7 The structure of Noun

Phrases

DOI: 10.4324/9781003118916-8

You now have an idea of how phrasal categories (NP, VP, AP,
PP, AdvP) fit in the structure of VP and their functions
(complement, adjunct). Here I look in more detail at the
internal structure of NPs and the phrasal categories that can
figure in NPs.
SINGLE-WORD NPs have already been mentioned. These
are NPs consisting of a PRONOUN or a NAME. Here’s a
reminder:

[1]

[2]

The NP node in [1] and [2] is said to be NON-BRANCHING. 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.
DET and NOM (Determiner and Nominal) are the two
immediate constituents of NP, in the basic case. DET always
has NOM as its sister. DET determines NOM. For example:

[3]

NOM is a level of NP structure INTERMEDIATE between

the PHRASAL (NP) level and the LEXICAL (N) level. 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]. But first I look at the elements that come under
the DET node.

Determiners
Determiners constitute a FUNCTIONAL (not lexical) category.
They are a fixed set of ‘grammatical’ words that 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
test of 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 (DET) position as an
article? Well, if a word can appear in sequence with an
article – if a word can CO-OCCUR with an article – then that
word must be occupying a different position; it can’t be the
determiner.
There is a small set of words which perform the same
function as the articles:

DEMONSTRATIVES (DEM): this, that, these, those

QUANTIFIERS (Q): some, any, no, each, every, either,
neither
POSSESSIVES (POSS): my, your, its, her, his, our, their,
one’s, John’s

They are determiners because they cannot co-occur with an

article: *this the clown, *the this clown, *a some clown,
*some a clown, *the my shoe, *your the shoe.
These are the phrase markers for those trampolines,
some mistake and my address:

[5]
 [6]

[7]

Now here’s an important point: the determiner position

may not always be filled overtly by an actual word.
Look at the italicised NPs in:

[8] Essays must be word-processed.

[9] Smoke gets in your eyes.

Although these NPs contain just one word, they are still
analysed as having [DET + NOM] structure. The idea here is
that there is a determiner present, but it is not overt; it’s a
COVERT DETERMINER. Here is the phrase marker for [9]/[10]:
[10]

There are two reasons for this covert determiner analysis.

First, both these NPs COULD take an overt determiner
(the/some smoke, the/your essays). We need to allow for
this by making a DET slot available, as in [10]. Second, the
covert determiner affects the interpretation of the NP. The
covert 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/that smoke. It is also more general than the
indefinite NP some smoke.
Just two types of noun can take the covert
determiner: PLURAL COUNT NOUNS ([8]) and MASS NOUNS ([9]).
Although the subjects in [8] and [9] seem to be single-word
NPs, the covert DET (+ NOM) analysis clearly distinguishes
them from pronoun NPs and name NPs. With names, the
absence of an overt determiner indicates neither
indefiniteness nor generality; on the contrary, names don’t
normally take determiners precisely because they are
inherently definite and individual. Pronouns, too, are either
inherently definite (e.g. she, we, they, them) or inherently
indefinite (someone, anyone), independently of any
determiner.
 The POSSESSIVE DETERMINERS listed above included John’s,
as in [11]:

[11] John’s father.

Now, John is a name and names count as full NPs. So, a

possessive determiner (POSS) can either be simple
(my, your, etc.) 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 the
phrase marker [12].

[12]

More generally, the addition of genitive ’s to any NP makes

for a possessive determiner.1 Possessive determiner NPs can
display 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’s 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.

In principle, there’s no limit to the number of times this

can be done. Draw the phrase marker for [13]. Discussion
1, page 157.

Here’s the phrase marker for the book’s cover:

[14]

Pre-determiners
Consider now the words all, both and half. These resemble
the determiners we have looked at. Like determiners, they
are function words. However, they co-occur with and
precede determiners:

[15] all the men.

[16] both those chopsticks.
[17] half Jim’s money.

So they can’t be determiners themselves. Instead, they are

PRE-DETERMINERS (PRE-DET). Expressions like double, treble
and so forth are also pre-determiners (e.g. double that
amount).
In deciding how pre-determiners fit in the structure of
NPs, we must decide what they pre-determine. Give this a
thought. Notice that, within the NP all the men, there’s a
sequence that looks familiar, namely the men. So, can you
suggest an analysis for all the men?

The points just made suggest that pre-determiners

determine an NP. The pre-determined 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:
 [18]

But now look at these NPs:

[19] all shoes

[20] both shoes.

Although they don’t precede overt determiners in these NPs,

all and both are still pre-determiners here. The DET itself is
covert. The idea that there is a covert DET 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. Even so, I still analyse
both in [20] as a pre-determiner since, as [16] shows, it can
co-occur with the article. Now draw a phrase marker for [19]
above. Discussion 2, page 157.

Most determiners and all the pre-determiners can

function as if they were pronouns:

[21] I’ve always wanted those.

[22] Some fell on stony ground.
[23] John’s/his are turning blue.
[24] All is lost.

There’s a section on this at the end of the chapter.

Among the determiners that cannot function as pronouns,
there are some that correspond to forms that can. For
example, the quantifier no can’t function as a pronoun (*I
want no) but 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

Since pre-determiners pre-determine full NPs, they can

co-occur with pronouns. Draw the phrase marker of the
subject NP in All mine are at the cleaners. Discussion 3,
page 157.

This concludes our brief survey of determiners and pre-

determiners. Notice we have allowed for three ways the
NP node can be expanded:

But remember that any category can be co-ordinated,

including NPs; so there is a fourth way the NP node can be
expanded:
NOM AND THE PRO-NOM ONE
Here’s the important point of this section:
The [DET + NOM] division of NP is the PARALLEL of the [NP
+ VP] division of S.
So, the NOM of NP parallels the VP of S.
To show this, I need you to remember the structure of
sentence [25a]. Draw the phrase marker.

[25a] Larry neatly summarised the article. (Sentence)

I hope your analysis treats the article as complement of the

[trans] verb summarised and thus as sister-of-V, making
summarised the article a basic VP. And, hopefully, you have
analysed neatly as an adjunct and thus as a sister of that
basic VP, making a higher VP. I give the phrase marker
below.
With that analysis of the sentence in place, consider now
the NP [26a]:

[26a] Larry’s neat summary of the article. (Noun Phrase)

The DETERMINER in the NP (Larry’s) parallels the SUBJECT of the

sentence. And neat in the NP parallels the adjunct neatly in
the VP of S. And the PP of the article in the NP parallels the
article, the complement of V in the VP of S. And, of course,
the head N of NP parallels the head V of VP (summary,
summarised).
All this shows that NOM in NP parallels VP in S. And, just
as we distinguish complement (sister-of-V) and adjunct
(sister-of-VP) in VP, so we must distinguish complement and
adjunct in a parallel way in NOM:

COMPLEMENTS in NP are represented as sister-of-N (forming

a NOM)
ADJUNCTS in NP are represented as sister-of-NOM (forming
a higher NOM).

Here then are the phrase markers for the S and the NP,
for comparison.

[25b]

[26b]
However, complements of N (unlike complements of V)
can be omitted without ungrammaticality. [27] is
perfectly grammatical.

[27] Larry’s neat summary.

Neat in [27] is still an adjunct, though. Try drawing the

phrase marker for [27]. Discussion 4, page 157.

Now identify the italic constituents as COMPLEMENT OR ADJUNCT

in these NPs:

[28a] the famous writer of novels.

[28b] that woman in the café.
[28c] his love of syntax.
[28d] their visits at weekends.
[28e] a young applicant for the job.
[28f] Magda’s emphasis on hard work.
[28g] the destruction in April 1944.
[28h] the destructions of forests.

You can do this by checking if there is a verb that

corresponds to the head noun and whether there’s a
constituent in the NP that corresponds to a complement of
that verb. For example, in the first decipherment of
hieroglyphics, the head N corresponds to the [trans] V
decipher and of hieroglyphics corresponds to its dO.

Complements: of novels, of syntax, for the job, on hard

work, of forests.
Adjuncts: famous, in the café, at weekends, young, in
April 1944.
As you can see, of is the most common preposition
introducing complements in NP – but not the only one. And
the presence of of isn’t always the sign of a complement –
as, for example, in the colour of her eyes and the presence
of guests.
Here are the phrase markers for the first three of those
examples:

[29]
[30]

[31]
 The nodes in bold are to emphasise adjuncts as sister-of-
NOM vs. complement as sister-of-N.
Now, given the answers to the previous exercise, try
phrase markers for [28d] and [28f]. Look out for covert
determiners. Discussion 5, page 158.

We have established that NOM in NP parallels VP in S. Now,

we saw in Chapter 5 that do so is the pro-VP. Is there a NOM
parallel of pro-VP do so? There is:
The parallel of the pro-VP do so is the pro-NOM
one.
Just as do so only replaces VP, one only replaces NOMs. If
you check all the examples in the last section, you’ll find
that you can naturally replace any NOM constituent with
one. For example, in both [29] and [30], there are two
NOMs, and either can be replaced by one(s):

[32] I met a famous writer of novels and some unknown

ones (ones = writers of novels).
[33] I met a famous writer of novels but not the one you
met (one = famous writer of novels).
[34] That woman in the café was waiving to the ones
outside (ones = women)
[35] That woman in the café was talking to this one (one =
woman in the café).

Since one is a pro-NOM, it cannot replace a simple

noun. In [28g], destruction precedes the adjunct in April
1944. Adjuncts are sisters-of-NOM, so the noun destruction
must be dominated by NOM and can be replaced by one. By
contrast, in [28h], destruction precedes the complement of
forests. Complements are sister-of-N, so destruction here is
not a NOM, but just a simple noun; it cannot therefore be
replaced by one.

[36] the destruction in April 1945 and the one in 1944.

[37] *the destruction of the ozone layer and the one of
forests.

The same goes for love in love of syntax (N + complement):

[38] *His love of syntax is not as great as his one of

parties.

See also

[39] the famous writer/*one of novels.

[40] a young applicant/*one for the job.
[41] Magda’s emphasis/*one on hard work.

There’s a final point to notice about one. As pro-NOM, it co-

occurs with DET (the one, that one, these ones). But what
about the following NPs?

[42a] one from Poland.

[43a] one (as in I’ve just eaten one).

By contrast with the one from Poland, which is definite,

[42a] and [43a] are indefinite. This shows that one can be
determined by covert DET.
[42b]

[43b]

Notice here that NOM does not dominate N but dominates

one directly. One must be immediately dominated by NOM
and not by N, because it’s a pro-NOM, not a pro-N.

More on the structure of NOM

In this section I give further details about PRE-MODIFIERS
(modifiers preceding the head noun) and POST-MODIFIERS in
NOM (following the head noun). But, first, what determines
which categories pre-modify and which post-modify the
head noun? Why are all the modifying APs illustrated above
pre-modifiers and all the PPs post-modifiers?
Here’s one explanation. Call it The Friendly Head
Principle (FHP): within NOM, the head of the
modifying phrase wants to sit NEXT to the head noun.
PPs are left-headed (have their (P) heads to the left). So,
the head of a PP will only sit next to the head N if the PP
follows the head N. Conversely, when an AP consists of an A
that can itself be pre-modified (very famous, quietly helpful)
– in other words, when the AP is right-headed – the AP needs
to precede the head N so that its head sits next to the head
N. In any other order the heads of the modifiers are
separated from the head N.

[44a] that visit [to the circus].

[44b] *that [to the circus] visit.
[45a] a [quietly helpful] waiter.
[45b] *a waiter [quietly helpful].

Later on, we’ll encounter APs that are left-headed.

Pre-modifiers in NOM
The most obvious pre-modifiers are, of course, APs.
Remember that A is always dominated by AP. The function
of A is always head-of-AP. It’s the AP that has the modifying
function.

Adjunct APs and restricted APs

We have seen that an adjunct AP is a sister-of-NOM. This is
true even when we have a sequence of adjunct APs. So
[46a] is represented as in [46b].

[46a] this new red car.

[46b]

The pro-NOM one confirms this analysis. It can replace any

of the three NOMs in [46]:

[46c] this new red car and that one (one = new red car)
[46d] this new red car and that old one (one = red car)
[46e] this new red car and that old blue one (one = car)

But not all APs function as adjuncts. The following NPs

include various kinds of RESTRICTED ADJECTIVES:

[47a] an absolute hero. [48a] a hard worker. [49a] a structural engineer.

[47b] a complete [48b] a slow reader. [49b] a personal assistant.
beginner.
[47a] a total disaster. [48c] an occasional [49c] a nuclear scientist.
visitor.
[47d] a true/real friend. [48d] a heavy smoker. [49d] an environmental
advisor.

Those ‘restricted’ adjectives only figure as pre-modifiers in

NP, never as predicatives in VP, at least not with the same
meaning. An absolute hero is not an absolute person
(whatever that might mean); it’s the heroism that’s
absolute. A slow reader is not slow; it’s her reading that’s
slow. An environmental advisor is not environmental; it’s her
advice that’s environmental in nature. Such adjectives
describe the thing/person referred to in virtue of the
description given by the noun. Notice that the APs in [49]
denote CATEGORIES/TYPES of engineers, assistants, etc., rather
than any incidental properties.
The contrast between adjunct and restricted APs is
especially clear in examples that are ambiguous between
the two:

[50] his old friend

[51] two criminal lawyers.

As an adjunct AP, old in [50] contrasts with young and has

the same meaning when functioning as predicative (his
friend was old). But as a restricted AP, old contrasts with
new; he is old AS a friend. When [51] refers to people
engaged in criminal law, criminal is a restricted AP; it cannot
(with that sense) function as predicative. By contrast, with
criminal as an adjunct in [51] we are dealing with lawyers
who are themselves criminals.
And here’s the point. Restricted APs contrast with
adjunct APs in modifying N, not NOM. They are sisters-of-
N. This means that the pro-NOM one cannot co-occur with
an AP used in the restricted sense: *an absolute one, *a
hard one, *a structural one. It also means that restricted APs
cannot be separated from the head noun and, therefore,
that adjunct APs always precede restricted APs in NP
structure. (So, in a criminal criminal lawyer, we know which
criminal is which!)
Quantifying adjectives
Much, many, few and little are quantifying adjectives
(QA). These might seem to be determiners, but I classify
them as adjectives. Here’s why:

(a) they co-occur with and follow determiners (those many

books, the little butter that I have, some few
successes), so they cannot be determiners themselves.
In following DET, they occupy adjectival position. But
remember, the determiner may be covert, many books
(= DET many books), much garlic (= DET much garlic).
(b) Like adjectives, they can function as subject-
predicatives in VP: His mistakes were many/few, It
wasn’t much, It was very little.
(c) Like adjectives, they are gradable: very many/few
books, too much/little garlic, 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 were categorised as adjectives in Chapter 3. The

CARDINAL numerals (one, two, three …) may seem to
resemble determiners but, like adjectives, they co-occur
with and follow DET (the one mistake), including covert DET
(DET one mistake). The ORDINAL numerals (first, second, third
…) are more obviously adjectives.
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:
[52]

[53]

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) also appear as pre-modifiers within NOM:

PROGRESSIVE PERFECT or PASSIVE

[54a] a floating log [55a] a faded dream
[54b] the sleeping guard [55b] the departed guests
[55c] sliced cake
 [55d] a forgotten valley

In this position, the perfect and passive participles can only

be distinguished by appealing to the meaning. [55a and b]
are perfect, referring to a dream that has faded and guests
who have departed. [55c 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 floating log, *rather
sliced cake, *the slightly sleeping guard. But they can be
modified by general adverbs, as in the rapidly cooling food.
The phrase marker for this NP is given as Discussion 6,
page 158.

As we saw in Chapter 6, certain true adjectives look like

verb participles: charming, pleasing, worrying,
(un)surprising, (un)interested, unexpected. However, since
they’re gradable, they are easily distinguished from
participles: rather pleasing, very interested. The negative
ones don’t even correspond to any English verb anyway (cf.
*unexpect).
The distinction between true adjectives and verb
participles is sometimes blurred. For example, [56] might
look as if it contains a passive lexical verb,

[56] They were very disturbed by the play.

But the presence of very rules this out (cf. *The play very
disturbed them). Very here indicates we’re dealing with an
AP complementing the (intensive) copula be.

Noun modifiers; compound nouns

Nouns themselves may act as pre-modifiers of nouns.
Examples are chess piece, traffic light, roof maintenance,
love affair, petrol station, climate change, video 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 pre-modifiers, noun
modifiers always appear last. They can’t be separated
from the head noun.

[57] some expensive roof maintenance

[58] *some roof expensive maintenance

Such NOUN–NOUN combinations are COMPOUND NOUNS. They

are not phrasal, but are compound WORDS, dominated by N,
as in [59]:

[59]

Notice that an English student is ambiguous. On the

interpretation ‘a student of English’, English is a noun and
English student is a compound noun. As with all
compound nouns, it has the accent on the first noun
(ENGlish student). By contrast, as an adjective, English
means ‘from England’ and functions as adjunct. Here the
accent would normally be on the head noun (English
STUdent). I hope you can see, then, why neither [60] nor
[61] is ambiguous. Give it a thought!

[60] an English Spanish student

[61] an English one

‘A student of Spanish from England’ is the only

interpretation of [60] because English is separated from the
head noun and must therefore have the adjunct
interpretation. Spanish sits next to the head noun, forming
the compound noun Spanish student (meaning ‘a student of
Spanish’). In [61] English co-occurs with the pro-NOM one;
so it is sister-of-NOM and must therefore be the adjunct AP
meaning ‘from England’.
In the light of what you’ve read so far in this chapter
about (a) pre-determiners, (b) determiners, (c) adjectival
adjuncts and (d) noun modifiers, draw the phrase marker for
the NP in [62]. Discussion 7, page 159.

[62] all those dusty gorilla suits

Now try phrase markers for the following NPs. Careful:

there’s a covert determiner lurking somewhere there!
Discussion 8, page 159.

[63a] three large uneaten sausages.

[63b] those two very charming atomic scientists.
Post-modifiers
In this section I look at two of the categories that follow the
head noun in NOM: PPs and a certain type of AP.

Prepositional Phrases
Compare [64a] and [64b]. Can you identify the structural
contrast between them? The same contrast is shown in
[65a] and [65b].

[64a] a trip to the shop for more vegetables

[64b] a trip to the shop in the village
[65a] a book of quotations from Oxford University Press
(OUP)
[65b] a book of quotations from Shakespeare

In each case, you need to identify what constituent the final

PP is modifying.

I hope you agree that for more vegetables in [64a] modifies

trip to the shop. It’s a trip … for more vegetables. There’s no
constituent of the form the shop for more vegetables. By
contrast in [64b] in the village modifies just shop, forming
the NP the shop in the village.
Similarly, in [65a] from OUP modifies book of quotations.
It’s a book … from OUP. There’s no constituent quotations
from OUP in [65a]. By contrast, from Shakespeare modifies
quotations, forming the NP quotations from Shakespeare.
A post-modifying PP may in turn include an NP post-
modified by a PP. This is what we saw in [64b]/[65b]. This
could go on and on, as in [66].
 a trip [to the shop [in the village [at the foot [of that
[66]
mountain [to the west]]]]]

Here is the phrase marker for [64b].

[67]

As you can see, this is a REGULAR RIGHT-BRANCHING structure.

The structure of [64a] and [65a], by contrast, is not
regularly right-branching. In these, the final PP modifies a
NOM containing the preceding PP. The phrase marker
(abbreviated) looks like this:
[68]

In Chapter 1, Further Exercise 4, you were asked to

identify the ambiguity of an agreement between workers on
overtime. This is structurally ambiguous precisely because it
can be analysed as in [67] or [68]. On analysis [67] it’s the
workers who are on overtime; on analysis [68] it’s the
agreement (between workers); it’s an overtime agreement.
Now decide on the analysis of the following NPs. Is it (A)
regularly right-branching, as in [67], or (B) is the final PP
modifying a NOM that includes a PP, as in [68]? Discussion
9, page 160.

[69] the development of calculus by Newton and Leibniz.

[70] the length of the first sentence in Proust’s novel.
[71] the cost of a voyage to the Arctic.
[72] a present for Lucy on her birthday.
[73] that consignment of vaccine in April.

The same question of analysis arises when an NP includes

both a pre-modifying AP and a post-modifying PP: is the
structure regularly right-branching or not? Well, if the pre-
modifier is an ADJUNCT AP (sister-of-NOM) and the post-
modifier is a COMPLEMENT (sister-of-N), it must be the right-
branching analysis [A]. But if the pre-modifier is a restricted
AP (sister-of-N] then we have analysis [B] (and the PP will be
an adjunct).

[74A]

[74B]

For example:

[75] that nuclear scientist from Germany. [B]

[76] an anxious applicant for the job. [A]
[77] structural engineers in disgrace. [B]
[78] the personal assistant at the door. [B]
[79] their secret visits to the kitchen. [A]
 But what if we have both adjunct pre-modifiers AND
adjunct post-modifiers? Both adjuncts will need to be sisters
to NOM. Here are some examples.

[80] The unknown scientist from Germany.

[81] That tall student at the bar.
[82] The new railings in the park.

With these, either analysis is possible. [80], for example,

could be analysed either as (i) [unknown [scientist from
Germany]] or (ii) [[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 is more natural. Analysis (i) is more
natural for [80], since being from Germany is more
permanent/intrinsic than being unknown. By contrast, in
[81], tall is more intrinsic than at the bar, so analysis (ii) is
preferable – [[tall student] at the bar].
In [82], however, neither analysis seems preferred by the
meaning (semantics). In the absence of any compelling
semantic reason for choosing analysis (ii), choose the right-
branching analysis (i) as the default, since it is anyway the
favoured configuration in English.
The NP in [58] includes three modifiers:

[83] that tall student of maths in the hat.

Give a complete phrase marker for that NP (i.e. using no

triangles). Discussion 10, page 160.

More on Adjective Phrases

A few adjectives (including present, absent, responsible,
visible) can pre-modify or post-modify in NP structure.
 [84a] the responsible men.
[84b] the men responsible.
[85a] the present members.
[85b] the members present.

As post-modifiers, APs occupy the same position in the

structure of NOM as PPs. A difference in meaning is
associated with this difference of position of the AP. In [84a]
the men are responsible sort of people – that’s their nature.
But in [84b] they are responsible FOR something. In [85a]
they are the current members. But in [85b] they 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 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.

[86] responsible for the sauces.

[87] happy in his job.
[88] nervous of exams.
[89] devoid of hope.

When, in an NP, a modifying AP includes a complement, it

always post-modifies the head noun. This follows from the
Friendly Head Principle (FHP): the head of the modifying
AP likes to sit next to the head N.

[90a] the chef [responsible for the sauces].

[90b] *the [responsible for the sauces] chef.
[91a] a stuntman [happy in his job].
[91b] *a [happy in his job] stuntman.

Here’s the phrase marker for [90a]:

 [92]

The FHP also explains why, when a modifying AP includes –

or even could include – (pre-)modification by DEG, it must
pre-modify the head noun. Compare [93] and [94a–b]:

[93] the very responsible men.

[94a] *the chef very responsible.
[94b] *the chef very responsible for the sauces.

Modification of pronouns
I’ve said that pronouns replace full NPs. It is rather awkward,
therefore, to find pronouns combining with AP [95a–b] or PP
[96a–b] within the structure of an NP.

[95a] something wonderful.

[95b] anyone intelligent.
[96a] someone in the crowd.
[96b] 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: *intelligent anyone)
relates to this historical fact. It means we must allow for
phrase marker representations like [97a–b].

[97a]

[97b]

The same analysis might seem appropriate for [73]–[74],

especially since the italicised words are sometimes
categorised as pronouns:

[98a] some of the animals.

[98b] those in the cabin.
[99]

of the bottles.

However, if (big ‘if’) they are pronouns, notice they are also
determiners ([98a–b]) or pre-determiners ([99]). In fact,
genuine pronouns cannot be post-modified: *they from the
factory, *he of the men.
It’s arguable, then, that the ‘pronouns’ in [98]–[99] are
not pronouns at all, but are what they always were:
determiners or pre-determiners. They only appear to have
changed into pronouns – and thus appear to be functioning
as the head of the NP – because the real head of the NP
has been ellipted. This suggests that [98a], for example,
should be analysed as in [100], in which animals is the
ellipted head:

[100]

Let’s adopt this elliptical head analysis. This maintains

the categorisation of the italicised words in [98]–[99] as
determiners/pre-determiners. Applied to [101], for example,
the elliptical head analysis maintains the categorisation of
numerals (e.g. two) as quantifying adjectives (QA).

[101] the two in the library.

Give the phrase marker for [101]. Discussion 11, page

160.
 There are facets of NP structure that this chapter hasn’t
covered. Some are dealt with in the chapters that follow.
Furthermore, several problems have been skated over. You
can get an idea of what these are by looking closely at NPs
in any piece of writing and seeing how far the analyses
proposed here can handle them.

Discussion of in-text exercises

1.
2.

3.

4.
5. [28D]

[28F]
6.

7.
8.
9. [69] The [[development of calculus] [by Newton and
Leibniz]] (B)
[70] The [[length] [of the first sentence in Proust’s
novel]] (A)
[71] The [[cost] [of a voyage to the
Arctic]] (A)
[72] A [[present for Lucy] [on her
birthday]] (B)
[73] That [[consignment of vaccine] [in
April]] (B)
10. Of maths is a complement (sister-of-N). And tall is more
inherent than in the hat. So:
11.

Exercises

1. Draw complete phrase markers for the following NPs.

‘Complete’ means ‘no triangles’. Some involve covert
DET (some more than once). Remember to test your
analysis with the pro-NOM one. (c) is ambiguous and
should be assigned two phrase markers. (f) contains a
co-ordination. 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’s
a co-ordination at the lexical (N), intermediate (NOM), or
phrasal (NP) level.
(a) An expert in sentence analysis.
 (b) Those ten paintings of his garden by Monet.
(c) More useful suggestions.
(d) The dying king’s final message.
(e) All Gulbenkian’s contributions to charity.
(f) Some rather rude gestures and remarks.

2. On page 148, few was categorised as a quantifying

adjective (QA), so the few students would be analysed as
in (a):
(a)
 (b)

However, analysis (a) is not appropriate for a few

students. For this, I propose analysis (b), in which a
few is represented as a constituent. Explain what’s
wrong with analysing a few students as in (a). A
similar issue arises with the NP a little butter. A few
and a little are special – irregular, phrasal –
determiners.

Discussion of exercises
1. (a)
(b)
(c)
(i)

(ii)
(d)
(e)

(f)
2. The head of the NP a few students is plural, so the whole
NP is plural and can’t have the (singular) determiner a,
the indefinite article. Similarly, butter is a mass noun
and mass nouns can’t be determined by the indefinite
article. The whole NP a little butter is mass, not count.

Further exercises

1. 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) An invitation to the palace from the Queen.
(f) All performers absent from the rehearsal.
(g) Two of those city plans.
Set II
(a) Coffee and oranges. (See also Rhythm and blues.)

(Not ambiguous, but three analyses are possible. If

you give only one of these, save ink and give the
simplest.)

(b) Three stars visible to the naked eye.

(c) The king of England’s short and turbulent reign.
(d) These smartly dressed men and women.
(ambiguous)
(e) Both the man’s eyes.
(f) Both the men’s behaviour.
((e) and (f) need care. (e) means ‘both eyes of the
man’, not *‘the eyes of both the man’. (f) means
 ‘the behaviour of both the men’, not *‘both the
behaviour of the men’.)
Set III
(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 your pocket.
(e) Three tall passengers angry about the lowered
ceilings.
(f) Many of the more successful chess players.

2. This chapter concludes my survey of simple sentences.

The remaining chapters deal with complex sentences
(sentences containing sentences as constituents). So
this is an appropriate point to revise what has been
covered thus far on simple sentences. Draw complete
phrase markers, then, for the following. Leave yourself
plenty of room.
(a) Obviously, this calls for a thorough examination of
the facts.
(b) Did the old man’s secretary open the mail on that
particular day?
(c) You must always stop the vehicle at a red traffic
light.
(d) Extra hands have been hired for no good reason,
apparently.
(e) Bruno and the spy at the embassy might be the
same person.
(f) The driver of a passing limousine didn’t stop or offer
them a lift to the castle.
(g) Could Olaf be being investigated by the Intelligence
Agency?
 (h) Aren’t any students or staff signing up for the
parachute jump?
(i) The essays must be submitted tomorrow but I won’t
be marking them before April.

1 ITS, IT’S and IT IS. The possessive determiner its does NOT have an
apostrophe. It’s is not possessive but is the contracted form of it is. There is
much confusion surrounding this fact!