The Noun Phrase
A noun phrase may consist of just a single noun or pronoun:
(1) She loves diamonds.
Or it may be a very complex structure with a whole string of constituents, including
subordinate clauses and further phrases dependent on the main noun (the head as it is
called):
(2) She loves those huge sparkling diamonds set in the gold earrings you gave her when
you decided to divorce her last year in Reno.
We'll come back to this sentence and analyse it later. Let's start with something simple:
(3) the pig
And give it some literary appeal:
(4) the big fat white pig
The undeniable poetic quality of the phrase stems from the three well-chosen adjectives,
which, together with the article, make up the premodification. If we expand the phrase
into
(5) the big fat white pig rolling in the mud
we now have a postmodification as well:
premodification
head
postmodification
↓
↓
↓
{the big fat white}
pig
{rolling in the mud}
Elements of premodification
The first element of premodification here is the definite article, which belongs to a
category called determiners. These are "article words". Their semantic function is that of
identification. They locate the head noun in a particular field of reference. Determiners
are:
the articles
the, a/an, zero article
demonstratives
this, that
possessives
my, your, our, her
s-genetives
quantifiers
numerals
Susan's, the woman's
much, many, (a) few, (a) little, some, all, each, every, no
two, twenty-five
The use of determiners is basically a semantic problem. But there are certain systematic
relations involved which have a syntactic character. This concerns the compatibility of
particular types of determiners with particular types of noun. And this in turn depends
upon morphological components in the field of singular-plural relations. So here again,
as is so often the case, we see that syntax is greatly affected by semantics and
morphology. To give just three illustrations: in English you can't say *much people or *an
information or *three news.
We don't want to go into all the ins and outs of determiner usage here. What we're
concerned with in this seminar are the main points about determiners, which we can
mention fairly briefly.
First, though, we have to clarify a basic semantic-morphological feature of nouns with
regard to singular-plural relations:
Count and non-count nouns
(a) Most nouns can appear in the singular and plural: a/one pig; two pigs
These are called count or countable nouns.
(b) A large group of nouns, however, are "mass" nouns: air, earth, sand, water, furniture,
crockery
A lot of abstract nouns such as love, anger, information, etc. also belong to this
category. They do not have a singular or a plural form, as they do not refer to separate
entities. You can't talk about "one" or "two" or "twenty-four" of them. We therefore call
them non-count or uncountable nouns. As they govern a singular verb, however, they are
sometimes called singular non-count nouns, to distinguish them from those in (c).
Also in this group are a number of words with a plural form but a "mass" meaning, such
as news, billiards, phonetics, mathematics.
(c) Plural non-count nouns have a plural form and govern a plural verb. Many of them
actually refer to single entities rather than a "mass": scissors, shears, pliers, trousers,
shorts, swimming-trunks, scales, glasses, spectacles, compasses, minutes, quarters,
contents
Others have mass meaning: riches, thanks, clothes, goods, surroundings, remains,
outskirts, arms
It should be noted that many nouns can be used in both count and non-count forms,
depending on their meanings.
The count or non-count character of a noun is important in that it affects the choice of
determiner. Indefinite articles (and of course the numeral one) are restricted to singular
count nouns, and the zero article to singular non-count and plural nouns. All numerals
apart from one are restricted to plural count nouns. The demonstratives have special
forms for plural nouns (these/those). Possessives and s-genetives are not restricted at
all, but quantifiers are, for example: some, any and enough to plural and non-count
nouns, many and (a) few to plural nouns, much and (a) little to singular non-count nouns,
each and every to singular count nouns; both and neither are confined to "pair
relations", but both has count-plural reference and neither count-singular reference.
Categorisation of nouns into count and non-count is therefore important because of
syntactic compatibility with determiners. A further point in connection with language
learning is that the countability features of nouns, although largely based on "natural
semantics", do not necessarily correspond entirely across different languages. News
and information, for instance, are singular non-count in English, but count in many other
languages, such as French and German. And this, of course, can be a source of error.
General points on determiners
Determiners, as we have seen, are not a single word-class. Several different parts of
speech can fill the role of determiners. The term determiner therefore refers to a kind of
function - not at clause-level, but at phrase-level. This applies also to general concepts
like premodification and postmodification. The determiner is a functional slot within the
larger phrase-function of premodification. The determiner is typically (though not always)
the first element of premodification and precedes other premodifying elements such as
adjectives, nouns, gerunds and participles. These are "framed", so to speak, by the
determiner and the head, as in (4) above:
(4) the big fat white pig
Determiners can only occur once in a single noun phrase. Two determiners cannot be
combined:
(7) *the his white pig
However, some words that are usually determiners can alternatively appear as
adjectives, e.g. certain quantifiers and numerals:
(8) the many white pigs; his thirty-seven white pigs
The quantifiers all and both can precede other determiners:
(9) all the pigs
Used in this way they are called pre-determiners. In this function they can also be
combined with the preposition of:
(10) all/both of the pigs
Only all, both and half can directly precede determiners, as in (9). But the of-construction
is also possible with other quantifiers, including numerals:
(11) each/many/ten of the pigs
Here too the unit "quantifier + of" is known as a pre-determiner. Semantically these are
partitive expressions, i.e. they refer to parts of a whole entity or group of entities.
Fractions and percentages are also common partitive expressions:
(12) three-fifths/60 % of the pigs
And in addition there are many nouns used in this kind of construction to denote
quantities of objects or substances:
(13) a pint of milk; a ton of sand; two pounds of beef; a drop of wine; a slice of bread; a
bar of chocolate
All such partitive expressions with of can be regarded as pre-determiners. (It may be
objected that there is no determiner present in the examples in (13), but actually there is:
the "zero article")
Nouns referring to containers of various kinds are also common in partitive
constructions:
(14) a glass of beer; a jar of jam; a pot of tea; a jug of water
And this poses an interesting syntactic question, relevant also to the examples in (13): is
the second noun the head noun? Or is the head noun really the first one? If we say that
in the phrase a pot of tea the unit a pot of is a partitive expression, then the head noun is
tea, and it is premodified by a pot of (which, therefore, is a pre-determiner). But we could
also say that the head noun is in fact pot: in this case we would have no premodification
(and therefore no pre-determiner), but an of-phrase as a postmodifier instead. Basically
this is a semantic issue dependent on the context of utterance. If someone orders a pot
of tea in a restaurant, then clearly they mean, first and foremost, tea. If an artist paints a
pot of tea, then the main thing in mind is likely to be the object referred to by the noun
pot. In other words, it is the semantic prominence given to one or the other of the nouns
which decides the syntactic structure.
So far we've talked about determiners and pre-determiners. What about the rest of the
premodification? This, as we said, is "framed" by the determiner and the head, and
typically consists of adjectives such as big, fat, and white as in example (4) above. But
nouns can also premodify in this way:
(15) the bus stop; the kitchen door
Two nouns together like this are often regarded as one compound noun. The semantic
relationship between the premodifying noun and the head varies. In bus stop the
premodifier gives the purpose of the head-referent; with kitchen door it is a locative and
genetive relation. Another common type is where the premodifier is a proper noun (i.e. a
name):
(16) Victoria Station; Leicester Square; Regent Street; Oxford Circus
A significant point here is the fact that such nouns in English have no article before
them. Another common type of compound noun has a gerund premodifying the head:
(17) an ironing board; a walking stick
The semantic relationship is one of purpose: a board for ironing, a stick for walking with.
On the other hand the head may itself be a gerund (referring to an activity), with an
ordinary noun premodifying it and specifying it more closely:
(18) wind-surfing; water-skiing; hang-gliding
At least hyphens are usual with this type of compound. But many are written as one
word: sightseeing, sunbathing, etc. There are many other kinds of compounds written as
single words: seaside, saucepan, bedroom, raincoat, etc.
Participles are another kind of premodifier:
(19) a moving object; a used car
There are several points to note here. Firstly, it is important to distinguish between a
premodifying present participle, as in (19) and a gerund, as in (17). The meaning is
entirely different. The participle can be paraphrased by a relative clause:
(20) a moving object = an object which is moving
But a walking stick is not of course a stick which is walking. Premodifying gerunds and
present participles are also pronounced with different stress. With a gerund only the
premodifier (and not the head) is stressed:
/
(21) a walking stick
With a participle there is stress on the head too:
/
/
(22) a moving object
A second point is that when made into adjectives like this, gerunds and participles have
any complementation placed before them, thus becoming compounds in their own right
[on the pattern of the gerund examples in (18) above]:
(23) a tea-making machine; a beer-brewing kit [gerunds]
(24) a money-spinning enterprise; a pile-driving shot; a bone-shaking crash [participles]
This "pre-complementation" (i.e. pre-modification) involves nouns derived from direct
objects:
Od
(25) a tea-making machine = a machine for making tea;
Od
a bone-shaking crash = a crash which shakes bones
In addition, participles can be premodified by adverbs:
(26) a badly damaged roof; a dangerously protruding nail
and gerunds by adjectives:
(27) a quick tea-making machine; but not: (28) *a quickly tea-making machine
A special note on participle premodifiers
We can say in English:
(29) a passing car; a waiting taxi; freezing weather; falling leaves; but not: (30) *a
standing woman; *the smoking man
The participles in this case must appear as postmodifiers:
(31) a woman standing; the man smoking
This is a semantic problem, but again one with a syntactic consequence. Participle
premodifiers like those in (29) are felt to have the force of adjectives. And we do in fact
say that the participle is being used here as an adjective. That is, it describes a
characteristic of the head-noun referent, and not simply an action that the referent is
performing. The semantic emphasis with premodifying participles is on a type or
category. Freezing weather is a kind of weather and falling leaves are particular kinds of
leaves, or leaves in a particular state. One can speak of standing spectators (e.g. at a
sports event), as opposed to sitting spectators, referring to two categories or types of
spectator. Similarly, passing cars and waiting taxis are vehicles in a particular kind of
state. Only certain participles can be used in this way. They express conventionalized
concepts in particular collocations which cannot be constructed ad hoc.
Order of modifying items
Finally, there are certain general principles governing the order of modifiers. Returning
to our pig, we can see that the big fat white pig cannot be expressed as (32) *the white fat
big pig. A certain semantic order must be kept. The head is immediately preceded by the
modifiers most "intrinsic" to it, which become less "intrinsic" from right to left. Usual
conventions are
general
age
colour
proper
noun
material
purpose
↓
↓
↓
↓
↓
↓
a fine
a nice
old
modern
white
yellow
Indian
French
ivory
fibre glass
hunting
speed
knife
boat
Finally, adjectives can themselves be premodified by adverbs:
(33) a very fat pig
Elements of postmodification
As the term implies, the postmodification follows the head, e.g.
(34) The man who is standing on the corner
This can be reduced to
(35) The man standing on the corner
or even further to
(36) The man on the corner
Here we have three common types of postmodification: a relative clause, a participle
clause, and a prepositional phrase. Furthermore, the relationship of meaning between
the head and the postmodification is the same in each case, i.e. (35) and (36) could be
expanded into relative clauses, or alternatively be viewed as "reductions" of relative
clauses. We'll come back to this point later.
But let's first consider one or two more basic features of the syntax of these
postmodifications. The first thing that strikes us is their length (compared with
premodifications). (34) and (35) are whole subordinate clauses, (36) a whole phrase.
None of these could be expressed as premodifiers. And this illustrates an important
principle: premodification in English is restricted to just single and one or two compound
elements, as we have already seen. Larger phrases or clauses have to be placed in the
postmodification. Premodifiers in English in fact never have clause character at all, but,
as we can see from (34) and (35), postmodifiers frequently do, forming subordinate
clauses at phrase level. They have their own internal functions:
S
P
A
P
A
(37) The man (who is standing on the corner); The man (standing on the corner)
The whole noun phrase, of course, then has a particular overall function in a given
sentence, e.g.
S
P
A
P
Cs
(38) [The man (who is standing on the corner)] is my husband.
S
The concepts "restrictive" and "non-restrictive"
The majority of postmodifiers are restrictive, i.e. they identify the head. If the relative
clause in (38), for instance, is left out, we do not know which "man" the head refers to.
Non-restrictive postmodifiers, on the other hand, do not have an identifying function.
We'll take two relative clauses as examples:
(39)
i. The goldfish which had been placed in the refrigerator froze to death. [restrictive or
defining]
ii. The goldfish, which had been placed in the refrigerator, froze to death. [nonrestrictive, or non-defining]
In (39) i. the head (or antecedent) is identified by the relative clause, i.e. only the goldfish
are being referred to which suffered this particular fate. The implication here is that there
were others which survived, or perhaps died differently.
In contrast to this, the head in (39) ii. is not further specified. The head refers to all of a
particular group of goldfish. (In both cases, of course, the whole group of goldfish must
already have been identified in context, because the definite article needs some kind of
preceding reference. But that is not the point here.) (39) ii. can in fact be expressed by
two separate sentences:
(40) The goldfish froze to death. They had been placed in the refrigerator.
This shows that the non-restrictive relative clause is in a way semantically equivalent to
a co-ordinate clause, even though it is still syntactically a subordinate clause. As it is not
semantically important for the identification of the antecedent, it is not regarded as being
part of the noun phrase, but as having separate status, like a parenthesis. The point is
also reflected both in pronunciation and writing. Restrictive relative clauses are
pronounced together with the rest of the phrase as one tone unit:
(41) The goldfish which had been placed in the refrigerator
Non-restrictive relative clauses are pronounced in a separate tone and are frequently
separated from the antecedent by a comma (and from any following parts of the sentence
by an additional comma), see (39) ii. On the other hand a comma is never placed before a
restrictive relative clause. The restrictive/non-restrictive distinction is seen particularly
clearly with relative clauses, but applies to all types of postmodification which will be
discussed below.
Peter Fenn: Syntax Handout 4; Pädagogische Hochschule Ludwigsburg, SS 2004