Syntax Lecture 11: More on the DP

Introduction We have been assuming: the DP hypothesis rather than the NP hypothesis:

Arguments for DP Hypothesis In the DP analysis D is like all other functional heads It always has one type of complement: NP In the NP analysis D inexplicably cannot have a complement

Arguments for DP Hypothesis Other phrases have subject-like elements in specifier The NP analysis has a DP in its specifier

Arguments for DP Hypothesis Pronouns are kinds of determiners: They are in complementary distribution with determiners: The man Him *the him Most determiners work as pronouns Have you seen this (picture) Do you want any (potatoes) I bought some (books)

Arguments for DP Hypothesis The DP analysis of a pronoun is much more straightforward than The NP analysis of a pronoun

Posessors The DP analysis provides a position in the DP similar to the position of the subject in the IP Specifier Possessor and subjects are clearly related: They believed in magic Their belief in magic

Possessors and determiners Possessors and determiners are in complementary distribution John’s dog The dog * John’s the dog Under the DP analysis possessors and determiners do not occupy the same position So this is a problem

The status of ‘’s’ The English pre-nominal possessor is marked with the possessive morpheme ’s This is often referred to as the genitive marker But there are a number of reasons to think that this is not a morpheme of genitive case Modern English has no other case morphology The morpheme does not behave like a case morpheme

How case morphemes behave Case morphology can affect the form of nouns, adjectives or determiners (or a combination of these) Hungarian – nouns and some determiners (pronouns and demonstratives) (azt) a nagy fiút Finnish – nouns and adjectives Minä parka jouduin siivoamaan. I(Nom) poor(Nom) got to clean `Poor me ended up cleaning.' German – determiners, adjectives and some nouns Den jungen Mann the(acc) young(acc) man

How case morphemes behave Importantly, the case morpheme attaches to words, not phrases: azt az embert akiről te figyelmeztettél engem * azt az ember akiről te figyelmeztettél engemet But this is exactly how ’s behaves John’s dog A friend of mine’s dog That man who you warned me about’s dog

Another phrasal morpheme There is one other morpheme in English which behaves like this: John’d seen it A friend of mine’ll pay The man who you warned me about’d do it This is the contracted auxiliary John (ha)d seen it A friend of mine (wi)ll pay The man who you warned me about (woul)d do it

Another phrasal morpheme This involves a process which: contracts the auxiliary in I makes it a phonological dependent (clitic) on the subject

Rethinking ‘’s’ Based on this, an analysis of the possessive marker suggests itself It is a contracted head (D) Which becomes a clitic on its specifier (the possessor)

Possessors and determiners When there is a possessor there must be a possessive determiner So there cannot be another determiner Other determiners can only appear when there is no possessor Hence possessors and determiners are in complementary distribution