):
(10)(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
It was [an all too familiar situation]
It is [a much too important occasion]
He chose [a far too expensive present]
I've never had [a quite so unpleasant experience]
There was [an ever so disappointing attendance]
I had to face [a just as difficult situation] myself
The enemy mounted [a nearly as devastating attack]
Given Abney's assumptions, a DP such as that bracketed in (10)(a) would be analysed as having
the skeletal structure indicated in (11) below:
(11)
[DP [D an] [DEGP all [DEG too] [AP [A familiar] [NP [N situation]]]]]
The crucial point about (11) is that although the Adjective familiar is in prenominal position here,
the overall sequence [all too familiar situation] clearly has the status of a DEGP, headed by the
DEG too; examples such as (10) thus falsify Abney's claim that prenominal adjectives are always
contained within AP, never within DEGP. On the contrary, the obvious conclusion which data
such as (10) lead us to is that in both their prenominal and predeterminer uses, Adjectives are
projectable into DEGP. In more concrete terms, this would mean that the analysis of prenominal
Adjectives in (5)(a) would have to be modified in such a way as to allow for AP to be contained
within DEGP. Clearly, if prenominal and predeterminer Adjectives are both analysed as
projectable into DEGP, this results in a far more symmetrical analysis of attributive Adjectives.
Moreover, it also enables us to posit that there is symmetry between attributive adjectivals on the
one hand, and postnominal and predicative adjectivals on the other, since in all of their uses
Adjectives will permit premodifying degree expressions, as illustrated in (12) below:
(12)(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
I have never known a patient make quite so rapid a recovery
I have never known a patient make a quite so rapid recovery
I have never known a patient make a recovery quite so rapid
I have never known a patient's recovery to be quite so rapid
Given Abney's assumption that so is a DEG word, it is apparent that that all four italicised
sequences would (on his analysis) have the status of DEGP constituents. This would mean that in
all their major uses, adjectival expressions are always projectable into DEGP, and would clearly
provide a more unitary account of the syntax of adjectivals. What remains to be accounted for
under our revised analysis, however, is why examples like (10) become marginal or
ungrammatical without a premodifier like all/much/far/quite/ever/just/nearly for the Degree
word.
Of course, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that the descriptive modification proposed here (to
the effect that all Adjectives in all uses are projectable into DEGP) is simply a generalisation of
Abney's analysis, and in no sense undermines his essential claim that attributive Adjectives are
heads which f-select a following NP or DP complement (with the overall AP inheriting the
categorial status of its complement). However, a much more serious descriptive problem for
Abney's analysis is posed by degree-modified adjectivals in which the degree expression follows
the adjective - i.e. by structures such as those bracketed in the following examples:
(13)(a)
(b)
You have [a difficult enough life] as it is
You have [difficult enough a life] as it is
If enough here is treated (like too etc.) as a DEG word which f-selects an AP complement, then I
can see no plausible way of analysing the NP life in (13)(a) or the DP a life in (13)(b) as the
complement of the head Adjective difficult: any such analysis would seemingly require us to
posit that the bracketed nominals in (13)(a) and (b) have the respective (much simplified)
structures indicated in (14)(a) and (b) below:
(14)(a)
(b)
[DP a [DEGP [AP difficult enough DEGP] life AP] DP]
[DEGP [AP difficult enough DEGP] a life AP]
However, (14)(a) and (b) are improper bracketings (or, in tree terms, structures with 'crossing
branches'), and thus ruled out as ill-formed by principles of Universal Grammar. We can pose the
problem in rather different terms by observing that the sequences [difficult...(a) life] are analysed
as AP constituents, and yet are discontinuous (and hence, on standard assumptions, cannot be
constituents). Examples such as (13) seem to me to deal a descriptive death-blow to Abney's
analysis of attributive adjectivals.
An additional descriptive problem posed by Abney's analysis is that of overgeneration. In
particular, I see no obvious mechanism by which Abney can generate nominals like that
bracketed in (15)(a) below, while blocking those like that in (15)(b):
(15)(a)
(b)
It was [too difficult a question]
*It was [difficult a question]
Under Abney's analysis, the bracketed nominals in (15)(a) and (b) would have the respective
structures indicated in (16)(a) and (b) below:
(16)(a)
(b)
[DEGP [DEG too] [AP [A difficult] [DP [D a] [NP [N question]]]]]
[AP [A difficult] [DP [D a] [NP [N question]]]]
What Abney needs to be able to say is that only degree-modified Adjectives select DP
complements. However, selection is a purely local relation of sisterhood (in that it is a relation
between a head and a sister complement contained within the minimal projection of the head):
thus, we cannot say that a head Adjective f-selects a DP complement only if the AP headed by
the Adjective is itself the (f-selected) complement of a DEG word like too, since this violates the
relevant locality condition on selection (by making reference to constituents contained outside the
minimal projection of the head, i.e. constituents which are not sisters of the head). In short, I can
see no principled mechanism which will license structures such as (16)(a) while blocking those
such as (16)(b) (Of course, unprincipled mechanisms could be devised, e.g. to the effect that
Adjectives carry an arbitrary subcategorial feature [±ZONK], such that DEG words select an AP
headed by a [+ZONK] Adjective, and only [+ZONK] Adjectives select a DP complement: this
kind of mechanism is unprincipled in that it involves the postulation of otherwise unmotivated
subcategorial features, and involves implicit violation of the putatively universal locality
condition on selection).
From a theoretical point of view, the most interesting aspect of Abney's analysis is undoubtedly
the INHERITANCE PRINCIPLE (7). This principle would seem to have a number of interesting
descriptive spin-offs. For example, it would seem to provide a natural account of the possibility
of stacking attributive Adjectives in front of an NP complement, e.g. in structures such as that
bracketed in (17) below:
(17)
a tall dark handsome stranger
Thus, if an attributive Adjective like handsome f-selects an NP complement like stranger, then
the overall AP handsome stranger will inherit the NP-hood of its complement stranger, so that
the sequence handsome stranger will become an NP by inheritance. But the resulting NP can
then by f-selected by another head Adjective like dark, so resulting in the AP dark handsome
stranger: this AP in turn becomes an NP by inheritance from its NP complement handsome
stranger. The resultant NP dark handsome stranger can in turn serve as the f-selected
complement of another attributive Adjective like tall, so resulting in the AP tall dark handsome
stranger, which likewise becomes and NP by inheritance...and so on and so forth. Of course, for
this analysis to work, we have to allow selection to be sensitive to the inherited categorial status
of constituents.
We might go further and argue that the INHERITANCE PRINCIPLE also provides a natural
account of structures such as the following, in which a possessive nominal is 'sandwiched'
between two attributive Adjectives:
(18)
She bought two green fisherman's chunky sweaters
(We are concerned here only with the most natural interpretation of this structure, on which
green modifies sweaters and not fisherman.) Let us assume (e.g. following Fukui 1986) that 's is
a head D constituent which f-selects an NP complement. The expression chunky sweaters is an
AP which becomes an NP by inheritance from its complement sweaters, and so satisfies the
requirement that 's f-selects an NP complement. In consequence of the INHERITANCE
PRINCIPLE (7), the DP fisherman's chunky sweaters will become an NP by inheritance from its
complement chunky sweaters. But since the expression fisherman's chunky sweaters is an NP by
inheritance, it can serve as the f-selected complement of the Adjective green; the overall AP
green fisherman's chunky sweaters becomes an NP by inheritance, and can in turn serve as the
f-selected complement of the numeral two, with the overall numeral phrase two green fisherman's
chunky sweaters inheriting the NP-hood of its complement. Thus, the possibility of 'sandwiching'
a possessive nominal in between two attributive Adjectives seems to be accounted for in a
natural fashion under the analysis suggested here.
One interesting consequence of the inheritance analysis is that simple DPs such as that in (19)
below:
(19)
[DP [D those] [NP pictures of Mary]]
will become NPs by inheritance: given that Determiners f-select their complements, it follows
from (7) that they will inherit the NP-hood of their complements, and thus become NPs by
inheritance. It is perhaps somewhat ironic that what is widely known as the 'DP analysis' of
nominals is actually (because of inheritance) an NP analysis.
Although the inheritance principle seems at first sight to offer a number of apparent descriptive
gains, closer reflection shows that it proves problematic in a number of respects. For one thing,
the inheritance analysis results in nominal structures containing prenominal Determiners being
assigned a different categorial status from those containing pronominal Determiners, as we can
illustrate in terms of the bracketed structures in (20) below (It should be noted that Abney argues
that personal pronouns have the status of pronominal Determiners):
(20)(a)
(b)
He chose [DP [D this] [NP one]]
He chose [DP [D it]]
Thus, the DP this one in (20)(a) will inherit the NP-hood of its f-selected complement one, so that
the overall sequence this one will become an NP by inheritance. However, the pronominal DP it
in (20)(b) has no NP complement (nor does it seem plausible to posit a null NP complement,
given that it is never used prenominally), and thus has the status of DP. The result is that this one
has the (inherited) status of NP, whereas it has the status of DP. Thus, nominals headed by a
prenominal D are assigned a different status from those headed by a pronominal D; and yet, the
two sets of nominals have the same distribution and would accordingly seem to have the same
categorial status.
The more general nature of the problem posed by structures like (20) is that under the
inheritance analysis, structures which have the same external distribution (and would thus
conventionally be assumed to have the same categorial status) are assigned to different
categories. Another instance of the same problem arises in relation to the two different gerund
constructions italicised in (21) below:
(21)(a)
(b)
[The enemy's constant bombing of the city] frightened us
[The enemy's constantly bombing the city] frightened us
The gerund bombing appears to be nominal in (21)(a) (in that it is premodified by the Adjective
constant, and followed by the Preposition of), but verbal in (21)(b) (in that it is premodified by
the Adverb constantly, and followed by a 'direct object' complement). Fassi-Fehri (1988) suggests
(in relation to parallel Arabic examples) that gerunds like those in (21) are DPs headed by a
genitive D which takes an NP complement in the case of nominal gerunds, and a VP complement
in the case of verbal gerunds. If this is so, then the two types of gerund would have simplified
structures along the lines of those indicated in (22) below (where we follow Fukui (1986) in
assuming that 's is a head genitive Determiner):
(22)(a)
(b)
[DP the enemy [D 's] [NP [N bombing] of the city]]
[DP the enemy [D 's] [VP [V bombing] the city]]
Given these assumptions, the INHERITANCE PRINCIPLE predicts that gerund DPs will inherit
the categorial status of their complements, so that nominal gerunds like (22)(a) will become NPs
by inheritance, whereas verbal gerunds like (22)(b) will become VPs by inheritance. The obvious
problem posed by this claim is that the two types of gerund (nominal and verbal) have the same
external distribution (as Abney 1987 argues in detail), in that both occur in typically nominal
(case-marked) positions, e.g. as the complement of by in 'I was disturbed by...'. The conventional
assumption would therefore be that (because they have the same external distribution) the two
types of gerund have the same categorial status – and yet this is not true under the inheritance
analysis.
The assumption that a DP of the form [D+NP] becomes an NP by inheritance also proves
problematic for any attempt to provide a purely syntactic account of contrasts such as the
following:
(23)(a)
(b)
I like [the blue dress]
*I like [blue the dress]
If (following Abney) we take the as a head Determiner here, then (23)(a) would have the
simplified structure (24) below:
(24)
[DP [D the] [AP [A blue] [NP [N dress]]]]
The AP blue dress would inherit the NP-hood of its complement dress, so satisfying the
requirement for the Determiner the to have an NP complement. Thus, we might say that the
inheritance analysis accounts for the well-formedness of nominals like that bracketed in (23)(a).
What it does not account for, however, is why the bracketed nominal in (23)(b) is ungrammatical:
given familiar assumptions, this would be taken to have the structure (25) below:
(25)
[AP [A blue] [DP [D the] [NP [N dress]]]]
Under the inheritance analysis, we should expect DP to inherit the NP-hood of its complement
dress, and AP to inherit the (inherited) NP-hood of its complement the dress: thus, there would
be every reason to expect that (25) should be a well formed NP; the fact that it is not casts serious
doubt on the viability of the inheritance analysis.
Moreover, the INHERITANCE PRINCIPLE (7) makes the (false) prediction that Determiners
can be recursively stacked. For, given this principle, a DP headed by a D with an NP
complement would inherit the categorial status of its complement, and thus become an NP: but
this in turn would make the false prediction that such a DP (by virtue of becoming an NP by
inheritance) could function as the complement of another D constituent, so allowing recursive
stacking of Determiners; however, stacked Determiner structures are generally ungrammatical in
English, as the ill-formedness of structures such as the following illustrates:
(26)(a)
(b)
(c)
*a/the/this/that my car
*his every/this/which hat
*which every student?
The ill-formedness of such structures does not appear to be semantic in nature, since the
counterpart of (a) is grammatical in Italian, of (b) in Hungarian, and of (c) in Kikongo. Under a
conventional analysis, a structure such as a my car is ungrammatical in English because my car is
a DP, and a subcategorises an NP (not a DP) complement. However, under the inheritance
analysis, the DP my car would become an NP by inheritance from its NP complement car, and
thus be eligible to occur as the complement of a Determiner such as a/the/this/that, etc. We see,
then, that the inheritance analysis wrongly predicts that Determiners can freely be 'stacked' in
English. It should be apparent that (for analogous reasons) it also wrongly predicts that DEG
words can be recursively stacked in front of APs. More generally still, it predicts that all
modifiers (i.e. heads which f-select their complements) can be recursively stacked.
As a consequence of this, the inheritance analysis further predicts that not only prenominal
Adjectives but also predeterminer Adjectives can be recursively stacked. We can illustrate this in
terms of our earlier structure (5)(b) above, repeated in skeletal form as (27) below:
(27)
[DEGP too [AP difficult [DP a [NP question]]]]
The essence of Abney's analysis of predeterminer Adjectives is that they f-select a DP
complement; recall that in order to account for the fact that the overall DEGP too difficult a
question in (27) has the distribution of a DP, Abney has to posit that the AP difficult a question
inherits the DP-hood of its complement a question, and that the DEGP too difficult a question
likewise inherits the (inherited) DP-hood of its complement difficult a question. But this means
that we should expect that the resulting DP too difficult a question will then itself be able to serve
as the complement of another predeterminer Adjective: and yet, it is not generally possible to
have more than one expression in predeterminer position in such structures, as examples such as
the following illustrate:
(28)(a) I have never heard [such a quite so ridiculous allegation]
(b) *I have never heard [quite so ridiculous such an allegation]
(c) *I have never heard [such quite so ridiculous an allegation]
Abney's analysis would wrongly predict that examples such as (28)(b) and (c) should be
grammatical; clearly, their ill-formedness cannot be ascribed to semantic constraints, given the
well-formedness of (28)(a). More generally, Abney's analysis is unable to capture the crucial
generalisation that only one adjectival premodifier (of the relevant type) is permitted in
predeterminer position in English.
It might of course be objected that the problems posed by structures such as (23-28) are
artefacts of the assumption that the selection properties of heads can be satisfied by the inherited
categorial status of complements. If we were to reject this assumption, and argue instead that
selection is sensitive to the intrinsic (and not inherited) categorial features of complements, we
can resolve all the problems posed by such structures in a straightforward fashion. Thus, we
might argue that an expression like my car has the intrinsic categorial status of a DP (though the
inherited status of an NP), and it is its intrinsic DP status which determines that it cannot be used
as the complement of a Determiner like a/the which f-selects an NP complement. However, the
problem with this 'solution' is that there are many cases in which it is crucial for Abney that
selection be sensitive to the inherited categorial status of complements, and not their intrinsic
categorial properties. For example, this assumption is crucial to accounting for data such as (6),
(17) and (18) above. We thus reach the paradoxical conclusion that in some structures selection
is sensitive to the intrinsic categorial features of complements, whereas in others it is sensitive to
their inherited categorial features.
In this situation, it might seem that the obvious proposal to make is that selection can be
sensitive to either intrinsic or inherited properties of complements. More specifically, we might
posit that if a given head category f-selects a complement of type XP, then this condition is
satisfied either if the complement is an XP intrinsically, or if it is an XP by inheritance.
However, this solution would be unworkable, since it would lead to massive overgeneration. For
example, if an Adjective like difficult subcategorises an NP complement, then the 'dual status'
solution would predict that difficult can have as its complement either an intrinsic NP like
problems, or an expression which becomes an NP by inheritance - e.g. an NP such as too complex
a problem: however this latter prediction is false, as we see from the ungrammaticality of
*difficult too complex a problem. Thus, the overall situation is that in some contexts it is the
intrinsic not the inherited categorial status of a complement which 'counts' for selection purposes,
while in other contexts it is the inherited and not the intrinsic status which 'counts'. Unless we
have a principled way of determining in which contexts intrinsic properties 'count' and in which
contexts inherited properties 'count', the whole analysis will massively overgenerate.
Thus far, we have concentrated on the descriptive problems which the INHERITANCE
PRINCIPLE poses. However, it might be argued that the principle also runs into a number of
theoretical problems, in that it falls foul of rather more established principles of Universal
Grammar. One such principle which the Inheritance Principle would appear to violate is the
Endocentricity Principle, a (weak) version of which is outlined informally in (29) below:
(29)
ENDOCENTRICITY PRINCIPLE
All Phrases are endocentric (i.e. properly headed) constructions.
To see how the inheritance analysis leads to violation of the endocentricity requirement, consider
Abney's analysis of a structure such as that bracketed in (30)(a) below (to which he would assign
the structure (30)(b)):
(30)(a)
(b)
The black cars show the dirt more than [the white cars]
[DP [D the] [AP [A white] [NP [N cars]]]]
Given the Inheritance Principle (7), the AP white cars will inherit the NP-hood of its
complement cars. However, given the Endocentricity Principle, we should expect this to entail
that the head white will consequently take on the status of a Noun (since the Endocentricity
Principle requires an NP to be headed by a nominal constituent). However, although white can
function as a Noun in some uses (and then behaves morphologically like a Noun in taking the
Noun plural inflection +s) – cf. e.g.
(31)
The blacks mistrust the whites
it clearly has the morphosyntactic status of an Adjective and not a Noun in structures such as
(30)(b) – as we see from the fact that it can take the adjectival comparative inflection +er, but not
the Noun plural inflection +s: cf.
(32)(a)
(b)
whiter cars
*whites cars
Thus, morphological facts require us to posit that white has the status of an Adjective in its
prenominal use; but given Abney's claim that the overall structure white cars has the status of an
NP, the resulting structure will be as in (33) below:
(33)
[DP [D the] [NP [A white] [NP [N cars]]]]
However, a structure such as (33) leads to an obvious violation of the Endocentricity Principle if
we posit that the sequence white cars is an NP headed by the A white. Thus, the Inheritance
Principle is in obvious conflict with the Endocentricity Principle, and hence the adequacy of
Abney's analysis must be called into question on theory-internal grounds. Of course, precisely
parallel problems will arise if the DP node in (33) becomes an NP by inheritance, since the
resulting NP will then be headed by a D (so violating the endocentricity requirement).
There is, however, one way in which we might seek to circumvent the problems posed by
structures like (33): namely, we might argue that the NP white cars is indeed an endocentric
structure, and that its head is the NP cars. However, this solution would run into problems with a
different principle, which we shall refer to as the Projectability Principle, viz.
(34)
PROJECTABILITY PRINCIPLE
All word-level categories are projectable into corresponding phrasal categories (e.g. N
into NP, A into AP, D into DP, C into CP, I into IP, etc.)
The fact that the Adjective white in (33) has no phrasal projection into AP leads to an apparent
violation of the Projectability Principle (34). The same will be true of the head D in (33), if its
containing DP becomes an NP by inheritance.
A further principle of Universal Grammar which would seem to be violated by the Inheritance
Principle is the Projection Principle, which is given the following informal characterisation by
Chomsky:
(35)
PROJECTION PRINCIPLE
'The lexical properties of each lexical item must be preserved at every level of
representation' (Chomsky Language and Problems of Knowledge, 1988a: 75)
We can illustrate this violation in terms of our earlier structure (5)(b) above, [too difficult a
question]. Since too is a DEG word, its lexical entry (under Abney's analysis) specifies that it
subcategorises an AP complement; and in (5)(b) above, we see that too has as its complement the
AP [difficult a question]. However, by operation of the Inheritance Principle, this AP inherits the
status of its DP complement a question, and thus becomes a DP. But this means that too no
longer takes an AP complement, but rather has a DP complement. Consequently, the lexical
requirement for DEG to have an AP complement is no longer met, so leading to a seeming
violation of the Projection Principle.
The only apparent way of overcoming these problems of categorial identity would seem to be to
allow constituents have a dual categorial status, so that complements would retain their intrinsic
categorial specification in addition to their inherited specification. Under this proposal, an
expression such as tall girls would have the dual status of an AP{NP}, i.e. an AP which becomes
an NP by inheritance. This would mean that the conventional single-valued category
specifications of Government and Binding Theory/GB would have to be replaced by two-valued
specifications comprising both intrinsic and inherited categorial features. It goes without saying
that this would be a radical departure from current GB practice. Nor would this solution resolve
the problem (alluded to earlier) of how we 'know' when it is intrinsic categorial properties which
are crucial for selection, and when it is inherited properties.
At this point, having pinpointed a number of descriptive and theoretical problems posed by
Abney's inheritance analysis of attributive Adjectives, we shall outline an alternative account of
the syntax of adnominal adjectives which provides a unitary account of their use in
predeterminer, prenominal, and postnominal positions. We shall attempt to formulate the analysis
within the general functional framework which Abney assumes, and to preserve as many of the
assumptions underlying Abney's analysis as possible (hence e.g. we shall continue to assume that
adjectival expressions have the status of DEGP constituents). The analysis we shall propose here
is one in which DEGPs are base-generated as NP-adjuncts (and thus serve to expand NP into
NP). We shall assume that they can be base-generated to the left or right of the NPs which they
modify – in much the same way as a VP-adjunct like completely can be generated to the left or
right of VP, as we see from examples such as the following:
(36)(a)
The bombs may completely [VP destroy the city]
(b)
The bombs may [VP destroy the city] completely
Completely is generally classed as a VP adverbial (cf. e.g. Jackendoff 1972); within the more
recent work of Pollock (1988) and Chomsky (1988b), VP adverbials are analysed as adjuncts to
VP. Since Adverbs are a subclass of Adjectives (for the reasons given in Radford 1988), then if
Adverbs are VP-Adjuncts, it would seem reasonable to posit that adnominal Adjectives are NPAdjuncts (so leading to parallelism in structure between a VP like completely destroy the city,
and a NP such as complete destruction of the city).
The assumption that adnominal Adjectives are NP-Adjuncts provides a straightforward account
of alternations such as the following:
(37)(a)
(b)
I have never seen [a car quite so impressive]
I have never seen [a quite so impressive car]
Under the adjunct analysis proposed here, the bracketed DPs in (37)(a) and (b) would be assigned
the respective (skeletal) structures indicated in (38)(a) and (b) below:
(38)(a)
[DP a [NP [NP car] [DEGP quite so impressive]]]
(b)
[DP a [NP [DEGP quite so impressive] [NP car]]]
Given that adjunction is a recursive operation, the adjunct analysis would obviously account for
the fact that both prenominal and postnominal Adjectives can be recursively stacked, as we see
from structures like (17) above and (39) below:
(39)(a)
(b)
(c)
We must choose the best person [available] [suitable for the post]
He is the one person [present] [capable of doing it]
I've never had a car [as big] [as economical]
What remains to be accounted for under the adjunct analysis is how we derive structures
involving predeterminer Adjectives, such as that bracketed in (40) below:
(40)
I have never seen [quite so impressive a car]
What we shall suggest here is that structures like (40) are derived by moving the italicised DEGP
out of its underlying position as an adjunct to NP into a superficial position as the specifier of a
DP headed by the Determiner a. The kind of movement operation involved can be represented in
schematic terms as in (41) below:
(41) [DP
[D' [D a] [NP [DEGP quite so impressive] [NP car]]]]
-----------------------------------------
Since the operation affects (inter alia) phrases containing words like such/so, we might refer to it
as S-MOVEMENT. Such an S-MOVEMENT operation would show numerous parallels with the
operation of WH MOVEMENT. For one thing, the two movement operations affect a similar
range of constituents, including wh-phrases and degree-phrases: cf. e.g.
(42)(a)
(b)
(43)(a)
(b)
[CP How remarkable [C did] [IP the story seem ---]]?
[DP How remarkable [D a] [NP --- story]]!
[CP So remarkable] [C did] [IP the story seem ---]] that it defied credulity
It was [DP so remarkable [D a] [NP --- story]] that it defied credulity
(The elongated dash indicates the position in which the phrase in question is assumed to originate
prior to movement into the italicised position.) In both cases, the movement applies only to APs
which are premodified by an appropriate operator (e.g. a wh-operator such as how, or a degreeoperator such as so). Furthermore, there are obvious parallels in the landing-sites for the moved
constituents: in both cases, movement is into the specifier position of a functional category; in
both cases, movement is only licensed when the head functional category position is filled by a
specific type of item – viz. by a (preposed) Auxiliary like did in the head C position of CP in the
case of direct questions (or by a null C in the case of indirect questions), and by the indefinite
article a in the case of DP; and in both cases, only a single operator phrase can be preposed
(given that DP and CP have only a single specifier position). The apparent parallels between the
two different types of movement lend empirical support to the suggestion made in Szabolsci
(1987) and Horrocks (1988) that DP and CP are systematically interrelated.
Although we lack the space to mount a detailed defense of our alternative analysis of attributive
Adjectives as NP-adjuncts which can undergo movement into the DP-specifier position, suffice
it to remark that the proposed analysis provides a straightforward account for data such as (1),
(2), (3), (6), (10), (12), (13), (15), and (17) above. Moreover, by eliminating the INHERITANCE
PRINCIPLE, our analysis overcomes the problems which beset the principle (discussed in
relation to (20-35) above). In addition, the proposed analysis would seem to offer other potential
descriptive advantages. There are a number of facts which seem to suggest that adnominal
DEG+Adjective sequences form a constituent independent of the following nominal (as would be
the case under our analysis, but not under Abney's). Among these are data such as the following:
(44)(a)
(b)
I have never met a [quite so obnoxious or quite so arrogant] individual
I have never met [quite so obnoxious or quite so arrogant] an individual
(45)(a)
(b)
He showed [a larger than average capacity for ineptitude]
Linguists are showing [a greater than ever fascination for functional fantasies]
(46)(a)
(b)
?So delicate was it a situation that the Prime Minister had to resign
?How delicate was it a situation?
We shall not discuss the significance of these facts here (since this should be largely selfevident): suffice it to remark that the italicised sequences would be constituents under our
proposed analysis, but not under Abney's; in other words, our analysis predicts that examples like
(44-46) are grammatical, whereas Abney's predicts that they are ungrammatical.
It would of course be fatuous to claim that our analysis of attributives adjectives as
NP-adjuncts/DP-specifiers solves all the problems associated with adnominal adjectivals.
Residual problems which remain under our analysis include the problem of accounting for why
structures like (4) are ungrammatical when those like (10) are grammatical; since this is
problematic under any analysis (including Abney's), I shall have no more to say about it here. A
second problem is accounting for why structures like (8/9)(c/d) are ungrammatical; the answer
here may lie in some version of Williams' (1982) HEAD FINAL FILTER. A third problem
posed by our analysis is accounting for how it is possible (in structures like (18) above) for a
'descriptive' possessive phrase to be positioned after an attributive Adjective. The 'standard' GB
analysis of possessive structures as DPs headed by a genitive Determiner which takes a DP as its
specifier and an NP as its complement seems totally inappropriate here. Firstly, the status of
'descriptive' [possessive+nominal] structures seems to be that of NP (not DP), so that an
expression such as fisherman's sweaters is an NP which can be premodified by an attributive
Adjective, and/or a genitive possessive, as in the president's chunky fisherman's sweaters.
Secondly, the supposed 'specifier' in the case of descriptive possessive 's seems to be a
Determiner-less NP rather than a DP, since determinate expressions are not permitted - cf. *a
tactless the mayor's remark. Thus, 'descriptive' possessive 's seems to be contained within an NP,
and to take an NP 'complement' and an NP 'specifier' (whereas 'genitive' possessive 's is contained
within a DP, and takes a DP specifier and an NP complement). The exact status of 'descriptive’ 's
is something of a mystery to me; it does not seem to be an adjectivalising suffix, since it does not
permit the kind of adverbial premodifiers which adjectives formed from nominals typically allow
(cf. 'a characteristically childlike expression', but not *'a characteristically child's expression'); it
does not seem to be an N, in that it cannot be used pronominally (cf. *'He's wearing a chunky
fisherman's'). In the sacred academic tradition of perpetuating problems, I shall leave this
question as a 'topic for future research'!
References
Abney, S.P. (1987) The English Noun Phrase in Its Sentential Aspect, unpublished PhD diss.,
MIT
Chomsky, N. (1988a) Language and Problems of Knowledge, MIT press
Chomsky, N. (1988b) 'Some Notes on Economy of Derivation and Representation', ms., MIT
Fassi-Fehri, A. (1988) 'Generalised IP Structure, Case, and VS Word Order', in Fassi-Fehri et al.,
189-221
Fassi-Fehri, A. et al. (1988) (eds) Proceedings of the First International Conference of the
Linguistic Society of Morocco, Editions OKAD, Rabat
Fukui, N. (1986) A Theory of Category Projection and its Applications, unpublished PhD diss,
MIT
Horrocks, G. (1988) 'Movement Rules Within "Noun Phrases"', in Fassi-Fehri et al., 97-105
Jackendoff, R.S. (1972) Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, MIT press
Pollock, J.-Y. (1988) 'Verb Movement, UG, and the Structure of IP', ms., Université de Haute
Bretagne, Rennes
Radford, A. (1988) Transformational Grammar, CUP
Scabolsci, A. (1987) 'Functional Categories in the Noun Phrase', in I. Kenesei (ed.) Approaches
to Hungarian (vol. 2), JATE, Szeged, pp. 167-189
Williams, E. (1982) 'Another Argument that Passive is Transformational', Linguistic Inquiry
13: 160-163