1. Syntax
Lecture 11:
More on the DP

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

3. 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

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

5. 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)

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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

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

14. 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)

15. 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