Andrew Radford - Linguistics An Introduction [Second Edition]

(318)

speaker a: What did you learn from your visit to Milan?

speaker b: That the Italians do love the opera. (reply 1)

Italians love opera. (reply 2)

The italicised determinate (i.e. determiner-containing) nominals the Italians and the opera in the first reply given by speaker B in (318) comprise a determiner (D) the and a following noun (N) Italians/opera, and so can be analysed as determiner phrases (DPs). This means that the first reply produced by speaker B will have the structure in (319):

(319)

CP

C

TP

That

DP T'

D N

T

VP

the Italians

do

V

DP

love

D N

the opera

284

senten ces

But what of the structure of the indeterminate (i.e. determinerless) nominals Italians and opera in the second reply produced by speaker B in (318)? In order to maximise the structural symmetry between determinate and indeterminate nominals, we shall suppose that just as clauses which contain no overt complementiser or T constituent contain a covert one, so too indeterminate nominals are DPs and differ from determinate nominals only in that they are headed by a null determiner (symbolised below as φ). If this is so, speaker B’s second reply in (318) will have the structure (320):

(320)

CP

C

TP

ϕ

DP

T'

D N T

VP

ϕ

Italians

ϕ

V

DP

love

D N

ϕ

opera

Now, (320) is identical to (319), except that the head C position of CP is filled by that in (319) but by a null C in (320), the head T position of TP is filled by do in

(319) but by a null T in (320), and the head D position of the DPs is filled by the in

(319) but by a null D in (320).

There is evidence to support the postulation of covert determiners which goes beyond a desire to maximise structural symmetry. If English does indeed have a null determiner, we’d expect it to have much the same semantic properties as overt determiners (e.g. quantifying determiners such as all or some). In this connection, consider the interpretation of the italicised indeterminate nominals in sentences such as (321):

(321) a.

Eggs are fattening

c.

I had eggs for breakfast

b.

Bacon is fattening

d.

I had bacon for breakfast

The nouns eggs and bacon in (321a, b) have a generic interpretation and hence are interpreted as meaning ‘eggs/bacon in general’. By contrast, in (321c, d) they have a partitive interpretation, roughly paraphrasable as ‘some eggs/bacon’. If we say that indeterminate nominals are DPs headed by a null generic/partitive determiner φ, we can say that the semantic properties of φ determine that bare nominals will be interpreted as generically or partitively quantified.

Moreover, just like some overt determiners, the null determiner φ can be used to quantify only specific types of nominal expression. For example, as indicated by

(322), the overt determiner enough can be used to quantify a non-count noun like machinery or a plural count noun like machines, but not a singular count noun like machine:

Empty categories

285

(322)

We don’t have [enough machinery/machines/*machine]

(Machine is a count noun in that we can say one machine and two machines;

but machinery is a non-count noun in that we can’t say *one machinery or

*two machineries.) We can therefore say that enough can only be used to

quantify a non-individual noun expression (i.e. an expression headed by a

noun which is not a singular count noun). Significantly, the hypothesised

null determiner φ has precisely the same quantificational properties as enough and can be used to quantify a non-count noun like machinery or a plural count noun like machines, but not a singular count noun like machine, as we see

from (323):

(323)

Never trust [φ machinery/machines/*machine]

The fact that the covert determiner φ has the same quantificational properties as overt determiners such as enough increases the plausibility of a null determiner analysis for indeterminate nominals.

If we conclude that nominal expressions are DPs headed by an overt or covert D, an obvious question to ask is how we deal with so-called ‘pronouns’. In this connection, compare the italicised expressions in speaker B’s two replies in (324)

below:

(324)

speaker a: What did our president tell your prime minister?

speaker b: That we Brits do envy you Yanks. (reply 1)

We envy you. (reply 2)

The expressions we Brits and you Yanks can plausibly be analysed as DPs

comprising a D (we/you) and a noun complement (Brits/Yanks). Thus, speaker

B’s first reply in (324) will have the structure (325):

(325)

CP

C

TP

That

DP

T'

D N

T

VP

we Brits

do

V

DP

envy

D

N

you

Yanks

But what is the structure of the second reply given by speaker B in (324)?

In structures such as we Brits and you Yanks in (325), the pronouns we and you function as determiners which take nouns (Brits and Yanks) as their complements.

Simple pronouns such as we and you in reply 2 in (324) can therefore be plausibly analysed as determiners used without any noun complement. Thus, our earlier

286

senten ces

category PRN is systematically subsumed under D. With this analysis, reply 2 in

(324) has the structure (326):

(326)

CP

C TP

ϕ

D T'

We

T

VP

ϕ

V

D

envy

you

Just as the analysis in (326) enables us to provide a unitary account of the syntax of clauses (as projections of head C, T and V constituents), so too it enables us to provide a unitary account of the syntax of noun and pronoun expressions as projections of a head D constituent (i.e. as D-expressions). In structures such as (325), the determiner we is used prenominally (with a following noun as its complement), whereas in structures such as (326), it is used pronominally (i.e. on its own without any following noun complement). The determiner

analysis of pronouns also provides us with a straightforward account of the

fact that most determiners can be used either prenominally (These books are

interesting, Each child has a desk) or pronominally (These are interesting,

Each has a desk).

Another advantage of the determiner analysis of pronouns is that it might help us to understand why two-year-old children sometimes produce structures such as that observed by David McNeill in (327):

(327)

Get it ladder!

Suppose the child producing (327) analyses it as a determiner and wrongly assumes that (like most determiners) it can be used not only pronominally, but also prenominally; this would mean that it ladder in (327) is a DP for such a child with the structure in (328):

(328)

DP

D

N

it

ladder

The analysis in (328) assumes that the child uses the definite pronoun it in

(327) in much the same way as an adult would use the definite prenominal determiner the.

However, the analysis in (328) raises the interesting question of why it can be used pronominally but not prenominally in adult English, and conversely why the

Empty categories

287

can be used prenominally but not pronominally – in other words, how we should account for the contrasts in (329):

(329) a.

I walked under the ladder

b.

*I walked under it ladder

c.

I walked under it

d.

*I walked under the

The answer lies in idiosyncratic properties of individual words. Although it is a property of most determiners that they can be used with or without a following noun (or noun phrase) complement, a determiner such as the has the idiosyncratic property that it requires a complement headed by a noun; and conversely, a