NP-internal agreement and the structure of the noun phrase
NP-internal agreement and the structure of the noun phrase
复制标题
NP-内部一致和名词短语的结构
DOI：
10.1017/s0022226705003713
复制
发表时间：
2006
影响因子：
1.1
通讯作者：
F. V. Eynde
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
F. V. Eynde
为了分析名词短语，目前在生成语法中盛行的处理是用确定器（而不是用名词）鉴定名词短语的头部的一种。这种D（ET）P处理的优势是提供所有句法类别的统一说明，包括实体和功能性类别，并且提供了一种自然的方法来捕获名词和确定词之间的共发生限制，但它也面临着面对的。许多经验问题。为了解决它们，我提出了一项分析，其中用名词识别名词短语的头部，但在其中尽可能地纳入了DP处理的优势。这是分两个步骤完成的。首先，我认为，对所有句法类别的均匀处理的要求（或可取性）本身并不支持DP处理，因为没有经验证据表明为确定剂假定单独的句法类别。该论点主要基于对NP内部协议数据的分析，并得出结论，即确定词的类别在语法上是异质的：存在形容词的确定词，这些确定词符合形态句法一致性，并且（PRO）名义上的确定性免于本协议。其次，我分离了头部和选择器的角色。所有指定和修饰的预序都被视为选择名义头的函子，而不是选择标称补体的头部。该函子治疗以一种自然而直接的方式解释了形态句法的一致性和语义类型的一致性。用于示例的语言是荷兰语，但在各个方面比较是用德语和英语进行的。
For the analysis of the noun phrase, the treatment which currently prevails in generative grammar is the one in which the head of the noun phrase is identified with the determiner, rather than with the noun. This D(et)P treatment has the advantage of providing a uniform account of all syntactic categories, both the substantive and the functional ones, and it provides a natural way to capture the co-occurrence restrictions between nouns and determiners, but it also faces a number of empirical problems. To solve them I propose an analysis in which the head of the noun phrase is identified with the noun, but in which the advantages of the DP treatment are incorporated as much as possible. This is done in two steps. First, I argue that the requirement (or the desirability) of a uniform treatment of all syntactic categories does not by itself favour the DP treatment, since there is no empirical evidence for the postulation of a separate syntactic category for the determiners. The argumentation is mainly based on an analysis of NP-internal agreement data and leads to the conclusion that the class of determiners is syntactically heterogeneous: there are the adjectival determiners, which are subject to morpho-syntactic agreement, and (pro)nominal ones, which are exempt from this agreement. Second, I dissociate the roles of head and selector. All prenominals, both the specifying and the modifying ones, are treated as functors which select a nominal head, rather than as heads which select a nominal complement. This functor treatment accounts in a natural and straightforward way for both morpho-syntactic agreement and semantic types of agreement. The language which is used for exemplification is Dutch, but at various points comparisons are made with German and English.