Lexical Categories verbs nouns and adjectives phần 10 pot

308 Appendix. Adpositions as functional categories This is an apparent violation of the Head Movement Constraint, and con- trasts with other cases of noun incorporation in Greenlandic, in which the head incorporates into the verb stranding the modifier, as expected. Taken to- gether, these facts suggest that verbs like –kar do not trigger incorporation in the sense of syntactic head movement at all. Rather, they are more like clitics – morphophonologically bound elements that attach to the immediately preced- ing word in the PF component. On this view, the PHMG is not relevant to (5) at all. The Greenlandic facts are thus perfectly consistent with and partially explained by the claim that P is a functional head. One can also consider structures in which P is the highest in a series of three heads, where the lowest head is lexical and the middle head is known to be functional. Here the predictions of the two hypotheses are reversed. If P counts as a lexical head, the incorporation of all three heads should be ruled out by the PHMG. If P is functional, however, the incorporation is expected to be possible, just as it is possible for a verb to move through a functional category like tense on its way to C in German and many other languages. Once again, candidate structures are easy to find: they arise whenever the nominal complement of P includes some functional superstructure. We can check whether nouns inflected for notions like number and definiteness form a morphological unit with an adpositional element. In fact, such cases are abundantly attested. For example, in Mohawk the agreement prefix that represents the possessor of the noun is preserved when one incorporates into a P: (7) a rao-’ner´ohkw-a-ku MsP-box-Ø-in ‘in his box’ b ∗ rao-’nerohkw-  ’-. MsP-box-fall- STAT ‘His box has fallen. ’ In contrast, the possessive prefix is never maintained when a noun incorporates into a verb, as shown in (7b). In a similar way, (8) shows that prepositional prefixes in Chichewa can attach outside of the prefixes that express number and gender, which arguably reside in a number head. (8) pa-[mu-dzi] (Bresnan and Mchombo 1995). in-[3. NCL-village] ‘in the village’ Number suffixes also appear on nouns that are incorporated into adpositions in Southern Tiwa ((9a)), even though these suffixes cannot appear on nouns that are incorporated into verbs ((9b)). A.1 Evidence that adpositions are functional 309 (9) a seuan-ide-’ay. (Allen, Gardiner, and Frantz 1984) man- SG-to ‘to the man’ b Ti-seuan-( ∗ ide)-m˜u-ban 1sS/A-man- SG-see- PAST ‘I saw the man.’ The Greenlandic example in (5) is another case in point. This type of data confirms that adpositions are functional categories, in marked contrast to verbs. If P is a functional head, one would expect functional categories like D to target it, even if there were no N projection inside DP. This also seems to be the case. Pronouns are often analyzed as Ds that do not take an NP complement, and they often incorporate into the P that governs them; (10) gives examples from Abaza (Caucasian) and Slave (Athapaskan). (10)awə-qa-z (Abaza [O’Herin 1995: 277]) 2sE-head-for ‘for you’ b se-gha (Slave [Rice 1989: 299]) 1sO-for ‘for me’ In contrast, the incorporation of true pronouns into verbs is often said to be im- possible in the noun incorporation literature (see, for example, Allen, Gardiner, and Frantz [1984]). Some languages do, of course, have clitic pronouns that are homophonous with determiners and that seem to attach to verbs; the Romance languages are a prominent example. But in these languages there is evidence that the cliticization (if it is a case of head movement at all) targets not the lexical verb, but rather T or some other functional head in the clause (Kayne 1989; Kayne 1991). We thus have D-to-T incorporation, rather than D-to-V incor- poration, which would be forbidden: (11) a Jean les+a mang´e. (French) Jean them-has eaten b ∗ Jean a les+mang´e. Jean has them-eaten We can also consider the possibility of incorporating Ps all by themselves. Does P incorporation target the lexical category V or a functional category such as T or aspect? In Baker (1988a: ch. 5), I claimed that P-to-V incorporation was reasonably common, using this as the analysis of the applicative constructions found in Bantu languages and many others. A canonical example is (12) from Chichewa. 310 Appendix. Adpositions as functional categories (12) Ndi-na-phik-ir-a ana nsima. 1sS- PAST-cook-APPL-FV children corn.mush ‘I cooked nsima for the children.’ Subsequent research has, however, shown that this is not correct. The incor- poration in (12) does seem to involve lexical categories because the applied affix appears next to the verb root and no functional/inflectional morphemes can appear between them. But there is little evidence that the applied af fix is actually an adposition (see, for example, Sadock’s [1990] criticism of Baker [1988a] on this point). Another plausible source for these benefactive applica- tive constructions is a structure in which a triadic verb similar to ‘give’ takes a VP as its complement, as in (13) from Japanese. (13) John-ga Mary-ni hon-o kat-te age-ta. John- NOM Mary-DAT book-ACC buy-AFF give-PAST ‘John gave Mary the favor of buying a book.’ Examples like (12) can be derived from underlying structures like that of (13) by ordinary verb-to-verb incorporation. In Baker (1996b: sec. 9.3), I argued that this is the correct derivation for languages in which the applied affix is a suffix that attaches close to the verb root. I also detected a distinct class of applicatives, in which the applied affix is a prefix. Such prefixes have slightly different case-theoretic properties from suffixal applicatives, and the prefix is sometimes recognizably the same as a free-standing postposition in the language (see, for example, Craig and Hale [1988]). For this class of applicatives, I maintained an adposition incorporation analysis. The significant point for current purposes is that prefixal applicatives do not always appear adjacent to the verb stem. On the contrary, it is common for them to be separated from the verb root by tense markers, agreement markers, or other inflectional morphology. (14)gives examples of this from Abaza and Slave, in which the incorporated adposition is transparently related to free-standing adpositions and has a pronoun incorpo- rated into it. The adposition comes outside of subject agreement and (in Slave) the tense/mood affix. (14)aY-[l-zəə]-s-ˇz w -d. (Abaza [O’Herin 1995: 271]) 3sO-[FsE- BEN]-1sS-drink-DYN ‘I drank it for her.’ bS  ´oba [ne-gh´a]-wo-h-lee (Slave [Rice 1989]) money 2sO-for- OPT-1sS-gave ‘I gave you money.’ A.2 The place of adpositions in a typology of categories 311 Therefore, in those “applicatives” that are most plausibly analyzed as P incor- poration, there is reason to say the movement targets the tense node, rather than the verb proper. The P ends up in the same word as the verb on the surface simply because the verb also moves to tense. The fact that P movement targets tense rather than V follows from the PHMG, given that P is functional. We thus have converging evidence from several different sources that P really is a functional category, as my restrictive theory of the lexical categories re- quires. Some of the most obvious sources of evidence are a bit equivocal: Ps are fewer in number and poorer in lexical semantic meaning than the average lexical category, but they are also greater in number and richer in meaning than the av- erage functional category, at least in English. But these measures are expected to give only a crude sense of which categories are lexical and which are functional in any case. We do not expect Universal Grammar to have an explicit principle that says a given category must have at most (or at least) n members; neither do we expect to count the semantic features of a word and deduce whether it is lexical or functional. The incorporation patterns sharpen the picture considerably. They provide morphosyntactic evidence that Ps are consistently functional heads, the range of complex words that include P-like elements being systematically different from those that involve lexical heads like verbs. A.2 The place of adpositions in a typology of categories While on the topic, I can also say something about the syntactic positions that PPs can occupy, comparing them to what we have learned about the syntax of VPs, APs, and NPs in the course of this study. This comparison makes it clear that the distribution of PPs is most like that of APs, which suggests that they have neither a referential index nor a specifier. We can then place Ps alongside determiners and Preds within a partial typology of functional categories that parallels my (complete) typology of lexical categories. A.2.1 PPs are adjuncts It is clear on all accounts that PPs make great adjunct-modifiers. They clearly contrast in this respect with NPs, which are the quintessential argument-type category. Back in section 3.7, I presented the contrasts in (15) and (16)to show that NPs cannot be adjoined to a clause unless they bind some gap or pronoun inside that clause. The other side of this coin is that NPs governed by an adpositional element are not subject to this restriction; they can be freely adjoined to a clause in English, Mohawk, and Chichewa. 312 Appendix. Adpositions as functional categories (15)aTh´ık o-nut-´a-’ke y´o-hskats ne okwire’-sh´u’a. (Mohawk) that NsO-hill-Ø- LOC NsO-be.pretty NE tree-PLUR ‘On that hill, the trees are pretty.’ b ∗ Th´ık on´uta’, y´o-hskats ne okwire’-sh´u’a. that hill NsO-be.pretty NE tree-PLUR ‘(As for) that hill, the trees are pretty.’ (16) a Ku San Jose ndi-ma-sung-a galimoto y-anga m’garaji. (Chichewa) at-San Jose 1sS- HAB-keep-FV 9.car 9-my in-garage ‘In San Jose, I keep my car in the garage.’ (Bresnan 1991) b ∗ ?Mkango uwu fisi a-na-dy-a iwo lion this hyena 3sS- PAST-eat-FV it. (Bresnan and Mchombo 1987: 749) ‘As for this lion, the hyena ate it (something else).’ This difference in syntactic distribution helps to justify analyzing elements like –’ke in Mohawk and ku- in Chichewa as adpositions, rather than as category neutral affixes that attach to nouns, as has been claimed by Deering and Delisle (1976) for Mohawk and by Bresnan (1991) for Chichewa. If one said that these expressions with locative morphemes were still NPs, there would be no obvious explanation for why they alone can be freely attached to virtually any clause. (17) in English further illustrates that most common modifications cannot be expressed by bare NPs, but only by NPs in adpositional phrases. This includes locative adjuncts, benefactive adjuncts, instrumental adjuncts, temporal adjuncts, and purpose adjuncts, among others. 4 (17) a John cooked the yams ∗ (in) the kitchen b ∗ (for) Mary c ∗ (with) oil. d ?(on) Tuesday. e ∗ (for) money. In this respect, the distribution of PPs is quite unlike the distribution of NPs. It is, however, very much like the distribution of APs, given that adverbs are a subtype of adjective (section 4.5). This suggests that PPs, like APs, do not bear a referential index. (These examples also show that the P must have a theta-role that is coindexed with its NP complement, as is standardly assumed. As a result, the noun licensing condition is satisfied internal to the PP, and the NP need not bind any other dependent element in the clause – although in some cases it may, as discussed below.) 4 There are a few sporadic cases of “bare NP adverbs” such as John cooked the yams yesterday,but this is possible only with a small list of nouns that have inherent locative, temporal, or manner meanings (Larson 1985). I tentatively adopt the analysis of Bresnan and Grimshaw (1978), who claim that there is a null preposition governing the noun in these cases. A.2 The place of adpositions in a typology of categories 313 PPs also appear to varying degrees in the other syntactic environments that I identified in chapter 4 as being characteristic of APs. For example, APs are unique among the lexical categories in acting as resultative secondary predi- cates, but PPs also make fine resultatives: (18) a I cut the bread thin. (AP) b I cut the bread into slices. (PP) I smashed the vase to pieces. In fact, many languages allow resultatives like (18b) but do not allow resul- tatives like (18a), including French (Legendre 1997) and Hebrew (Levin and Rappaport-Hovav 1995). Another characteristic position of APs is as attributive modifiers adjoined to NP, and PPs can also be restrictive modifiers of NPs in English: 5 (19) a a letter to/for Mary (compare: a long letter) b chicken soup with rice (compare: hot chicken soup) c the box on the table (compare: the big box) Finally, APs but not other lexical categories can be complements of degree heads. PPs with idiomatic meanings can also appear in this position (Maling 1983): (20) a John is as crazy as Mary is. b John is as out to lunch (= crazy) as Mary is. John is too in love for his own good. (but: ∗ John is as in the kitchen as Mary is.) As a first approximation, we can say that the difference between the idiomatic PPs and the more literal ones is simply that the idiomatic ones have gradable meanings and the literal ones do not. There are many degrees of being in love, for example, but either you are in the kitchen or you are not. The badness of ∗ John is too in the kitchen, then, is comparable to the badness of ∗ The number seven is too prime. Where the semantic requirement of gradability is met, PPs can appear with degree heads, just as APs do. This range of facts thus implies that PPs, like APs, must have no referential index and no theta-marked specifier position. 6 5 Not all languages allow adnominal PPs; Edo, for example, does not. I do not investigate the nature of this crosslinguistic difference here. Note that As without a complement left-adjoin to NP, whereas PPs (which always have a complement) right-adjoin to NP. This is a subcase of the so-called head-final filter in English (Emonds 1976; Williams 1982; Giorgi and Longobardi 1991: 97–100), which I also do not take up here. 6 One problem for the view that PPs do not have referential indices comes from the existence of pro-PPs such as there in English. Not only do these seem to take PP antecendents, they can even have bound variable readings in sentences like On every shelf stands the statue that Rodin originally put there . According to the reasoning of section 3.5, this should imply that PPs do 314 Appendix. Adpositions as functional categories A.2.2 PPs are not predicates If PPs are syntactically similar to APs, then they must not be intrinsic predicates, the way verbs are. They should not license specifier positions, and can only be used predicatively by being the complement of Pred or some kind ofcopularverb that licenses a specifier. The standard generative view has been the opposite, that at least some PPs are predicates and do theta-mark a subject in copular sentences ((21a)) and small clause constructions ((21b) [Stowell 1983]). (21) a Chris i is [t i in the kitchen]. b I want [a table in the kitchen]. Some analyses take this view quite far, positing a small clause even in examples like Chris put the book in the box. For them, the theme the book is analyzed not as the direct object of put, but rather as the subject of the PP in the box (Hoekstra 1988; Dikken 1995). Chapter 2 has, however, taught us the importance of looking below the sur- face of this kind of data to detect the contribution of null Pred heads. African languages like Edo and Chichewa were particularly useful in this connection, because their Preds are spelled out overtly. In fact, PPs in these languages can- not be used as the primary predicate of a matrix clause, even when a copular particle is used, as shown by the ungrammaticality of (22a) and (23a). (22)a ∗ ` Oz´o(y´e/r`e) vb`e`ow´a. (Edo: ∗ Pred + PP) Ozo PRED at house ‘Ozo is in the house.’ b ` Oz´orr´e`ow´a. (locative verb) Ozo is.at house ‘Ozo is in the house.’ c ` Oz´om`ud`ı´ay`e esuku. (posture verb) Ozo stand at school ‘Ozo is at school.’ (23)a ∗ Ukonde ndi pa-m-chenga (Chichewa: ∗ Pred + PP) net PRED on-3-beach ‘The net is on the beach.’ have some kind of referential index. I tentatively assume that these PP-binding effects can be captured by attributing referential indices not to the PPs themselves, but to the NPs inside them – perhaps including an abstract nominal in the syntactic representation of there. (Note that there can sometimes occupy the true subject position, as in Is there any sugar?, in contrast to true PPs (see (43d)).) This assumption may play a role also in the ability of some PPs to identify empty categories in subject and object positions; see (41) and (42) below. That PPs seem to undergo A-movement to subject positions in locative inversion sentences like (43a) may be an illusion. Facts like (43c,d) suggest that the PP is really a fronted topic that binds a null subject position. A.2 The place of adpositions in a typology of categories 315 b Ukonde u-li pa-m-chenga (verbal copula + PP) net 3S-be on-3-beach ‘The net is on the beach.’ Instead of a Pred, a true verb of some kind must be present, either a verb with in- herent locative meaning ((22b)), a posture verb ((22c)), or the truly verbal copula ((23b)). (24) shows that PPs also cannot be the predicates of simple copular sentences in Japanese or Mohawk; again, an explicit posture verb is needed. (24)a ∗ Hanako-ga heya de da. (Japanese) Hanako- NOM room in PRED ‘Hanako is in the room.’ b Sak ka-nakt-´oku ∗ (t-ha-ya’t-´oru) (Mohawk) Sak NsS-bed-under CIS-MsS-body-be.covered ‘Sak is under the bed.’ Stassen’s (1997) study of the forms of intransitive predication confirms that this is the normal situation crosslinguistically. He identifies the use of a truly verbal “support” element together with a PP as the characteristic way of encod- ing locative predications, and observes that other situations are relatively rare. Locative PPs appear to be directly predicable of subjects in at most 52 of the 410 languages he investigated. 7 These data suggest that PPs do not license specifiers directly. Indeed, it seems that not even a functional head like Pred is enough to create a specifier for a PP in most languages. The reason for this is presumably semantic rather than syntactic: we can say that there is no theme role implicit in the lexical meaning of the adpositions that a Pred can bring out. In Chierchia’s (1985) terms, PPs have a denotation that cannot be mapped readily into a propositional function. A clause can thus be formed only if a true verb is present to theta-mark the subject, and the PP is adjoined to the verbal projection as a modifier. If the verb happens to be a rather bland one – a posture verb, for example, or an existential verb – the PP can carry most of the new information of the sentence. Nevertheless, the PP is not the predicate in the structural sense. I conclude that PPs do not license subjects of their own, just as APs do not. 8 7 This number includes languages in which PPs can be inflected like verbs (15 languages) and languages in which a PP can be directly juxtaposed with a subject (37 languages), but not languages in which the verbal copular element is omitted only in the unmarked present tense (as in Russian, for example). It also does not include languages in which the only locative elements that can be predicated directly of subjects are “small words” like here, there, and where. I put the sometimes-unique syntax of these deictic items aside. 8 In Baker (1996b: ch. 9) I argued against the view that PPs can theta-mark a subject on partially different grounds. There I pointed out that PPs never agree with their putative subjects, even in heavily head-marking languages like Mohawk, in which all other categories necessarily agree with all of their arguments. This makes sense if PPs do not in fact take subjects. 316 Appendix. Adpositions as functional categories A.2.3 PPs are not arguments The claim that PPs are syntactically comparable to APs also suggests that they should not be able to receive theta-roles the way NPs can, because they do not bear a referential index that could bind such a theta-role. This too runs contrary to most of the generative tradition, which holds that PPs can function as arguments in at least some limited cases. The empirical evidence on this point seems mixed. Some configurations clearly go in the direction I predict: (25) shows that English PPs cannot normally appear in subject positions, object positions, or as the objects of a preposition. (25)a ∗ In San Jose pleases me. (Bresnan 1991) (compare: ‘It pleases me in San Jose.’) b ∗ I like in San Jose. (compare: ‘I like it in San Jose.’) c ∗ I went to in San Jose. (compare: ‘I went into San Jose.’) It is unlikely that these examples are out for trivial semantic reasons. If in San Jose is referential at all, it should refer to a location (Jackendoff 1983), and it seems reasonable that a location-denoting phrase could satisfy the very general selectional restrictions of the theta-markers in these examples. This is confirmed by the grammaticality of sentences like (25a) and (25b) when the PP is “extraposed” to an adjoined position, with a quasi-argumental pronoun it in the argument position. Nor is this resistance toward locative PP arguments peculiar to English. Launey (1981) mentions that locative expressions formed by incorporating a noun into an adposition cannot function as the subject or object of ordinary verbs in Classical Nahuatl: (26)a ∗ Ca cualli in Mexi’-co. PRT good DET Mexico-LOC ‘In Mexico is nice; it is nice in Mexico.’ b ∗ Ni-qu-itta in Mexi’-co. 1sS-3sO-see DET Mexico-LOC ‘I saw (in) Mexico.’ Locational PPs also cannot serve as subjects or objects in Edo: (27)a ∗ Vb`e`e . k`ıy`e . ´e . ` Ad´es´uw`a. at market pleases Adesuwa. ‘(Being) at the market pleases Adesuwa.’ The discussion in the text implies that the subject in (21a) is theta-marked by is (presumably the otherwise rare be of existence) and the object in (21b) is theta-marked by want. A.2 The place of adpositions in a typology of categories 317 b ∗ ` Ad´es´uw`a khu ` e . mw´e . nvb ` e`e . k`ı. Adesuwa like at market ‘Adesuwa likes (it) at the market.’ Chichewa is a particularly interesting case for these issues. Bresnan and Kanerva (1989) and Bresnan (1991) argue that locative-denoting expressions in Chichewa can be categorized as NPs rather than PPs. 9 The most obvious sign of this is the fact that Chichewa’s locative prefixes are counted as gender prefixes, equivalent to the noun class prefixes that all nouns in the language begin with. As a result, modifiers can agree with locative elements, just as they agree in gender and number with other, more canonical nouns (Bresnan and Mchombo 1995: 211): (28) mu-dzi w-´ath´u; ku-mu-dzi kw-athu 3-village 3-our; at(17)-3-village 17-our ‘our village’ ‘at our village’ In exactly those cases where Chichewa has location-denoting NPs, those ex- pressions can be used as subjects and objects. The examples in (29) are thus perfectly grammatical, in marked contrast to their English counterparts in (25). (29) a A-lendo ´a-ma-pa-kond-a pa-mu-dzi w- ´ath´up-´o-ch´ıt´ıtsa 2-visitor 2S- HAB-16O-love-FV in(16)-3-village 3-our 16-ASSOC-attract chi-dwi. 7-interest ‘Visitors love (it in) our interesting village.’ (Bresnan and Mchombo 1995: 220) b Ku San Jose k´u-ma-ndi-sangal´ats-a. (Bresnan 1991) At-San Jose 17sS- HAB-1sO-please-FV ‘(Being in) San Jose pleases me.’ Even so, phrases headed by elements that are unambiguously prepositions, such as instrumental ndi ‘with’, cannot be subjects in Chichewa, as shown in (30). (30) ∗ Ndi Sam ??-ma-ndi-sangala-ts-a. (Sam Mchombo, personal communication) with Sam ??S- HAB-1sO-be.happy-CAUS-FV ‘(Being) with Sam makes me happy.’ 9 Unlike Bresnan and Kanerva, I take the position that locative prefix + noun constituents in Chichewa can be categorized as either PPs or NPs (Baker 1992). Evidence that they can be PPs is that they can be freely adjoined to a clause without being coreferent to a pronoun inside the clause, as shown in (16a). If the locative expression could only be an NP, this example should be ruled out by the NLC. This view also fits with the fact that locative prefixes need not determine the agreement on a modifying expression; the modifier can agree instead with the inherent gender of the noun root, as in ku-nyanj ´ ay - ´ anga (at(17)-9.lake 9-my) ‘at my lake’ (compare with (28)). This form is exactly what one would expect if the locative prefix can be a simple adposition. [...]... acquisition, of lexical categories, 15n., 36, 296–301 Adelaar, Willem, 181 adjectives, 2n., 107 acquired late, 298 and determiners, 111–19, 121–23 and incorporation, 4, 152, 169n and measure phrases, 106 n and morphological causatives, 53–56 and tense marking, 46–47, 51–52, 52n as attributive modifiers, 183 as complements, 149 as expression of degree, 213 as modifiers of null nouns, 151–52 as supplanting nouns, ... 12, 96n., 109 n., 228, e 229n., 234, 235n decomposition, lexical acquisition evidence for, 298n and placement of PPs, 320 and theta grids, 144 implications for resultatives, 221 of unergative verbs, 86 of verbs into adjectives, 79–83, 215, 216n., 254 Deering, Nora, 51, 258, 312 definiteness and the interpretation of bare nouns, 115–16 defined only for nouns, 111–12, 125n role in licensing null nouns, 122–23... role of nouns in, 125–32 anaphors, traces as, 133 ancient grammarians, 1, 4, 47, 194n., 265, 290 Anderson, John, 290 Anderson, Stephen, 281, 287n Andrews, J Richard, 178n., 186n applicatives, 287 as P incorporation, 310 only of verbs, 58, 249 Arabic arguments are nouns in, 143 tense and copula in, 45–46, 48–49 arguments adjectives as, 174, 248 determiners not required on, 112–13, 118 degree adverbs as,... 216–17 only nouns as, 98, 142–44 Aristotle, 80 Aronoff, Mark, 107 articles affecting readings of bare nouns, 115 as licensers of null nouns, 123 selecting only nouns, 97, 111–12 with predicate nominals, 162n., 163 see also determiners Artstein, Ron, 73 aspect distinguishing verbs and adjectives, 4, 46, 50, 257 of resultative constructions, 222n., 227 attributive modifiers and agreement, 208n., 211n and incorporation,... Syntax and semantics 22: structure and case marking in Japanese San Diego: Academic Press Mosel, Ulrike and Even Hovdhaugen 1992 Samoan reference grammar Oslo: Scandinavian University Press Munro, Pamela 1976 Mojave syntax New York: Garland Munro, Pamela and Lynn Gordon 1982 Syntactic relations in Western Muskogean Language 58: 81–115 Murasugi, Keiko 1990 Adjectives, nominal adjectives and adjectival verbs. .. 141 coreference and the criterion of identity, 127 representation of, in discourse, 105 Corver, Norbert, 123n., 130, 141, 212, 214 count nouns bare, as arguments, 113 universality of, 116 Craig, Colette, 310 Cree, 51 Creek, 218 criterion of application, 101 criterion of identity, 101 –03, 295 as defining property of nouns, 21, 95–96, 153 of modified nouns, 120n relationship to gender, 109 n relationship... Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 1–52 Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press 1994 Bare Phrase Structure, manuscript, MIT, Cambridge, Mass 1995 The minimalist program Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press Chung, Sandra and James McCloskey 1987 Government, barriers, and small clauses in Modern Irish Linguistic Inquiry 18: 173–238 Cinque, Guglielmo 1990 Ergative adjectives and the lexicalist hypothesis Natural Language and Linguistic... Hoekstra, Tuen 1988 Small clause results Lingua 74: 101 –39 1992 Aspect and theta theory In Thematic structure and its role in grammar, ed I M Roca, 145–74 Berlin: Foris Hopper, Paul and Sandra Thompson 1984 The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar Language 60: 703–52 Ingram, David 1989 First language acquisition: method, description, and explanation New York: Cambridge University... Secondary predication and functional projections in French e Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15: 43–87 Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport 1986 The formation of adjectival passives Linguistic Inquiry 17: 623–61 Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport-Hovav 1995 Unaccusativity: at the syntax -lexical semantics interface Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press Li, Charles and Sandra Thompson 1976 Subject and topic: a new typology... Lisa Lai-Shen and Rint Sybesma 1999 Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP Linguistic Inquiry 30: 509–42 Chierchia, Gennaro 1985 Formal semantics and the grammar of predication Linguistic Inquiry 16: 417–44 References 329 1998 Reference to kinds across languages Natural Language Semantics 6: 339–405 Chierchia, Gennaro and Ray Turner 1988 Semantics and property theory Linguistics and Philosophy . of the lexical categories re- quires. Some of the most obvious sources of evidence are a bit equivocal: Ps are fewer in number and poorer in lexical semantic meaning than the average lexical category,. three-by-three typology of categories. First there are the three lexical categories defined by the two properties of having a referential index and having a specifier. Second, there are three types of functional categories. three heads, where the lowest head is lexical and the middle head is known to be functional. Here the predictions of the two hypotheses are reversed. If P counts as a lexical head, the incorporation