BURSTING SYNTAX INTO FEATURES

Juan Romeu

We will try to explain why it is not correct any more to consider that there exists a head D
that gives the general syntactico-semantic properties to all the argument which it is the head
of. This will lead us to conclude that there mustn’t exist any lexical category head like N or V.
The things that have been always called as that are just the phrasal spell-out of a different
number of functional heads.

1. Against DP

We may think that the D is the head of an argument if we see contrasts like the one in (1):

(1) a. Hay una manzana en la nevera

b. *Hay la manzana en la nevera
c. El niño vino
d. *Niño vino

It seems to be the D (la and el in the examples above) who determines the properties of the
whole phrase and hence the conditions in which that phrase can be selected by a predicate
(hay and vino in (1)).
But then we can find examples like the following:

(2) a. *Hay los libros

b. Hay los libros que hay

In both examples in (2) the same D appears and, even though, (2a) is ungrammatical and (2b)
is grammatical. So the first conclusion is that they can’t occupy the same position in the
structure. We can think about two kinds of definite article in Spanish or assume that they are
heads of different projections. In some cases this head can move to a higher head triggering
these contrasts. So the result will be that depending on the position in which the D is spelled
out the phrase will have different meaning or interpretation. Thus, in (3):

(3) a. El niño ha venido

b. El niño del que te hablé ayer ha venido

the D el will occupy different positions and that’s the reason that (3a) is correct without any
complement for niño if the niño is known by the speaker and the addressee. In (3b) the relative
clause is obligatory because the addressee will not be able to identify the niño without that
information. So el could not be the head of a projection like D, through which we usually
indicate specifity of the entity. Then, it seems that el can appear in different positions
depending on the full phrase context. But, at last, the meaning of the whole phrase is the
same: in both (3a) and (3b) el niño is an specific entity. So then this D head is not giving by its
own the properties of the whole phrase. We have to conclude that there is a projection where

1
this specific meaning must be encoded. We will call this projection the Specific Phrase
(SpecP)1.
The same happens with the indefinite un. See the following examples:

(4) a. Busco un libro cualquiera

b. Busco un libro que hable de política

In (4a) I’m looking for any book. In (4b) I’m looking for a specific book that talks about politics,
no matter which one but it has to have that definite requirement. So in (4a) the result is an
indefinite phrase (also unspecific) but in (4b) the result is a definite phrase (but unspecific).
Now we find two different positions for the same D. We will leave by now the numeral un,
which may be the head of other different projection.
So now, following what we did with the SpecP, we will assume that there exists a Definiteness
Phrase (DefP), in a similar way as Lyons (1999:298-299) did2:

We will have then two projections over NP3:

(5) SpecP

DefP

NP

We haven’t to say that these projections are not higher tan DP, they are just in the place
where DP used to be. So these two projections could explain why we find contrasts like those
in (6) when there is no D intervening:

(6) a. Vi niños
b. *Niños me vieron
c. Vinieron niños
d. *Niños vinieron

The contrast between (6a) and (6b) has to be due to the different selective properties that the
verb ver have for its internal and external argument. So, considering that niños is the same nun
in oth examples we have to conclude that there must exist projections over it that determine
the property of the whole phrase.

1
This prediction is not new. See for example: Sio, Joanna U.-S. (2006). Modification and Reference in the
Chinese Nominal. PhD dissertation: Leiden University.
2
“It is reasonable to suggest that only definite determiners are associated with D and its projection DP.
(…) D is definiteness and DP is a definiteness phrase. SO the grammatical category which I have claimed
definiteness is has it representation in syntax in the form of this functional head. This claim fits in well
with the fact that nearly all other proposed functional head correspond to grammatical or semantic
categories rather than to word classes”.
He finally says that the Ds must be in the specifier
For the possibility of considering Definiteness and Specifity as two different phrases see Ihsane & Puskás
(2001).
3
Since now we will represent the tres as a line just to make easier the visualization
2
Another problem is the contrast between (6c) and (6d) where the argument niños seem to be
the internal argument in both assuming that the verb venir is unaccusative. So we have to say
that the difference is the position. A problem with that comes with the examples in (7):

(7) a. Los niños vinieron

b. Vinieron los niños

Here both examples are perfect. So we could expect that both DPs are the same kind of
phrase. But this doesn’t seem to be true. We will talk about this later but by now we could say
that in the preverbal position the phrase must have certain properties related with cause. So
we could say that the preverbal position is not just as an internal argument, so it must have
some animate /human feature for which it has to exist also a projection that will be introduced
later. This is the reason why we have the following contrast in Spanish:

(8) a. Llegó el paquete

b. #El paquete llegó4

Another fact that seems to corroborate this is the popular ne-cliticization in Italian (Burzio
1986). This cliticization is only possible with posverbal subjects:

(9) a . Ne arriverano molti

b. *Molti ne arriverano
[Desarrollar estos ejemplos]

We have to assume then that the position requires different kind of phrases.

So the conclusion by now is that there must exist another head than a D that impose its
properties to all the phrase. It seems that this head is the Spec. The problem with this is then
why in other cases the animate condition of the argument is what rules that a predicate can
properly select it as an argument like in the following contrasts from Navajo:

(10) a. Ashkii at'ééd .

boy girl yi-look
'The boy is looking at the girl.'
b. At'ééd ashkii .
girl boy bi-look
'The girl is being looked at by the boy.'
c. * Tsídii at'ééd yishtąsh.
bird girl yi-pecked
'The bird pecked the girl.'
(Examples from Wikipedia)

As we will see later in Navajo the arguments of a verb must be in order from most animated to
least animated. This is a problem, but it was also a problem for the DP-hypothesis (Abney
1987). It must have to be explained.

4
But we can say El paquete llegó a tiempo o El paquete llegó destrozado. It seems that if something
intervenes in the arrival of the box then it can be preverbal.

3
Those SpecP and DefP can be lexicalized by different lexical items. The important thing to
assume is that a lexical item like a determiner can lexicalize more than one node of the tree. So
we are assuming phrasal spell-out and late insertion. And we will also see that is necessary for
this system to assume the Superset Principle (Starke 2005, Caha 2009).

2. Can’t determiners then occupy the Specifier of these projections?

There are some facts that make it difficult to believe this phrasal spell-out. For example the
possibility of possessives and demonstratives to appear in a posnominal position:

(11) a. Ha venido un hijo mío

b. Me gusta la casa esa

And it’s even more problematic if we look at the case of Italian: la mia mamma. Assuming the
Superset principle we can say by now that in posverbal cases like in (11) mío and esa have the
same features but they are lexicalizing different nodes of the tree. So in (11a) un lexicalizes the
DefP with a [-Def] feature and also the Numeral Phrase (NumP). This last phrase is the place
where the number (singular, dual, plural) is determined. Of course there must be another
phrase for quantification (QuantP) which will be introduced later. Now, assuming that this
NumP exists and that it is over the phrase that has been called till now NP by linguists, which in
this case will be occupy by hijo, we must think that if mío appears in this position it can’t be
lexicalizing those nodes. And it seems to be true. That’s the reason why this complete phrase
means that the father has in this case more than one son against what happens with mi hijo. It
also means any of his sons could have come. In (11b) esa must lexicalize more structure. It
must lexicalize a Locative-Deictive Phrase which we could call Situation Phrase (SitP) but also
the SpecP. That’ll be the reason that it’s impossible to say *una casa esa. Then, what would la
casa lexicalize? For that, although it’s just a preliminary assumption, we must think about a
Left Periphery of the ancient NP, which will be explained later. This Left Periphery, as we will
see, is independent from the CP left periphery. This noun Left Periphery will also be the place
for la in la mia mamma.
So the way we have esa casa from la casa esa is not a movement of the phrase esa, but the
different nodes that both spell out in each case. Nevertheless, we might think that it’s not that
they spell out different nodes but that they are heads that can move higher. So in esa casa the
demonstrative esa has raised from its position to the node that was occupied by la and that
way it’s impossible to have *la esa casa. But in that case we will have to assume that esa is
crossing the head casa or that esa is generated in different positions depending on the
context. Then we will not explain why it can lexicalize more than one node each time. And
even more, we have examples in languages like Hungarian where it’s obligatory to have an
article between the demonstrative and the noun: ez *(a) ha’z (this the house, ‘this house’).
[Más argumentos a favor de considerer spell out y no head movement]

Therefore we are assuming for an example like esa casa that esa is lexicalizing some nodes of
different projections which we could begin ordering like in (12):

(12)SpecP – SitP – DefP – QuantP – NumP – NP – others

4
Esa in esa casa would lexicalize at least from NumP to SpecP. One argument to consider that
esa lexicalizes all those nodes is simple. If we consider that it’s just the head of SitP we wil
expect as possible an interpretation of esa casa as ‘whatever house that is there’ and that’s
not true: esa casa is always specific.

3. More projections

If we think about so-called determiners in Spanish we will expect more projections over NP.
One that we have already seen is the Possessive Phrase (PossP). It seems that it’s just under
the SitP and that’s why we have things in early Spanish like esta mi casa. But this example
could not be an example of two determiners but of a so-called pronoun and a kind of
apposition. Let’s see what happens in the structure for examples like esta casa. If we assume
that SitP is higher than PossP we can see that esta must lexicalize the PossP,

(13) SitP – (SpecP)5 – PossP – DefP – QuantP – NumP – NP ….

esta
casa

But how does it lexicalize it? We have to assume that demonstratives have a feature [-Poss].
So we expect that a demonstrative must imply that the entity they introduce is never
possessed. And that is what it seems to happen. It’s not correct to say #este hijo, because we
would expect that hijo will be the hijo of someone. Conversely, if we think that PossP is over
SitP like in (14):

(14) PossP – (SpecP) – SitP – DefP – QuantP – NumP – NP ….

*mi
casa

we would expect that mi has a feature [Sit], but it doesn’t seem to be the case: it doesn’t imply
that the entity it is introducing is somewhere or don’t have to be somewhere. Then, there is a
node not being lexicalized and we will be violating the Exhaustive Lexicalization Principle that
says that every syntactic feature must be identified by lexical insertion (see Fábregas 2007).
Nevertheless we could still have the problem with esta mi casa and esta casa mía. But see that
it is impossible *mi esta casa or *mi casa esta. So perhaps the reason is that they just can co-
occur when esta has scope over mi or that it has to be spelled out after the possessive because
if not it will assign its [-Poss] feature creating a contradiction: but here if we apply the
superlexicalization principle both could lexicalize it at the same time, if it’s true that
demonstratives have this [-Poss] feature. If not, we can just assume that the demonstratives

5
We will consider by now that this is the place for SpecP. Of course we will explain later why.

5
don’t have it and in those cases Poss is not a feature that has to be lexicalized (it’s possible
because it belongs to an independent phase). This would be the same as happens with RelP,
for example. This is a problem that has to be solved.

We are assuming that SpecP is between SitP and PossP because a demonstrative generally
imply specificity but not a possessive. This is why it is more natural to have definite articles
preceding possessives and not demonstratives: la mía vs. *la esta. But this is something that
must be studied carefully.
OJO con: ese niño del que me hablaste

As we have said before there must be a human/animate projection too. The presence of the
preposition a just in personal direct objects like in (15):

(15) a. Vi *(a) Juan en la calle

b. Vi *(a) el pájaro en la calle
c. Vi (*a) el cartel en la calle

is an argument to say that there must exist a projection for Human/Animate features. There
are also some languages like Basque that have different gender for animate and inanimate
nouns. In English there are also things like the alternation between the genitive with s and
complements with of. From Wikipedia:

(16) a. My face is correct, while *the face of me is not.

b.The man's face and the face of the man are both correct, and the former is
preferred.
c. The clock's face and the face of the clock are both correct, and the latter is
preferred.

Also in some split-S languages, like Dakota languages the case of the same argument of an
intransitive verb receive one case or other depending on if the verb implies activity or not, i.e.
depending on the volition of the argument.
It could be easy to imagine that Human and Animate are the same projection: a projection
which will have the feature of Cause, but the examples of Navajo (mainly 10c) have shown that
we have to be more precise. In Navajo they have this hierarchy for the order of the arguments:

(17) humans/lightning → infants/big animals → med-size animals → small animals →

insects → natural forces → inanimate objects/plants → abstractions

In Dyirbal they have four class of nouns:

(18)

I - most animate objects, men

II - women, water, fire, violence, and exceptional animals[1]
III - edible fruit and vegetables
IV - miscellaneous (includes things not classifiable in the first three)

In Swahili they also have several noun classes.

6
So there must be more projections. For summarizing we could just assume that there are three
projections. The higher one will be the one most related with humans. We will call it Human
Phrase (HumP). The second one will be associated with other animated or inanimated entities
that are not human. We will call it Animacy Phrase (AnimP). [+Hum] implies [+Anim]. The last
one will be the one related with abstractions, hence Abstraction Phrase (AbstrP). [+Anim]
implies [-Abstr]:

(19) HumP – AnimP – AbstrP

In Spanish we can find different manifestations of this structure. For HumP there are cases of
el tonto de Juan or the vocatives (compare Ey, rubio with *Ey, rápido)6. For AnimP, as in many
other languages, there are verbs that select an animate argument: correr. The same for AbstrP.
And also for AbstrP there are some suffixes that lexicalize it. For example –ura. That’s why we
can have an abstract noun hermosura from hermoso.
[Aquí se pueden explicar cosas como Es de una hermosura… / Es de un hermoso, pero *Está de
una hermosura/Está de un hermoso…
Adjectival nouns occur frequently in the Classical and Modern Standard Arabic

As we have introduced before we need two more projections: Number Phrase (NumP, see
Ritter 1991) and Quantity Phrase (QuantP). NumP is the place where the features of singular
and plural are encoded, i.e. where we encode the information about whether the entity is just
one or it’s more than one. In some languages it’s possible to encode there the dual for two
entities or even trial. There also exists the paucal, for example, and we will have to examine if
it’s encoded in NumP or QuantP.
OJO: In Gungbe a bare noun can be interpreted as definite, indefinite or generic depending on
the context, but a noun marked by the number marker lé is necessarily interpreted as
[+definite, +plural] (see Aboh 2004, from Alexiadou 2007)

QuantP is the place where the kind of number is precised. It can be an exact number like two
in two cats, but it can also be an inexact number like some in some cats. The QuantP must be
higher than NumP because any quantification implies number. We could think that that’s not
the case for mass nouns quantifiers but they also imply that there can’t be a plural, so they
have a feature [-Num]. For the Quant heads to be [+Num] they need an entity with inherent
[+Num] like count nouns or mass nouns with this feature like in two beers.

There must also be a Gender Phrase (GenP, see,for example, Picallo 1991). Here the [+Gen]
feature for sexed entities is encoded. For the other entities we have to assume a [-Gen]
feature in some cases and a [+Gen] when the language have some mechanism to separate
sexed from unsexed, like the neuter gender, for example. The GenP is lower than NumP but
over the HumP.

The place where the relation between the speaker and the entity which it is talking about is
encoded in the Person Phrase (PersP). As it is known it can be First, Second or Third,
depending on whether the speaker is referring to himself, to the addressee or to another
entity. Although the PersP could change the interpretation of the HumP, we predict that this is
just Pragmatics, so it doesn’t have to be a higher projection that an HumP. We argue that it has

6
Vocatives are an useful agreement against the DP-hypothesis. If proper nouns are equivalent to DPs
why then we can say Eh, Juan but not *Eh, el niño instead of Eh, niño.

7
to be just under the AbstrP and hence just over the PropP that we will introduce next. PersP
might be the node where the verb usually stops lexicalizing in its external argument.

There must also exist a projection where the inherent properties of the entity are encoded.
This projection will be the Propertie Phrase (PropP) and it is the most similar to what it was
called the NP. We can determine that here it is encoded the definition of the entity that use to
appear in the dictionaries. This is under the Human-Abstract set, and just under the PersP. All
these projections could be part of the PropP but we think it would be hard now to determine
all the Properties. The different classes of nouns in languages like Swahili, which can have 18
classes, could represent this different projections. Also the classifiers, like in Chinese, may be
lexicalizing this projection.

Before introducing the projections related with the so-called adjectives, it’s necessary to
introduce two possible intermediate projections over PropP.
The first one is the phrase where the classificative features are encoded. Every entity for being
that must be a member of a class. This will be the work of the Classificative Phrase (ClassP in
the way of Zamparelli 2000). This projection makes possible the following examples for
Spanish:

(20) a. Este perro es muy fiel

b. Sus guitarras son de muy buena calidad
c. El tomate es una fruta
d. Un perro es un animal fiel

All these examples don’t have to refer to a single entity but to any member of the class perro.
So we can expect that this projection is the highest one. But this must be better examined.

The other possible projection is the Negation Phrase (NegP). This phrase is the one which
encodes the existence or not of the entity in the context of the sentence. It’s not the same
NegP as the one in the whole sentence. It’s independent. As the phrases from DefP to higher
projections imply that the entity exists (*este/mi/el no perro), we have to argue that the NegP
is over the QuantP (no muchas casas). From this we must predict that an entity which lexicalize
a projection over NegP will lexicalize this projection with a [-Neg] feature so it has to exist at
least in the imagination of the speaker. That’s the reason we can’t say El rey de Francia es
calvo because el rey de Francia lexicalizes the NegP with a [-Neg] feature so it has to exist. If it
doesn’t exist the whole phrase is false and hence impossible.

Let’s represent the projections in the way we have described by now:

(21) (ClassP) – SitP – SpecP – PossP – DefP – NegP – QuantP – NumP – GenP – HumP –
– AnimP – AbstrP – PersP – PropP

Now we arrive one step below, to the projections that have to do with the adjective realm.
These projections must be independent phases, as we will see below, and that makes possible
that they can appear in different positions depending on the language. As we will demonstrate
later in English these projections must be over the NumP but below the QuantP. In Spanish
their normal position is below the PropP.
These projections will be by now summarize in two. The first one, the most obvious is the
Qualificative Phrase (QualP) where the non-inherent properties of an entity are encoded: in el
caballo marrón the quality of being marrón is not inherent of the horses.

8
The other projection is the one which encoded the relation that an entity can have with
another entities. This is the Relational Phrase (RelP). We can say that a horse is brown and we
don’t need other entity to say that about the horse, but if we say that the horse is Engish, we
need other entity England to make the relation.
The prediction is that the RelP has to be always closer to the PropP, namely, if the set of both
is under PropP, the RelP must be the highest of both, but if the set is over PropP, the RelP must
be the lowest: black European cat and gato europeo negro. [pensar mejores ejemplos]
The different position of these phrases in English can explain why in this language there is no
agreement between the adjective and the noun: the big(*s) cats. The adjective doesn’t
lexicalize lower than the RelP so it doesn’t lexicalize NumP, GenP and so:

(22) QuantP – QualP – RelP– NumP – GenP – HumP – *…+ – AbstrP – PersP – PropP

big

Then we would expect that when there is no entity lexicalizing the NumP and lower
projections the result will not be possible: *a big. It’s necessary to lexicalize them: a big one.
In Spanish, in an example like un gato grande the adjective lexicalize from QualP to NumP:

(23) QuantP – NumP – GenP – HumP – *…+ – AbstrP – PersP – PropP – RelP – QualP

grande

The same happens with the determiners: in el gato grande the article el is lexicalizing all the
projections (it could even lexicalize the PropP) so it’s possible to have el grande without the so-
called noun. This capability of the determiner to lexicalize the PropP is what has made people
talk about pronouns. In contrast un cannot lexicalize the PropP (*Un llegó vs Él llegó or *Yo un
vi vs. Yo la vi). Thus, we need something to lexicalize the PropP: -o (*un grande vs. uno
grande). [Quizás no se entiende bien. Se puede hablar de las diferencias entre él que sirve solo
para personas porque lexicaliza como + el rasgo HUM frente a el que quieras que lo lexicaliza
como -]

One may conclude that the Prop have to be obligatorily lexicalized. But the system may predict
cases in which this phrase, as others, can stay without being lexicalized. This is possible. It
happens when there is a wh-element like quién, dónde… See what happens with quién in
¿Quién vino?

(24) SpecP – *…+ – NumP – GenP – HumP – *…+ – AbstrP – PersP – PropP – RelP – QualP

quién

The fact that quién doesn’t lexicalize the PersP nor the PropP entails that it should be
impossible to have a lexical item lexicalizing just RelP or QualP. This would violate the
Exhaustive principle. See (25) for *¿Quién guapo vino?

9
 (25) SpecP – *…+ – NumP – GenP – HumP – *…+ – AbstrP – PersP7 – PropP – RelP – QualP

quién

guapo

This example would be impossible because in its lexicalization guapo couldn’t hop over PropP
using the Blind Lexicalization.

(26) The Blind Lexicalization Principle (BLP): a lexical item can hop in its lexicalization
some nodes if they are properly lexicalized by other lexical item even if it doesn’t have
a feature for them.

As we will see this principle explains how the verb can arrive to the PersP although it may not
have certain necessary features for nodes like Def or Gen. This makes necessary for the verb to
have a lexical item lexicalizing all those nodes. This is the EPP principle (Chomsky 1981). [Habrá
que ver los casos en los que puede no haber sujeto como en irlandés. Y en casos de pro-drop
habrá que ver si pro lexicaliza o qué pasa]
In (25) guapo could never hop over PropP because it’s not properly lexicalized by any other
lexical item.
There are other cases in which it seems that the Prop is not lexicalized. This is the case of the
middle voice. In this case even the [Pers] feature is not lexicalize. That could be the reason why
in Spanish is necessary to put a se to lexicalize the [Pers] feature and that way the agreement
is possible with the internal argument. But this has to be examined.

Ojo: ¿Otra proyección?: unicidad

Japanese:

Exhaustive ga:

Unlike wa, the subject particle ga nominates its referent as the sole satisfier of the predicate.
This distinction is famously illustrated by the following pair of sentences.

ジョンは学生です。
JON wa gakusei desu
John is a student. (There may be other students among the people we're talking about.)
ジョンが学生です。

7
We will asume that quién doesn’t lexicalize PersP because it’s impossible to have things like *¿Quién
vine?. The fact that we can have ¿Quién soy? is because quién there is the attribute. This could explain
why the wh-elements must appear over the verb if we follow an order principle like: the order of the
lexical items depends on the lower [+] feature that they lexicalize. As the verb lexicalizes PersP, it has to
be pronounced after. But this, of course, is just a weak hypothesis that should have to be examined,
because we have cases like: Who said what? La cosa es que esto podría explicar que sea más raro Qué
dijo quién. Pero habría problemas con los sujetos: Qué dijo Juan. Por qué aparece detrás del verbo?

10
 JON ga gakusei desu
(Of all the people we are talking about) it is John who is the student.

Maybe it is necessary to explain partitives and for example to explain the difference
between alguien and alguno (see Fábregas 2009): alguien can’t lexicalize the [Exhaustive]
feature, whereas alguno lexicalize it so alguno will always mean someone among others.

Of course there is a projection left about which we haven’t talked yet. It’s the projection
related with case. Case must occupy its own projection: the Case Phrase (KP). As we will see
for prepositions, case must lexicalize some projections. It can lexicalize a [Prop] with both
signs. This’ll be the difference between functional case and other cases like Locative with some
kind of interpretable meaning. By now it is not clear where the KP is but it might occupy the
edge of the Prop phase (see later for the concept of phase in this system). This would mean,
according to our future analysis of phases that it’s just over NegP.

We have also obviate the Degree Phrase (DegP) that must indicate the degree to which a
QualP arrives.

4. Projections over the (ClassP):

4.1. The Left Periphery

We have seen above that it’s necessary to think about a Left Periphery for explaining cases like
la mia mamma. This is not the first proposal of a Left Periphery for the DP or the NP (see
Alexiadou 2007 p. 140 y ss.). In the Left Periphery is where the Topic feature of an entity is
encoded. This is the Topic Phrase (TopP). A lexical item which lexicalizes the [Top] feature
node of this Left Periphery will give to the entity a topic reading. As we have said above, this
does not mean that the entity will be the topic of the whole sentence: la mia mamma could be
the answer of a question like Chi è venuto? (Who came?).
One can imagine examples in which the Left Periphery is making a determiner appear when it
shouldn’t. For example the article before proper names in Catalan. Also in Spanish proper
names can take a determiner which can lexicalize this Left Periphery: el Ronaldo de las narices.
The same could happen with embedded clauses like: Me molesta el que comas mientras hablas
conmigo. [No me molesta tanto el que interrumpan, sino (*el) que crean que soy pendejo]
pero aquí sería el tópico de toda la oración.
We said also that the Left Periphery could explain different contrasts depending on the order:

(27) a. estos dos libros

b. los dos libros estos
c. *los estos dos libros
d. *estos los dos libros
e. *dos libros estos

In (27b) los dos libros may have raised to the Left Periphery. The Left Periphery could also
explain cases like el tonto de Juan where the preposition de could be lexicalizing some node o

11
the Left Periphery like que does in the CP Periphery. The same could happen with la
destrucción de la ciudad. That is why whe can ask ¿la destrucción de qué? but not ¿qué de la
ciudad?.

The Left periphery must occupy just the higher projections of the highest node that the lexical
item lexicalices, hence, the highest [+ feature]. This is very important for understand things like
la destrucción de la ciudad. How could if not appear an article before a lexical item which is
lexicalizing the ActP?

In Japanese, a language which indicates noun functions with postpositions, the topic marker
(wa) may include definiteness. For example, 馬は (uma wa) can mean "the horse", while 馬が
(uma ga) can mean "a horse".

In languages like Gungbe they have both TopicP and FocusP (see Aboh 2002, 2004a,b). See also
Ihsane & Puskás (2001) for an explanation of these phrases.

4.2.Projections related with the Verb

Until now we haven’t pay attention to the projections which have been more related with the
verb in the literature. These projections have to be with the event. The purpose of this paper is
just to present the new DP structure not the new VP, but it seems necessary to refer briefly to
these projections.
The first projection we have to assume is the Action Phrase [or Event?] (ActP). ActP is the
place in which the properties of the event are encoded. It’s thus analogue to the PropP for
entities. Also this projection could be lexicalized by so-called nouns. Is the case of lexical items
like destrucción. In this case we will assume that the root destru- permits the lexicalization of
the ActP and its combination with ción allows it to lexicalize the PropP too:

(28) ActP – SpecP – *…+ – PersP – PropP – *…+

destrucción

The prediction now is that ActP is the node where the arguments of a lexical item are
connected, like a pivot:

(29)

ActP

In the branch over ActP we will find the projections like Tense Phrase (TP), Apect Phrase (AspP)
or Mood Phrase (MoodP). In the left branch we will find what has been called the External

12
Argument. In the right branch we will find the rest of the arguments. See that this simple
structure could easily explain the different linear order of the different languages: SOV, SVO,
VSO… See that the disposition predicts that it will be rare to find orders in which the subject is
the last or the object is the first, although hey exist.
We are assuming now that the temporal properties of nouns like cena in La cena duró tres
horas are encoded in the PropP.

The first projection over ActP is the Tense Phrase (TP). Over it we will find the Aspect Phrase
(AspP), the Mood Phrase (MoodP) and the Voice Phrase (VoiceP). Over this projections we will
probably find the split-CP projections (see Rizzi 1997). These split-CP projections are the Left
Periphery of ActP in analogy to the Left Periphery of PropP.

5. Phases

One of the complex points in this system is the need of phases. As we have seen for the
different position of the adjectives in English and Spanish the QualP must behave like a phase
in the sense that they can move to other places.
The definition of phase for this system is:

(30) A phase is a group of projections that must be lexicalized once one of the nodes of
those projections has been properly lexicalized.

With this definition we can easily answer to why in some languages is obligatory the gender in
nouns which are not sexed: PropP and GenP belong to the same phase. This could seem to be
a contradiction with things that we have already said like, for example, the fact that some wh-
elements doesn’t lexicalize PropP but they lexicalize NumP and GenP (for example in
Bulgarian). So it’s necessary to say a priori that the lexicalization of the different nodes of a
phase doesn’t have to be done by the same lexical item.
The phase in which PropP and GenP are finishes in NegP. This imply that every entity for being
entity has gender, number, quantification... This is a serious problem to explain languages
without gender. In this phase we could include the ClassP and reconsider that it’s not in the
highest position of the whole projections but inside this first phrase, just below NegP.
The next projections going higher form a new phase with the first phase, i.e. DefP forms a new
phase with [NegP – *…+ PropP+, PossP a new phase with *DegP *NegP – *…+ PropP++, etc. This
means that when the [Poss] feature is lexicalized all the lower nodes must be somehow
lexicalized. But this doesn’t mean that we can’t arrive to other higher phase without
lexicalizing them. Assuming that the Left Periphery would be another phase and that the
phases over like ActP are other phases, it’s possible for an entity like destrucción to arrive to
the ActP without having the PossP phase for example:

(31) ActP – SitP – SpecP – PossP – DefP – *…+ – NumP – *…+ – AbstrP – PersP – PropP

destrucción

This ActP allows the construction to have arguments.

13
It seems that a property of the phases is that they can be moved. The movement of phases is
something that has to be explored. Some possible movements apart from the QualP and RelP
movement is the movement of phases to the Left Periphery which can explain examples that
we have been discussing until now like: el tonto de Juan, la destrucción de la ciudad, los dos
libros esos, and so.

One way to detect phases could be the insertion of adjuncts. Wherever an adjunct can be
inserted it means that there is the end point of a phase and the beginning of another one.
Compare for example los hasta ayer tres candidatos with *los tres hasta ayer candidatos.

6. A logic consequence of this system: Agreement

Until now we have seen that more than one lexical item can have relation with the same node
(remember the hopping process allowed by the Blind Lexicalization Principle (BLP)). Now, one
obvious question we have to ask is: Can two lexical items lexicalize the same node at the same
time? The answer is yes. This is the agreement. And the principle that allow us to do it is the
Superlexicalization:

(32) Superlexicalization Principle: A node can be lexicalized at the same time by two
different lexical items

So then we can explain the agreement between adjectives and nouns in Spanish as we have
introduced before. Look at the following configuration for gatos azules8:

(33)*…+ – NumP – GenP – HumP –AnimP – AbstrP – PersP – PropP – RelP – QualP

azules [+Qual], [-Gen], [-Num]

gatos [+Prop], [+Pers], [-Abstr], [+Anim], [-Hum], [+Gen], *+Num+, *…+

So, then, gato and azul are lexicalizing both the [Gen] and [Num] feature. Assuming our
previous assumption that the verb can lexicalize in its external argument until PersP then it can
also participate in the superlexicalization. See the next example for los gatos corren (we will
obviate now the determiner):

(34)*…+ TP –ActP – *…+ – DefP – *…+ – NumP – GenP – HumP –*…+– PersP – PropP – *…+

gatos *+Prop+, *+Pers+, *…+, *+Gen+, *+Num+, *…+

corren *…+, *+T+, *+Act+, *-Num], [+Pers]

8
As we have been doing in this paper, we mark the features with a sign. This sign is comparable with the
interpretable and not interpretable features. When the feature doesn’t appear it means that the lexical
item doesn’t contain it.

14
Here is happening the same between gatos and corren as it happened before with gatos and
azules.

There is a problem now. Could the verb lexicalize other nodes? It’s predictable that in some
languages the verb could superlexicalize the [Gen]. And we know that lexicalization of [Gen]
by the verb is possible in languages like Serbian:

(35) Marija je jela picu

Maria.NOM aux.is eat.3SGFEM.PTCL pizza.ACC
‘Maria ate pizza’

Even more, in languages like Hungarian there are distinct verbal forms depending on the
definiteness of the internal argument.

Distinct verbal forms: as in Hungarian: olvasok egy könyvet (read-1sg.pres.INDEF a book-

ACC.sg: "I read a book") versus olvasom a könyvet (read-1sg.pres.DEF the book-ACC.sg: "I read
the book")

This fact in Hungarian takes as to other thing: the verb can lexicalize features from more than
one of its arguments. This is what happens in polypersonal languages like Ubykh, for example,
where the verb has to agree with the subject, the direct object, the indirect object and it also
could be marked with the benefactive.

Ubykh (spoken in Turkey) verbs must agree with the subject, the direct object and the indirect
object, and benefactive objects must also be marked in the verb
In Georgian there’s a good illustrative phenomenon. Nouns combined with numbers stay
singular. Verbs in Georgian have suppletive forms depending on tense, animacy and number of
the subject. But they also have agreement morphemes for number. When the subject of a verb
is a numeral subject like three cats (lit. three cat), the suppletive form will be plural (because it
refers to the pluractionality) but the agreement morpheme will be singular. So the result will
be something like: Three cat sat down where cat will be in singular and sat with a form in
plural (sxd not ǧd) but a singular morpheme (a non nen). This could be explain if we consider
that the suppletive plural form in Georgian is lexicalizing the QuantP and the morpheme is
lexicalizing the NumP.

Even the verb could lexicalize the PropP of its internal argument and make the noun of the
argument disappear. This is what might happen with cognate objects.

Although we haven’t use KP in the examples until now we think it’s important to see that
agreement is also affecting this projection. It’s quite difficult to determine if an entity has a [K]
feature inherently and thus in syntax it can occupy certain positions or if some other element
(Vs or Ps, in our system ActP or the PropP of Ps) would give that feature to the entity. The fact
is that determiners, nouns and adjectives can agree in case, i.e. every lexical item within an
argument. This is possible because the KP might be in the edge of the first phase. See then
what happens with an example like tego dużego kata (this-ACC big-ACC cat-ACC) in Polish:

15
 (36) ActP – *…+ – DefP – QualP – RelP – KP – NegP – *…+ – NumP – GenP –*…+ – PropP
X

dużego
X

tego X

kata

As we can see, they all can lexicalize the case. It seems that every first phase, for being part of
the syntax, must have this projection at its edge. It’s the projection that makes possible for
other Prop or ActP to select it.
OJO A LA LENGUA QUE HEMOS VISTO CON STACKING CASE EN CLASE DE PETER. SERÍA BUENA
PARA EXPLICAR LAS FASES.

7. Draft: Some other questions for the future

a. Prepositions and arguments

PPs must have also a structure like the one we have proposed for DPs, so we can’t talk any
more about them but just as a group of projections that can be altogether lexicalized as
what we use to call preposition. Prepositions would have at least one argument. The
preposions as we know them differ in the ones that have PropP and the ones that don’t.
This PropP can relate different branches in the way we have seen that ActP did it.

b. Adverbs and their different projections (Cinque 1999)

c. Movement: The movement we have just presented in this paper is a movement of

complete phases. Thus, we are rejecting the head movement o the Spec movement.
Only a whole phrase can move to positions that a priori must be interphasal.

d. Relation between ActP and its internal argument: We have primarily focused in this
paper in the relation between the ActP and its external argument. The fact that it also
establishes relations with the internal arguments has several consequences. For
example the possibility that verbs take nominal and adjectival shapes. If ActP selects
an argument with PropP, this argument can have a QualP also. This is why verbs like
clean will need a noun internal argument (Hale & Keyser 2002: deadjectival verbs need
a specifier). We will assume that all arguments will appear below the internal
argument joining to each other by linkers like prepositions or case.

e. Relatives: Relative clauses are really useful to understand wh-elements

16
8. Problems

a. A favor de considerar que los determinantes se mueven de núcleo a núcleo y no son

phrasal spell-out:

Árabe: Prefix on both noun and adjective: Arabic ‫( ال ك ب ير ال ك تاب‬al-kitāb al-kabīr)

with two instances of al- (DEF-book-DEF-big, literally, "the book the big")

b. Why not all the nodes can be superlexicalized?

c. AbstrP?
d. Is it true Limit [+ feature] requirement?: The higher and the lower feature that a lexical
item can lexicalize must be a [+ feature].
e. Cómo consigue el plural el verbo con nombres coordinados?? Juan y María corren
f. ¿cuándo hay left periphery dentro del nombre? podríamos esperar siempre un artículo
delante de todo: los todos los niños
g. In cases like destruction wouldn’t it be easier to imagine that the ActP is inside the
PropP. But see Alexiadou 2007 p. 273 y ss. where they explain that event nominals mst
have AspP and VoiceP. Some languages has morphological representations of Tense in
nouns: Halkomelem (see Burton 1997): tel xeltel-elh (my pencil-PAST: the pencil which
was mine)
h. Preposition-stranding
i. There might appear several problems that have to be solved in the future. For example
one shouldn’t expect an example like todos los niños if we consider todos as a
quantifier that is hence lexicalizing the feature [Quant] We would expect better los
todos niños, but that’s impossible. This system has the risk of overgenerating too many
possible combinations of the lexical items, so in the future it will be necessary to try to
understand which are the constraint principles. There is one obvious constraint
principle that should be true:

The Anti-redundancy Principle: two lexical items can’t lexicalize the same and just the
same features.

Other one: Two different lexical items can’t lexicalize the same *Prop+ feature

Biggest win?

17
References

Abney, S. 1987. The Noun Phrase in Its Sentential Aspect. MIT Ph. D. Dissertation. Cambridge.

Aboh, E. 2002. Morphosyntax de la péripherie gauche nominale. In La syntaxe de la definitude,

Anne Zribi-Hertz & Anne Daldier (eds.), Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes 31: 9-26. Paris:
Presses universitaires de Vincennes.
—2004a. Topic and Focus within D. Linguistics in the Netherlands 21: 1-12. Amsterdam/New
York: John Benjamins.
—2004b. The sequening of the DP layer. Dutch Hungarian project meeting, Dec. 1-2, 2004.
Ms., University of Amsterdam.

Alexiadou 2007: Noun Phrase in the Generative Perspective.

Burzio, L. 1986. Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. 2002. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge

(Mass.): MIT Press.

Ihsane & Puskás. 2001. Specific is not Definite.

Lyons, C. 1999. Definiteness.

Picallo, M.-C. 1991. 'Nominals and Nominalizations in Catalan'. Probus 3: 279-316.

Ritter, E. 1991. Two Functional Categories in Noun

Phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. Perspectives on Phrase Structure. Academic Press.

Rizzi, L. 1997. “The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery”, in L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of
Grammar, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

Starke, Michal.2005. Nanosyntax class lectures. Spring 2005, University of Tromsø.

Zamparelli, Roberto. 2000. Layers in the Determiner Phrase.

18