Appendix: NOM and the pro-form one
Here I introduce a refinement of the analysis provided in this chapter. Your tutor may ask you to adopt this.
Look again at the discussion on pages 153–4, especially the discussion of the NP [53] and its corresponding sentence [54], repeated here:
[1] Larry’s neat summary of the argument. (NP) [2] Larry neatly summarised the argument. (S)
In Chapter 5, we saw that in sentences like [2] there are two VPs, one within the other: VP1 [summarised the argument] and VP2 [neatly summarised the argument]. I gave evidence for this, involving the expression do so. Do so replaces VPs and only VPs (not Vs, for example).
[3] Larry summarised the argument neatly and Bill did so too.
We understand [3] in a way that demands that did so be thought of as replac-ing VP2 (summarised the argument neatly). In [4], by contrast, did so must be understood as replacing just VP1, [summarised the argument]:
[4] Larry summarised the argument neatly but Bill did so clumsily.
It is the ungrammaticality of [5] that shows that did so cannot replace just the V summarised:
[5] *Larry summarised the argument and Bill did so the conclusion.
In the text I drew attention to the parallelism between VP and NOM. For every VP in the S there is a corresponding NOM in the NP. Since do so provides a test for VP, you might ask whether there is a corresponding test for NOM in NP. There is. It involves the pronoun one. In fact one(s) should really be called a pro-NOM, since it only ever replaces the intermediate category NOM (never a full NP and never just N). Look:
[6] Larry’s neat summary of the argument and [this one], too.
(one = NOM2: neat summary of the argument)
[7] Larry’s neat summary of the argument and [Bill’s clumsy one].
(one = NOM1: summary of the argument)
[8] *Larry’s summary of the argument and [Bill’s one of the conclusion].
(!*one = N: summary)
Just as do so cannot replace just the V summarised but only a VP, so one cannot replace just the N summary but only a NOM.
So, one provides a test for whether we have a NOM or not. Feel free to check the NOMs in any of the examples in the text of the chapter. You will find that
wherever there is a NOM, that sequence of words can be replaced by one(s). So, if everything is going so swimmingly, why is a refinement needed?
Well, take for example one of the first NPs considered in this chapter, the sad clowns. Draw the phrase marker. Then check it against phrase marker [4] on page 141. That phrase marker only contains one NOM [sad clowns]. If that is correct, the one test for NOMs suggests that we should only be able to replace [sad clowns] by ones. Well, we can indeed do that:
[9] Bill hired those sad clowns and you hired these ones.
(ones = sad clowns) However, we can also have:
[10] For heaven’s sake, fire the sad clowns and hire some happy ones!
Before reading further, think carefully about why this is a problem for the analysis proposed in [4] in the text. How should we alter that analysis to make it consistent with the acceptability of [10]?
In [10], ones cannot be understood as replacing the NOM [sad clowns]. If it were, [10] would be demanding that some happy sad clowns be hired. Even if it is possible for a clown to be both happy and sad, that’s not what [10] means. [10]
implies a contrast between happy ones and sad ones. So, in [10] ones is replac-ing just clowns. In phrase marker [4], though, clowns by itself is just a simple N, not a NOM. But we have seen that one(s) cannot replace just simple nouns. If one(s) could replace a simple noun, [8] would have been grammatical. This sug-gests that phrase marker [4] is wrong. Certainly, clowns is a noun but – because it is replaceable by ones – it must also be a NOM as well as an N. So the phrase marker must look like [11], with an extra NOM (in bold) dominating N.
[11]
An important contrast has emerged. This is the contrast between the NOM sad clowns in [11] – which contains an extra, non-branching, NOM node – and the NOM summary of the argument in [1] – which does not. In other words, in those two examples, clowns is, in its own right, a NOM as well as an N, but summary is just an N, not a NOM in its own right.
sad
APPENDIX: NOM AND THE PRO-FORM ONE
How can you tell when the extra NOM node is required? Well, you can test for it by replacement by one. However, while that will help you to get things right, it does not in itself explain the nature of the contrast. What you really need to know is why one can replace just clowns in sad clowns but not just summary in summary of the argument.
The answer lies in the different ways in which sad and of the argument relate to their respective heads. It comes down to this: sad is a sister of NOM, whereas of the argument is a sister of N. Put this way, this should remind you of the distinction, within VP, between sister of VP (adjunct) and sister of V (com-plement). The point is that, within the NP, the PP of the argument relates to the head N summary in exactly the same way as, within the VP, the direct object NP the argument relates to the V summarise. They are both functioning as com-plements of the head, whether that head is an N or a V. By contrast, there is no intuitive reason to suppose that sad relates to the head N clowns as a complement does to a V. This intuition is borne out by the fact that the sad ones is grammat-ical, indicating that sad is not modifying an N, but a NOM. Sad relates to clowns (NOM) in exactly the same way that neat relates to summary (of the argument);
and this, essentially, is how adjuncts relate to the VP (summarise the argument).
In sum, the distinction between sister-of-V and sister-of-VP – which is the distinction between complement and adjunct – is paralleled by the distinction between sister-of-N and sister-of-NOM. So, a sister-of-N in an NP functions as a complement in the NP and a sister-of-NOM functions as an adjunct in NP.
As another example, consider [48] in the chapter, repeated as [12a]:
[12a] the famous writer of many detective stories.
In this NP, of many detective stories relates to writer as a complement (in paral-lel with the VP wrote many detective stories). And, sure enough, *The one of many detective stories is ungrammatical. So of many detective stories must be the sister of N. Famous, by contrast, is more peripheral in its relation to writer. It is a (modifying) adjunct. As such it is the sister of a NOM (writer of detective stories).
This predicts that the famous one will be grammatical, which it is.
In respect of this example, we have simply confirmed what was established in the chapter. The refinement being presented here concerns not [12a] so much as [12b]:
[12b] the famous writer.
We have established that famous is a NOM-sister in [12a]. Clearly, famous has exactly the same relation to writer in [12b] as it does in [12a]. So it must be a NOM-sister in [12b] as well. One can replace just writer in [12b]. So [12b] must have the extra NOM node.
The effect of the analysis proposed in this Appendix then is this: the distinc-tion between sister-of-N and sister-of-NOM is now a linguistically significant
distinction. It is the distinction, within NP, between complement and adjunct.
If an expression can co-occur with the pro-NOM one, it must be a sister of NOM – functioning as an adjunct (regardless of whether or not there is a sister-of-N present, i.e. regardless of whether the NOM branches or not).
Now that we have a consistent distinction between adjuncts and complements in NP, we can explain some obvious ordering facts. For example of maths and in hats have to appear in the order given in [13a]:
[13a] those students of maths in hats. [13b] *those students in hats of maths.
The explanation is that of maths relates to the N student as maths relates to the verb studies in the VP studies maths. It’s a complement – and as such, it is sister-of-N. Inevitably, a sister-of-N will appear immediately adjacent to N, as in [13a].
[13b] is ungrammatical because of maths is in a position in which it could only be the sister of the NOM students in hats. In hats, on the other hand, is an adjunct and thus sister-of-NOM – so it tolerates being separated from the head noun.
Consider now:
[14] a painter with real talent from Germany.
[15] a painter from Germany with real talent.
What conclusion can be drawn from the acceptability of both these orders, in the light of what was said about order in [13a] and [13b]?
Since from Germany can modify painter with real talent, as in [14], it must be a sister-of-NOM (an adjunct). Now, painter with real talent could consist of N+ PP or NOM + PP. But which? Put another way, is with real talent a comple-ment or an adjunct? The fact that it can be separated from the head N – as in [15], where it is modifying painter from Germany (a NOM) – indicates that it too is a sister-of-NOM (an adjunct). So with real talent and from Germany are both adjuncts (sisters of NOM) and this explains why they can occur in either order. Consistent with this, notice that, in both [14] and [15], one can replace just painter.
In the light of the analysis proposed in this Appendix, draw the phrase markers for the following. They are given as Answers to Exercise at the end of this Appendix.
[16] those observations by Newton.
[17] Larry’s neat summary.
[18] Larry’s summary of the argument.
There is a final point to notice about one. Remember, it is a pro-NOM. As a NOM, it co-occurs with DET (the one, that one). But what about the following NPs?
APPENDIX: NOM AND THE PRO-FORM ONE
[19a] one from Poland. [20a] one (as in I’ve just eaten one).
By contrast with the one from Poland, which is definite, [19a] and [20a] are indefinite. This suggests that one can be determined by empty DET.
[19b] [20b]
Notice that, in this one case, NOM does not dominate N, but dominates one directly. One must be immediately dominated by NOM and not by N, because it is a pro-NOM, not a pro-N (not a pronoun).
■
Answers to exercise[16]
By Newton tolerates being separated from observations – as in those observations on alchemy by Newton – so it is sister-of-NOM (cf. those ones by Newton).
[17]
[18]
■
Further exerciseDecide, for each of the following italicised expressions, whether they are comple-ments or adjuncts. Some are ambiguous. In this connection, notice that a diplomatic appointment can mean either ‘an appointment that was (very) diplomatic’ or ‘the appointment of a diplomat’. Which of these interpretations does a diplomatic one have? Answering that will help you correlate the interpretative distinction (comple-ment vs. adjunct) with the distinction between sister-of-N and sister-of-NOM.
(a) Contributions from unknown sources. (b) Contributions to the fund.
(c) The destruction of the building. (d) The destruction of April 1944.
(e) The applicant in the waiting room. (f ) The applicant for the job.
(g) An adviser to royalty. (h) A royal adviser.
(i) A nuclear scientist. (j) A charming scientist.
(k) An attentive student. (l) A French student.
(m) A criminal lawyer. (n) A stellar observatory.
(o) A pessimistic engineer. (p) A structural engineer.
You are now familiar with the idea that a constituent can contain constituents of the same category as itself. For example, an NP may contain further NPs, a NOM may contain further NOMs, a VP further VPs, and so on. This is called recursion. This and the next two chapters are concerned with the description of