Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-jwnkl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T21:28:29.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

English binominal NPs: A construction-based perspective1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 March 2014

JONG-BOK KIM  and
PETER SELLS
JONG-BOK KIM*
Affiliation:
Kyung Hee University
PETER SELLS*
Affiliation:
University of York
*
Authors' address: (Kim) School of English, Kyung Hee University, 26 Kyungheedae-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, 130-701, Koreajongbok@khu.ac.kr
Authors' address: (Sells) Department of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UKpeter.sells@york.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

English binominal NPs (BNPs) (e.g., a giant of a man, a skullcracker of a headache) are of empirical and theoretical interest due to their complex syntactic and semantic properties. In this paper, we review some basic properties of the BNP construction, focusing on its headedness, semantic relations, and the role of the preposition of. We argue that these properties suggest an account in the spirit of construction grammar. In particular, we argue that the English BNP is a nominal juxtaposition construction with particular special syntactic constraints, linked to a semantic interpretation reminiscent of the subject–predicate relation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 51 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 41 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

Parts of the material in this paper were presented on several occasions at meetings and invited talks: NP2 Workshop in September 2011 at Newcastle University, 18th International Conference on HPSG in August 2011 at the University of Washington at Seattle, Department of English Colloquium in Janunary 2012 at Hong Kong Polytechnic University, and 7th International Conference on Construction Grammar in August 2012 at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies. We thank the participants in these events for questions and feedback. In particular, we thank Bas Aarts, Douglas Arnold, Toshihiko Asaka, Emily Bender, Benjamin Bergen, Rui Chaves, Sae-Youn Cho, Winnie Cheng, Adele Goldberg, Paul Kay, Doo-Shik Kim, Jean-Pierre Koenig, Christian Mattissen, Laura Michaelis, Ivan Sag, Frank Van Eynde, and Eun-Jung Yoo. Three anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees also helped us to focus the paper and crystallize the issues.

References

REFERENCES

Aarts, Bas. 1998. Binominal noun phrases in English. Transactions of the Philological Society 96, 117–158.Google Scholar
Abeillé, Anne & Borsley, Robert D.. 2008. Comparative correlatives and parameters. Lingua 118, 1139–1157.Google Scholar
Abney, Stephen. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Asaka, Toshihiko. 2002. A lexical licensing analysis of the adjectival noun construction. English Linguistics 19.2, 113–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, Frances. 1980. A crescent-shaped jewel of an island: Appositive nouns in phrases separated by of. English Studies 61, 357–366.Google Scholar
Copestake, Ann, Flickinger, Dan, Sag, Ivan A. & Pollard, Carl. 2005. Minimal Recursion Semantics: An introduction. Research in Language and Computation 3.2–3, 281–332.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. 1999. Syntactic nuts: Hard cases in syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. Semantic subordination despite syntactic coordination. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 195–218.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Jackendoff, Ray. 1999. The view from the periphery: The English comparative correlative. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 543–571.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin, Brems, Lieselotte & Smedt, Liesbeth De. 2008. Type noun uses in the English NP: A case of right to left layering. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13.2, 139–168.Google Scholar
Den Dikken, Marcel. 1995. Copulas. Presented at GLOW 18, Tromsø. [Ms., Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam/HIL]Google Scholar
Den Dikken, Marcel. 1998. Predicate inversion in DP. In Alexiadou, Artemis & Wilder, Chris (eds.), Possessors, predicates and movement in the determiner phrase 177–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion and copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Den Dikken, Marcel & Singhapreecha, Pornsiri. 2004. Complex noun phrases and linkers. Syntax 7, 1–54.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2002. Australian languages: Their nature and development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foolen, Ad. 2004. Expressive binominal NPs in Germanic and Romance languages. In Radden, Gunter & Panther, Klaus-Uwe (eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation, 75–100. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul & O'Connor, Mary Catherine. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64.3, 501–538.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at work: Constructionist approaches in context. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele & Jackendoff, Ray. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80, 532–568.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1987. Zwicky on Heads. Journal of Linguistics 23, 109–132.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X̅ syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2008. Construction after construction and its theoretical challenges. Language 84, 8–28.Google Scholar
Kathol, Andreas. 1999. Agreement and the syntax–morphology interface in HPSG. In Levine, Robert D. & Green, Georgia M. (eds.), Studies in current phrase structure grammar, 223–274. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keizer, Evelien. 2007. The English noun phrase: The nature of linguistic categorization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok. 2004. Hybrid English agreement. Linguistics 42.6, 1105–1128.Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok. 2011. English comparative correlative construction: Interactions between lexicon and constructions. Korean Journal of Linguistics 36.2, 307–336.Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok & Sells, Peter. 2008. English syntax: An introduction. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok & Sells, Peter. 2011. The big mess construction: Interactions between the lexicon and constructions. English Language & Linguistics 15.2, 335–362.Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter H. 1981. Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2013. Sign-Based Construction Grammar. In Hoffman, Thomas & Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 133–152. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Munn, Alan. 1993. Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Napoli, Donna Jo. 1989. Predication theory: A case study for indexing theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Owen, Charles. 2007. Notes on the ofness of of – Sinclair and grammar. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 12, 201–221.Google Scholar
Payne, John & Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. Nouns and noun phrases. In Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. et al. The Cambridge grammar of the English language, 323–523. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffery & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Sadler, Louisa & Nordilinger, Rachel. 2010. Nominal juxtaposition in Australian languages: An LFG analysis. Journal of Linguistics 46, 415–452.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2013. Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis. In Boas, Hans C. & Sag, Ivan A. (eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar, 69–202. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., Wasow, Thomas & Bender, Emily. 2003. Syntactic theory: A formal introduction. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Van Eynde, Frank. 2005a. A head-driven treatment of asymmetric coordination and apposition. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), HPSG 2005, 396–409. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Van Eynde, Frank. 2005b. Minor prepositions in nominal projections. In Villavicencio, Aline & Kordoni, Valia (eds.), 2nd ACL-SIGSEM Workshop on Prepositions and Their Use in Computational Linguistics Formalisms and Applications, Colchester, 54–63.Google Scholar
Van Eynde, Frank. 2006. NP-internal agreement and the structure of the noun phrase. Journal of Linguistics 42, 139–186.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. Heads. Journal of Linguistics 21, 1–29.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1995. Exceptional degree markers: A puzzle in internal and external syntax. The Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 47, 111–123.Google Scholar