The Syntax and10hnBowers Semantics of Nominals Cornell University Thoughsyntacticians have devotedconsiderable effortto elucidating the mapping between S-structure relatively little attention bas been paidto themapping between S­ structure/LFand andLF, (=logical fonn, i.e. truth conditional semantics or semantics). It will be argued in Ifthis paper thatrecent extensions of standardX' theory'real'to so-called 'functional' (non-lexical) categoriesprovide the linkbetween - the syntactically motivatedrepresentations and thesemantically crucialmotivated representations of Specifically, it willbe claimedof thatLF thereis a small set functional categoriesin nominals,If. parallel tothosethat have beenposited for sentences, whichof are strongly motivatedon both syntactic andsemantic grounds Whatthis meansis thatgiven a semantically motivated logic fornatural language, positing. thesefunctional categories provides, on the one hand, syntacticrepresentations that com:ct1y acco untfor the syntacticproperties nominals and, on the other hand, a universal and maximally 'transparent' compositional mappingof of syntacticrepresentations onto therepresentations of using only a limitedrange of semantic operations such as functionalapplication andIf,type-shifting. Thelogic assumed here is a property theoryof a kindthat has beenargued for on independent linguistic grounds by (1984, 85, 89) andCbiercbia and Turner (1988). It is a multisorted first-orderChiercbialanguage"with four basic sorts p, U, 1t,e (the universal sort), standing for propositions, individuals,properties and entities, respectively, plus the predication relation U: 1t -> <c,p> andits inverse. The syntacticrepresentations assumed here arethose licensed by a 2-level version X' -theory with only binary branching which applies uniformly to both lexical andoffunctional categories. It will be argued that theminimal set categories neededto characterize nominal structures is: D(eterminer), Nm, N(oun). ofThe category D has been argued foron syntactic grounds by (among others) Abney( 1987) andBowers (1987). Thecategory Nm, intermediate between D and N, generalizes the category NBRproposed by Ritter(1989) forHebrew and thecategory Q proposedby Mallen (1989) forSpanish; it is parallelin formand content to the categoryPc, intermediate between I and V, proposed by Bowers (1988, 89, 91). Themain syntactic claims of this paperare: (1) nominals universally have the following structure: ... lD' D [NmP •.. [Nm' Nm [NP ... [N' N. .]]]]]]; (2) possessive NPs are either base-generatedlDp in [Spec,D1 ormoved there from .[Spec,Nm1, the canonical position for 'subjects' nominals, or from [Spec, thecanonical position for'objects' of nominals; (3) ofstrong determiners in the senseN),of Milsark(1974) andBarwise Cooper (1981) belong to the categoryD, while weakdeterminers are which areX'-adjuncts & licensed by Nm; (4) actionnominals derivefrom underlying structuresAPs with real subject or object arguments in [Spec,Nm1 and[Spec, N) and thehead No un raises to NmO, parallel to the raising of V to in sentences (Bowers (1989, (1988»; (5) result nominals andbasic Nouns,PIO in neitherhave real90),subject andLarson object arguments nor dothey undergoraising to NmOcontrast,. Themain semantic claimsof thispaper intimately interrelatedwith the syntactic claims, are: denoteproperties and thereforeare , translatedin as expressions type 1t; (I') NPs If of (2') the categoryNmO, like the category is universally translatedas the predication (3') X' -adjuncts arePIO, uniformly translated as modifiers,\./,hence weak quantifiersdo operator;not change the type the expressions theymodify; (4') the members of D, in contrast,following thetheory ofgeneralized quantifiers (Montague (1970), Barwise Cooper( 1981», map properties ontoof sets of properties, thereby changingthe type of their& NmP complements; (5') ifthere is nolexical determiner in D, then D is automatically inteIpretedas theexistential quantifier 3. 1 2 Beforediscussing and justifying theseclaims in detail, it is fust necessary to summarize the results ofmy previous workon predication andthe structure ofpropositions (B owers (1991». The analysis of nominals proposed in this paperis tightly integrated with the analysis sentencesproposed there. Indeed,the strongparalle lism between sententialand nominalofstructure thatresults from my analysisof nominals constitutes a crucial piece of evidence in its support. The Syntax Sentences 1. of It is claimedin Bowers (1991) thatthe universal canonicalD-structure of sentences (apart is thefollowing: from onJer) (1) IP (noifi'mabve) I subJecOagent (nominative) Pi Pi'objecflUleme yP (or (accusative) iO� mplement/obliqueV') indirectV' 06jCCtJgoal V (dative) Embodiedin this structurea are number of claims havingto dowith (1) predication; (2) direct objects; (3) indirectobjects and complements. I discuss each these topics in tum. of 1.1. Predication A major unresolvedquestion in the generativeframework is whether main clause (MC) and smallclause (SC) predicationcan be unified in purely SbUctural tenDs. In (2) are e�mplifieda range conSbUctions that might reasonably becharacterized as 'small clauses', some with PofRO subjects, others analogous to ECMconstructions: (2) a.I consider [John crazy]. b. We regard [them as fools]. c. She put the book[pRO on the table]. d. The lions eat the meat [pRO raw]. e. With sick] , nothing is getting done. f. f. John[Mary ate breakfast [PRO naked]. In (3) areillustrated a number ofproposed s tructures forSCS: (3) a. 'SC' b. (Stowell) c. (Williams) xp i V NP XI> i Pi NP XP V" Clearly, none of these SbUctureS have anything in common with the standard SbUCture for main clauses, regardless of whether the internal subject hypothesis is assumed ornot: 3 (4) a. b. IP Ir NP" r NP r VP r --V' Suppose, however, there is a functionalcategory 'Pr' intennediate�YPbetween I andV, which projects its own phrasalcategories just otherlexical andfunctional categories. Predication can thenunif onnly representedlike as follows: (5) (subject) ..... (predicate) NP Pr'-=---.XP::-=. x=e:-p_ {V,A,N,P} therhave we MC orSC predication simply depends on whether categoryPr P is a Whecomplement orV: the ofl (6) MC: b. SC: __ a. Y",-_ V PrP -_-w� �=-.,.".. NP pf NP, AP ,PP, VP VP Not only does hypothesizing the categoryPr unify MC and SC predication,providing a purely structural characterization predicationrelation but it solves a related problem,namely, what categoryto of assign the SCS to: it is simply, thealso maximal projection Pr. Moreoever, it does so within the limitations of a uniform 2-level version of X-barof theory,unlilce otherproposals such asFukui (1986), andwithout invokingthe use of base­ generated adjuncts,as in Stowell (1981) (illustratedin (3) b.) andKoopman and Sportiche (1985, 87). A further bonus of this theoryis that it solves a minorbut significant mystery of English grammar,namely, how tocategorize the elementas, which in SC constructions such as (2) b. It can simply beregarded as a visiblerealization appears of the categoryPr. Finally,as willbe discussed in 12, thecategory Pr provides the syntactic basis foruniform semantic theory of predication. I now summarize briefly some empirical arguments thatsupport positing a universal syntactic categoryPr. One such argumentcan be derivedfrom the fact that constituents consisting of a directobject andcomplements of can,quite generally,be conjoined: variouskinds (7)a. Mary considers John a fool and Bill a wimp. b. John regards professors as strange andpoliticians as creepy. c. Sue put the bookson table and the recordson the chair. Harriet gave a mug tothe John anda scarf toVivien. de. I expectJohn to win HaITyand to lose. f. We persuaded Maryto leave andSue to stay. g. You eat the fISh raw and beef cooked. h. I convinced John that it wasthe andBill that it was early. i. They told Sue who totalk to andlate Virginia when to leave. Clearly,such Sb'Uctures are impossible to generate underthe standard analysis In thetheory proposed here, on the other they are easilyanalyzable as instancesofVP. of hand, 4 across-the-boardextraction of V from a conjoinedVP: 'Pfp � NFl" P NP the .loks i on J�ble the lnus Ii on �rchair r vS yP We know on the basis of comparative evidence thatnon-auxiliary verbs don't raiseto 1 in English (Emonds (1978), Pollock(1 989». Hence, the ATB extraction of V in required these structures is onlypossible if there is an xOposition between 1 and V which the extracted verb can be located in. The neededhead position is, 1 suggest, Pr.l Independent evidence forthis conclusion can be derived from sentences (Larson (1990» such as the following in which theraised constituent mustRNR be a containinga V­ trace: VP (9) a. Smith loaned, and his widowlater donated, a valuablecollection ofmanuscripts to the library. b. Sue moved, and Mary also transfeITed, her business to a different location. c. 1 succeededin convincing, even though John had failed to persuade,Mary not to leave. d We didn'tparticularly but nevertheless ate, the fish raw. e. Most people probably consider,like, even though the courts didn't actually find, Klaus von Bulow guilty of murder. f. Flo desperately wants, though she doesn'treally expect, the Miami Dolphins to be in the Superbowl. Furtherevidence for the existence of Prcan bederived from thefam iliar observation that predicative expressionsof different syntactic category canbe conjoined: (10) a. 1 considerJohn crazyand a fool. b. Billis unhappy andin trouble. c. 1 regardJohn as crazyand as my best friend d *1 regard John as crazyand my bestfriend