Các cụm từ thường dùng trong tiếng anh
The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Asp ect by Steven Paul Abney B.A., Indiana University (1983) SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN LINGUISTICS at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY June 1987 c Steven Paul Abney,1987 The author herebygrants to M.I.T. permission to reproduce and to distribute copies of this thesis document in whole or in part. Signature of Author Department of Linguistics and Philosophy 8May 1987 Certied by Richard Larson Thesis Supervisor Accepted by Wayne O'Neil Chairman, Departmental Committee The English Noun Phrase In Its Sentential Asp ect by Steven Paul Abney Submitted to the Department of Linguistics and Philosophyon8May 1987, in partial fulllment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics ABSTRACT This dissertation is a defense of the hypothesis that the noun phrase is headed byafunctional element (i.e., \non-lexical" category) D, identied with the determiner. In this way, the structure of the noun phrase parallels that of the sentence, which is headed by In(ection), under assumptions now standard within the Government-Binding (GB) framework. The central empirical problem addressed is the question of the proper analysis of the so-called \Poss-ing" gerund in English. This construction possesses simultaneously many properties of sentences, and many properties of noun phrases. The problem of capturing this dual aspect of the Poss- ing construction is heightened by current restrictive views of X-bar theory, which, in particular, rule out the obvious structure for Poss-ing, NP NP VP ing ], by virtue of its exocentricity. Consideration of languages in which nouns, even the most basic concrete nouns, show agreement(AGR) with their possessors, points to an analysis of the noun phrase as headed by an element similar to In, which provides a position for AGR I call this In-like element \D". D and In belong to the class of non-lexical categories, which I prefer to call functional categories. The analysis in which D heads the noun phrase I call the \DP-analysis". Importing the DP-analysis into English yields an immediate solution for the problem of the Poss-ing gerund: Poss-ing gerunds (and by extension, noun phrases generally) have a more sentence-like structure than hitherto thought, namely, DP DP's D VP ing ]. (In non-gerundive noun phrases, \VP" is replaced by a pro jection of N. This pro jection of N, despite being a maximal X-bar pro jection, corresponds to N-bar in the standard analysis.) Current trends in the treatment of minor categories|so-called \non- lexical" categories|lead us to a similar conclusion. Until recently, minor categories like complementizers and modals had been treated as syncate- gorematic. Under current assumptions, however, they participate fully in the X-bar schema. Inthisway,two simplications are achieved simulta- neously: we eliminate syncategorematic elements, and we acquire an endo- 3 centric analysis of the sentence, which had been exceptional in being the only exocentric ma jor category.To make these results fully general, we are led to treat the remaining syncategorematic elements|in particular, deter- miners in noun phrases and degree words in adjective phrases|as heads of full phrases. The analogy with complementizers and modals indicates that determiners and degree words should head noun phrases and adjective phrases, respectively. In other words, determiners are lexical instantiations of \D" in the same way that modals are lexical instantiations of In. However, despite the conceptual links, the question of the existence of a functional head of the noun phrase (the DP-analysis), and the question of the place of the determiner, are independent questions, and I treat them separately: Chapters One through Three are concerned predominately with the former question, Chapter Four with the latter. Chapter One provides a brief introduction. In Chapter Two I present the DP-analysis, motivating it by examining languages with agreementbe- tween noun and possessor. I also discuss issues raised by the DP-analysis, with emphasis on the parallelism between noun phrase and sentence hypoth- esized under the DP-analysis. In particular, I treat the question of PRO in the noun phrase and I show that the numerous dierences between sentence and noun phrase do not invalidate the parallelism of structure proposed under the DP-analysis. In Chapter Three I apply the analysis to the three gerundive constructions, Acc-ing, Poss-ing, and Ing-of. Finally, in Chapter Four, I turn to the question of whether the determiner is the lexical instantiation of D, the functional head of the noun phrase. Thesis Supervisor: Dr. Richard K. Larson Title: Assistant Professor of Linguistics 4 Acknowledgements Iwould liketoacknowledge, rst of all, mydebt tomymany teachers and mentors these last four years: to my thesis advisor, Rich Larson, for his guidance in matters syntactic and semantic, as well as for sound advice in the mechanics of thesis-writing. To the other members of my committee: Noam Chomsky, Ken Hale, and Richie Kayne. To Jim Higginbotham, with whom I haveworked closely since coming to MIT unfortunately for me, he is in Pisa this semester. Thanks also to Jay Keyser, both for guidance in linguistics and encouragementinmy computational interests and to Morris Halle, for encouragement and direction, and for keeping me aware of the beauties of phonology. Though none of mywork in parsing has found its wayinto this the- sis, nonetheless a very importantpart ofmyintellectual developmentas a graduate student has been in the area of computation. I am especially indebted to Sam Epstein, mymentor at Bell Communications Research, for providing me with a golden opportunitytodevelop my ideas in parsing, and for his indispensable guidance and encouragement. At MIT, thanks to Bob Berwick, for much help and direction to Carl Hewitt, for the oppor- tunitytowork with the Apiary Pro ject to Gul Agha, for endless support and advice to Jennifer Cole, who I had the goo d fortune to collaborate with in the summer and fall of 1985, in work on parsing to Tom Reinhart, my Lispm guru and to Beth Levin, for her guidance during the summer I worked for the Lexicon Pro ject. Iwould like to thank the others with whom I worked at Bellcore: (alpha- betically) George Collier, Stu Feldman, Mike Lesk, Maria Slowiaczek, Don Walker. I would also like to thank Don Hindle, Mitch Marcus, and Richard Sproat, of AT&T Bell Laboratories and Bob Ingria of Bolt, Beranek, & Newman. In psycholinguistics, special thanks to Merrill Garrett and Janet Fodor. My studies at MIT were partially funded by a Mellon Graduate Fellow- ship in the Humanities I gratefully acknowledge their support. Among fellow students, present and past, the eightwithwhomIhave been together since 1983 will always be very special to me. I consider myself very lucky to haveworked together with these people I only wish it weren't over so soon. They are: Hyon-Sook Choe, Jennifer Cole, John Lumsden, Doug Saddy, Ur Shlonsky, Michele Sigler, Carol Tenny, Loren Trigo. Still amember of the group in spirit|though he left us for warm and sunny Palo Alto |is Steve Neale. There are also two unocial members of our class who havebeenvery important to me: Betsy Ritter and Kyoko Ma- sunaga. Among my other colleagues, I would especially liketomention Di- ana Archangeli (and husband Dante), Mark Baker, Andy Barss, Ed Barton, 5 Maggie Browning, Viviane Deprez, Naoki Fukui, Alicja Gorecka, Mohamed Guerssel, Ewa Higgins, Kyle Johnson, Mike Kashket, Mary Laughren, Juli- ette Levin, Anne Lobeck, Dinette Massam, Katie McCreight, Janis Melvold, Janet Nicol, Tova Rapop ort, Malka Rappaport, Marc Ryser, Gabe Segal, Kelly Sloan, Peggy Speas, Tim Stowell, Catherine Womack. Thanks to the sta in the Linguistics department, especially Maggie Caracino and Nancy Peters. For my sanity and emotional well-being, I owe a great debt to Carol Tenny and her parents|as well as to Mushka and Freddy the Weasel to Marc and Ilana Amrani-Cohen, and boss-man Edan to my family to Betsy Ritter and to the incomparable Capitol Theatre in Arlington. My deepest debt, however, is to my wife Nina, for encouraging, ca joling, for love. It is to her that this work is dedicated. 6 To Nina 7 Contents in Brief I. Introduction 1. A Puzzle and Its Solution 2. Overview II. Noun Phrase and Sentence 1. General Similarities 2. In in the Noun Phrase 3. The DP-Analysis 4. PRO in the Noun Phrase 5. Dierences Between Noun Phrase and Sentence III. Gerunds 1. Introduction 2. Noun Phrase Aspects of Poss-ing 3. Sentential Aspects of Poss-ing 4. Analyses I: Finding the Seams 5. Analyses II: The Morphological Angle 6. Conclusion: Syntactic Axation IV. Lexical determiners 1. Determiner As Head 2. The Adjective Phrase 3. The Position of Prenominal Adjectives 4. Conclusion 8 Contents 1 Introduction 13 1 A Puzzle and Its Solution ::::: ::::::: ::::::: 13 1.1 The Puzzle :::::: ::::::: ::::::: ::: 13 1.2 An Apparently Unrelated Fact ::::: ::::::: 16 1.3 The Solution ::::: ::::::: ::::::: ::: 18 1.4 The IdentityofX:::::: ::::::: ::::::: 20 1.5 Sentence and Noun Phrase ::::::: ::::::: 21 2 Overview ::::::: ::::::: ::::::: ::::::: 22 2 Noun Phrase and Sentence 23 1 General Similarities :::::: ::::::: ::::::: ::: 23 2 In in the Noun Phrase :::::: ::::::: ::::::: 27 2.1 Yup'ik ::::: ::::::: ::::::: ::::::: 28 2.2 Mayan ::::: ::::::: ::::::: ::::::: 31 2.3 Hungarian ::::::: ::::::: ::::::: ::: 32 2.4 Digression: Comp in the Noun Phrase ::::: ::: 33 2.5 Turkish :::: ::::::: ::::::: ::::::: 35 3 The DP-Analysis ::::::: ::::::: ::::::: ::: 38 3.1 Concepts and Terminology ::::::: ::::::: 38 3.2 Functional Selection :::: ::::::: ::::::: 43 3.3 Two Notions of Command ::::: ::::::: ::: 45 3.4 Det as Head :::::: ::::::: ::::::: ::: 47 3.5 The Position of 's ::::: ::::::: ::::::: 51 3.6 Appendix: Selection of DP ::::::: ::::::: 56 4 PRO in the Noun Phrase ::::: ::::::: ::::::: 58 4.1 PRObook:::::::::: ::::::: ::::::: 58 4.2 -theory :::: ::::::: ::::::: ::::::: 59 4.3 Control Theory ::::::: ::::::: ::::::: 62 4.4 Binding theory ::::::: ::::::: ::::::: 63 4.5 Arguments Against PRO in the Noun Phrase :::: 65 9 10 CONTENTS 5 Dierences Between Noun Phrase and Sentence ::::::: 69 5.1 Predication in the Noun Phrase ::::: ::::::: 69 5.2 Catalog of Dierences ::::::: ::::::: ::: 74 5.3 Appendix: Reducing the Dierences :::::: ::: 95 3 The Gerund 105 1 Introduction :::::: ::::::: ::::::: ::::::: 105 1.1 The Range of Gerund Constructions :::::: ::: 106 1.2 Reuland's Analysis of Acc-ing :::::: ::::::: 107 2 Noun Phrase Aspects of Poss-ing ::::: ::::::: ::: 108 2.1 External evidence ::::: ::::::: ::::::: 108 2.2 Internal evidence :::::: ::::::: ::::::: 112 3 Sentential Aspects of Poss-ing ::::::: ::::::: ::: 116 3.1 VP in Poss-ing ::::::: ::::::: ::::::: 116 3.2 PRO in the Gerund :::: ::::::: ::::::: 116 3.3 \N-bar" Deletion :::::: ::::::: ::::::: 119 4 Analyses I: Finding the Seams ::::::: ::::::: ::: 121 4.1 Schachter ::::::: ::::::: ::::::: ::: 121 4.2 Horn :::::: ::::::: ::::::: ::::::: 122 4.3 The D-VP Analysis :::: ::::::: ::::::: 123 4.4 The D-IP Analysis ::::: ::::::: ::::::: 126 5 Analyses II: The Morphological Angle ::::: ::::::: 133 5.1 Jackendo ::::::: ::::::: ::::::: ::: 133 5.2 Pesetsky/Lebeaux ::::: ::::::: ::::::: 137 5.3 Baker ::::: ::::::: ::::::: ::::::: 139 6 Conclusion: Syntactic Axation ::::: ::::::: ::: 141 6.1 A Final Analysis :::::: ::::::: ::::::: 141 6.2 Axes in the Syntax :::: ::::::: ::::::: 158 6.3 Verbal and Adjectival Passive :::::: ::::::: 161 4 Lexical Determiners 169 1 Determiner As Head ::::: ::::::: ::::::: ::: 170 1.1 Arguments for the Standard Analysis ::::: ::: 171 1.2 Sundry Evidence For Det As Head ::::::: ::: 175 1.3 The Range of Speciers :::::: ::::::: ::: 182 2 The Adjective Phrase ::::::: ::::::: ::::::: 189 2.1 Deg as Head ::::: ::::::: ::::::: ::: 189 2.2 Adjective, Adverb, and Quantier ::::::: ::: 190 2.3 The \Sub ject" of Deg ::::::: ::::::: ::: 193 2.4 Extent Clauses ::::::: ::::::: ::::::: 197 2.5 Two Speciers in the Adjective Phrase ::::: ::: 200 2.6 Overview of Structures ::::::: ::::::: ::: 203 . II. Noun Phrase and Sentence 1. General Similarities 2. In in the Noun Phrase 3. The DP-Analysis 4. PRO in the Noun Phrase 5. Dierences Between Noun Phrase. despite the conceptual links, the question of the existence of a functional head of the noun phrase (the DP-analysis), and the question of the place of the