2.1.6 Labels

Clearly this phrase must be different from the previous two. We will see in the next chapter that the identity of a phrase is determined by one of the words it contains. This word is known as the head of the phrase. It will be argued later on in this book that the head of phrases such as the postwoman is the determiner and the head of phrases such as on his birthday is the preposition. Thus, we distinguish between determiner phrases (DPs) and preposition phrases (PPs).

2.1.7 Rules

Such rules are known as rewrite rules as they describe how to draw a tree by ‘re-writing’ the symbol on the left of the arrow for the symbols on the right. Thus, if we start with the S at the top of the tree diagram we can rewrite this as a DP and a VP. The VP can be re-written as a verb, a DP and a PP and the PP as a preposition and a DP. The DPs can then be re-written as determiners followed by nouns.

2.2.2 The object

Quite what determines when a prepositional object may undergo this movement and when it may not is not well understood. It seems to have something to do with the relationship between the verb that is passivised and the preposition whose object moves: the closer the relationship, the more likely the object will be able to move. Thus the at preposition in (65) is closely related to the verb, heading the PP complement of this verb. The near preposition in (66) does not head a PP complement, but a PP that modifies the verb. Modification is not such a close relationship as it is not indicated in a head’s lexical entry, but can be fairly freely be added to any appropriate head.

2.2.3 Indirect object

The direct object can only undergo passive movement if the goal argument is expressed as a PP, in what is often called the dative alternate or the dative construction:

2.3.1 Substitution

85b) is ungrammatical if we take under his mitre to name what it is that is being hidden, equivalent to a gun in (78) (though it is grammatical with the interpretation that it names the place where the bishop was hiding! In this case it does not function as the object and hence is not distributing like one). We called this kind of constituent a prepositional phrase above and we will continue to assume this and therefore we can conclude that there is in fact a pronominal preposition phrase as this is what it seems to replace.

2.3.1 Substitution

In our discussion so far we have shown that whole DPs can be replaced by a pronoun and, indeed, that a PP can be replaced by the prepositional ‘pronoun’ there. But for VP we have used intransitive verb to demonstrate the distributional properties of the phrase. Is there a ‘pronoun’ for a VP? I may be that the words do so function as a kind of pronominal replacement for VPs, though its use is a little more restricted than other pronouns:

2.3.2 Movement

These interrogative elements are called wh-elements as they tend to be spelled with the letters w and h at the beginning, though this does not reflect the current pronunciation of these words. In the above example, the wh-element can be categorised as a DP, originating from object position, which is a DP position. We can also find wh-APs and PPs:

2.3.2 Movement

The fact that the answer to (103a) is a preposition phrase and that to (103b) is an adjective phrase is an indication that these wh-elements are prepositional and adjectival respectively.

2.3.2 Movement

This sentence can be interpreted in one of two ways depending on who is seen as having the gun. If it is the bank manager who has the gun, then the PP with the gun acts as a modifier within the DP the bank manager with the gun. If, on the other hand, the bishop has the gun, then the PP is interpreted as modifying the VP killed the bank manager with the gun. In the first interpretation the PP is a kind of locative modifier, locating the gun with the bank manager and in the second it is an instrumental modifier saying what was used to kill the bank manager. The important point to note is that in the first case the PP forms a single constituent with the DP, whereas in the second it is a separate constituent from this. Thus we have the two structures:

2.3.2 Movement

Suppose we topicalise the object in (105a), moving the DP to the front of the clause. As the PP is part of the DP it will be carried along with the rest of it and we will derive the following sentence:

2.3.2 Movement

Again this sentence is unambiguous and the PP must be interpreted as modifying the DP and not the VP. An overall conclusion about movement is therefore that anything that can be moved is a single constituent and hence movement provides a relatively robust and useful test for constituent structure.

2.3.3 Coordination

Just like in the case of movement, only constituents may be coordinated and two independent constituents cannot act as one single conjunction which is coordinated with another. To demonstrate this, recall the ambiguous sentence in (104) where the PP was either associated with the object DP or with the VP. Now, if we coordinate the string of words, the bank manager with the gun with the DP the security guard, the ambiguity is resolved:

2.3.3 Coordination

In this example two DP objects are coordinated, one the bank manager with the gun and the other the security guard. The first conjunct cannot be interpreted as a separate DP with following PP modifying the VP as this would not constitute a single constituent which could be coordinated with the second DP.

2.3.3 Coordination

The coordination test, however, needs to be carefully applied. Recall that the way coordination works is to take two elements and form them into a single element that has the same function as the two elements would have individually. It therefore follows that two elements cannot be coordinated if they do not have the same function, even though they may be constituents of the same category. For example, if we tried to coordinate a PP that was a locative modifier of a DP with one which was an instrumental modifier of a VP the result would be ungrammatical:

2.3.3 Coordination

In this example the adverb regularly and the PP under medical supervision have the same modifying function in the VP and hence can be coordinated.

2.3.4 Single-word phrases

We have also seen that the word there can replace prepositional phrases, and so not only is it a word, it is also a PP:

3.1.1 Rewrite rules and some terminology

Recall from chapter 2, rewrite rules which tell us how structures of various kinds decompose into their constituent parts. The rules in (1) are like these, only far more general. The generality is achieved through the use of category variables, X and Y, which stand for any possible category (nouns, verbs, prepositions, determiners, etc.). Thus these rules tell us how phrases in general are structured, not how particular VPs, PPs or DPs are.

3.1.1 Rewrite rules and some terminology

Note that the X' and the phrase share the same categorial status (X) and so if X' is P' XP will be PP, etc. As X' is the same category as the head, it follows that the whole phrase will be of the same category as the head. In this way, the head of the phrase determines the phrase’s category.

3.1.2 Endocentricity

An obvious consequence of the notion of projection is that we will never get a phrase of one category with a head of another. While this might seem a slightly perverse situation to want to prevent in the first place (why would verb phrases be headed by anything other than a verb?), it is certainly a logical possibility that there could be phrases of category X which do not contain a word of category X. For example the traditional view that preposition phrases can function adverbially could be captured under the following assumption:

3.1.2 Endocentricity

In other words, a preposition phrase which behaves as an adverbial phrase is an adverb phrase headed by the preposition. Clearly this is something that would not be allowed by the X-bar rules in (1). Evidence favours the X-bar perspective and there is no reason to believe that just because something functions adverbially it is categorially the same as an adverb. For example, even when PPs are used adverbially, they still have different distributions to AP:

3.1.2 Endocentricity

As we see in (9), a PP modifier of a verb must follow it, while an AP modifier may precede or follow it, even if the two modifiers have virtually the same interpretation. Thus a phrase headed by a preposition has a different categorial status to one headed by an adverb, supporting the X-bar claim that phrases have heads of the appropriate kind.

3.1.3 Heads and Complements

In this structure, off is inserted into the head position of the PP complement of the verb and as this preposition selects for a DP complement (as most of them do), only a determiner could be inserted into the head position of this phrase. The determiner would then impose restrictions on its complement, ensuring this to be an NP and hence only a noun could be inserted into the head of the determiner’s complement. Obviously, this could continue indefinitely, but in this case the process stops at this point as the noun subcategorises for no complement.

3.1.6 Summary

The three X-bar rules introduce three elements besides the head. The complement is introduced as the sister of the head. It always follows the head and is restricted by the head’s subcategorisation requirements. Thus, if a head selects for a PP complement, the complement must be a PP. The specifier is introduced as the sister to X' and daughter of XP. Specifiers precede the head and are restricted to one per phrase. The last element of the phrase, the adjunct, can be introduced at any X-bar level: X, X' and XP. This element expands what it is adjoined to into another element of the same type. Therefore the process is recursive and in principle any number of adjuncts can be added to a structure.

3.2.1 Move α

Finally in (50d) we see another kind of movement which appears to split a constituent across the structure. The preposition phrase for the new car park, is clearly related to the noun plans. Indeed, this PP is the complement of the noun:

3.2.1 Move α

However, the PP appears to have been moved out of the subject DP into the sentence final position. This process is known as extraposition:

3.2.2 D-structure and S-structure

In (60a) the PP in the park is an adjunct to the VP, modifying the VP by adding information about where the meeting took place. In (60b) the PP has moved to the front of the sentence, in a similar way to that in which topics are moved to the front. We can call this movement preposing. Before the preposing takes place, the PP is in its VP adjoined position:

3.2.3 Traces

There is one more point we need to make in connection with positions involved in movement. Above we said that the landing site for a moved object in a passive structure is an empty position: the subject. This seems to make sense given that the subject position is an integral part of the sentence, without which we would not have a complete sentence. However, it is not always easy to identify a landing site as something that exists before the movement takes place. For example, consider the case of PP preposing, in which a PP is moved to the front of the clause:

3.2.3 Traces

This PP does not move to the subject position, which is already occupied by Petra. The position it moves to is to the left of the subject and it is not really a position that we easily claim to be integral to all sentences given that in many it is not filled at all.

3.2.3 Traces

Because of examples such as these it has been proposed that there are two types of movement. One, known as substitution, moves an element into a vacant position. The other, called adjunction, creates an adjunction structure by the movement. Thus, PP preposing might be argued to move the PP to a position adjoined to the left of the clause:

4.1 Why the Noun is not the Head of the DP

Another case where it might be argued that the syntactic head of a phrase is not the most important semantic element within it concerns preposition phrases:

4.2.3 Adjunction within the DP

Adjunction within the DP itself is a rather limited phenomenon. We know that APs and PPs act as modifiers of nouns and adjoin within the NP, but these do not adjoin within the DP ever as can be seen by the fact that they never precede determiners or never modify pronouns:

4.3 Multiple Determiners

The object of the verb is associated with accusative Case and hence must be in a Case position. But the object of the noun is not associated with any Case; indeed nouns in general cannot take bare object. We can account for these observations if we simply assume that the complement position of a noun is a Caseless position. Given the Case Filter introduced in the previous chapter, it follows that DPs are not allowed to occupy such a position at S-structure. There is nothing to prevent a noun from taking a DP complement at D-structure, however, and thematically it seems to be the case that many nouns do have DP arguments which all surface as PPs headed by the meaningless preposition of. We might therefore assume that this preposition is inserted into the structure at S-structure so that the Case Filter may be satisfied.

5.2.1 Unaccusative verbs

Perhaps the simplest verb type, seen from a lexical perspective, is a group known as unaccusative verbs. At first sight, these look like simple intransitive verbs, though we shall see that they are in fact simpler than intransitives (or at least, intransitives are more complex!). Unaccusatives take one DP argument to which they assign a theme Θ-role. They may also, optionally in most cases, take a location or path argument expressed by a PP:

5.2.1 Unaccusative verbs

Another structure in which we find unaccusatives is known as the locative inversion construction. This involves the PP locative argument apparently sitting in subject position, while the DP theme again sits behind the verb:

5.2.1 Unaccusative verbs

It is not entirely clear that the PP in these structures occupies the subject position as it can be combined with a there subject:

5.2.6 Multiple complement verbs

Each of these predicates involves an agent, a theme and a locative. It is fairly obvious what the structure should be from what we have discussed so far. The agent is introduced as the specifier of a light verb, the theme is the specifier of the thematic VP and the locative PP is in the complement position:

5.2.6 Multiple complement verbs

Of course, the verb moves to the light verb position and the word order is as predicted. That the complement position of the thematic verb is the position to which the locative Θ-role is assigned is supported by the fact that this seems to be where we find locative PPs with unaccusative verbs, which we have argued do not involve a light verb:

5.2.6 Multiple complement verbs

Another similar set of verbs involves a PP denoting a goal or beneficiary:

5.2.6 Multiple complement verbs

Again, the arguments are similar, involving an agent, a theme and a PP complement expressing the goal or beneficiary and so we can expect the structure to be similar. This structure is sometimes called the dative construction. The interesting thing about these verbs is that they can often enter into another construction which means virtually the same thing as the dative, only involving two DP complements:

5.2.6 Multiple complement verbs

In this structure the theme is sitting in the complement position of the thematic verb, not the specifier, and the goal is in the specifier. The indirect object is obviously interpreted in the same way as the PP is in the dative construction and so we should expect it to appear in the complement position if the UTAH holds. We might try to account for the properties of the double object construction via a movement analysis, using the dative construction as the underlying arrangement as this seems relatively unproblematic. The question is, what moves and where does it move to? A minimal assumption is that besides the verb moving to the light verb position, one of the arguments moves to change their order. Thus, either the theme moves backwards or the goal moves forwards. If the theme moves backwards, it isn’t clear what position it would move to and moreover it isn’t clear why it would move, given that the position it occupies seems to be a Case position in virtually all other cases we have looked at. The goal argument is slightly different however. In the dative construction there is a preposition and this we might assume is what is responsible for providing the argument with its Case. In the double object construction, however, this preposition is not present and hence the argument cannot be assigned Case in the same way. This would then provide the motivation for the argument to move to a position in which it could get case. Considering the problem more closely the goal must move to a phrasal position between the specifier of the VP, occupied by the theme, and the light verb to which the main verb moves. The only possibility is that there is another specifier position between the two:

5.2.7 Phrasal verbs

These verbs do not behave like those which take a PP complement and the two types of verb can be distinguished in a number of ways:

5.2.7 Phrasal verbs

Much of this evidence seems to suggest that the preposition does not act as the head of a preposition phrase, but forms a unit with the verb. For example, while (124a) shows that the PP complement of a verb can be moved to the front of the clause, it seems that the particle plus the following DP cannot be moved (124b), indicating that it is perhaps not a constituent. Moreover, as we have seen in (125a) a PP can be modified by an adverb like right, but this is not possible for the particle followed by a DP (125b). Finally, we can coordinate a PP complement with another PP (126a), but we cannot coordinate the particle plus the following DP with a PP, indicating that the particle does not form a PP with the following DP. For this reason, it is often claimed that the particle forms a syntactic unit with the verb, perhaps being adjoined to it:

5.2.7 Phrasal verbs

Obviously, this is a very unique kind of construction with many mysterious properties. Let us see if we can solve at least some of these mysteries. When a phrasal verb has an object, this object is often a theme and hence we would expect it to go in a specifier position of the thematic verb. This verb should follow its specifier, leaving the complement position available for a PP complement. This works fine for an example such as (134b):

5.2.7 Phrasal verbs

In this structure, presumably the main verb will move to support the light verb and the right word order will be achieved. It would seem reasonable to assume that the particle construction with the particle following the object is derived in exactly the same way, with the preposition heading a PP which has no other content:

5.2.7 Phrasal verbs

Again the verb will move to the light verb position and the word order is predicted. The fact that the particle heads a PP accounts for its ability to be modified by an adverb, as in (133b).

5.2.7 Phrasal verbs

Note that the structure that is formed by the movement of the particle is the same as the one that is traditionally assumed to be the basic structure for a phrasal verb, with the preposition adjoined to the verb. Of course this means that the preposition does not form a PP with the following DP in the specifier of the lower VP and hence we account for why it does not behave like a PP complement, which would have an entirely different structure (see (136) for example).

5.2.7 Phrasal verbs

The question needs to be addressed as to why the movement of the preposition is allowed and when it is not. Obviously not every verb that has a PP complement allows this movement, and indeed those verbs which do allow it do not allow it in all circumstances:

5.2.7 Phrasal verbs

It seems that it is only when the verb has a PP complement which consists only of a prepositional head that the preposition is allowed to move out of the PP. If the preposition itself has a complement, or if it is modified, then it is not allowed to move. It is not entirely clear why this should be, as other heads can move out of their own phrases when there are other elements in other positions within them. For example, we have seen many cases of a verb moving out of the VP when its specifier or complement are filled by its arguments. Another observation from (138) might help to shed some light on the problem. Note that when the verb has a simple PP complement, it has a different interpretation: to put something off does not mean the same as to put something somewhere. Similarly, put down, put on, put back, put over, etc. all have somewhat idiosyncratic meanings that are not simply related to the meaning of put as a verb of placement. So, put down can mean ‘to kill’ (of animals), put on ‘to fake’, put back ‘to delay’ and put over ‘to convey’. This might suggest that it is not the same verb we are looking at in all these cases and especially they are not the same verb as in (138b). If this is true then it could be that the ability of the preposition to move might be lexically restricted by the verb: some verbs allow it, others do not. Of course, this still does not explain why those that do allow the preposition to move only take ‘simple’ PP complements, which contain just the preposition and so we cannot be said to have solved all the mysteries of phrasal verbs here. In fact we have probably only just scratched the surface and it has to be admitted that phrasal verbs present many very difficult problems for analysis under any set of assumptions. We will therefore leave this topic at this point and be content with the meagre understanding of them that we have gained.

5.2.8 Verbs with clausal complements

In each case of the above, if the DP followed the clause it would be ungrammatical. Moreover, if there is a PP complement and a clause, the PP tends to precede the clause:

5.2.8 Verbs with clausal complements

In this, the verb moves from light verb to light verb and the DP moves to the specifier of the first light verb to get Case from the higher one. A similar structure would have to be supposed for the PP arguments. However, this structure does not seem to reflect the event structure of such verbs, which seem to consist of just two events:

5.2.8 Verbs with clausal complements

A second problem is why the PP argument would undergo the same movement as the DP as PPs do not need Case and do not normally undergo this kind of movement. Hence it appears that there is not much to recommend this analysis.

5.2.8 Verbs with clausal complements

If we want to maintain the UTAH we cannot just assume that the arguments start off in different positions, however. So we want to keep the basic structure of the VP as it is in (145). We need to simplify the light verb structure, getting rid of one of these to match with the event structure and finally we need to find a way of getting the PP in front of the clause that does not assume that it undergoes a similar movement to DPs. The structure is as follows:

5.2.8 Verbs with clausal complements

One way to get the PP in front of the clause without moving the PP would be to move the clause backwards, perhaps to adjoin to the VP or v':

5.4 Adverbs, PPs and Clausal modifiers

5.4.2 PP modifiers

7.2 The Clause as CP

The generalisation is now that all verbs which select for a finite declarative complement select for a CP. This is fairly easy to capture in terms of the notion of canonical structural realisation principles. The idea behind this is quite simple. Basically, certain arguments are canonically realised by certain categories. For example, themes are typically realised as DPs and locations as PPs. This is their ‘canonical realisation’. It may be that a certain degree of non-canonical realisation of arguments is possible, for example the nominal home can realise a goal argument usually realised by a PP:

7.3.1 Basic positions within the CP

Apart from (18a) where the wh-element replaces the subject, all other instances of wh-questions involve the wh-element being in front of the subject. Given that the subject’s surface position is the specifier of the IP, this indicates that the wh-element sits in a position outside the IP. Above the IP is the CP, so we may assume that the wh-element is situated in the CP. As wh-elements are phrases, probably DPs, though some of them have underlying distributions similar to PPs and therefore are either PPs or perhaps DPs non-canonically realising the prepositional role, they must occupy a phrasal position in the CP and the most obvious choice would be the specifier of the CP:

7.4.2 A comparison between relative and interrogative clauses

When the wh-element is part of a PP it has the option of moving alone, a strategy known as preposition stranding, or of taking the whole PP with it, a strategy known as pied-piping (after the story of the Pied Piper of Hamlin, who played his pipes and the rats followed him – the connection between prepositions and rats is, however, mysterious). If that were a relative pronoun, we might expect the same options to be available in that-relatives. But this is not true:

8.1.2 Clauses without IP

One argument which favours this analysis is that different verbs take different types of small clauses as their complements and what determines the type of the clause is the head of the predicate part of the clause following the subject. The verb consider, for example, takes an AP type and a DP type of small clause, but not a PP type:

8.1.2 Clauses without IP

The verb, order, on the other hand, takes PP types, but not AP or DP types:

8.1.2 Clauses without IP

Besides the problem that under this analysis the head of the predicate is not the head of the clause, a major problem facing it is that it forces us to assume that the inflection can subcategorise for a whole set of different complements, ranging from DPs to PPs. But functional heads do not normally display this amount of freedom in their complement taking abilities. In all the cases we have considered so far, the agreement head selects for a v/VP complement, i.e. complements with [–N, +V] features. But if I can select for DP, AP and PP complements as well, i.e. [+F, +N, –V], [–F, +N, +V] and [–F, –N, –V], this must mean that it imposes no categorial conditions on its complement whatsoever. This is not true as bare NPs, non-thematic vPs, IPs and CPs cannot act as predicates inside small clauses: