Canadian Journal of Linguisticss 37, 197-218. (1992)

CROSS-LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE FOR NUMBER PHRASE*

Elizabeth Ritter

1. INTRODUCTION

In this paper we provide cross-linguistic evidence for a functional projection

between D & NP, which we call Number Phrase (NumP). In a full noun phrase, the head

of this projection is, among other things, the locus of number specification (singular or

plural) of a noun phrase. Pronominal noun phrases are distinguished from full noun

phrases by the fact that they lack a lexical projection, i.e. they lack a NP. The existence of

two distinct functional categories predicts the existence of at least two classes of pronouns,

those of the category D, and those of the category Num. In both Modern Hebrew and

Haitian, there is evidence that this prediction is borne out.

It will also be shown that specification of the nominal features person, number and

gender varies across languages and across classes of noun phrases in a single language.1

In Modern Hebrew, for example, the most embedded head in the noun phrase bears the

gender specification. Thus, N bears the gender specification in full noun phrases, but since

pronouns lack the lexical projection, they have their gender on a functional head. In the

pronominal system, there is also a distinction between first and second person pronouns on

the one hand, and third person pronouns on the other. First and second person pronouns

contain only the DP projection, and consequently, manifest all three features on the head, D.

Third person pronouns, on the other hand, have both DP and NumP, and hence, each head

bears a subset of features. Not all languages manifest grammatical gender. In Haitian, for

example, noun phrases are only specified for definiteness (or person, in the case of deictic

pronouns) and number. Another source of variation is the component of the grammar

where affixation takes place. We show that in Modern Hebrew morphemes bearing

grammatical feature specification may be attached to the noun either in the lexicon or in the

syntax. Throughout this paper the term noun phrase will be used to refer to the maximal

projection of a nominal constituent, regardless of its maximal syntactic category.

Abbreviations such as DP and NP will be used to specify a particular maximal projection.

Support for the existence of this more articulated structure will be provided by the

analysis of different kinds of noun phrases in Modern Hebrew, Haitian and Hungarian.

We will demonstrate that these three unrelated languages exhibit striking parallels in the

structure of their nominal systems.

2. MODERN HEBREW

In this section we provide evidence from Modern Hebrew for NumP, a functional

projection between D & NP.2 It will be argued that this more articulated structure permits a

straightforward analysis of genitive constructions and pronominals in this language.

2.1 A UNIFIED ACCOUNT OF GENITIVE CONSTRUCTIONS

The postulation of NumP permits a unified account of the three genitive

constructions in Modern Hebrew. Ritter (1988) analyses the rigid NSO word order in

process nominals containing a bare genitive subject (i.e. construct state noun phrases) as a

consequence of head movement of N to D.3 On that analysis N adjoins to a phonetically

null genitive Case assigner (Dgen) which is the head of the DP, as shown in (1).

(1) ahavat dan et iSt-o

love DanACC wife-his 'Dan’s love of his wife'

[DP Dgen [ NP dan [N' ahava et i St-o]]]

Dan love ACC wife-his

--> [DP ahava+Dgen [ NPdan [N' tN et i St-o]]]

love Dan ACC wife-his

While this analysis permits a principled account of asymmetric c-command of the

object by the subject in construct state DPs, it cannot account for the facts of the free

genitive (FG) construction, which also has NSO order for process nominals, but differs

from the simple construct state (CS) in three crucial respects: (i) the definite determiner

may occur in initial position of a FG construction, (ii) an overt genitive Case marker Sel

‘of’ appears on the subject of N in the FG construction, (iii) event adjectives, which follow

the subject in the simple CS, precede the subject in the FG construction. The postulation of

a projection intermediate between D and NP permits a head-movement analysis of both

constructions which obeys constraints on movement of heads, including Structure

Preservation (Emonds, 1970) and the Head Movement Constraint (Travis, 1984). This

intermediate projection provides a landing site for N in the FG construction. It also permits

us to maintain the assumption that the syntactic category of the definite article (ha) is

D(eterminer), and that the maximal projection of the definite article, DP, is the maximal

projection of the noun phrase. The derivation of the FG counterpart of (1) is given in (2).

(2) ha-ahava Sel dan et iSt-o

the-love of DanACC wife-his 'Dan’s love of his wife'

[DP ha [NumP Num [NP [ NP Seldan [N' ahava et iSt-o]]]]

the of Dan love ACC wife-his

--> [DP ha [NumP ahava+Num [ NP [ NP Sel dan [N' tN et iSt-o]]]]

the love of Dan ACC wife-his

If all Hebrew full noun phrases have the same structure, then CSs must also contain

a NumP. Modifying our earlier analysis of CSs slightly to incorporate this additional

projection, we now assume that N raises to Num, and that the complex N+Num

subsequently raises to D. In addition, the subject must now move to [Spec, NumP] in order

to be string adjacent to its case-assigner, Dgen. The derivation of (1) under this revised

analysis is given in (3).

(3) ahavat dan et iSto

love DanACC wife-his 'Dan’s love of his wife'

[DP Dgen [NumP Num [NP [ NP dan [N' ahava et iSt-o ]]]]

Dan love ACC wife-his

--> [DP ahava+Num+Dgen [NumPDani tN+Num [NP [NP ti [N' tN et iSt-o]]]]

This minimal difference between CSs and FGs accounts straightforwardly for the

order of the subject relative to adjective in each case. As mentioned earlier, manner

adjectives follow the subject in the construct state DP, but precede the subject in a free

genitive DP. Examples are given in (4) and (5), respectively. (For the convenience of the

reader, we have typed the adjective in boldface and underlined the subject.)

(4) CONSTRUCT STATE

a. axilat dan ha-menumeset et ha-uga

eating Danthe-polite ACC the-cake

'Dan’s polite eating of the cake'

b. *axilatha-menumeset dan et ha-uga

eating the-polite Dan ACC the-cake

(5) FREE GENITIVE

a. ha-axila ha-menumeset Sel dan et ha-uga

the-eating the-polite of DanACC the-cake

‘Dan’s quick eating of the cake’

b. *ha-axila Sel dan ha-menumeset et ha-uga

the-eating of Danthe-polite ACC the-cake

Let us suppose that adjectives such as menumeset ‘polite’ are NP adjuncts and that

they remain in their d-structure position throughout the derivation. Any word order

alternations must then be due to movement of other constituents. For example, the contrast

between the FG and the CS with respect to adjective/subject order can be accounted for by

assuming that the subject moves in CS noun phrases. In fact, movement of the subject can

be motivated on the basis of case considerations. Specifically, if the subject is to receive

structural case from Dgen, it must be string adjacent to this genitive case-assigner. The

postulation of NumP has the consequence that [Spec, NP], the d-structure position of the

subject, is not accessible to case assignment by Dgen. Consequently, the subject must move

to [Spec, NumP] to get case from Dgen. The reason that the subject moves to this position,

rather than [Spec, DP], is that Dgen, like Infl in VSO languages, is constrained to assign

case rightward. The derivation provided by this analysis of example (4a) is depicted in (6).

(6) axilat dan ha-menumeset et ha uga

'Dan’s polite eating of the cake'

DP/\

Dgen NumP/\

Spec Num'/\

Num NP/\

AP NP| /\

ha-menumeset DP N'Dan /\

N DPaxila |

et ha uga

The subject in the FG construction is overtly case-marked by Sel ‘of’. However,

the fact that Sel is only available in the context of NP suggests that this case-marker is the

realization of inherent genitive Case assigned to a noun phrase in [Spec, NP].4 Therefore,

the adjective is realized in a position which is to the left of the subject but to the right of the

raised N in a free genitive DP, as shown in (7).

(7) ha-axila ha-menumeset Sel dan et ha uga

'Dan’s polite eating of the cake' DP /\

D NumPha /\

Num NP/\

AP NP| /\

ha-menumeset DP N'Sel Dan /\

N DPaxila |

et ha-uga

On this analysis, the differences between the two genitive constructions derives from

the mechanism of genitive Case assignment used (structural case by Dgen to [Spec, NumP]

or insertion of Sel in [Spec, NP]). Assuming that both strategies are freely available leads

to the prediction that a single DP may contain both genitive Case assigners. In fact, this is

precisely what happens in clitic-doubled CSs, such as (8). In this construction, N is realized

in the head of DP, but the subject remains in situ where it is Case-marked by Sel. A clitic

on N absorbs genitive Case assigned by Dgen (Ritter 1991).

(8) ahavat-o Sel dan et iSt-o

love-his of DanACC wife-his 'Dan’s love of his wife'

[DP Dgen [NumP Num [NP [NP Sel dani[N'ahava+CLi et iSt-o]]]]

of Dan love ACC wife-his

--> [DP ahavat+CLi+Num+Dgen [NumP tN+Num [NP (Adj) [NP Sel Dani [N' tN et iSt-

o]]]]

In short, the postulation of NumP permits unified account of the three genitive constructions

in Hebrew in which free genitive noun phrases and both simple and clitic doubled construct

state noun phrases have essentially the same d-structure. The s-structure differences with

respect to the position of the lexical head and its subject may be attributed to the case-

assigning strategy or strategies employed in each construction.

2.2 NUM BEARS THE NUMBER FEATURE OF A FULL NOUN PHRASE

It is an uncontroversial claim that the head of DP is specified for the feature

definiteness.5 In this section, we present evidence that shows that in Modern Hebrew the

head of NumP specifies the grammatical number (singular or plural) of the noun phrase

and that the head of NP specifies its grammatical gender.

Bat-El (1986) has demonstrated that number marking is inflectional on Hebrew

nouns while gender marking is derivational on these lexical items, and that both features are

inflectional on verbs and adjectives. This fact may be interpreted as evidence that the lexical

head of the noun phrase is specified for gender ([±feminine]) and that the functional head

Num is specified for number ([±plural]). This conclusion assumes that inflectional affixes

are those which may head functional syntactic categories, and which are attached to the

lexical stem in the syntactic component as a consequence of head movement. This process

is schematized in (9a). Derivational affixes, on the other hand, are part of the word at all

levels of syntactic representation. Since derivational word formation takes place in the

lexicon, derivational affixes never have their own syntactic projections, as indicated in (9b).

(9) a. Syntactic Affixation (Inflection):

X' X'/\ /\

X YP Y+X YP/\ ==> /\

ZP Y' ZP Y'/\ /\

Y ... tY ...

b. Lexical Affixation (Derivation):

X'/\

X .../\

Y X

What this means for the analysis of number and gender features in Hebrew is that

the latter are base generated as heads of NumP while the former are inserted as part of the

lexical head. The claim that gender is specified on the head of NP appears to be challenged

by the fact that Hebrew has both a masculine plural marker (-im) and a feminine plural

marker (-ot), and that the same plural markers that appear on adjectives and present tense

verbs and participles also appear on nouns, as shown in (10). These facts seem to indicate

that both gender and number are specified on the functional head Num.

(10) a. ha-yelad-ot ha-nexmad-ot gar-ot be- tel aviv.

the-girl-f.pl. the-nice-f.pl. live-f.pl. in Tel Aviv

'The nice girls live in Tel Aviv.'

b. ha-yelad-im ha-nexmad-im gar-im be- tel aviv.

the-boy-m.pl. the-nice-m.pl. live-m.pl. in Tel Aviv

'The nice boys live in Tel Aviv.'

This hypothesis wrongly predicts that the gender of the plural marker, and not the

gender of the noun stem will determine the gender of the inflected noun. Alternatively , it

might be argued that the existence of two distinct plural forms shows that gender is

specified both on the noun stem and on the plural affix. This alternative proposal wrongly

predicts that feminine nouns will always co-occur with feminine plural markers and that

masculine nouns will always co-occur with masculine plural markers. Assuming that

Hebrew nouns are right-headed, both of these hypotheses predict that the gender of Num

rather than the gender of the stem will determine the gender of the derived form. The data

on irregular nouns shows that gender is not specified on the plural affix. First, some

masculine nouns exceptionally select the feminine plural and some feminine nouns

exceptionally select the masculine plural. Second, the gender of the stem, not that of the

plural marker, triggers agreement on adjectives and verbs, as shown in (11).

(11). a. Sana-im tov-ot *San-im tov-im

year(f.)-pl. good-f.pl. year(f.)-pl. good-m.pl.

b. xalon-ot gdol-im *xalon-ot gdol-ot

window(m.)-pl. big-m.pl. window(m.)-pl. big-f.pl.

These data are only compatible with an analysis in which the plural affix is not

specified for gender. Moreover, they lend additional support to the claim that gender is

specified on the head of NP and number is specified on the head of NumP. This claim

implies that Hebrew gender suffixes are attached in the lexicon while number suffixes in

this language are attached in the syntax.6

2.3 TWO CATEGORIES OF PRONOUNS

Brame (1982) first proposed that noun phrases and pronouns are properly treated as

determiner phrases. Abney (1987) provides further support for the treatment of pronouns as

nominal functional categories in English. The hypothesis that there are two distinct

functional categories noun phrases leads to the expectation of two classes of pronouns, and

the evidence indicates that this is indeed the case. More specifically, it appears that first and

second person pronouns are DPs whose head is specified for person ([±1st]), number

([±pl])and gender ([±fem]). Third person pronouns, or more perspicuously non-person

pronouns, have a more complex structure: D is specified for definiteness (±def.) and

Num is specified for number and gender ([±pl, ±fem] ). The two structures are given in

(12):

(12) 1st/2nd person 3rd/non person

DP DP| /\

D D NumP[±1st] [±def] |[±pl] Num

[±fem] [±pl][±fem]

As indicated, third person personal pronouns are derived by raising Num to D. In order to

refer to a specific individual, a noun phrase must be definite. Consequently, all personal

pronouns must have a DP projection. The claim that Hebrew third person pronouns are

minimally Num provides some insight into their availability in contexts where 1st/2nd

person pronouns are never possible, i.e. in the demonstrative pronouns and in nominal

sentences.

In his analysis of English, Jackendoff (1977) classifies the grammatical elements in

(13) as members of the same syntacitic category because they cannot co-occur as specifiers

of the same noun phrase.

(13) the, this, which, every, ...

In current terms, these elements are all Ds. If all personal pronouns are also Ds, then they

should also be in complementary distribution with pronouns. The ungrammaticality of (14),

bears out this prediction.

(14) *the you, this he, all they, etc.

In Hebrew, 1st/2nd person pronouns never co-occur with the definite determiner, but

3rd/non person pronouns do. In fact, the combination of D plus pronoun derives a

demonstrative, as shown by the contrast in (15).

(15) a. *ha-ani /*ha-anaxnu/*ha-ata /*ha-at /*ha-atem /*ha-aten

*the-I /*the-we /*the-you(msg)/*the-you(fsg)/*the-you(mpl)/*the-you(f.pl)

b. ha-hu/ha-hi /ha-hem /ha-ze /ha-zot /ha-ele

the-he/the-she /the-they/the-it(m)/the-it(f)/the-they

'that(m/f) /those /this(m/f) /these'

These facts provide support for a non-unified treatment of personal pronouns in Hebrew.

In fact, they suggest 3rd person pronouns belong in the same natural class as impersonal

pronouns in this language. This result, which is problematic for an analysis which assumes

a single functional category, poses no difficulties for the analysis being defended here.

Above, we suggested a complex structure for third person pronouns, in which the

definiteness specification is a feature of the head of DP, and the number and gender

specifications are features of the head of NumP. Let us now suppose that hu/hi/hem, etc.

are spellouts of Num. Demonstratives, such as (15b) simply combine the pronominal

elements in Num with the definite article in D. The structure of the demonstrative

pronouns is given in (16).

(16) DP/\

D NumPha |

Numhu/hi/hem/...

This approach also permits a simple account of the fact that third person pronouns

may also function as Infl in present tense nominal sentences containing a nonverbal

predicate (Doron 1983, Rapoport 1987).

(17) a. dan hu ha-more.

Danhe the-teacher. 'Dan is the teacher.'

b. sara hi xaxama.

Sara she smart(f) 'Sara is smart.'

c. sara ve ilan hemnexmadim.

Sara and Ilan theynice(pl.) 'Sara and Ilan are nice.'

Present tense is distinguished from past/future tense in Hebrew in a number of

respects.7 The aspect of present tense that is important here is the impoverished agreement

phenomenon observed in this tense. More specifically, present tense verbs lack person

agreement. In other words, whereas past/future tense verbs agree with their subjects in

person, number and gender, present tense verbs agree with their subjects in number and

gender only. One way of interpreting this fact is to consider the agreement element in Infl

(AGR) as a pronominal functional category, along the lines originally suggested by Rizzi

(1982). On this view, the syntactic category of agreement is D in past/future tense, but Num

in present tense.

Now, the fact that the copula has the shape of a third person pronoun in present

tense nominal sentences may receive a principled explanation. These sentences have no

verb, but they do have agreement. Present tense agreement is Num and Num has the shape

of a third person pronoun.

3. HAITIAN

In this section we discuss various aspects of the syntax of Haitian in order to

provide further evidence for the syntactic category Num. In particular, we show that an

extension of the analysis of Modern Hebrew to Haitian permits a principled explanation for

a variety of langauage specific phenomena.

3.1 TWO DETERMINERS?

Haitian Creole appears to have both a singular determiner la and a plural determiner

yo, as illustrated in (18).8

(18) a. liv la 'the book'

b. liv yo 'the books'

In other words, it appears that the syntactic category D is specified for two features:

definiteness, or more specifically deicticness, and number. This is the position adopted in

Fournier (1977), Lefebvre and Fournier (1978), and Lefebvre (1982). In this section, we

show that the insight of these authors is consistent with our claim that there are two distinct

functional categories, Num and D. More specifically, we shall show that la is a D, which

bears the feature specification [+definite], or more specifically [+deictic], as they originally

proposed, and yo is a Num which is specified as [+plural].9 It is well-documented that

Haitian nouns are never inflected for number. In (18), for example, the noun liv ‘book’

may be either singular or plural.

What permits plural noun phrases to be interpreted as definite when there is no overt

definite article, as in (18b)? Let us suppose that the head of DP must be specified as

[+definite] whenever the noun phrase is interpreted as definite, but that this feature

specification need not have independent phonetic content if it can be licensed. The d-

structure of this example is given in (19).

(19) DP/\

NumP D/\ [+definite]

NP Num| yo

Nliv

If the head of DP lacks phonetic content it constitutes an empty category which must be

licensed by some other element which does have phonetic content. This follows from a

general constraint on recoverability (Rizzi and Roberts (1989)), which essentially requires

that all elements with semantic content be visible for interpretation in the semantic

interpretive component. Notice that movement of yo provides the definiteness specification

with phonetic content, and thus the visibility requirement is satisfied.

Lefebvre (1982) also discusses a dialect which has both la and yo in the same noun

phrase, but only with the order la yo. This is exactly what we expect if yo is the head of

NumP and if it adjoins rightward onto the head of DP in the course of the derivation.10

(20) DP/\

NumP D/\ la

NP Num| yo

Nliv

The fact that liv yo la is ungrammatical indicates that movement is obligatory in this

dialect. Adapting a suggestion by Marantz (1988) to account for 2nd position auxiliaries at

the sentential level, we suggest that the obligatory movement may be attibutable to the fact

that the plural marker is phonologically an enclitic, while the determiner is a suffix.11 Since

affixes must be attached prior to clitics, this hypothesis predicts that at PF the order of

attachment will be -la-yo. The fact that its phonetic shape of the determiner is sensitive to the

content of the word that precedes it, but the phonetic shape of the plural marker is invariant

is consistent with this approach.

In short, we propose that the difference between the dialect which permits both la

and yo in the same noun phrase and the dialect which has these elements in complementary

distribution is not in the syntactic analysis of yo (as D or Num) but in in the well-

formedness of la+yo.

3.2 PRONOUNS AND AGR

Yo is also the third person plural pronoun in Haitian. In this context, it contrasts

with li, not la, as shown in (21).

(21) a. li /*la te we Jan

(s)he /*the past see Jan. '(S)he saw Jan.'

b. yo te we Jan.

they past see Jan 'They saw Jan.'

The fact that yo appears to contrast minimally with both li and la can be accounted

for by extending the analysis of Hebrew pronouns to Haitian. We adopt the analysis of

Lefebvre and Massam (1988) that la is the head of DP. On our analysis, this means that it

is only specified for the feature definiteness. Li, on the other hand, is of the category Num;

it has a specification for the feature number, i.e singular ( [-plural]). Since Haitian dos not

manifest grammatical gender, we assume that this language lacks specification the feature

[±feminine]. Thus, third person personal pronouns are Nums which are specified for the

feature [±plural], and they are properly contained in a DP projection, as shown in (22).12

(22) 3rd personDP/\

NumP D| |

Num [+def][±pl]

In the discussion of the Hebrew pronouns, it was argued that the assumption of two

classes of pronominals permits greater insights into the syntax of sentences as well as noun

phrases in this language. In particular, it was suggested that the analysis of agreement as a

pronominal category (D or Num) permits a principled explanation of differences in

agreement phenomena in present and past/future tenses. In this section, the argument is

extended in order to explain why Haitian sentences lacks number agreement between the

subject and the verb. In Haitian, the singular definite article may appear as the head of a

sentence as well a noun phrase. However, the plural marker yo never occurs as the head of

a sentence, as illustrated in (23).

(23) a. Li vini an.

he come an ‘He came (as expected)’.

b. Yo vini an/*yo.

theycome an/*yo ‘They came (as expected).’

Recall that the former is of the category D while the latter is of the category Num.

Lefebvre (this volume) suggests that in the sentential system, la (and its allomorphs a, an,

nan) is the Haitian counterpart of agreement in more familiar languages.13 Consequently,

we suggest that the reason that Haitian predicates do not manifest number agreement with

their subjects is that the syntactic category of agreement in Haitian is D, and Haitian D is

never specified for the feature number. In other words, the reason that clauses are never

determined by yo is that yo is of the syntactic category Num not D. The claim that

agreement is D in Haitian also predicts that it will be realized as la rather than li. Li, like yo,

is of the category Num , and hence will never be base-generated as the head of the clausal

DP either. More generally, the claim that agreement is a pronominal functional category,

either D or Num, predicts that in any given language it will have the same feature

specification as pronouns of the same category.

3.3 TWO GENITIVE CONSTRUCTIONS

In Haitian possessed noun phrases, the order of constituents is N Possessor (D),

and, as Lumsden (1989) demonstrates, the definite article is part of the genitive constituent.

What Lumsden observes is that when the plural particle yo is present, it always has scope

over the possessor, and only optionally has scope over the possessed noun as well. Some

examples are given in (24).

(24) a. jouet timoun yo b. batopeche yo

toy child pl boatfisherman pl

‘the children’s toy(s)’ ‘the fishermen’s boat(s)’

*’the child’s toys’ *‘the fisherman’s boat(s)’

The purpose of this section is to account for the lack of inherent number

specification in Haitian possessed noun phrases. We suggest that there is in fact a

structural ambiguity in these examples, which arises in the course of the derivation of the S-

structure representation. The D-structure we assign to both interpretations in (24a) is given

in (25).14

(25) jouet timoun yo

‘the children’s toy(s)’

DP/\

D' Spec/\

NumP Dgen/\

Num' DP/\ |

NP Num |n timoun yoN

jouet

We assume, following Lumsden (1989), that Haitian has a phonetically null genitive

Case-assigner which is in head of the possessed DP. (In order to facilitate comparison with

our analysis of Hebrew, we label this element Dgen.) This accounts straightforwardly, for

the absence of a second D in possessed noun phrases. Lumsden suggests that the

possessor raises to [Spec, DP]. Adopting his analysis, we derive the surface structure in

(26).

(26) jouet timoun yo

‘the children’s toy’

DP/ \

D' \/\ DPi

NumP Dgen |

/\ timoun yoNum' ti

/\NP Num

|N

jouet

It is a general property of Haitian that this language never manifests morphological

reflexes of spec-head agreement for the features person/definiteness or number. Therefore,

although the possessor is in the specifier position of functional categories it does not induce

feature copying for number and definiteness. Thus, this is the structure of “the children's

toy”. The alternative interpretation involves “exceptional” incorporation of yo, the head of

the possessor noun phrase into the head of the possessed noun phrase, as shown in (27).

In this derivation, there is no genitive Case assigner. This exceptional incorporation of the

head of the possessed noun phrase obviates the need to assign it case (cf. Baker (1988). It

also simultaneously avoids a potential ECP violation due to the presence of empty heads in

both functional projections of the possessed noun phrase.15

(27) jouet timoun yo

'the children’s toys'

DP/\

D' Spec/\

NumP D/ \

Num' \/\ DP

NP Num /\| NumP D+Num

N | yojouet timoun

Incorporation of yo permits a plural interpretation of the possessed noun phrase.

Additional support for this analysis is provided by examples like the following, where a

proper name or pronoun is realized in a position between the determiner/plural marker and

the possessed noun.

(28) a. liv Jan yo b. machin ou a

book Jan pl car you the

'Jan's books' 'your car'

It is significant that the the possessed noun is interpreted as plural in (28a). This is not

surprising, given that overt determiners never occur in the same minimal DP as proper

names or pronouns, so yo would never be interpreted as having scope over Jan. What is

important for our analysis is the implications of these data for the claim that the possessor is

base-generated in [Spec, NumP]. Interestingly, la and yo may only appear in the possessed

noun phrase when the possessor is a pronoun or a proper name. Lumsden suggests that

this class of noun phrases (which also includes bare NP adverbs such as lendi 'Monday') is

distinguished from full noun phrases in that they need not be extrinsically case-marked.

Adopting Lumsden's hypothesis, we assume that these possessed noun phrases need not

contain a genitive Case-assigner in the head of DP. Thus, we assign the following structure

for the possessed noun phrase in (28a).

(29) liv Jan yo

'Jan's books'

DP/\

D' Spec/\

NumP D/ \

Num' \/\ DP

NP Num || yo Jan

Nliv

4. HUNGARIAN

4.1 PLURAL MARKING AND DETERMINERS

In Hungarian, as in Hebrew, the determiner manifests no number agreement with the

noun phrase it specifies, as shown in (30).16 Plurality is indicated by the presence of the

suffix -Vk on the head noun as shown in (30b). (This language does not manifest

grammatical gender distinctions.)

(30) a. az ember b. az ember-ek

the man the man-pl

‘the man’ ‘the men’

Let us suppose that the plural marker is affixed to the noun as a consequence of syntactic

movement. Extending our analysis of Hebrew plural nouns to the Hungarian data, we

analyse the plural suffix -Vk as Num, the head of a syntactic category intermediate between

NP and D. The s-structure representation of (30b) is derived by raising N to Num, as

illustrated in (31).

(31) DP/\

D NumPaz /\the Num NP

-ek |pl N

emberman

This analysis gains support from the fact that quantifiers such as sok ‘many’ or

három ‘three’ never quantify over plural nouns, as shown in (32).

(32) a. a három ember b. *a három ember-ek

the three man the three man-pl

‘three men’

c. sok ember d. *sok ember-ek

many man many man-pl

‘many men’

These facts follow straightforwardly from the assumption that the quantifiers, három

and sok, are Nums, just like the plural marker. As Nums, these quantifiers select an NP

complement and occur in complementary distribution with each other and with the plural

marker. Since három and csok are independent words, they do not need to be

morphologically anchored. Consequently, head movement does not occur in noun phrases

like (32a,c) and N remains in its d-structure position throughout the derivation, giving rise to

the surface order is (D) Num N. Compare (33) with (31).

(33) DP/ \

D NumPa /\

the Num NPhárom |three N

emberman

Strikingly, although they are semantically plural, noun phrases containing an

independent quantifier are grammatically singular. Unlike plural noun phrases they trigger

singular agreement on the verb, as shown by the contrast between (34a) and (34b,c).

(34) a. A gyerekek szeretik egymást

the children love+3pl each other ‘The children love each other.’

b. A két grerek szereti egymást

the two child love+3sg each other ‘The two children love each other.’

c. Az öt gyerek körülvesz-i a kisbabá-t

the five child surround-3sg the baby-ACC ‘The 5 children surround the baby.’

These data indicate that három 'three' sok 'many' are grammatically singular, even

though they are semantically plural. In other words, these quantifiers are Nums which

which bear the syntactic feature [-plural] and have independent semantic content. Their

inherent semantic content, not their syntactic properties, determines their non-singular

interpretation and renders them licit in contexts that demand a semantically plural referent.

4.2 GENITIVE CONSTRUCTIONS

The analysis of possessed noun phrases in Hungarian is consistent with the analysis

of other Hungarian noun phrases, and with the analysis of genitive constructions in Hebrew

and Haitian presented in sections 2 and 3. The major innovation required for the Hungarian

data is postulation of an additional functional category, (AgrP). This category is required

because Hungarian nouns are overtly inflected to agree with their possessors, as illustrated

below.

(35) a. az en vendeg-e-m b. a te vendeg-e-d

the I-nom guest-possd-1sg the you-nom guest-possd-1sg

'my guest' 'your guest'

Example (36) shows that the noun agrees with its possessor, despite the intervening

quantifier.

(36) [Péter] minden kalap-ja

Péter(Nom) every hat-3sg

‘Peter’s every hat’

Szabolcsi (1987: 174) makes the following observation:

Articles split into two groups: a(z) appears in front of the nominative

subject, and only there; all others appear behind the nominative subject and

only there. Moreover, the positions can be filled simultaneously. [(37)]

summarizes the main possibilities:

(37) a(z) ‘the’ SUBJ+Nom ezen/azon ‘this/that’ N’+Infl

minden ‘every’

valamennyi ‘each’

mindkét ‘both’

semelyik ‘neither’

melyik ‘which’

The structure she attributes to possessed noun phrases such as (36) is reproduced in (38).

(38) Péter minden kalap-ja CN"/'\

‘Peter’s every hat’ CN IN"/ \

DP IN| /\

Péter Art IN'minden /\

N' IN| Poss(3sg)

kalap ja

Szabolcsi notes that possessor-noun agreement is identical to subject-verb

agreement in Hungarian. The structure provided by our analysis is given in (39).17

(39) Péter minden kalap-ja

‘Peter’s every hat’

DP/\

D NumP/\

Spec Num'/\

Num AgrPminden /\

DP Agr'v /\

Péter Agr NPja |

Nkalop

Note that minden is now a functional head rather than a specifier. This provides

another specifier position into which the possessor may raise. In sections 2 and 3, it was

suggested that the functional head that bears subject agreement in clauses is in fact one of

the nominal functional categories, D or Num in both Hebrew and Haitian. Applying this

proposal to Hungarian possessed noun phrases, the claim that they contain a functional

head that manifests possessor agreement implies that they contain either two DPs or two

NumPs. In other words, AgrP in (39) is in fact a second DP or a second NumP. Nothing

in principle rules precludes two projections of the same category in a single constituent, as

long as they have distinct content. The examples in (35) above show that possessor

agreement bears the features person and number for 1st/2nd person possessors, which we

interpret as evidence that the syntactic category of possessor agreement is DP. This

conclusion is based on the observation that in both Hebrew and Haitian definiteness

specification is only manifested on the functional head D. Since personal reference is a

type of definite reference, it follows that specification for person is also manifested on D.

5. CONCLUSION

In this paper I have argued for the existence of a syntactic category NumP as part of

the universal inventory of functional elements in the nominal system. I have demonstrated

that an analysis of noun phrases which includes NumP permits principled solutions to a

number of previously unresolved problems posed by various types of noun phrases in

Hebrew, Haitian and Hungarian, including the analysis of various genitive constructions,

pronominal systems and number marking and quantifiers.

Implicit in this work is the assumption that different noun phrases may contain

different functional categories, although their hierarchical organization is fixed. For

example, both Hebrew and Haitian pronouns lack the lexical category NP, although they

may contain both D and Num or just D, and only Hungarian genitive noun phrases contain

AgrP, in addition to D and Num. Consequently, the order of syntactic categories that may

make up a noun phrase is determined by Universal Grammar while the categories that are

projected in each type of noun phrase (pronoun, genitive noun phrase, etc.) must be

acquired. I assume that the data bearing on this issue is readily accessable to the language

learner. For example, a child learning Hungarian will posit AgrP in a genitive noun phrase

when she encounters agreement morphology on the head noun, but a child learning Haitian

will not assume that agenitive noun phrase contains AgrP because she will find no overt

evidence for this projection. Thus, this variability assumed in this analysis should pose no

major problem for acquisition if overt evidence is required for each category posited.

REFERENCES

Abney, Steven 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. Doctoral

dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing.

Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Bat-El, Outi. 1986. Extraction in Modern Hebrew Morphology. M.A. thesis. UCLA, Los

Angeles.

Borer, Hagit. 1984. Parametric Syntax, Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

Brame, Michael. 1982. “The Head-Selector Theory of Lexical Specifications and the

Nonexistence of Coarse Categories.” Linguistic Analysis 10: 321-325.

Browning, M.A. 1990. "Minimality and Verb Raising in Germanic." Unpublished

manuscript. University of Texas, Austin.

Chomsky, Noam 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use, New York:

Praeger.

Emonds, Joseph E. 1970. Root and Structure-preserving Transformations. Doctoral

dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader 1989. "Generalised IP Structure, Case and VS Order." I. Laka &

A. Mahajan (eds.) MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 10: Functional Heads and

Clause Structure: 75-112. MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Fournier, Robert 1977. N ap fè yu ti-koze su la (La grammaire de la particule la en créole

haïtien). Masters thesis. Université du Québec à Montréal.

Guilfoyle, Eithne. 1988. “Parameters and Functional Projection,.” J. Blevins and J. Carter

(eds.) Proceedings of NELS 18: 193-20. GLSA, Unviersity of Massachusetts at

Amherst.

Hazout, Ilan. 1990. Verbal Nouns: Theta-theoretic Studies in Hebrew and Arabic.

Doctoral dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Lefebvre, Claire and Robert Fournier. 1978."La particlue la en créole ha°itien." Les cahiers

de lingjisticque de l'Université du Québec. 9: 37-70.

Lefebvre, Claire. 1982. “L’expansion d’une catégorie grammaticale: le déterminant la.”

Claire. Lefebvre, Holly Magloire-Holly and Nanni Piou (eds.) Syntaxe de l’haïtien.

Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers.

---------- and Diane Massam. 1988 “Haitian Creole Syntax: A Case for DET as Head.”

Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 3.2: 213-243.

Lumsden, John S. 1989. “On the Distribution of Determiners in Haitian Creole.” Revue

québecoise de linguistique 18.2: 65-94.

Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1988. “Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of

IP.” Linguistic Inquiry 20.3: 365-424.

Rapoport, T.R. 1987. Copula, Nominal and Small Clauses: A Study in Israeli Hebrew.

Doctoral dissertation. MIT. Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Ritter, Elizabeth 1988. “A head-movement approach to construct-state noun phrases.”

Linguistics 26.6: 909-929.

---------- 1991. “Two functional categories in Modern Hebrew noun phrases.” in Susan

Rothstein (ed.)Syntax and Semantics 25, Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads

and Licensing, New York.: Academic Press.

Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.

---------- and Ian Roberts. 1989. "Complex Inversion in French." Probus 1.1:1-30.

Shlonsky, Ur. 1988. “Government and Binding in Hebrew Nominals.” Linguistics 26.6:

951-977.

Szabolcsi, Anna. 1987. “Functional Categories in the Noun Phrase.” in I. Kenesei (ed.)

Approaches to Hungarian 2: 167-189. Szeged: JATE.

Travis, Lisa 1984. Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. Doctoral dissertation.

MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

NOTES

*This research is supported by grants from SSHRCC to the author and to UQAM.

1In fact, the set of nominal features also includes case Lamontagne and Travis (1986, this volume) argue

that noun phrases are KPs, projections of the category K(ase). They note that KP is the nominal

counterpart of CP. Pursuing this analogy, the functional categories investigated here are analogous to TP

and AGRP (Pollock 1989).

2The analyses of Hebrew genitives (2.1) and feature mapping (2.2) are from Ritter (1991).

3Both Irish and Standard Arabic have VSO order in clauses and construct state noun phrases. Guilfoyle

(1988) has independently developed a unified analysis of Irish clauses and noun phrases, based on movement

of the lexical head (V, N) to the functional head (Infl, D). However, her analysis does not distinguish

NumP or its clausal counterpart, AGRP. Fassi Fehri (1989) develops a similar proposal for Standard

Arabic.

4In fact, this is the conclusion regarding process nominals with only one DP case-marked by ∫el . Multiple

∫el phrases are available in non-argument-taking noun phrases. Cf. Borer (1984), Hazout (1990), Shlonsky

(1988) for further discussion of ∫el . Applying the analysis of Lamontagne and Travis (1986; this volume)

to genitive Case assignment in Modern Hebrew, ∫el may be most perspicuously analysed as genitive

K(ase), i.e. the head of the genitive noun phrase. The fact that no overt Kase appears in the CS

construction is consistent with the claim of Lamontagne and Travis that the head of KP may be empty iff it

is properly (lexically) governed. It appears that this alternative strategy is available inside the NP

projection in the FG construction, enabling the subject to remain in situ .

5Dgen is not inherently specified for definiteness. This is evident from the fact that a construct state DP is

definite just in case its subject is definite. Ritter (1991) suggests that these noun phrases acquire a

definiteness specification from their subjects by the mechanism of Spec-head agreement.

6Jacques Lamarche (p.c.) suggests that certain differences between English and French can be accounted for

if grammatical number is lexical in English, but syntactic in French. Thus, he proposes the same analysis

for number in French as we have for Hebrew; his analysis of number in English is parallel to our analysis

of gender in Hebrew.

7Cf. Doron (1983) for discussion and analysis.

8The singular definite determiner has several phonologically conditioned allomorphs: nan , lan , an , a and la .

9These authors consider la a determiner and yo a plural marker which is attached to the same terminal node

as la , but they analyse noun phrases as NPs. The discussion in this section incorporates their insights into

these particles, but departs from them in proposing that the particles are functional heads dominating the

NP, rather than specifiers of N.

10In her analysis of verb movement in head final Germanic languages such as Standard Dutch, West

Flemish and Züritütsch, Browning (1990) assumes that head movement involves adjunction and that this

adjunction always locates the moved element to the right side of the target of adjunction. In footnote (2)

she proposes the following constraint to account for the non-string vacuous nature of head movement):

(i) The landing site and the launching site for adjunction are on opposite sides of the adjoined to

category.

M. Speas (p.c.) observes that the same generalization applies to head movement in Navajo, but not

Japanese or Basque. One property that distinguishes Navajo, Germanic and Haitian, on the one hand, from

Japanese and Basque, on the other, is the fact that the former have some syntactic categories which are head

initial and others which are head final, whereas the latter are consistently head initial/final. Since the

constraint in (i) provides a means to determine the headedness of various categories, it may play a crucial

role in the acquisition of mixed languages because the headedness of each category must be learned

separately. In languages that are uniformly head initial/final it is only necessary to learn that some category

is head initial/final. Thus, the constraint in (i) may constitute a diagnostic for distinguishing these two

types of languages.

11This suggestion is due to Mark Baker (p.c.).

12Given this complex structure for pronouns, one might expect third person pronouns of the form la yo , (or

yo a ) and la li or ( li a ). Recall that analogous forms consisting of the definite article and third person

pronouns do exist in Hebrew, but that they are interpreted as demonstratives rather than personal pronouns

(i.e. ha- hu 'the-he=that', ha-hi 'the-she=that' ha-hem 'the-they=those '). Lefebvre (this volume) suggests that

the Haitian determiner la also has deictic force. Thus, we suggest that the reason that third person personal

pronouns do not contain a determiner is that they would then be demonstrative pronouns, like their Hebrew

counterparts.

13In fact, Lefebvre analyses la as a deictic element. Since deictics are a subclass of definite elements, I

minimally assume that la is specified as [+definite]. It may be further specified as [+deictic] along the lines

proposed by Lefebvre. However, nothing in the current analysis hinges on this issue.

14 Note that we assume that the possessor is base-generated in [Spec, NumP]. This reflects the generally

accepted view that possessors are not arguments of the noun they possess. For the purposes of our

analysis, possessors could alternatively be generated in [Spec, NP]. It will only be necessary that a

possessor which is realized in [Spec, DP] be coindexed with an empty category in [Spec, NumP].

15See Cowper (this volume) for an account of lexical insertion in English sentences based on the same

reasoning.

16We thank Elizabeth Cowper for providing us with the Hungarian data.

17Szabolcsi's analysis assumes a single functional category INFL which contains both tense and agreement

and assigns nominative case to the subject. Consequently, she assumes that the nominal counterpart of

INFL also has two distinct components, possessed, the nominal analogue of tense, and subject agreement.

In line with more recent developments, we assume that tense/possession and agreement constitute distinct

elements. Chomsky (1989) argues that subject agreement (S-Agr) selects T(ense)P as its complement.

Extending this analysis to Hungarian noun phrases, the nominal counterpart of TP should also constitute a

distinct head. In other words, there may be yet another functional projection in Hungarian noun phrases,

whose head is specified for [±possessed] and whose function it is to assign a possessor interpretation to

genitive noun phrases in construction with a non-θ marking noun. We leave this question for future

research.