Hubbry Logo
Determiner phraseDeterminer phraseMain
Open search
Determiner phrase
Community hub
Determiner phrase
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Determiner phrase
Determiner phrase
Determiner phrase
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In linguistics, a determiner phrase (DP) is a type of phrase headed by a determiner such as many.[1] Controversially, many approaches take a phrase like not very many apples to be a DP headed, in this case, by the determiner many. This is called the DP analysis or the DP hypothesis. Others reject this analysis in favor of the more traditional NP (noun phrase or nominal phrase) analysis where apples would be the head of the phrase in which the DP not very many is merely a dependent. Thus, there are competing analyses concerning heads and dependents in nominal groups.[2] The DP analysis developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s,[3] and it is the majority view in generative grammar today.[4]

In the example determiner phrases below, the determiners are in boldface:

  • a little dog, the little dogs (indefinite or definite articles)
  • my little dog, your little dogs (possessives)
  • this little dog, those little dogs (demonstratives)
  • every little dog, each little dog, no dog (quantifiers)

The competing analyses

[edit]

Although the DP analysis is the dominant view in generative grammar, most other grammar theories reject the idea. For instance, representational phrase structure grammars follow the NP analysis, e.g. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, and most dependency grammars such as Meaning-Text Theory, Functional Generative Description, and Lexicase Grammar also assume the traditional NP analysis of noun phrases, Word Grammar being the one exception.[1] Construction Grammar and Role and Reference Grammar also assume NP instead of DP. Noam Chomsky, on whose framework most generative grammar has been built, said in a 2020 lecture,

I’m going to assume here that nominal phrases are actually NPs. The DP hypothesis, which is widely accepted, was very fruitful, leading to a lot of interesting work; but I’ve never really been convinced by it. I think these structures are fundamentally nominal phrases. [. . . ] As far as determiners are concerned, like say that, I suspect that they are adjuncts. So I’ll be assuming that the core system is basically nominal.[5]

The point at issue concerns the hierarchical status of determiners. Various types of determiners in English are summarized in the following table.

Article Quantifier Demonstrative Possessive
a/an, the all, every, many, each, etc. this, that, those, etc. my, your, her, its, their, etc.

Should the determiner in phrases such as the car and those ideas be construed as the head of or as a dependent in the phrase? The following trees illustrate the competing analyses, DP vs. NP. The two possibilities are illustrated first using dependency-based structures (of dependency grammars):

DP vs. NP 5
DP vs. NP 5

The a-examples show the determiners dominating the nouns, and the b-examples reverse the relationship, since the nouns dominate the determiners. The same distinction is illustrated next using constituency-based trees (of phrase structure grammars), which are equivalent to the above:

DP vs. NP 6
DP vs. NP 6

The convention used here employs the words themselves as the labels on the nodes in the structure. Whether a dependency-based or constituency-based approach to syntax is employed, the issue is which word is the head over the other.

Arguments for DP over NP

[edit]

The DP-hypothesis is held for four main reasons: 1) facilitates viewing phrases and clauses as structurally parallel, 2) accounts for determiners often introducing phrases and their fixed position within phrases, 3) accounts for possessive -s constructions, and 4) accounts for the behaviour of definite pronouns given their complementary distribution with determiners.

Parallel structures

[edit]

The original motivation for the DP-analysis came in the form of parallelism across phrase and clause. The DP-analysis provides a basis for viewing clauses and phrases as structurally parallel.[6] The basic insight runs along the following lines: since clauses have functional categories above lexical categories, noun phrases should do the same. The traditional NP-analysis has the drawback that it positions the determiner, which is often a pure function word, below the lexical noun, which is usually a full content word. The traditional NP-analysis is therefore unlike the analysis of clauses, which positions the functional categories as heads over the lexical categories. The point is illustrated by drawing a parallel to the analysis of auxiliary verbs. Given a combination such as will understand, one views the modal auxiliary verb will, a function word, as head over the main verb understand, a content word. Extending this type of analysis to a phrase like the car, the determiner the, a function word, should be head over car, a content word. In so doing, the NP the car becomes a DP. The point is illustrated with simple dependency-based hierarchies:

NP vs. DP 1.1
NP vs. DP 1.1

Only the DP-analysis shown in c establishes the parallelism with the verb chain. It enables one to assume that the architecture of syntactic structure is principled; functional categories (function words) consistently appear above lexical categories (content words) in phrases and clauses. This unity of the architecture of syntactic structure is perhaps the strongest argument in favor of the DP-analysis.

Position

[edit]

The fact that determiners typically introduce the phrases in which they appear is also viewed as support for the DP-analysis. One points to the fact that when more than one attributive adjective appears, their order is somewhat flexible, e.g. an old friendly dog vs. a friendly old dog. The position of the determiner, in contrast, is fixed; it has to introduce the phrase, e.g. *friendly an old dog, *old friendly a dog, etc. The fact that the determiner's position at the left-most periphery of the phrase is set is taken as an indication that it is the head of the phrase. The reasoning assumes that the architecture of phrases is robust if the position of the head is fixed. The flexibility of order for attributive adjectives is taken as evidence that they are indeed dependents of the noun.

Possessive -s in English

[edit]

Possessive -s constructions in English are often produced as evidence in favor of the DP-analysis.[7] The key trait of the possessive -s construction is that the -s can attach to the right periphery of a phrase. This fact means that -s is not a suffix (since suffixes attach to words, not phrases). Further, the possessive -s construction has the same distribution as determiners, which means that it has determiner status. The assumption is therefore that possessive -s heads the entire DP, e.g.

  1. [the guy with a hat]'s dog
  2. [the girl who was laughing]'s scarf

The phrasal nature of the possessive -s constructions like these is easy to accommodate on a DP-analysis. The possessive -s heads the possessive phrase; the phrase that immediately precedes the -s (in brackets) is in specifier position, and the noun that follows the -s is the complement. The claim is that the NP-analysis is challenged by this construction because it does not make a syntactic category available for the analysis of -s, that is, the NP-analysis does not have a clear means at its disposal to grant -s the status of determiner. This claim is debatable, however, since nothing prevents the NP-analysis from also granting -s the status of determiner. The NP-analysis is however forced to acknowledge that DPs do in fact exist, since possessive -s constructions have to be acknowledged as phrases headed by the determiner -s. A certain type of DP definitely exists, namely one that has -s as its head.

Definite pronouns

[edit]

The fact that definite pronouns are in complementary distribution with determiners is taken as evidence in favor of DP.[8] The important observation in this area is that definite pronouns cannot appear together with a determiner like the or a in one and the same DP, e.g.

  1. they
  2. *the they
  1. him
  2. *a him

On a DP-analysis, this trait of definite pronouns is relatively easy to account for. If definite pronouns are actually determiners, then it makes sense that they should not be able to appear together with another determiner since the two would be competing for the same syntactic position in the hierarchy of structure. On an NP-analysis in contrast, there is no obvious reason why a combination of the two would not be possible. In other words, the NP-analysis has to reach to additional stipulations to account for the fact that combinations like *the them are impossible. A difficulty with this reasoning, however, is posed by indefinite pronouns (one, few, many), which can easily appear together with a determiner, e.g. the old one. The DP-analysis must therefore draw a distinction between definite and indefinite pronouns, whereby definite pronouns are classified as determiners, but indefinite pronouns as nouns.

Arguments for NP over DP

[edit]

While the DP-hypothesis has largely replaced the traditional NP analysis in generative grammar, it is generally not held among advocates of other frameworks, for six reasons:[9] 1) absent determiners, 2) morphological dependencies, 3) semantic and syntactic parallelism, 4) idiomatic expressions, 5) left-branch phenomena, and 6) genitives.

Absent determiners

[edit]

Many languages lack the equivalents of the English definite and indefinite articles, e.g. the Slavic languages. Thus in these languages, determiners appear much less often than in English, where the definite article the and the indefinite article a are frequent. What this means for the DP-analysis is that null determiners are a common occurrence in these languages. In other words, the DP-analysis must posit the frequent occurrence of null determiners in order to remain consistent about its analysis of DPs. DPs that lack an overt determiner actually involve a covert determiner in some sense. The problem is evident in English as well, where mass nouns can appear with or without a determiner, e.g. milk vs. the milk, water vs. the water. Plural nouns can also appear with or without a determiner, e.g. books vs. the books, ideas vs. the ideas, etc. Since nouns that lack an overt determiner have the same basic distribution as nouns with a determiner, the DP-analysis should, if it wants to be consistent, posit the existence of a null determiner every time an overt determiner is absent. The traditional NP analysis is not confronted with this necessity, since for it, the noun is the head of the noun phrase regardless of whether a determiner is or is not present. Thus the traditional NP analysis requires less of the theoretical apparatus, since it does not need all those null determiners, the existence of which is non-falsifiable. Other things being equal, less is better according to Occam's Razor.

Morphological dependencies

[edit]

The NP-analysis is consistent with intuition in the area of morphological dependencies. Semantic and grammatical features of the noun influence the choice and morphological form of the determiner, not vice versa. Consider grammatical gender of nouns in a language like German, e.g. Tisch 'table' is masculine (der Tisch), Haus 'house' is neuter (das Haus), Zeit 'time' is feminine (die Zeit). The grammatical gender of a noun is an inherent trait of the noun, whereas the form of the determiner varies according to this trait of the noun. In other words, the noun is influencing the choice and form of the determiner, not vice versa. In English, this state of affairs is visible in the area of grammatical number, for instance with the opposition between singular this and that and plural these and those. Since the NP-analysis positions the noun above the determiner, the influence of the noun on the choice and form of the determiner is intuitively clear: the head noun is influencing the dependent determiner. The DP-analysis, in contrast, is unintuitive because it necessitates that one view the dependent noun as influencing the choice and form of the head determiner.

Semantic and structural parallelism

[edit]

Despite what was stated above about parallelism across clause and DP, the traditional NP-analysis of noun phrases actually maintains parallelism in a way that is destroyed if one assumes DPs. The semantic parallelism that can be obtained across clause and NP, e.g. He loves water vs. his love of water, is no longer present in the structure if one assumes DPs. The point is illustrated here first with dependency trees:

DP vs. NP 3
DP vs. NP 3

On the NP-analysis, his is a dependent of love in the same way that he is a dependent of loves. The result is that the NP his love of water and the clause He loves water are mostly parallel in structure, which seems correct given the semantic parallelism across the two. In contrast, the DP analysis destroys the parallelism, since his becomes head over love. The same point is true for a constituency-based analysis:

DP vs. NP 4
DP vs. NP 4

These trees again employ the convention whereby the words themselves are used as the node labels. The NP-analysis maintains the parallelism because the determiner his appears as specifier in the NP headed by love in the same way that he appears as specifier in the clause headed by loves. In contrast, the DP analysis destroys this parallelism because his no longer appears as a specifier in the NP, but rather as head over the noun.

Idiomatic meaning

[edit]

The fixed words of many idioms in natural language include the noun of a noun phrase at the same time that they exclude the determiner.[10] This is particularly true of many idioms in English that require the presence of a possessor that is not a fixed part of the idiom, e.g. take X's time, pull X's leg, dance on X's grave, step on X's toes, etc. While the presence of the Xs in these idioms is required, the X argument itself is not fixed, e.g. pull his/her/their/John's leg. What this means is that the possessor is not part of the idiom; it is outside of the idiom. This fact is a problem for the DP-analysis because it means that the fixed words of the idiom are interrupted in the vertical dimension. That is, the hierarchical arrangement of the fixed words is interrupted by the possessor, which is not part of the idiom. The traditional NP-analysis is not confronted with this problem, since the possessor appears below the noun. The point is clearly visible in dependency-based structures:

DP vs. NP 2
DP vs. NP 2

The arrangement of the words in the vertical dimension is what is important. The fixed words of the idiom (in blue) are top-down continuous on the NP-analysis (they form a catena), whereas this continuity is destroyed on the DP-analysis, where the possessor (in green) intervenes. Therefore the NP-analysis allows one to construe idioms as chains of words, whereas on the DP-analysis, one cannot make this assumption. On the DP-analysis, the fixed words of many idioms really cannot be viewed as discernible units of syntax in any way.

Left branches

[edit]

In English and many closely related languages, constituents on left branches underneath nouns cannot be separated from their nouns. Long-distance dependencies are impossible between a noun and the constituents that normally appear on left branches underneath the noun. This fact is addressed in terms of the Left Branch Condition.[11] Determiners and attributive adjectives are typical "left-branch constituents". The observation is illustrated with examples of topicalization and wh-fronting: 

(1a) Fred has helpful friends.
(1b) *...and helpful Fred has friends. - The attributive adjective helpful cannot be topicalized away from its head friends.

(2a) Sam is waiting for the second train. 
(2b) *...and second Sam is waiting for the train. - The attributive adjective second cannot be topicalized away from its head train.

(3a) Susan has our car.
(3b) *Whose does Susan have car? - The interrogative determiner whose cannot be wh-fronted away from its head car.

(4a) Sam is waiting for the second train.
(4b) *Which is Sam waiting for train? - The interrogative determiner which cannot be wh-fronted away from its head train.

These examples illustrate that with respect to the long-distance dependencies of topicalization and wh-fronting, determiners behave like attributive adjectives. Both cannot be separated from their head noun. The NP-analysis is consistent with this observation because it positions both attributive adjectives and determiners as left-branch dependents of nouns. On a DP-analysis, however, determiners are no longer on left branches underneath nouns. In other words, the traditional NP-analysis is consistent with the fact that determiners behave just like attributive adjectives with respect to long-distance dependencies, whereas the DP-analysis cannot appeal to left branches to account for this behavior because on the DP-analysis, the determiner is no longer on a left branch underneath the noun.

Genitives

[edit]

The NP-analysis is consistent with the observation that genitive case in languages like German can have the option to appear before or after the noun, whereby the meaning remains largely the same, as illustrated with the following examples:

a. das Haus meines Bruders 'the house of.my brother'
b. meines Bruders Haus 'my brother's house'
a. die Arbeit seines Onkels 'the work of.his uncle'
b. seines Onkels Arbeit 'his uncle's work'

While the b-phrases are somewhat archaic, they still occur on occasion in elevated registers. The fact that the genitive NPs meines Bruders and seines Onkels can precede or follow the noun is telling, since it suggests that the hierarchical analysis of the two variants should be similar in a way that accommodates the almost synonymous meanings. On the NP-analysis, these data are not a problem because in both cases, the genitive expression is a dependent of the noun. The DP-analysis, in contrast, is challenged because in the b-variants, it takes the genitive expression to be head over the noun. In other words, the DP-analysis has to account for the fact that the meaning remains consistent despite the quite different structures across the two variants.

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Determiner phrase

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A determiner phrase (DP) is a syntactic unit in headed by a functional category D, (such as the, a, this, or every), which takes a (NP) or related projection as its complement, forming a maximal projection that parallels the structure of clauses headed by or complementizers. The DP hypothesis, first systematically proposed by Steven Abney in his 1987 MIT dissertation, revolutionized the analysis of nominal expressions by treating determiners not as specifiers or adjuncts within an NP, but as heads of their own phrasal category, thereby resolving longstanding issues in such as the exocentric nature of possessives and the dual properties of gerunds. Under this framework, the basic structure of a DP follows X-bar principles: it consists of a head , an intermediate D' (combining with its complement, often an NP), and a specifier position (potentially occupied by possessors or quantifiers), as in the representation [DP [Spec] [D' D NP]], exemplified by John's book where John's is in Spec-DP, 's realizes D, and book is the NP complement. More extended variants incorporate additional functional layers, such as a Number Phrase (NumP) between D and NP to encode plurality (e.g., -s in these books), allowing determiners to select NumP as complement: [DP D [NumP Num NP]]. Key arguments for the DP analysis include cross-linguistic of agreement between determiners and nouns or possessors in languages like Hungarian, Turkish, and , where D hosts agreement features (AGR) analogous to those in inflectional heads; the possibility of PRO subjects in nominals (e.g., the destruction of the was regrettable, with PRO as subject of destruction); and the behavior of Poss-ing gerunds (e.g., John's destroying the ), which exhibit sentential internal structure (VP complement to D) but nominal external distribution. elision (e.g., underlying definite in a hundred nights) and scope interactions (e.g., an alleged 500-lb canary, where alleged scopes over the quantifier) further support D as head, eliminating ad hoc specifiers of N and unifying nominal syntax with clausal syntax. This approach has become standard in minimalist syntax, influencing analyses of quantification, binding, and case assignment, though extensions like multiple functional projections (e.g., QP for quantifiers) continue to refine the model.

Overview

Definition

In linguistics, a determiner phrase (DP) is a syntactic constituent that functions as the maximal projection of a determiner, which serves as its head. The determiner, often a functional element such as an article (e.g., "the" or "a"), a demonstrative (e.g., "this" or "that"), or a quantifier (e.g., "every" or "some"), combines with a nominal complement to form referential expressions that denote entities or sets. This structure allows determiners to license the noun phrase and its modifiers, enabling the DP to occupy argument positions in sentences, such as subjects or objects. The core components of a DP include the determiner (D) as the head, which selects a noun phrase (NP) as its complement, typically consisting of the noun and its immediate modifiers like adjectives. Specifiers, such as possessors (e.g., "John's" in "John's book"), may occupy the specifier position of DP, while adjuncts like attributive adjectives (e.g., "red" in "the red book") attach within the NP. In possessive constructions, the D head may be phonologically null or realized as genitive marking ('s), assigning case to the possessor in specifier position. This organization reflects X-bar theory principles, where the D head projects the DP structure with specifier, head, and complement positions. A basic representation of DP structure can be depicted as follows, using bracketed notation for a simple definite DP:

[DP [D the] [NP [N book]]]

[DP [D the] [NP [N book]]]

In this tree, "the" heads the DP, taking the NP "book" as its complement; more complex DPs might include a specifier like [DP [Spec John's] [D'] [D Ø] [NP book]], where Ø is a null determiner. This DP analysis contrasts with the traditional noun phrase (NP) approach, in which the determiner is treated as a specifier of the noun head rather than the phrase's primary head, thereby lacking the functional projection that parallels clausal structures like IP (Inflectional Phrase).

Historical Development

The concept of the determiner phrase (DP) emerged in the as an extension of , which had previously treated noun phrases (NPs) as endocentric projections headed by the in frameworks developed in the . Early ideas building on this foundation explored functional categories within nominal structures, with researchers like Paul Postal noting parallels between pronouns and determiners, suggesting determiners could function as heads rather than mere specifiers. These developments shifted focus from the noun-centric NP views dominant in the , as seen in Chomsky's (1970) and Jackendoff's (1977) formulations, toward recognizing determiners' central role. A pivotal advancement came with Steven Abney's 1987 dissertation, which systematically proposed the DP hypothesis, arguing that determiners head a functional projection parallel to inflectional phrases (IPs) and complementizer phrases (CPs) in clausal structure. Abney's analysis unified various nominal constructions, such as possessives and gerunds, by positing DP as the maximal projection containing an NP complement, thereby resolving issues like the licensing of PRO subjects in nominals. This work built directly on cross-linguistic evidence, particularly from Hungarian, where Anna Szabolcsi (1987) demonstrated functional categories akin to inflection and s within noun phrases, with determiners enabling argumenthood. Szabolcsi's observations of possessor agreement and determiner positioning provided empirical support for treating as a head parallel to clausal Infl. Further refinements in the early strengthened the DP framework, notably through Giuseppe Longobardi's () analysis of proper names, which argued that nouns must raise to the D position for referential interpretation, distinguishing argumental from predicative uses. This movement-based account integrated DP with semantic requirements, influencing subsequent generative research. By the mid-, the DP hypothesis had gained widespread acceptance, appearing as standard in generative syntax textbooks and analyses. In the evolution toward the Minimalist Program, introduced by Noam Chomsky in 1995, the DP integrated with core operations like feature checking and Merge, treating functional heads such as D as essential for case and phi-feature valuation. This framework further embedded DP within phase theory from the early 2000s, where nominal phases align with clausal ones for economy-driven derivations. The shift from 1970s NP-centric models to DP adoption marked a major theoretical realignment, solidifying by the late 1990s in mainstream generative linguistics.

Theoretical Foundations

Determiner Phrase Hypothesis

The Determiner Phrase Hypothesis proposes that determiners, such as articles, demonstratives, and possessives, project their own phrasal category known as the Determiner Phrase (DP), thereby treating the determiner as the head of the nominal structure with the noun phrase (NP) functioning as its complement. This approach ensures endocentricity in nominal phrases, meaning every phrase is headed by an element of the same category, and establishes parallelism with other functional projections like the Tense Phrase (TP, formerly IP) and Complementizer Phrase (CP), where functional heads similarly dominate lexical projections. The primary motivations for this lie in achieving uniformity across structures in generative , aligning with X-bar theory's principles that all major categories head maximal projections. Under the traditional view, occupied the specifier position of an NP, creating an exocentric relation that deviated from the head-complement asymmetry seen in verbal or adjectival phrases; the DP hypothesis reframes the determiner-noun relation as a canonical head-complement configuration, where the determiner selects the NP as its sister, promoting consistency in syntactic architecture. Formally, the DP adheres to X-bar theory's template for phrasal expansion:
DP=[DP[Spec… ][D’[DD][NPcomplement]]]\text{DP} = \left[_{\text{DP}} \left[_{\text{Spec}} \dots \right] \left[_{\text{D'}} \left[_{\text{D}} \text{D} \right] \left[_{\text{NP}} \text{complement} \right] \right] \right]
Here, D (the determiner head) projects to D' and then DP, with the NP serving as the complement of D, mirroring structures like VP where V heads and selects a complement. This framework integrates with theta-theory by positing that determiners introduce referentiality or quantificational force at the functional layer of the nominal domain, akin to how tense in TP contributes temporal interpretation. The hypothesis was first systematically developed in Abney's 1987 dissertation.

Noun Phrase Analysis

In the traditional analysis of the noun phrase within prior to the 1980s, the (NP) is conceptualized as an endocentric construction headed by the (N), with determiners functioning as specifiers or internal to the NP rather than as heads of a distinct projection. This view, foundational to early , posits that the NP serves as the maximal projection encompassing all nominal elements, including articles, , possessives, and quantifiers, which modify the head without introducing an additional layer of structure. The approach emphasizes uniformity across phrasal categories, treating NPs alongside verb phrases and other projections under a generalized schema. The structural representation of the NP in this framework follows X-bar principles, typically formalized as [{NP} [{Spec} Det] [{N'} N [{PP/AP} complements]]], where the specifier position hosts the , and the N' intermediate projection includes the head along with its complements (e.g., prepositional phrases) or (e.g., adjectives). Jackendoff (1977) extends this to a multi-level bar structure, allowing multiple specifiers at levels such as N'', N''', with determiners occupying higher specifier slots to accommodate elements like genitives or quantifiers in . For instance, in "the cat," "the" appears in the specifier of NP, sister to N' dominated by the head "cat," while like adjectives adjoin to N' or higher bars. This lacks any separate projection, maintaining a flat or layered organization centered on the lexical . Central assumptions of this NP analysis hold that nouns inherently bear the predicative content and primary referential load, denoting classes or properties that determiners then modify to specify , , or quantity without altering the head's categorial status. Determiners are thus viewed as optional modifiers that restrict the noun's , such as linking it to context or numerical scope, rather than projecting their own phrase to encode referentiality. Proper nouns, for example, achieve direct independently, underscoring the noun's core role in argumenthood. Early generative models illustrate these principles through uniform treatment of determiners. In Jackendoff (1977), possessives like "John's" and quantifiers like "many" occupy specifier positions equivalently, as in [{NP} John's [{N'} book]] or [{N'''} many [{N''} [_{N'} books]]], ensuring parallel handling across nominal constructions without distinguishing possessive from definite determiners structurally. Adjective phrases, such as "very proud" in "very proud woman," may derive via movement to a specifier or adjunction, reinforcing the NP's internal . This perspective began shifting in the toward functional projections like the determiner phrase.

Arguments Supporting DP Hypothesis

Structural Parallels with Other Phrases

The determiner phrase (DP) hypothesis posits that noun phrases are embedded within a functional projection headed by a (D), creating structural parallels with other major phrasal categories in the X-bar schema of generative . This mirroring is evident in how DP aligns with the (CP), where the functional head C selects an infinitival or tensed (IP/TP); the inflectional (IP/TP), where the functional head T introduces tense and selects a (VP); and the (AP), where the lexical head A projects functional layers for degree modification or comparison. These parallels arise because functional heads like D, C, and T introduce abstract features such as case, , or agreement, unifying the architecture across categories and supporting a consistent hierarchical organization in . Evidence for this symmetry comes from the capacity for recursion and embedding within DPs, akin to the layered functional structure in CPs and TPs. Determiners enable recursive embedding of possessors or modifiers, as in recursive constructions like "John's friend's book," where multiple specifier positions allow successive functional projections similar to how complementizers embed clauses (e.g., "that she thinks that he left"). Gerunds further illustrate this, embedding VP complements under DP (e.g., "John's [discovering [a thesis-writing algorithm]]"), behaving internally like clausal structures while externally patterning as nominals, a parallelism reinforced cross-linguistically in languages like Turkish with genitive-marked gerunds. This recursive potential of determiners mirrors the embedding of TPs under CPs, facilitating complex subordination without violating X-bar principles. The uniform X-bar schema is exemplified by comparing a simple DP like "the big dog" to a clausal structure like "that she runs." In tree form:

DP ├── Spec: (empty or possessor) └── D': ├── D: the └── NP: ├── Spec: big (AP) └── N': └── N: dog

DP ├── Spec: (empty or possessor) └── D': ├── D: the └── NP: ├── Spec: big (AP) └── N': └── N: dog

This contrasts with:

CP ├── Spec: (empty) └── C': ├── C: that └── TP: ├── Spec: she └── T': ├── T: (tense) └── VP: runs

CP ├── Spec: (empty) └── C': ├── C: that └── TP: ├── Spec: she └── T': ├── T: (tense) └── VP: runs

Both adhere to the endocentric X-bar template, with functional heads (D, C, T) projecting specifiers for subjects or modifiers and complements for lexical content (NP, TP, VP), eliminating ad hoc exocentric rules and accommodating multiple specifiers in APs (e.g., degree phrases like "too big"). Such consistency extends to APs, where functional projections above A (e.g., for comparatives) parallel D's role in nominals. Theoretically, this parallelism simplifies movement operations by treating DP as the maximal projection for nominal arguments, analogous to CP for clauses. For instance, targets Spec-CP in questions, while possessor raising or quantifier movement (e.g., "every one" as head-to-head adjunction under D) lands in Spec-DP, providing a unified landing site for case assignment and feature checking without category-specific stipulations. This symmetry enhances binding and control theories, as PRO subjects in nominals (e.g., gerunds) occupy Spec-DP like subjects in Spec-TP, streamlining derivations across the .

Word Order and Movement

In generative syntax, the linear order of elements within a (DP) is determined by the , which specifies whether a head precedes or follows its complements and specifiers. In head-initial languages like English, the functional head precedes its NP complement, yielding pre-nominal determiners as in the book, where the occupies D⁰ and projects above the NP headed by book. Conversely, in head-final languages like Japanese, the parameter aligns D after NP, resulting in post-nominal elements such as classifiers or genitive markers, though the absence of overt determiners necessitates an empty D projection to maintain structural uniformity across languages. A key piece of evidence supporting the DP hypothesis involves phrasal movement operations, particularly the raising of proper names and quantifiers to Spec-DP for referential licensing. Longobardi (1994) argues that proper names generated within NP must undergo NP-movement to Spec-DP in argument positions to receive a referential interpretation at , as bare NPs in Spec-DP remain predicative and non-referential. For instance, the grammatical sentence John is a friend derives from raising John (as an NP) to Spec-DP, stranding a trace inside the predicate NP: [DP John_i [D⁰ a [NP t_i friend]]], whereas the ungrammatical A friend is John fails because John remains embedded in the predicate NP without raising to the argument Spec-DP. This movement is obligatory for referentiality but optional in predicative contexts, paralleling subject raising in clausal structures like IP or CP. In , DP-internal further reflects head movement derivations, where nouns raise to adjoin to D⁰ (N-to-D movement) to check morphological features such as and number agreement. This incorporation accounts for the fused form in examples like French le ('the book'), where the noun adjoins to the empty D⁰ associated with le, enabling pre-nominal adjectives to appear between D and the raised N in some contexts, unlike English where no such raising occurs and adjectives precede the noun directly. Longobardi (1994) posits this as a parametric option available in but not , deriving cross-linguistic differences in nominal syntax without altering the universal DP projection. Parametric variation in DP projection extends to languages lacking overt determiners, where an empty D⁰ is nonetheless projected to license nominal arguments through feature checking or case assignment. Longobardi (1994) demonstrates that even article-less languages require this null D for referential nominals, as evidenced by restrictions on bare NPs in argument positions mirroring those in article languages; failure to project DP results in predicative rather than referential interpretations. This universality ensures that movement to Spec-DP or head-adjunction to D operates consistently, accommodating typological differences while upholding the functional structure of DPs.

Possessive Constructions

In English possessive constructions, the -'s morpheme functions as a genitive case marker that attaches to the possessor, which is analyzed as a determiner phrase (DP) within a larger DP structure. This is exemplified in simple cases like "John's book," where the structure is represented as [DP [DP John's] [NP book]], with the possessor "John's" occupying the specifier position (Spec-DP) of the head DP, and the noun "book" heading the complement NP. The genitive case assignment to the possessor DP underscores the functional role of the D head in licensing arguments, paralleling how subjects are licensed in the specifier of TP (Tense Phrase) in clausal syntax. A key piece of evidence supporting this DP analysis comes from the attachment behavior of -'s, which consistently adjoins to the entire possessor DP rather than to the head noun alone. For instance, in complex possessives such as "the king of 's crown," the -'s morpheme appears at the right edge of the embedded DP "the king of ," indicating that the possessor projects as a full DP that receives as a unit. This "group genitive" phenomenon demonstrates that the possessive construction requires a DP layer to mediate case assignment and structural embedding, as attachment to an NP alone would incorrectly predict -'s on "" without accounting for the phrasal scope. Cross-linguistically, similar patterns in constructions bolster the DP hypothesis, particularly in languages with overt agreement on the determiner head. In Hungarian, possessives involve a structure where the possessor appears in a subject-like position within the nominal domain, and the possessed agrees in and number with the possessor via suffixes on the D-equivalent head, as in az én házam ("my house," lit. "the I house-my"). Anna Szabolcsi's analysis treats this as evidence for functional projections in the analogous to clausal categories, with the possessor in Spec of a nominal functional (precursor to DP), enabling argument structure and agreement parallel to sentential . Theoretically, these possessive patterns imply that the Spec-DP position serves as the locus for possessors, mirroring the argument-external subject position in Spec-TP and reinforcing the parallelism between nominal and clausal syntax under the DP hypothesis. This structural alignment highlights how possessives contribute to the argument-like behavior of DPs, distinguishing them from bare NPs in languages with determiner systems.

Pronominal and Definite Structures

In syntactic theory, definite pronouns such as "it" and "he" are analyzed as full determiner phrases (DPs) lacking an overt noun phrase (NP) complement, represented structurally as [DP it [NP e]], where "e" denotes an empty category. This structure underscores the DP as the primary unit for referential expressions, with the pronoun functioning as the determiner head that encodes definiteness and reference. Evidence for this analysis comes from the complementary distribution between definite pronouns and overt determiners; for instance, sequences like "*the it" or "*his she" are ungrammatical because both elements compete for the D position within the same DP. Unlike bare NPs, which cannot stand alone in argument positions without determiners, pronouns exhibit the full behavioral profile of DPs, including the ability to head phrases that refer independently to discourse entities. Further support arises from the syntactic properties that pronouns share with complex DPs, such as case marking and participation in anaphora binding. Pronouns inflect for case, as seen in nominative "he" versus accusative "him" in like "I saw him," where the pronoun occupies the object position and receives structural case from the verb, a property typical of DP arguments but not isolated NPs. Similarly, pronouns can be bound by quantifiers in configurations governed by binding theory; for example, in "Every boy likes his mother," "his" is bound by "every boy," demonstrating and locality constraints that apply to DPs as referential units, not to NPs alone. These behaviors indicate that the referential and interpretive load of pronouns is carried at the DP level, reinforcing the hypothesis that determiners, including pronominal ones, project the phrase responsible for argumenthood and reference. The definite article "the" similarly occupies the D head position, syntactically encoding the semantic uniqueness and presupposition associated with definite descriptions, as originally formalized in Russell's analysis. Russell (1905) treated definite descriptions like "the king of " as introducing an existence presupposition (there is at least one such entity) and a uniqueness condition (there is at most one), which in modern generative syntax is localized to the D layer rather than the NP, allowing the article to impose these constraints on the entire phrase. For instance, "The king of is bald" presupposes a unique in the context, with the presupposition projecting even under or questions, a pattern attributed to the functional role of D in licensing referentiality. This referential role of is evident in extraction phenomena, where pronouns and definite wh-phrases behave as cohesive DPs. In questions like "What did you see?" or "Who left?", "what" and "who" extract from their base DP position, leaving a trace that respects island constraints and subjacency, treating the wh-element as a maximal projection equivalent to a full DP rather than a mere NP. Such extractions highlight the DP as the locus of and force, paralleling how definite pronouns like "it" can front in clefts or topicalizations while preserving their .

Arguments Challenging DP Hypothesis

Determinerless Constructions

Determinerless constructions, also known as bare noun phrases (NPs), occur in various languages where nouns function as arguments without an overt determiner, raising questions about the obligatory nature of the determiner phrase (DP) layer in nominal syntax. In English, examples include mass nouns such as "water" in the sentence "Water is wet," proper names like "London" in "London is big," and generic plurals such as "dogs" in "Dogs bark". These bare NPs can serve directly as subjects or objects, performing referential or predicative roles without any visible determiner head. Proponents of the NP hypothesis argue that these constructions demonstrate that bare NPs are sufficient to license nominal arguments, implying that the D layer is optional or entirely absent in such cases, rather than a universal requirement for nominal phrases. This view aligns with the traditional NP analysis, where nouns project directly as maximal categories without intervening functional projections. However, defenders of the DP hypothesis counter that a covert determiner may still project in these contexts to ensure semantic licensing, such as through type-shifting operations that interpret the bare NP as definite or indefinite. For instance, bare mass nouns and generics might involve a null D that facilitates kind reference or existential closure. Cross-linguistically, determinerless constructions are particularly prevalent in article-less languages, where bare nouns frequently appear in argument positions without any determiner equivalent. In Russian, for example, nouns like "voda" (water) in "Voda mokraja" ( is wet) or "sobaki" (dogs) in "Sobaki lajut" (Dogs bark) operate as bare NPs, challenging the universality of DP projection. Bošković (2005) proposes that such languages parametrically lack the DP layer altogether, with the NP serving as the maximal nominal projection and directly selected by verbs or other predicates. This parametric variation supports the idea that determinerless NPs are not anomalies but a systematic feature in certain grammars. The existence of functional determinerless constructions has significant implications for the DP hypothesis, suggesting that if bare NPs can independently function as arguments across languages, the DP cannot be the invariable maximal projection for all nominal expressions. This challenges the parallelism between nominals and other phrasal categories posited in the DP framework, as NPs alone appear adequate for argumenthood in these scenarios. Analyses favoring the NP approach, such as those emphasizing selectional asymmetries, further argue that nominal heads () rather than determiners () determine the core properties of these phrases.

Morphological and Agreement Patterns

In languages with rich inflectional systems, determiners exhibit morphological agreement with the nouns they modify, particularly in features such as and number, which indicates a close structural dependency favoring an integrated (NP) over a separate determiner phrase (DP). For instance, in French, the definite article inflects as le (masculine singular) or la (feminine singular) to match the of the following , as in le garçon ('the boy') versus la fille ('the girl'), suggesting that the determiner functions as an adjacent modifier or to the rather than as an independent head separated by a phrasal boundary. This concord pattern, where the 's phi-features (, number, ) determine the form of the determiner, aligns with traditional views of the as the head of the , as heads typically govern the agreement of their dependents. Further evidence comes from cases where determiners behave as clitics or affixes intimately bound to the noun's phi-features, complicating explanations under the DP hypothesis that posits a strict phrasal separation between D and N. In such constructions, the determiner's realization is directly tied to the noun's morphological properties, as if forming a single complex word rather than a headed with complementation; this adjacency is harder to motivate if a DP boundary intervenes, potentially requiring additional mechanisms like head movement or feature that undermine the hypothesis's elegance. For example, possessor clitics in languages like Turkish attach to the and agree in case and number, reinforcing the noun's centrality in licensing agreement without invoking a higher determiner head. A particularly compelling case arises in Scandinavian languages, where is often marked by a directly attached to the , implying that the retains head status within an NP. In Swedish, the definite form huset ('the ') incorporates the -et on the hus (''), functioning as an inflectional ending rather than a separate ; this suffixal morphology suggests a lexical process integrated into the 's , rendering a DP structure superfluous and favoring a simpler NP analysis. Perridon's analysis posits that this postnominal article is inherently suffixal, arising from historical cliticization but synchronically treated as nominal , which violates the DP hypothesis's expectation of strict head-complement separation where determiners project independently of the . This morphological integration poses a theoretical challenge to the DP framework, as it implies that and agreement features are realized on the itself, contravening the endocentric projection where D exclusively heads the phrase and selects NP as complement; instead, such patterns support noun-headed structures where modifiers like determiners are specifiers or adjuncts within NP. Briefly, similar issues appear in constructions, where the genitive -s attaches directly to the possessor (e.g., John's ), suggesting the noun governs the morphology without a mediating DP layer.

Semantic and Syntactic Parallelism

In semantics, determiners and s are treated as forming a unified unit where the supplies the core or predicate, while the contributes scope, referentiality, or quantificational force, aligning with an NP analysis over a separate DP projection. This unity is evident in generalized quantifier theory, where expressions like "every man" are interpreted as the "every" applying to the of the NP "man" as its restrictor, without requiring a distinct functional layer dominating the NP. Idiomatic expressions further illustrate this holistic treatment of the NP, as verbs select the entire nominal unit semantically, with the central to the meaning; for instance, in "," the verb targets the fixed NP "bucket" regardless of variable determiners, suggesting no independent DP layer mediates selection. Syntactic tests reinforce this parallelism by demonstrating that coordination operates freely within the post- material but resists crossing an alleged D-NP boundary, consistent with NP cohesion. For example, coordination of adjectives modifying the , as in "the tall and short man," forms a tight constituent where "tall and short" jointly restrict "man," indicating that adjectives and integrate within a single phrasal projection under the . In contrast, attempts to coordinate across a putative boundary, such as *"the tall and a short man," are ungrammatical, as cannot be conjoined with nominal material in this way, underscoring the lack of a separate DP complement to D. This pattern parallels coordination in other lexical projections, where modifiers and heads form unified phrases without intermediate functional boundaries. Evidence from quantifier scope further supports an embedded NP structure without a projecting D head, as quantifiers like "every" take scope over the entire nominal restrictor, integrating semantically and syntactically within the NP. In "every student passed," "every" scopes over the property denoted by "student," treating the NP as the domain of quantification rather than a complement to a higher D; this suggests no need for DP to host the quantifier separately. Cross-linguistically, in , quantifiers such as numerals assign to the following noun from within the NP (e.g., Polish "pięć studentów" 'five students'), positioning them in Spec,NP and challenging a dominating DP that would mediate such relations. Modification tests highlight tighter bonds between adjectives and nouns than between determiners and nouns, favoring NP as the core projection. Adjectives morphologically agree with the noun in features like , number, and case, deriving their form from the noun's properties rather than the determiner's; for example, like "these" must match the plural noun "" (*"this scissors" is infelicitous), while adjectives follow suit in phrases like "these sharp ." This agreement pattern indicates the noun as the head governing modifiers within NP, with determiners functioning as peripheral specifiers or rather than heads of a separate . Such parallelism aligns nominal structure more closely with verbal or adjectival projections, where lexical heads centrally determine modification.

Idiomatic and Non-Compositional Expressions

Idiomatic expressions involving determiners and nouns often exhibit non-compositional meanings that resist decomposition into separate determiner and noun projections, challenging the DP hypothesis. Under the DP hypothesis, determiners head the , implying that subconstituents should substitute independently while maintaining syntactic , much like modification in clauses. However, idioms block such substitutions, as the entire expression must remain frozen to retain its non-compositional semantics; this pattern aligns with broader evidence from verb-object idioms, where functional elements like determiners are sometimes fixed but often variable in non-idiomatic contexts, indicating direct selection of N by predicates rather than D. Further evidence comes from the variability of functional elements in idioms. In English, many verb-object idioms allow insertion or variation of determiners and numerals (e.g., "" can become "bite some bullet" in some contexts), supporting the view that verbs select the lexical noun directly rather than a functional DP layer. This variability favors treating idiomatic expressions as unified NPs, where the is an inseparable modifier rather than a structural head. Theoretically, these non-compositional patterns undermine the core claim of the DP hypothesis that referentiality and originate at the D level, as the idiomatic meaning is inherently tied to the nominal content and cannot be localized to the alone. Instead, such expressions suggest that semantic unity resides within the NP, with determiners contributing only adjunct-like properties in frozen contexts, thus questioning the universality of DP layering across all nominals.

Extraction and Island Effects

In English, the left-branch constraint prohibits the extraction of elements positioned to the left of the nominal head within noun phrases, treating the entire NP as an island from which subextraction is barred. For instance, while Whose mother did you see? is grammatical, attempting to extract the left-branch possessor as Whose did you see mother? results in ungrammaticality, indicating that the NP layer functions as a cohesive unit resistant to partial movement. This constraint challenges the DP hypothesis, which posits a layered where the heads a DP that embeds an NP, potentially allowing greater flexibility in movement from within the embedded NP; instead, the data suggest that the nominal domain remains intact regardless of an overt . Island effects further underscore the integrity of the nominal projection as a whole. The complex NP constraint, originally identified as a barrier to wh-extraction from NPs modified by a sentential complement, operates uniformly whether a is present or absent, as in the ungrammatical Who did you see the picture of t? versus the marginally better but still constrained Who did you see picture of t? (in bare NP contexts). Adjunct islands exhibit similar behavior, blocking extraction of from within the nominal domain in a way that treats the D-N sequence as a single bounding node; for example, In which house did you see the picture t? is unacceptable, with the difficulty persisting even if the DP layer is hypothesized to separate the adjunct from the head. This uniformity implies that island constraints target the NP core rather than exploiting a distinct DP boundary for freer extraction, countering predictions of the DP framework. Cross-linguistically, languages permitting left-branch extraction, such as Russian and , still display island effects that pattern with NP-like behavior, reinforcing the nominal domain's unity over a universal DP structure. In Russian, constructions like Č'ju knigu ty čita-l? 'Whose book did you read?' allow left-branch extraction of the possessor, yet complex NP islands remain operative, as in the ungrammatical Kogo ty videl kartinu, kotoruju na-čertal t? 'Who did you see the picture that drew?'. Similarly, permits adjunct extraction from bare NPs (e.g., Iz kog grada si vidio sliku djevojke t? 'From which city did you see the girl's picture?'), but blocks it from complex NPs, indicating that while the absence of a DP layer enables certain movements, island constraints continue to enforce NP-level opacity. These patterns suggest that extraction diagnostics highlight the robustness of NP projections, challenging the DP hypothesis by showing that nominal islands do not systematically vary with the presence of determiners.

Genitive and Relational Nouns

Genitive constructions, particularly those involving relational nouns, provide significant evidence against the (DP) hypothesis by demonstrating direct semantic and syntactic relations between the possessor and the head (), bypassing mediation by a (D) head. In examples such as "John's arrival," the noun "arrival" is inherently relational, implying an arriver, and "John" functions as its , establishing a theta-role assignment directly from without requiring a DP layer to host the possessor. This relational interpretation aligns with a split of genitives, where some serve as arguments of rather than uniform specifiers of DP, challenging the parallelism posited by the DP hypothesis between nominal and clausal structures. In languages like Latin, genitive phrases further support an NP-internal analysis, as genitives function as adnominal modifiers directly attached to the head N within the NP, without evidence of a projected possessive D. exhibits flexible for these constructions, such as Noun + Genitive (NGen) or Genitive + Noun (GenN), driven by pragmatic factors like information structure and markedness, but consistently treating the genitive as a dependent modifier to N rather than a DP constituent. For instance, and partitive genitives (e.g., "pars populi" for "part of the people") occur as complements or attributes within the NP, with no syntactic motivation for an intervening D projection to license the relation. This NP-centric structure preserves locality in modification, avoiding the functional projections required under the DP hypothesis. Additional evidence comes from double genitive constructions in English, such as "a friend of John's," where the possessor "John's" is embedded within a prepositional phrase (PP) "of John's" that functions as a partitive complement directly to the head noun "friend," treating the outer structure as an NP rather than a layered DP. This embedding highlights that the relational link does not rely on D mediation but on a PP-N relation, consistent with analyses of partitives where the genitive PP saturates an argument position of N. While English possessive -'s is often treated as a realization in D supporting the DP hypothesis, relational genitives like these underscore the need for direct N-argument connections. Theoretically, the DP hypothesis introduces complications for theta-role assignment in such genitive constructions, as the possessor occupies Spec-DP, distancing it from and violating locality constraints for role assignment that relational nouns demand. Under DP analyses, additional mechanisms—such as movement of the possessor or non-local selection by D—are required to bridge this gap, unnecessarily proliferating functional layers and undermining the endocentricity of nominal phrases. In contrast, an NP approach allows to directly assign theta-roles to genitive arguments or modifiers, maintaining syntactic simplicity and semantic transparency. The NP vs. DP debate remains unresolved, with recent work continuing to challenge the universality of the DP layer, such as analyses in favoring NP structures.

Broader Implications

Role in Generative Grammar

In the , the determiner phrase (DP) functions as a phase head, facilitating cyclic spell-out to the interfaces by packaging nominal material for transfer to phonological and semantic components, particularly in languages where DP is projected. This phasal status aligns with the broader architecture of phases like CP and vP, enabling successive-cyclic movement through the edge of the DP, such as in possessive or genitive constructions where internal elements raise to Spec-DP. Additionally, EPP-like features on the D head drive obligatory movement within the nominal domain, ensuring feature checking and structural uniformity across arguments. At the semantics-syntax interface, the (D) introduces referential properties via lambda abstraction, binding variables to establish definite descriptions and discourse referents at (LF), as formalized in file change semantics where indefinites update the context with new entities and definites presuppose familiarity or uniqueness. This mechanism links the DP's syntactic structure to interpretive conditions, allowing quantificational and anaphoric dependencies to resolve systematically within the generative framework. Heim's approach underscores how D's role in operators supports the projection of referentiality from narrow syntax to semantic composition. Language acquisition studies within highlight the early emergence of DP structures in child grammars, with children producing determiner-noun sequences as young as 18-24 months, consistent with an innate setting for functional projections that prioritizes referential categories over lexical ones. This rapid acquisition of DP, including agreement and marking, provides evidence for the innateness of hierarchical phrase structure, as parametric variation in systems is mastered with minimal input, aligning with the argument. Crain and Lillo-Martin's experimental paradigms demonstrate that children adhere to DP-internal constraints, such as scope interactions, earlier than predicted by non-innativist models. Debates within generative syntax contrast the cartographic approach, which posits a richly articulated DP with multiple functional projections (e.g., NumP, PossP) ordered hierarchically to encode fine-grained features like number and possession, against nanosyntax, which decomposes these into minimal, feature-specific heads to reduce overgeneration while maintaining universality. In , as developed by Rizzi and Cinque, the DP's layered structure mirrors clausal complexity, capturing cross-construction parallels through fixed hierarchies. Nanosyntax, conversely, challenges full projections by allowing spell-out of sub-parts of the DP tree, arguing for a more economical lexicon-syntax interface without sacrificing empirical coverage. These perspectives highlight ongoing tensions in balancing descriptiveness and minimalism.

Cross-Linguistic Evidence

In such as French and Spanish, the determiner phrase (DP) hypothesis is supported by evidence of noun-to-determiner (N-to-D) movement, where the noun raises to the D position, explaining the positioning of and the lack of prenominal possessives in certain contexts. For instance, in structures like French le grand livre ("the big book"), the follows the definite article, indicative of partial N-movement within the DP layer to satisfy feature requirements. Similarly, in like Ngemba, noun class prefixes function as determiners within the DP, marking agreement and serving as the functional head that licenses nominal arguments, with the augment (a pre-prefix) often realizing the D head. This system integrates class prefixes directly into the DP structure, where they govern concord across modifiers, reinforcing the universality of the DP projection. Challenging evidence for the DP hypothesis emerges in classifier languages like Mandarin Chinese, where bare noun phrases (NPs) frequently serve as arguments without overt determiners or articles, relying instead on classifiers to individuate nouns in numeral constructions (e.g., san ben shu "three CL book"). Cheng and Sybesma (1999) propose that Chinese DPs split into classifiers occupying a Classifier Phrase (ClP) below D, with bare NPs denoting kinds or predicates rather than full referential DPs, thus questioning the obligatory presence of D in argument positions. In polysynthetic languages such as Mohawk, noun incorporation merges nominal roots directly into verbs, effectively collapsing the DP-NP distinction and eliminating independent determiner heads, as Baker (1996) observes that these languages lack articles and treat NPs as non-configurational arguments without a dedicated functional D layer. Cross-linguistic variation further highlights parametric differences in DP realization, such as overt versus null determiners in Slavic languages like Russian, where null D heads are posited to underlie genitive of quantification constructions (e.g., knig "books" as a measure), allowing NPs to project as DPs without phonological realization. Bošković (2005) argues that this null D enables phenomena like left-branch extraction, supporting an underlying DP structure despite the absence of articles. In Semitic languages like Hebrew, possessor externalization in construct state nominals (e.g., beit ha-sefer "house of-the-school") involves the head noun raising to D, stranding the possessor in a lower position, which encodes genitive relations without an overt linking element and demonstrates DP-internal head movement. Studies from around 2000 extend the DP hypothesis to sign languages, particularly (ASL), where determiners like the definite index (pointing to an established locus) occupy the D head, agreeing with nominals in spatial features and confirming a hierarchical DP structure parallel to spoken languages. Neidle et al. (2000) provide syntactic evidence from determiner placement and agreement, showing that ASL DPs include functional projections for and possession, filling gaps in non-Indo-European data. Overall, these patterns suggest a universal functional DP layer subject to parametric variation in its realization, as proposed by Borer (1984), where differences arise from the feature content of categorial heads rather than the absence of the projection itself.

References

  1. http://www.vinartus.net/spa/87a.pdf
  2. https://linguistics.ucla.edu/people/stabler/isat.pdf
  3. https://direct.mit.edu/books/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/2052587/p003500_9780262338165.pdf
  4. https://philarchive.org/archive/SZAFCI
  5. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Reference-and-Proper-Names%253A-A-Theory-of-N-movement-Longobardi/6e5d75b5dbe99ff89497894fb7aa4f891fa915e1
  6. https://faculty.georgetown.edu/rtk8/AHS%2007%20clean%20copy.pdf
  7. https://direct.mit.edu/ling/article-abstract/25/4/609/1637/Reference-and-Proper-Names-A-Theory-of-N-movement
  8. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262550611/situations-and-individuals/
  9. https://direct.mit.edu/ling/article/48/2/259/653/Revisiting-Pronominal-Typology
  10. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226142254_On_the_Syntax_and_Semantics_of_Relative_Pronouns_and_Determiners
  11. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9582.2005.00118.x
  12. https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/5331/
  13. https://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~dwbruhn/squib_final.pdf
  14. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110622447-013
  15. https://udel.edu/~bruening/Downloads/AgainstDP2Proceedings1.pdf
  16. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.92.07bos
  17. https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/5263/
  18. https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/5010/
  19. https://udel.edu/~bruening/Downloads/IdiomsClassifiers7.3.pdf
  20. https://boskovic.linguistics.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2801/2019/05/leftbranch.pdf
  21. https://boskovic.linguistics.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2801/2019/05/ExtractionfromComplexNP3TheirVersion.pdf
  22. http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~partee/docs/Oslo.pdf
  23. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1128
  24. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:dc9b0a88-ffcb-49ae-8788-3975d9a6264e
  25. https://akjournals.com/view/journals/2062/68/3/article-p274.xml
  26. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/lnc3.12406
  27. https://boskovic-linguistics.media.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2801/2019/05/FinalPotsdam.pdf
  28. https://dornsife.usc.edu/ling/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2023/08/published_chapter.pdf
  29. https://books.google.com/books/about/An_Introduction_to_Linguistic_Theory_and.html?id=NgBBKuYrV2wC
  30. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285969382_The_Cartography_of_Syntactic_Structures
  31. https://munin.uit.no/bitstream/handle/10037/2203/thesis.pdf
  32. https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/mRhN2FlN/fc-heycock-zamparelli03.pdf
  33. https://www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/ijl/article/download/7149/5942
  34. https://semantics.uchicago.edu/kennedy/classes/f11/na/docs/chengsybesma99.pdf
  35. https://academic.oup.com/book/48335/chapter/422326741
  36. https://boskovic-linguistics.media.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2801/2019/05/StudiaLing.Final_.pdf
  37. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210831911000385
  38. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262140676/the-syntax-of-american-sign-language/
  39. https://books.google.com/books/about/Parametric_Syntax_Case_Studies_in_Semiti.html?id=DONsAAAAIAAJ
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.