Chapter 5: The structures of Noun Phrases

In this chapter, the internal structure of other phrasal categories, Noun Phrases in particular, will be
discussed. So far we have only looked the internal structure (such as it is) of NPs consisting of just a
pronoun or just a name – single words that count as full NPs in themselves. Here’s a reminder of what
they look like.

The NP node in [1] and [2] is said to be non-branching – it just goes straight down. NPs consisting of a
pronoun or a name are the only non-branching NPs allowed for in this book. All other NPs have
branching representations. They all have two immediate constituents.
In the basic case, the two immediate constituents of NP are: DET and NOM (Determiner and
Nominal). Here are two examples:

DET always has NOM as its sister. DET determines NOM. NOM is a level of NP-structure
intermediate between the phrasal (NP) level and the lexical (N) level. In [4], sad is a modifier of the head
noun. All modifiers of the head noun fall under NOM. Since modifiers are optional, it follows that
NOM can consist just of N, as in [3]. I look first at the elements that can come under the DET node.

5.1. DETERMINERS
These are a fixed set of ‘grammatical’ words which give information relating to definiteness and
indefiniteness (roughly, whether the thing referred to by the NP is familiar to both speaker and hearer or
not) and information about quantity and proportion.
The basic determiners are the articles (ART): the definite article – the – and the indefinite
article – a(n). The articles are ‘basic’ in the sense that they provide a touchstone as to what counts as a
determiner. Any expression that occupies the same position in NP structure as an article counts as a
determiner. How can you tell whether an expression is occupying the same (determiner) position as an
article? Well, if a word can appear in sequence with an article – put another way, if a word can co-occur
with an article – in an NP, then that word must be analysed as occupying a different position; it cannot be
the determiner.
There is a small set of words which perform the same function as the articles:
Demonstratives (DEM): this, that, these, those
Certain quantifiers (Q): some, any, no, each, every, either, neither
Possessives (POSS): my, your, its, her, his, our, their, John’s
None of these can co-occur in sequence with an article in an NP (for example: *this the clown, *the this
clown, *a some clown, *some a clown, *the my shoe, *your the shoe,*any a day). So they are determiners
themselves.
[5], [6], and [7] are the phrase marker representations of those trampolines, some mistake, and my
address.

Now, the determiner position may not always be filled by an actual word. Look at the subject NPs in
the following:
[8] Essays should be word-processed.
[9] Smoke gets in your eyes.
Although these NPs contain just one word, they should still be analysed as having a [DET + NOM]
structure, as in [10]:
The reason for this ‘empty determiner’ analysis is this. First, both of these NPs could take a determiner
(the/some smoke, the/your essays). We need to allow for this by making a DET slot available, as in [10].
Furthermore, the empty determiner affects the interpretation of the NP. The empty determiner gives the
NP an indefinite and/or more general interpretation. The subject of [9], for example, is clearly
indefinite, as compared with the definite NP the smoke. It is also more general than the indefinite NP
some smoke.
Which head nouns can take the empty determiner? There are just two types of noun that can
do so: plural count nouns (as in [8]) and mass nouns (as in [9]).
As mentioned, the subjects in [8] and [9] are single-word NPs – and they have that in common
with NPs that consist of a pronoun or a name. The empty DET + NOM analysis clearly distinguishes
these NPs from pronoun NPs and name NPs. The lack of a determiner with a name indicates neither
indefiniteness nor generality. On the contrary, names don’t normally take determiners precisely because
names are inherently definite. Pronouns, too, are inherently definite (e.g. she, we, they, them) or
inherently indefinite (someone, anyone), independently of any determiner.
Consider now the NP in [11]:
[11] John’s father.
John’s was listed above among the possessive determiners. Now, John is a name and therefore counts as a
full NP in its own right. So it appears that a possessive determiner (POSS) can be simple (my, your,
etc., as in [7] above) or consist of a full NP plus -s. This is called the possessive, or genitive, -s. The
addition of -s to John makes for a possessive determiner. So [11] has [12] as its phrase marker.

More generally, the addition of -s to any NP makes for a possessive determiner. There’s nothing to
prevent the NP within possessive determiners displaying all the structure that other NPs do, including
DET + NOM. In the light of this, draw a phrase marker for the book’s cover. It is given as [14] below.
In fact, a possessive NP can itself be determined by another possessive NP, as in [13]:
[13] Hieronimo’s brother’s behaviour.
Here is the phrase marker for the book’s cover:
Consider now the words all, both, and half. These resemble the determiners we have looked at. However,
they do co-occur with and precede determiners:
[15] all the men [16] both those trampolines [17] half Jim’s money
So they cannot be determiners themselves. Instead, I categorise them as predeterminers (PRE-DET).
Expressions like double, treble, and so forth are also pre-determiners (cf. double that amount).
In deciding how pre-determiners fit into the structure of NPs, we must decide what they (pre-
)determine. Give this a thought. Notice the following: within the NP all the men, there is a sequence that
looks very much like a familiar constituent, namely the men. What, then, would you suggest as a likely
analysis of all the men?
The points just made suggest that pre-determiners determine an NP. The predetermined NP in [15]
consists of the (DET) + men (NOM). And the whole thing is itself an NP. So PRE-DET should be
represented as sister of an NP within NP:

Now look at [19] and [20]:

 [19] all men [20] both men
Although they don’t precede determiners in these NPs, all and both are still analysed as pre-determiners
here. The determiner position itself is empty. The idea that there is an empty determiner in [19], with all,
is perhaps more plausible than in [20] with both. All men (= all DET men) is both more indefinite and
more general than all the men. By contrast, both the men and both men differ neither in definiteness nor
generality. Nevertheless, I shall continue to analyse both in [20] as a pre-determiner since, as [16] shows,
it can co-occur with, and precede, the article.
Notice that the majority of determiners and all the pre-determiners are capable of functioning as if
they were pronouns:
[21] I’ve always wanted those. [22] Some fell on stony ground.
[23] John’s are turning blue. [24] All is ruined.
Among the determiners that cannot function as pronouns, there are some that correspond to forms that
can. For example, the quantifier no cannot function as a pronoun (*I want no) but it corresponds to none,
which can (I want none). And with the possessives, we find the following alternations:
DETERMINER: my your her his our their
PRONOUN: mine yours hers his ours theirs
It is predictable that pre-determiners, which pre-determine full NPs, should be able to co-occur with
pronouns.
There are three ways the NP node can be expanded:

But, bearing in mind that any category can be co-ordinated, including NPs, there is of course a fourth way
the NP node can be expanded:

5.2. Pre-modifiers in NOM

The most obvious pre-modifiers of the noun within NOM are Adjective phrases (APs). The position of
pre-modifying APs in NP was illustrated in [4] (sad). As [4] illustrates, A is always dominated by AP.
The function of the A is head-of-AP. It is the AP that has the modifying function. And don’t forget that
APs have other functions: sP and oP in VP.
Quantifying adjectives
Much, many, few, and little are quantifying adjectives (QA). As adjectives, they come under NOM in
NPs. Here are my reasons for treating them as adjectives (rather than determiners):
(a) Like adjectives, they co-occur with and follow determiners (those many books, the little butter
that I have, some few successes), including an empty determiner: many books (= DET many books), much
garlic (= DET much garlic).
(b) Like adjectives, they may occur in the VP, functioning as subject-predicatives: His mistakes
were many, It wasn’t much, It was little enough.
(c) Like adjectives, they are gradable: very many books, too much garlic, so few ideas, very little
tact, where they are modified by DEG. The comparative and superlative forms of many and much are
more and most; of little, less and least; of few, fewer, and fewest.
numerals (the cardinal numerals one, two, three . . . and the ordinal numerals first, second, third
...) should also be treated as quantifying adjectives within NOM, since they follow DET, including empty
DET.
Quantifying adjectives (QAs) are head of AP. APs with a QA as head always precede other APs
in NOM. Here are phrase markers for very many mistakes and the one mistake:

■ Participle phrases (PartP)

The non-finite forms of verbs referred to in Chapter 6 as the progressive, perfect, and passive participles
(V-part, for short) may also appear as pre-modifiers within NOM:
PROGRESSIVE PERFECT or PASSIVE
[27a] the leering manager [28a] a faded dream
[27b] the sleeping guard [28b] the departed nymphs
[28c] sliced cake
[28d] a forgotten valley
In this position, the perfect and passive participles can only be distinguished by appealing to the meaning.
[28a and b] are perfect, referring to a dream that has faded and nymphs who have departed. [28c and d],
by contrast, are passive – they refer to cake that has been sliced and a valley that has been forgotten.
Since these forms are verbal rather than adjectival, they are not gradable: *the very leering
manager, *rather sliced cake, *the slightly sleeping guard. They can be modified by general adverbs,
however, as in the rapidly congealing gravy.
Certain true adjectives look very much like verb participles: charming, pleasing, (un)interested, worrying,
(un)surprising, unexpected. However, since they are gradable, they are easily distinguished from
participles: rather pleasing, very interested. Some of these, for example unexpected, don’t even
correspond to any known English verb anyway (cf. *unexpect).
The distinction between true adjectives and verb participles is sometimes blurred. For example,
although [29] might look as though it contains a passive lexical verb,
[29] They were very disturbed by the play.
the presence of very rules this out (cf. *The play very disturbed them). Very here means we are dealing
with an AP complementing the (intensive) copula be.
■ Nouns
Nouns themselves may act as pre-modifiers of nouns. Examples are chess piece, traffic light, roof
maintenance, carbon trader, computer game. The relation between a head noun and a pre-modifying
noun is much closer than that between the head noun and any other pre-modifier. In a sequence of
modifiers that includes a noun modifier, noun modifiers always appear last. They cannot be separated
from the head noun.
[30] some expensive roof maintenance
[31] *some roof expensive maintenance
Such noun–noun combinations are compound nouns. They are not treated as phrasal, but as compound
words. The compound noun roof maintenance should therefore be dominated by N as in [32]:

5.3. More on the structure of NOM

How should sequences of more than one AP within NOM be represented? Consider [34]–[35]:
[34] a red car [35] a new red car
 Before deciding how [35] should be represented, give the phrase marker for [34].
The phrase marker for [34] will be almost exactly the same as that for the sad clowns – [4] at the
beginning of the chapter. So [red car] is a NOM in [34] – and there is no reason to suppose that it is not a
NOM in [35] as well. So in [35], new must be modifying the NOM [red car]. Furthermore, the NP in [35]
is analysable as DET + NOM. You now have all the information needed to draw the phrase marker for
[35].
The important thing to notice here is that, for [35], we need two NOMs. This follows from the comments
of the preceding paragraph. So [36] is the phrase marker for [35].

What this shows is that NOM is a recursive category. In other words, NOM can have NOM as an
immediate constituent. In fact, apart from noun modifiers, every modifier must be immediately
dominated by a NOM.

5.4. Post-modifiers
In this section just two of the categories that follow the head noun within NOM are discussed:
Prepositional Phrases and certain types of Adjective Phrase.
■ Prepositional Phrases
In the NP an expedition to the pub, the head N is expedition and it is modified by the PP to the pub, which
consists of P + NP. In this case, we have a postmodifying (PP) sister to the noun, within NOM. So:
Now, just as expedition can be modified by a PP, so can pub. For example: (an expedition to) the pub in
the village. The phrase marker for this is going to start off exactly like [39a] – but the bold italicised
NOM in [39a] will now branch, as in [39b]:

As my dotted line shows, this could go on indefinitely – for example,

[40] an expedition to the pub in the village at the foot of that mountain
This might seem complicated but it’s really very simple. It’s the same story again and again. Were you to
draw the phrase marker for [40] and look at the right hand nodes, you’d find it goes NP – NOM – PP
again and again (four times, in fact).
All those NPs have a regular right-branching structure. Now, at first glance, [41] might appear to have
the same structure.
[41] an expedition to the pub for more cherry brandy
Not so. I hope you agree that, unlike the pub in the village in [39a–b], the pub for more cherry brandy is
not a constituent of [41]. For more cherry brandy is not modifying pub. So what is it modifying? Consult
your intuitions about its meaning and in the light of that suggest an appropriate analysis for [41]. Use a
triangle for each of the PPs. Hint: remember that NOM is a recursive category.
You’ve got it, I’m sure. For more cherry brandy modifies a constituent that has expedition as its head –
it’s an expedition ( . . . ) for more cherry brandy. So, it must be modifying expedition to the pub. Now,
expedition to the pub is a NOM. And expedition to the pub for more cherry brandy is a NOM as well. So
we have a NOM within a NOM – as in [42]:

This is not a regular right-branching structure. Notice that the arrangement of (post-modifying) PPs is the
mirror image of the arrangement of (pre-modifying) APs in [36]. Again, there are as many NOMS as
there are modifiers.
You may remember the NP an agreement between workers on overtime from a previous exercise.
This is ambiguous, depending on whether on overtime modifies (a) the NOM [agreement (between
workers)] – ‘an overtime agreement’ – or (b) just the N workers – ‘workers who are on overtime’. Now
decide what element the italicised PP in each of the following NPs modifies. Is it (a) modifying a NOM
consisting of the head N plus PP (as in [42]), or is it (b) modifying the N within a PP (as in [39a–b])?
[43] those observations on alchemy by Newton.
[44] an interpretation of that sentence in Proust’s novel.
[45] a book of quotations from Shakespeare.
[46] a book of quotations from Oxford University Press.
All the NPs considered so far have included just pre-modifiers or just postmodifiers. What
happens when NOM includes both a pre-modifying AP and a post-modifying PP? To repeat, there must
be as many NOMs as there are modifiers. So, with a pre-modifier and a post-modifier, there will be two
NOMs. There are two possibilities, then:
With some NPs, it does not matter much which analysis we give (I give examples later). For others it does
matter, and deciding which analysis is appropriate involves attending to the meaning in each case. In each
of the following, it matters. Try to decide which analysis – A or B – is appropriate in each case.
[47] that nuclear scientist from Germany.
[48] the famous writer of many detective stories.
[49] an anxious applicant for the job.
[50] structural engineers in disgrace.
[51] the personal assistant in the hat.
[52] their secret visits to the larder.
[53] Larry’s neat summary of the argument.
Analysing [47] as in [B] – *[nuclear] [scientist from Germany] – is not right. Nuclear scientist denotes a
category of scientist. Since there is such a category, it is appropriate there should be an expression to
denote it. So [nuclear scientist] is a constituent of [47]. The distinction between nuclear and from
Germany (in their relation to scientist) is brought out clearly by noting that, while That [nuclear scientist]
IS from Germany is quite natural, That [scientist from Germany] IS nuclear is just bizarre. Assuming that
the PP from Germany means what German means, the same bizarre effect is achieved by the ordering
*that nuclear German scientist, where nuclear is again separated from the element it wants to form a
constituent with. By contrast, that German nuclear scientist is fine. All this indicates analysis [A] for [47]
– from Germany modifies [nuclear scientist].
The same kind of thinking suggests analysis [A] for [50] and [51]. By contrast, analysis [B] is
appropriate for [48], [49], [52], and [53].
As regards the NP [53], for example, note its parallelism to the sentence [54]:
[53a] Larry’s neat summary of the argument. (NOUN PHRASE)
[54a] Larry neatly summarised the argument. (SENTENCE)
Give the phrase marker for the sentence in [54a]
In the sentence, the argument is the direct object of the verb summarised. As a complement, it combines
with summarised to form a VP – and that VP is modified by neatly. Now, it is reasonable to expect the
structural configuration of the NP to parallel that of the sentence. After all, [53a] is simply sentence [54a]
recast as an NP:
Only the categories have changed. Notice that the NOMs in the NP match the VPs in the S. The same
goes for the NPs in [48], [49], and [52]. The Appendix to this chapter discusses a refinement suggested by
this parallelism between S and NP.
Now compare the NPs in [47]–[53] above – in each of which the choice between analyses [A]
and [B] clearly matters – with the following NPs:
[55] The unknown scientist from Germany.
[56] The new railings in the park.
[57] That tall student in the hat
With these, either analysis is possible. The topmost NOM in [55], for example, could be analysed either
as [A] [[unknown scientist] [from Germany]] or [B] [[unknown] [scientist from Germany]]. So which
should we choose? Well, the analysis that associates the more permanent and/or intrinsic property more
closely with the head noun will generally seem more natural. Thus the [B] analysis seems more natural
for [55], since being from Germany is more permanent/intrinsic than being unknown.
The NP in [58] includes three modifiers:
[58] that tall student of maths in the hat.
Bearing in mind that there will be as many NOMs as there are modifiers, and that student of maths
corresponds to the VP constituent [studies maths], give a complete phrase marker for that NP (i.e. using
no triangles).
■ More on Adjective Phrases
A few adjectives (including present, absent, responsible, visible) can pre-modify or post-modify the head
noun in NOM.
[59a] the responsible men [59b] the men responsible
[60a] the present members [60b] the members present
As post-modifiers, APs occupy the same position in the structure of NOM as post-modifying PPs. A
difference in meaning is associated with this difference of position of the AP. In [59a] the men are
responsible sort of people – that’s their nature. But in [59b] they are responsible FOR something. In [60a]
they are the current members. But in [60b] there were present AT (i.e. attended) some event. In contrast to
the pre-modifying APs, when an AP appears in the post-modifying position, I hope you agree that it feels
as if something has ellipted from the AP.
The ellipted element functions as complement of the adjective. In the following APs, the complement is
explicit.
[61] responsible for the sauces. [62] happy in his job.
[63] nervous of exams. [64] devoid of hope.
When, in an NP, a modifying AP includes a complement, it always postmodifies the head noun:
[65a] the chef responsible for the sauces [66a] a stuntman happy in his job.
[65b] *the responsible for the sauces chef [66b] *a happy in his job stuntman
Here’s the phrase marker for [65a]:

There’s a reason why such APs must post-modify the Noun. Call it ‘The Friendly Head Principle’ (FHP):
within NOM, the head of a modifying phrase wants to be as close as possible to the head noun. In
[65a], the head of the AP (responsible) is right next to the head of the NP (chef ). By contrast, in
premodifying position, in *[65b], the head of the AP is separated from the noun by the AP’s own
complement. Notice that the FHP explains why PPs with an NP complement (P+NP) always post-
modify the head noun. It also explains why, when a modifying AP includes – or even could include –
(pre-)modification by DEG, it pre-modifies the head noun. Compare [68] and [69a–b]:
[68] the very responsible men
 [69] a. *the chef very responsible
b. *the chef very responsible for the sauces

5.5. Modification of pronouns

I have said that pronouns replace full NPs. It is rather awkward, therefore, to find pronouns combining
with an AP [70a–b] or PP [71a–b] within the structure of an NP.
[70a] something outrageous. [70b] anyone intelligent.
[71a] someone in the crowd. [71b] no-one/none from the bank.
In the case of indefinite pronouns such as something/one, anything/one, nothing/no-one/none, what has
happened, historically, is that a determiner (some, any, no) and a head noun (thing/one) have coalesced
into a single word (some surprising thing → something surprising, any intelligent one → anyone
intelligent). The fact that such pronouns can only be post-modified (not pre-modified, as in *intelligent
anyone) is connected with this historical fact. It means we must allow for phrase marker representations
like [72a–b].

The same analysis might seem appropriate for [73]–[74], especially since the italicised words are
often categorised as pronouns:
[73a] some of the animals. [73b] those in the cabin.

However, if (big ‘if’) they are pronouns, notice they are also determiners ([73a–b]) or pre-determiners
([74]). In fact, pronouns that cannot also function as determiners or pre-determiners cannot be post-
modified: *they from the factory, *he of the men.
It is arguable, then, that the ‘pronouns’ in [73]–[74] are not pronouns at all, but are what they
always were: determiners or pre-determiners. They appear to have changed into pronouns – and thus be
functioning as the head of their NP – only because the real head of the NP has been ellipted. This
suggests that [73a], for example, should be analysed as in [75], in which animals is the ellipted head:
 I shall adopt this elliptical head analysis. This maintains the categorisation of the italicised
words in [73]–[74] as determiners/pre-determiners. Applied to [76], for example, the elliptical head
analysis allows us to maintain the categorisation of numerals (e.g. two) as quantifying adjectives (QA).
[76] the two in the dungeons.
EXERCISES
1. Draw complete phrase markers for the following NPs. ‘Complete’ means not using any triangles.
Several of them involve empty DET (sometimes more than once). (c) is ambiguous and should be
assigned two phrase markers. (f) contains a coordination. Remember that the mother and the two sisters of
the co-ordinator and must be of the same category. Before attempting (f), ask yourself whether it is a co-
ordination at the lexical (N), intermediate (NOM), or phrasal (NP) level.
(a) Experts at syntax.
(b) Those ten paintings of his garden by Monet.
(c) More ferocious curries.
(d) The dying king’s final message.
(e) All Gulbenkian’s contributions to charity.
(f) Some rather off-putting gestures and remarks.
2. Draw complete phrase markers for the following NPs.
Set I
(a) Melancholy thoughts.
(b) Some very clever chess moves.
(c) The boat’s sudden move to the left.
(d) The word on the tip of my tongue.
(e) Some contributions to the fund from unknown sources.
(f) All performers absent from the rehearsal.
Set II
(a) The few remaining pieces of kitchen furniture.
(b) Anyone capable of rational thought or reasonably sensitive.
(c) Some of those people at the back.
(d) These two coins and the three in the pocket of your coat.
(e) Three tall passengers angry about the altered height of the bulkheads.
(f) Many of the more successful chess players.