The Structure Underlying Measure Phrase Sentences

THE STRUCTURE UNDERLYING MEASURE
PHRASE SENTENCES
FOUNDATIONS OF LANGUAGE
SUPPLEMENTARY SERIES
Editors
MORRIS HALLE, MIT

P. HARTMANN, Konstanz
K. KUNJUNNI RAJA, Madras
BENSON MATES, Univ. of California
J. F. STAAL, Univ.ofCalifornia
PIETER A. VERBURG, Groningen
JOHN W. M. VERHAAR (Secretary), Jakarta
VOLUME 17
THE STRUCTURE
UNDERLYING MEASURE
PHRASE SENTENCES
by
W. G. KLOOSTER
D. REIDEL PUBLISHING COMPANY I DORDRECHT-HOLLAND

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 76-188003
ISBN-13: 978-94-0lO-2892-9 e-ISBN-13: 978-94-010-2890-5

DOl: 10.lO07 /978-94-0 lO-2890-5
All Rights Reserved

Copyright © 1972 by D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht-Holland
Softcover reprint ofthe hardcover 1st edition 1972
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint. microfilm,
or any other means, without written permission from the publisher
to my parents
PREFACE
I should like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Professor

H. Schultink, whose criticisms and careful reading helped me to improve
considerably upon the clarity of exposition while I wrote this study, and
whose seemingly innocent requests to elaborate confronted me time and
again with the need of revising or abandoning ideas I thought stood on firm
ground. His support, and Dr. M. C. van den Toom's gratefully acknowl-
edged willingness to read and evaluate the manuscript enabled me to present
this work as a thesis in the University of Utrecht.
In more than one way, lowe a debt to Albert Kraak, Professor of
Linguistics in the University of Nijmegen. His inspiring enthusiasm
awakened my interest in linguistics when I was a student of his. He in-
troduced me to transformational grammar at a time when it seemed almost
improper to talk about it, and the stimulating experience of writing a book
on Dutch syntax together with him taught me invaluable lessons.
I should also like to thank my friend and colleague Henk Verkuyl, to-
gether with whom I prepared an article on the subject of measuring duration
in Dutch. Without our stimulating discussions on the subject, the fourth
chapter of this study could never have been written in the present form. I am
also indebted to him for criticisms and helpful suggestions.
At an early stage I profited greatly from discussions with Pieter A. M.
Seuren, lecturer of Linguistics in Oxford University, whose suggestion it was
to choose the grammar of measure phrase sentences as a subject for my thesis.
I am immeasurably indebted to my wife. Patiently enduring the ordeal
of having to live with someone preparing a thesis, she took upon herself the
task of typing the manuscript with unfailing accuracy, helping me to correct
many errors in the text.
Others whom I wish to thank are Phil Hyams, who corrected my English
(remaining errors are of course mine), and Jan Koster, for his assistance in
compiling the bibliography and the index. Thanks should also go to many
other friends and colleagues, all of whom I could not possibly mention
here, for criticisms and frequent encouragement.
My indebtedness to the work of Jeffrey S. Gruber is in evidence in practi-
cally every part of this study.
Amsterdam, August 1971 W. G. KLOOSTER

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE VII
I. MEASURE PHRASE SENTENCES; SOME OBSER V A nONS
I. Introductory Remarks
2. Measure Phrases 5
2.1. Are MP's Noun Phrases? 6
2.1.1. Prenominal Adjectives in MP's 8
2.1.1.1. Unit nouns: integer-dependent and integer-independent,
continuous and discontinuous, abstract and concrete 8
2.1.1.2. 'Six dusty miles' and 'Ten crisp new dollars';
abstract and concrete MP's 14
2.1.2. MP's, Relative Clauses, and Prenominal Adjectives;
'Non-Particular' Units; Syncategorematic Adjectives 15
2.1.3. 'Each/Either/Some of the' + MP; Differentiation and
Individualization 18
2.1.3.1. Definiteness and indefiniteness; incorporation of the de-
finite element 19
2.1.3.2. Numerical elements and numbers 23
2.1.3.3. 'Part of the' + MP 26
2.1.4. Demonstratives, Possessive Pronouns, 'Principal', 'Chief,
'Utter' 27
2.2. Recapitulation 28
3. Parameter Adjectives and Measure Adjectives 29
3.1. Parameter Adjectives 30
3.2. Objective Gradables and Subjective Gradables; Neutral
and Non-Neutral Sense 34
3.2.1. 'Warm'; Non-Neutral, Subjective or Objective 36
3.2.1.1. 'Warm' and other gradables in 'hoe' questions 37
3.3. Bierwisch's Observations on Polarity and Orientation of
Adjectives; 'Warm' an Un oriented Adjective 39
3.3.1. An Additional Criterion for the Polarity Sign; '( + Pol)'
Adjectives That Do Not Take MP's 41
4. Semicopulas 43
4.1. Middle Verbs and Semicopulas 43
X THE STRUCTURE UNDERLYING MP SENTENCES
4.1.1. 'Differ' + MP 44
4.1.2. Passive and Manner Adverbials 45
4.1.3. Measure Semicopulas 46
4.2. Other Verbs Taking MP's 46
4.3. Semicopulas Taking Adjectival Complements 48
4.4. 'Cost' + Indirect Object 49
5. Recapitulation 53
II. THE STRUCTURE UNDERL YING SIMPLE MP SENTENCES 56
1. Reduction in Simple MP Sentences 56

2. Similarities in the Behaviour of Simple MP Sentences 58
2.1. The Relation to 'Hebben' 58
2.1.1. Semicopulas Show a Relation to 'Hebben' 58
2.1.1.1. 'Hebben' paraphrases reveal the source of the ungram-
maticality of 'each other' semic0pula sentences 58
2.1.1.1.1. The PSR hypothesis vs. the transformational hypothesis 60
2.1.1.1.2. Assuming that semicopulas are simply V's leaves the
ungrammaticality of 'each other' semicopula sentences
unexplained 61
2.1.1.1.3. 'Hebben' paraphrases reveal that the co-reference con-
dition is not met 65
2.1.1.1.4. Semicopulas that do take definite complements are also
excluded from 'each other' sentences 66
2.1.1.2. Semicopulas are non-passivizable and stative 69
2.1.2. Copula + Measure Adjective Constructions Show a Re-
lation to 'Hebben' 72
2.1.2.1. 'Hebben' paraphrases reveal the source of the un gram-
maticality of 'each other' measure adjective sentences 72
2.1.2.2. Measure adjectives are stative 73
2.2. Further Evidence that the Underlying Structures of Semi-
copula Sentences and Measure Adjective Sentences Are
Similar 77
2.2.1. Synonymy of Semicopula and 'Be' + Measure Adjective 77
2.2.2. MP's Do Not Occur as Direct Objects in Simple MP
Sentences 78
2.2.3. MP's Cannot Be Omitted in Simple Sentences in Which
They Are Not Direct Objects 79
3. Possible Underlying Structures of Simple MP Sentences 80
3.1. Underlying 'Hebben' 80
3.2. Underlying Adjective 81
TABLE OF CONTENTS XI
3.3. Disadvantages of Underlying 'Hebben' and of Underlying

Adjective 83
3.4. Underlying WITH String 84
4. Arguments for an Underlying WITH String 87
4.1. Generalization of Relative Clause Reduction 87
4.2. Comparing Different Languages 89
4.3. Possibility of Uniform Reduction in Simple MP Sentences 90
4.4. Non-Occurrence of Reduced Type II Sentences 91
4.5. Adjectives Corresponding to 'Met' Phrases 93
5. Recapitulation 95
III. THE DERIVA nON OF MP SENTENCES 98

1. Lexical Entries and Lexical Rules 98
2. When Does Reduction Occur? 107
2.1. Reduction in Simple MP Sentences 108
2.2. Reduction in 'Van' + MP Constructions 115
3. A Non-Existent Neutral Parameter Adjective 122
4. Treating 'Zijn' as an Affix 126
5. Base Rules and Entries 132
6. The Transformational Derivation of MP Sentences 143
6.1. Simple MP Sentences and Their Paraphrases 143
6.2. 'Van' + MP Constructions 150
6.3. Applied Amount Terms and Related Expressions 165
6.4. Embedding; Another Type of 'Van' Constructions; Post-
lexical Rules 171
7. The Derivation of Measure Phrases 180
7.1. Unreduced Forms 180
7.2. Integer-Dependent and Integer-Independent Unit Nouns 191
7.3. Reduction in Measure Phrases 193
7.4. Recapitulation 196
IV. DURATION SENTENCES 198

1. 'Duren' 198
1.1. Double WITH Strings 198
1.1.1. A Comparison with 'Simple' Semicopulas and Related
Structures 198
1.1.2. The Relationship between 'Duren' and 'Gedurende" 207
1.2. The Transformational Derivation of Duration MP Sen-
tences Not Containing DMA's 223
XII THE STRUCTURE UNDERLYING MP SENTENCES
1.2.1. Simple Duration MP Sentences 223

1.2.2. 'Van' + MP Constructions Referring to Duration 226
2. Other Complex Semicopulas 234
V. EPILOGUE 237
BIBLIOGRAPHY 243
INDEX 245
CHAPTER I
MEASURE PHRASE SENTENCES;

SOME OBSERVATIONS
1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
The subject of this study consists of certain phenomena exhibited in sen-

tences containing measure phrases, particularly, but not exclusively, in
Dutch.
By 'measure phrases' (MP's, for short) I mean such expressions as the
ones italicized in (I )-(7), below. (Throughout this book, English sentences
in quotes are attempts at literal translation.)
(I) Jan weegt 80 kilo.

'John weighs 80 kilos.'
(2) Dat boek kost 12 gulden.
'That book costs 12 guilders.'
(3) De boot steekt 1 vadem.
'The boat draws 1 fathom.'
(4) Het geschut draagt 10 kilometer.
'The artillery carries 10 kilometers.'
(5) Jan is 2 meter lang.
'John is 2 meters tall.'
(6) Ze is 12 jaar oud.
'She is 12 years old.'
(7) De lat is 2 centimeter dik.
'The lath is 2 centimeters thick.'
In (1)-(7) the measure phrases occur either as the complement of socalled

'middle verbs' 1 like wegen (weigh) and kosten (cost), or as the complements of
such copula + adjective constructions as lang zijn ('tall be', be tall) and oud
zijn ('old be', be old). However, in certain cases they may also occur in
combination with just a copula, as is exemplified in (8)-(11):
1 This term is used by Lees (1960), p. 8, for verbs that do not take manner adverbs freely and
which are, characteristically, followed by NP's but cannot be passivized. Examples are
resemble,fit, marry, weigh, cost. See also Chomsky (1965), p. 103, and his note 28 on p:2l8,
which contain some comments on the matter of middle verbs "taking manner adverbials
freely". Also, the note contains a few interesting remarks on the source of manner adverbials.
These remarks suggest that Chomsky himself considers the base rules sketched in the second
chapter of his book as far from adequate, at least with respect to the generating of adverbials.
2 THE STRUCTURE UNDERLYING MP SENTENCES
(8) Jan is 80 kilo.

'John is 80 kilos.'
(9) Dat boek is 12 gUlden.
'That book is 12 guilders.'
(10) Jan is 2 meter.
'John is 2 meters.'
(11) Ze is 12 jaar.
'She is 12 years.'
In addition, it can be noted that in a sentence like (6) not only the adjective
oud (old) may be left out, but also the word jaar (years):
(12) Ze is twaalf.
'She is twelve.'
It seems appropriate to use the term 'reduction' in connection with sentences

like (8)--{12). Sentence (8), then, is a reduction of (1), (9) of(2), (10) of(5), and
(11) of (6). Sentence (12) may be considered a reduction of (11) and thus a
reduction ultimately derived from (6). Sentences of the type exemplified in
(1 )--{12) I shall call 'simple measure phrase sentences' (i.e., simple declarative
sentences in which the MP occurs as the complement of such verbs as
wegen (weigh), kosten (cost), steken (draw, said of ships), dragen (carry, said
of, e.g., artillery or sound), duren (last), or as the complement of copula
+ adjective constructions like lang zijn (be tall, or, in other cases, be long),
oud zijn (be old), etc., as well the reduced forms; but not MP sentences con-
taining comparative forms or te (too) + adjective). Apart from these, there
are also simple MP sentences which only occur in the form NP + Copula
+ MP. An example is (13):
(l3) Het water is 30 graden.
'The water is 30 degrees.'
There are no simple temperature MP sentences in which an adjective occurs.

There are, to be sure, temperature MP sentences containing a 'temperature
adjective' (see for this term p. 30), but these are not simple MP sentences (cf.
the examples (14)--{16».
(14) *Het water is 30 graden warm/koud.

The water is 30 degrees warm/cold.'
(15) Het water is 30 graden warmer/kouder.
'The water is 30 degrees warmer/colder.'
(16) Het water is 30 graden te warm/te koud.
'The water is 30 degrees too warm/too cold.'
MEASURE PHRASE SENTENCES; SOME OBSERVATIONS 3
The special problems posed by simple MP sentences of the type of (13) will
also be discussed in this study.
Much discussion in recent years has been centered around the role of
semantics in the organization of transformational grammar. According
to what has been called by Chomsky the 'standard theory' (as presented in
Chomsky (1965», the base component generates deep structures that are
mapped into surface structures by rules of the transformational component.
The semantic component assigns semantic representations to the deep struct-
ures.
Synonymy of superficially differing sentences is a necessary condition for
their having identical deep structures. But it is not a sufficient condition;
deep structures of synonymous sentences need not be identical. We cannot
say any more than that the deep structures of nonsynonymous sentences
must differ. Furthermore, the 'standard theory', as it is presented in Chom-
sky (1965), states that the lexicon forms part of the base component. Con-
sequently, the terminal strings of deep structure derivations already con-
sist of phonologically specified elements. In 1968, Chomsky abandoned the
hypothesis that nonsynonymous sentences necessarily have different deep
structures (Chomsky (1968». His present view is that there are also semantic
rules operating upon final derived phrase markers.
A number of linguists, notably James D. McCawley,2 have challenged the
thesis that there is a level of deep structure with the characteristics it is said
to have in Chomsky (1965) or in Chomsky's more recent version of trans-
formational theory. They reject the idea that the lexicon is part of the
base component, and deny that there should be a difference between 'deep
structure' and 'semantic representation'.
This, of course, still does not mean that synonymy of superficially dif-
fering sentences is a condition both necessary and sufficient for their having
identical deep structures. Gruber, one of the first whose views developed in
the direction of generative semantics, puts it in the following way:
The base component generates an underlying language which has immediate semantic as well
as syntactic significance. By no means do we imply here, however, that all surface forms that
mean the same thing have the same representation in the base tree. i.e., in the semantic
language. Certainly it would be unusual in the generation of any language for every entity
generated by the grammar of that language to have an interpretation different from every
other such entity. A phrase-structure type grammar of which we propose the base component,
2 See, for instance, McCawley (I 967a, b) and (1968). Gruber's M.LT. dissertation (1965)
was written at a time when no other work in generative semantics had been done yet.
McCawley often refers to it in his articles. It is therefore not unreasonable to suppose, as
De Rijk (1968) has remarked, that generative semanticians, particularly McCawley, have been
influenced by Gruber.
will generate an indefinite number of trees that are equivalent in meaning but different in form.
( ... ) in addition to the underlying semantic language ( ... ) there will still have to be a set of
postulates and rules for a calculus by which it can be demonstrated that certain trees of the
base· language are equivalent in meaning or that they imply or negate each other. (Gruber
(\967a), p. 48.)
In this study an attempt will be made to show that, in order to account for
a number of relationships among MP sentences, it will be necessary to as-
sume that they can be analyzed in a way that precludes the possibility of
lexical attachment on the level of base phrase markers in the way Chomsky
has proposed. In so far as the attempt will succeed, Gruber's proposals
concerning the functions of the lexicon in formal descriptive grammars
will receive new support.
I do not intend to argue that all of the underlying structures to be proposed
should be seen as semantic representations. Although it seems plausible
to me to maintain that the base component should consist of rules generat-
ing a semantic language, I do not believe that all of the underlying struct-
ures that I am going to discuss in the following chapters can be considered
structures directly generated by the base rules. I do believe, however, that
it can be correctly claimed that, for instance, the sentences (17}-(19), below,
all derive from the same base structures, and that no calculus in Gruber's
sense will be needed to relate them to each other, despite their widely vary-
ing surface structures. In short, although we may not know the exact form
of the base trees of (17)-{ 19), it is highly probable that they are identical.
(17) Jan en ik wegen evenveel.

'John and I weigh the same amount.'
(18) Jan en ik hebben hetzelfde gewicht.
'John and I have the same weight.'
(19) Jan en ik zijn even zwaar.
'John and I are just as heavy.'
Actually, (17)-{19) all are homonymous. They mean either that John is as
heavy as I am, or that both John and I are as heavy as some other unnamed
person or object. But for either interpretation there is just one underlying
structure from which they all three derive.
Later on, I shall attempt to state the conditions under which such reduc-
tions (8)-(11) may occur. Furthermore, I shall argue that the reduced forms
(8)-(11) all are derived in a completely uniform way, and that in a formal
description we shall have to assume that there are deep structural similar-
ities between, on the one hand, sentences like (1)-(4), which contain verbs
like wegen and kosten, and on the other hand, sentences like (6)-(7), which
contain combinations like lang zijn and oud zijn.
2. MEASURE PHRASES
The set of phrases to which such expressions as 80 kilo, 12 gulden, 1 vadem,

10 kilometer, 30 graden, etc., belong are traditionally known in Dutch gram-
mar as 'quantity adverbials' (,bijwoorde1ijke bepalingen van hoevee1heid'.
See, for instance, Den Hertog (1903), Vol. I, p. 115). The reason I shall not
use this term is that 'quantity adverbials' lack all the properties character-
izing the set of phrases which (apart from the ones in question) are referred
to as 'adverbials'. If the class of adverbials were to include measure phrases,
they would be the only members of that class that are neither 'sentence ad-
verbials' nor prepositional phrases or phrases that can be paraphrased by
prepositional phrases. Leaving aside for a moment measure phrases, we
can say that all phrases to which the term 'adverbial' is thought to apply,
except 'sentence adverbials', in all probability are prepositional phrases in
the underlying structure. 'Sentence adverbials' (misschien (perhaps), na-
tuurlijk (naturally, of course), helaas (unfortunately), etc.) may occur on the
place of the blank in the context Het is - ZO, dat ... ('It is - the case that. .. '),
regardless of whether the finite verb in the dat (that) clause is in the present
or the past tense. Measure phrases, of course, lack this property (cf. (20)-
(23)).
(20) Het is misschien zo dat hij kwam/komt.
'It is perhaps the case that he came/will come.'
(21) Het is natuurlijk zo dat hij werkte/werkt.
'It is naturally the case that he worked/works.'
(22) Het is helaas zo dat hij stal/steelt.
'It is unfortunately the case that he stole/steals.'
(23) *Het is 80 kilo zo dat hij woog/weegt.

'It is 80 kilograms the case that he weighed/weighs.'
No measure phrases have the form of prepositional phrases or can be para-
phrased by them. In the following pair, van 2 ton ('of 2 tons'), in (24b), is
not a paraphrase, of course, of 2 ton in (24a), although (24a) and (24b) are
paraphrases of each other:
(24a) Die deur weegt 2 ton.
'That door weighs 2 tons.'
(24b) Die deur heeft een gewicht van 2 ton.
'That door has a weight of 2 tons.'
In (24b), van 2 ton is not a measure phrase, but a prepositional phrase
containing one. Accordingly, we do not have:
(24c) *Die deur weegt van 2 ton.

'That door weighs of 2 tons.'
Constructions of the form van + MP will be discussed later on.
2.1. Are MP's Noun Phrases?
In Ross (1964) it is argued that MP's are not simply noun phrases, although
they do bear some resemblance to them. Ross calls attention to the fact that
sentences like the ones below, with some of the, either of the, each of the
preceding the measure phrase, are ungrammatical (as opposed to, e.g.,
I:~~~r I
some/each of the 50 children, either of the 2 children):
(25a) *This box is of the two feet long.

some
We may translate each as ieder or elk. Either of the two may be translated as
meaning 'one or the other of the two'. But since either may also mean 'one
and the other (of two)', as in There was an armchair at either end of the table,
the Dutch equivalent of either of the two can be een (or welke ook maar) van de
twee, or elk/ieder van de twee. Thus the Dutch equivalents of the first two
l
sentences of (25a) (with each and either), may be given as (25b):
ieder 1
I
(25b) *Deze do os is een (or welke ook maar) I· van de twee voet lang.
I
elk
each
This box is one (no matter which) of the two feet long.'
each
The word some may be translated in Dutch as enige ('a number of), but in
certain cases it must be rendered as een stuk ('a piece'), een deel ('a part'), wat
('an unspecified quantity (of a mass)'). In the former case, some occurs in
sentences like Some of these people went berserk. In the latter, it occurs in
sentences such as Some of the paint was left over, He took some of it, Some of
it is true, etc. The former some, however, cannot be used, in any case, as a
limitation within a group of two. Thus it would be nonsense to say, "Some
of these two people went berserk." Therefore, since the number of feet in
Ross's example is two, some, taken in the sense of 'a number of, would be
an irrelevant cause of ungrammaticality, having nothing to do with the
nature of MP's in particular. In order to eliminate this irrelevant factor, we
may either take some to mean 'part of, or increase the number of feet in
Ross's example. The Dutch equivalent of the third sentence of (25a) may
be given as (25c):
(25c) *Deze doos is een { :t~!} van de twee voet lang.
'This box is part of the two feet long.'
If the number of feet is, say, ten, we have an English sentence that under
either interpretation is ungrammatical. The two Dutch equivalents are also
ungrammatical:
(25d) *This box is some of the ten feet long.
(25e) *Deze do os is een { ::!} van de tien voet lang.
(25t) *Deze do os is enige van de tien voet lang.
As Ross also observes, in sentences like (26), demonstratives, possessive
adjectives, and words like utter, chief, p6ncipal, etc., are excluded before
MP's (though they may occur in such noun phrases as this/my child, an
utter child, the chieJ/principal reason (dit/mijn kind, een volslagen kind, de
hooJdreden/belangrijkste reden»:
I de voornaamste J 20 minuten.
J die
I
(26) *Het concert duurde mijn
r those
*The concert lasted ·1 my 20 minutes.
the principal
I shall comment on these interesting examples later on.
"It seems," Ross then goes on to say, "that in general, relative clauses
should also be excluded (cf. (27) and (28». But I do not know how to handle
such sentences as (29) and (30), because prenominal adjectives usually derive
from relative clauses." (Quoted examples are numbered according to their
order in the present text.)
(27) *My room is the two degrees which your thermometer is too crude
to register hotter than your room.
(28) *He came the 3 times that I will never forget too often to go away
a willner.
dusty
f
. weary
(29) We marched SIX ong11 miles.
(30) That'll only cost you 10 crisp new dollars.

In the following subsections Ross's examples will be dealt with. As we shall

see, the conclusion may be drawn that there is no reason not to consider
MP's noun phrases. In 2.1.1, I shall consider the examples (29) and (30)
(with prenominal adjectives), after having examined certain distinctions
to be made among measure phrases (Sections 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2, respect-
ively). After that, in Section 2.1.2, I shall tum to the examples (27) and (28)
and discuss the problems involving MP's associated with relative clauses
and prenominal adjectives. In 2.1.3, I shall offer some comment on the ex-
amples (25a-f); some further points in connection with these examples will
be elaborated upon in three further subsections (2.1.3.1-3). Section 2.1.4
will be devoted to example (26) (with those, my, the principal). Facts noted
in the course of the exposition will be recapitulated in 2.2.
2.1.1. Prenominal Adjectives in MP's
2.1.1.1. Unit nouns: integer-dependent and integer-independent, continuous

and discontinuous, abstract and concrete
Before commenting on (29) and (30), then, let us first examine an important
property distinguishing a number of measure phrases in Dutch, a property
which I have not yet mentioned or hinted at in the "literal" translations of
the examples above.
The words in MP's that refer to measuring units (uur (hours), gulden
(guilders), meter (meters), etc.) in many cases occur in the singular even
though the integers preceding them indicate that more than one unit is
referred to. Thus we have (31a) and (31c), but not the corresponding b
and d sentences (under normal interpretation):
(3Ia) Dit boek kost IS gulden.
'This book costs IS guilder.'
(3Ib) *Dit boek kost 15 guldens.
'This book costs 15 guilders.'
(31c) Dat rotsblok weegt 2 ton.
'That rock weighs 2 ton.'
(31d) *Dat rotsblok weegt 2 tonnen.
'That rock weighs 2 tons.'
For the unit words to occur in the singular regardless of the integers
preceding them, they must pertain to 'abstract' units. However, there are
'abstract' unit words which always occur in the plural unless the preceding
word is een (one) or een (a(n». Examples are minuten (minutes) and graden
(degrees). There is no direct relation between the fact that a unit word is
"common" or "often used" and its occurring in the singular regardless of
MEASURE PHRASE SENTENCES; SOME OBSER VATIONS 9
the integer preceding it. We do not have, for instance:

(32a) *Het concert duurde 20 minuut.
'The concert lasted 20 minute.'
(33a) *Die chocolareep kost 3 dubbeltje.
'That chocolate bar costs 3 dime.'
(34a) *De Noorse ploeg telde 10 vrouw.
'The Norwegian team consisted of 10 woman.'
Instead, we must have:
(32b) Het concert duurde 20 minuten.
The concert lasted 20 minutes.'
(33b) Die chocolareep kost 3 dubbeltjes.
That chocolate bar costs 3 dimes.'
(34b) De Noorse ploeg telde 10 vrouwen.
The Norwegian team consisted of 10 women.'
The words minuten, dubbeltjes (I have chosen 'dime' to translate dubbeltje;
although they do not have the same value, both are 10 cent pieces) and
vrouwen are quite commonly used as unit words. Below, some of the two
types of unit words are listed.
"integer-independent' , "integer-dependent "
dollar (,dollar') dubbeltje (' 10 cent piece')
gulden (,guilder') stuiver ('5 cent piece')
cent ('cent') kwartje ('quarter', t of a guilder)
ton ('ton') seconde ('second')
ons (metric 'ounce', 100 grams) minuut ('minute')
pond (metric 'pound', 500 grams) dag ('day')
kilogram ('kilo(gram)') week ('week')
gram ('gram') rna and ('month')
(kilo)meter ('(kilo )meter') decade ('decade')
decimeter (,decimeter'), etc. eeuw ('century')
mijl ('mile') millennium ('millennium')
voet ('foot') vrouw ('woman')
vadem (,fathom') graad ('degree')
mud ('hectolitre') bit ('bit' (information theory))
(centi)liter ('(centi)litre'), etc. schepel (,bushel', 'decalitre')
jaar ('year') lichtjaar ('light year')
uur ('hour')
kwartier (,quarter of an hour')
man ('man')
keer ('time')
maal ('time')
decibel ('decibel')
volt ('volt')
watt ('Watt')
farad ('Farad')
ohm ('Ohm')
bunder (,hectare', 2.471 acres)
In addition, there are one or two unit words which only occur in the
plural: koppen ('hands', as in een bemanning van 20 koppen ('a crew of
20 hands'», and, possibly, stuks ('pieces'; I am not quite sure whether the
s is a plural ending. 1 stuks sounds odd to me. The second s in stuksgewijs
('by the piece') is not a plural ending). The words koppen and stuks cannot
be preceded by such words as enkele ('a small number of', 'a few'), ettelijke
('a fair number of'), verscheidene ('severa!'). Such words may precede all
other unit words, however, provided they have the plural ending. Thus,
integer-independent unit words must occur in the plural in such sentences
as (35)-(37):
(35) Oit boek kost slechts enkele guldens.
'This book costs only a { few II b f } guilders.'
sma num er 0
(36) Oeze steen weegt verscheidene kilo's.
'This stone weighs several kilos.'
(37) Het duurde ettelijke jaren.
'It lasted a fair number of years.'
Not only enkele, ettelijke, etc., require the plural, but also words like
honderden (,hundreds of'), duizenden ('thousands of'), miljoenen (,millions
of'). Words of the latter type may precede koppen and stuks. We may call
the property of preceding words which causes the integer-independent
unit words to take on the plural form 'differentiation'.3 Later on in this sec-
tion, I will introduce a category NUMBER underlying words like enkele
and honderden. It is distinct from the category NE (numerical element),
to which integers belong (see p. 24). Thus we do not have:
(38) *ettelijke ton
'a fair number of ton'
(39) *veel gulden
'many guilder'
(40) *verscheidene jaar
'several year'
3 See, for this term, also Klooster and Verkuyl (1972). Another form of differentiation,
which may be related to the kind in question is discussed in Chapter IV, Section 1.1.2.
MEASURE PHRASE SENTENCES; SOME OBSER VA nONS 11
As Verkuyl (1972a) has observed, there is a difference between a word

like uur (hour), which he calls a 'Type I noun', and a word like middag
(afternoon), which he calls a 'Type II noun'. The difference lies in the fact
that middag refers to a stretch of time separated by an interval from the next
such stretch of time, whereas uur refers to a stretch of time which is not
separated by an interval from the next one. The things referred to by a word
like hour constitute a class of continuously ordered elements: between
a given hour Hi and the hour Hi + 1 directly following it, there is no interval.
As regards the Type II nouns, there is in some cases necessarily an interval
between the time-stretches referred to, in other cases there might pos-
sibly be such an interval. Two afternoons Ai and Ai + 1, between which
there is no other afternoon, cannot constitute a continuous temporal unit
on the time axis. Two meetings Mi and Mi + 1, however, between which there
is no other meeting, may be contiguous on the time axis, but not neces-
sarily so. The distinction between on the one hand words like afternoon
and meeting, and on the other hand words like hour, as far as their Dutch
equivalents are concerned, is reflected, for instance, in the fact that such ex-
pressions as (41)-(44) are ungrammatical, whereas expressions like (45)-(48)
are not:
(41) *Tijdens een uur (las Jan de krant).
'During an hour (John read the newspaper).'
(42) *Op'een uur (kwam Piet thuis).
'On an hour (Peter came home).'
(43) *Tijdens het uur (viel de voorzitter in slaap).
'During the hour (the president fell asleep).'
(44) *In het uur (werd Marie ziek).
'In the hour (Mary fell ill).'
(45) Tijdens een maaltijd (las Jan de krant).
'During a meal (John read the newspaper).'
(46) Op een middag (kwam Piet thuis).
'On an afternoon (Peter came home).'
(47) Tijdens de vergadering (viel de voorzitter in slaap).
'During the meeting (the president fell asleep).'
(48) In het weekend (werd Marie ziek).
'In the weekend (Mary fell ill).'
Temporal unit words which are integer-independent belong to the class of
hour. No words belonging to the other class (middag (afternoon), ver-
gadering (meeting), etc.) have the property of being integer-independent.
As already indicated, Verkuyl proposes to call members of the former class
'Type I nouns' and members of the latter class 'Type II nouns'. We might
also call them 'continuous unit nouns' and 'discontinuous unit nouns',
respectively (keeping in mind, however, that 'discontinuous unit nouns'
refer to things that either mayor may not be contiguous on the time axis.)
We may now ask whether we can generalize the notion 'continuous unit
noun' so as to make it applicable to other nouns besides 'Type 1 nouns'.
It seems that we can. Consider, for example, nouns referring to units of
one-dimensional space ('one-space units'). Meters, feet, miles, etc., all are
continuously ordered members of the respective classes to which they
belong. That is, one-space units are contiguously located on the measuring
scale. The same holds for units of weight, temperature, velocity, voltage,
electrical resistance, electrical capacitance, and so on. Similarly, the
measurements of area ('two-space') and volume ('three-space') are ex-
pressed in units which we can think of as being contiguous. Monetary
units (as distinct from means of payment) are likewise continuously ordered.
That is, if we were to indicate sums of money on a calibrated scale, as an
economist might do, the intervals between the value-representing points
Vi and Vi+ 1 , and between the points Vi + 1 and Vi+ 2 , respectively, would be
contiguous (where Vi and Vi + l' as well as Vi+ 1 and Vi + 2 , differ by one unit
of value.)
It is relevant to note, at this point, the distinction between monetary value
and means of payment. Consider, for instance, the following sentences:
(49a) Ik betaalde de melkboer een gUlden.
'I payed the milkman one guilder.'
(49b) Ik betaalde de melkboer met een gulden.
'I paid the milkman with one guilder.'
Sentence (49a) does not necessarily mean that 1 gave the milkman one coin.
1 may have given him ten 10 cent pieces, or four quarters, or any com-
bination of coins together representing the value of one guilder. 1 may even
have given him more than one guilder, receiving back the change. But
sentence (49b), under normal interpretation, means that 1 gave the milk-
man a I guilder piece. Compare also, in this connection, (SOa, b) and
(Sla, b):
(SOa) Ik betaalde hem via de bank 10 gulden.
'I paid him via the bank 10 guilder.'
(SOb) *Ik betaalde hem via de bank met 10 gulden.
'I paid him via the bank with 10 guilder.'
(Sla) Betaal hem maar die 10 gulden.
'Just pay him those 10 guilder.'
(Sib) Betaal hem maar met die 10 gulden.
'Just pay him with those 10 guilder.'
MEASURE PHRASE SENTENCES; SOME OBSERVA TlONS 13
Apart from a number of other denominations, Dutch currency comes in ten

guilder notes. It is possible to pay 10 guilders to someone via the bank,
but one cannot do so via the bank with a 10 guilder note. Hence the un-
grammaticality of (50b). In (5Ia), 10 gulden refers to monetary value, but
in (5Ib) it refers to a means of payment, viz., a banknote. Note, in
addition, the difference in meaning between (52a) and (52b):
(52a) Ik had vijf gulden.
'I had five guilder.'
(52b) Ik had vijf guldens.
'I had five guilders.'
In the a sentence monetary value is meant, but the b sentence means that I
had five I guilder pieces.
We can indicate the price of a cigar in the following ways:
(53) Die sigaar kost 50 cent.

'That cigar costs 50 cent.'
(54) Die sigaar kost vijf dubbeltjes.
'That cigar costs five dimes.'
(55) Die sigaar kost twee kwartjes.
'That cigar costs two quarters.'
If a tobacconist utters (54) or (55), he is not implying that the cigar can only
be obtained in exchange of five 10 cent pieces in the case of (54), or two
quarters in the case of (55). That would be taking things too literally. But
with respect to (53), there is no possibility of taking things literally in the
same manner in which this can be done in the case of (54) and (55). Sentence
(53) just means that the price of the cigar is actually and precisely 50 cents,
payable in any way, not that the client is expected to pay with fifty 1 cent
pieces. The latter would only be possible if we substituted 50 cent in (53) by
50 centen (plural).
From this it can be concluded that such expressions as vijf dubbeltjes
and twee kwartjes in sentences like (54) and (55) are instances of a
"picturesque" way of specifying prices, possibly with the intent of em-
phasizing that the price in question does not really amount to a lot of
money; it can be easily paid in small change. In short, what we are dealing
with here is a distinction between value expressed by referring to concrete
objects (means of payment) and value expressed in terms of abstract units.
In the former case the plural appears, in the latter the singular.
Examining again the earlier made distinction between 'continuous unit
nouns' and 'discontinuous unit nouns', we can now observe that all integer-
independent unit words (gulden, jaar, etc.) belong to the former class.
This is not surprising, in view of the fact that always when we express
the dimensions of something in terms of abstract units, we refer to con-
tinuously ordered units.
2.1.1.2. 'Six dusty miles' and 'ten crisp new dollars'; abstract and concrete
MP's
Returning to Ross's examples (29) and (30), we are now able to give the
following comment.
If we translate in Dutch (29) We marched six dusty (etc.) miles and
(30) That'll only cost you 10 crisp new dollars, the words miles and dollars
must be translated by nouns with the plural ending. Although myI (mile)
and dollar (dollar) are integer-independent words, the b sentences below are
ungrammatical.
I
stoffige
J vermoeiende
W h bb
I
(56a) e e enzesll ange mijlen gemarcheerd.
(translation of (29»
(57a) Dat gaat je alleen maar 10 spiksplinternieuwe dollars kosten.
(translation of (30»
1
I
stoffige
vermoeiende ..
(56b) *We hebben zes I mlJl gemarcheerd.
ange
(57b) *Dat gaat je alleen maar 10 spiksplinternieuwe dollar kosten.

The Dutch translations reveal that with respect to the 'crisp new dollars'
sentence we are not dealing with an abstract unit word dollar, but with a
noun referring to concrete objects (one dollar bills), i.e., means of payment.
Similarly, the 'dusty miles' sentence does not contain an abstract unit word,
but rather a noun referring to concrete objects. An expression such as six
dusty miles evokes the image of a six-mile-long dusty road or, more pre-
cisely, six continuous dusty stretches of road, each a mile long. It does not
imply that the distance of six miles itself is dusty.
We may thus distinguish between 'abstract measure phrases' and 'con-
crete measure phrases'. The latter may contain adjectives normally modi-
fying nouns referring to concrete objects, whereas the former may not.
There are abstract measure phrases, to be sure, which do contain ad-
jectives. Some examples are:
(58) 15 vierkante kilometer
'15 square kilometer'
(59) 3 kubieke centimeter

'3 cubic centimeter'
(Notice that again the unit word is in the singUlar.)
The adjectives in (58) and (59) do not pertain to properties of concrete
objects (though in other contexts they may). The italicized words cannot
appear as the nominal predicate in sentences in which the appropriate unit
word occurs in the subject (*This kilometer is square). Words like these,
in expressions such as (58) and (59), should be considered syncategorematic
adjectives, i.e., adjectives that together with the accompanying nouns act
as single lexical items. (See also, in connection with syncategorematic
adjectives, p. 17.)
2.1.2. M P's, Relative Clauses, and Prenominal Adjectives; 'Non-Particular'

Units; Syncategorematic Adjectives
Let us now try to answer the question why (27) *My room is the two degrees
which your thermometer is too crude to register hotter than your room
and (28) *He came the 3 times that I will never forget too often to go away
a winner are ungrammatical.
It is not very difficult to think of an example containing a temperature
measure phrase which is grammatical even though a relative clause occurs
in it, the antecedent of which is a noun phrase with the unit word as the
head. Consider, for instance, (60):
(60) Je moet het water net de twee graden verhitten die nodig zijn om
het aan de kook te brengen.
'Y ou should cause the water to become just the two degrees
hotter that are needed to make it boil.'
The difference between (27) and (60) is that in the former sentence the two
degrees which the thermometer is too crude to register cannot be located at
any particular place on the scale of a thermometer, whereas in the latter
sentence the two degrees referred to are (under standard circumstances)
located just beneath the 100 degrees centigrade mark. Thus in the case of
(60) we may speak of two "particular" degrees, while in the case of (27) we
cannot. In (60) the two degrees are "particular" degrees in the sense that
they occupy a certain place on the thermometer scale. We can poil1t to
them, mark them with colours, and so on. The two degrees which the ther-
mometer of (27) is too crude to register, on the other hand, do not occupy a
specific place on the scale, we cannot point to the corresponding place on
the scale or mark it with colours. They are "non-particular" degrees in the
sense that the antecedent two degrees refers to a certain difference in tem-
perature which can be expressed in terms of distance between any apir of
points on a scale that represents a difference of two temperature units called

"degrees". Which pair of such points on the scale we may have in mind is
completely irrelevant. However, the two degrees which one room can be
hotter than another one are, in all specific cases, "particular degrees", i.e.,
we can, in any specific case, identify them on the scale as regards their place.
If in a given room A the temperature is 21 degrees centigrade and in an-
other room B 23 degrees centigrade, we can point to the marks on the scale
corresponding to their particular difference in temperature of two degrees.
It would seem, then, that the ungrammaticality of (27) can be ascribed
to the fact that in the underlying structure the reference of the antecedent
differs totally from the reference of the subject of the embedded clause.
With respect to (28) *He came the three times that I will never forget too
often to go away a winner, a similar explanation can be given. If somebody
does something three times too often, it is not clear beforehand exactly
which three times he did it too often. Suppose, for instance, that the goal-
keeper of a soccer team has let the ball pass three times too often for his
team to win. As a result the winning team has scored, say, five goals against
two. It would be nonsense to say that those three times were, for instance,
the first, the second and the fifth. Similarly, the "three times too often" in
(28) are not "particular times". On the other hand, (28) also tells us that
these were three times that the "I" will never forget. Those three times
of course are readily identifiable; they are "particular times". Thus, again
we can conclude that the reference of the antecedent is completely dif-
ferent from the reference of the underlying subject of the embedded clause.
Should we exclude, as Ross seems to suggest, relative clauses from which,
as a rule, such adjectives as stoffige (dusty), vermoeiende (weary), lange
I~~~!.iendI
(long), spiksplinternieuwe (crisp new) derive? Consider the following ex-
amples:
(61) We hebben zes mijlen gemareheerd, die waren.
f dusty 1
'We marched six miles, which were 1~:; I.'
There seems to be nothing wrong with at least the Dutch version of the
sentences (61). The examples (62) and (63), on the other hand, sound odd.
(62) ?Dat gaat je 10 dollars kosten die spiksplinternieuw zijn.
(63) ?That'll cost you 10 dollars which are crisp and new.
Certainly we cannot regard (62) as a paraphrase of Dat gaat je 10 spik-

splinternieuwe dollars kosten (That'll cost you 10 crisp new dollars). Part of
the strangeness of (62) can be accounted for in terms of the semantic
properties of kosten/cost + indirect object (see also Section 4.3). Should we
try to make something out of (62), we would get an interpretation such as
'The ten dollars which that'll cost you are crisp and new', which is strange
because it seems to imply that the person spoken to can, and will, produce
10 dollars which are crisp and new, simply because that is what the thing is
going to cost him, regardless of whether he actually will be able to pay the
dollars in question. Ifwe change (63) into That cost me 10 dollars which were
crisp and new, the strangeness for a large part disappears, because now
presumably the speaker himself knows he was in the possession of enough of
the required kind of dollars to pay ten of them.
However, the Dutch expression spiksplinternieuwe dollars does not have
the same colloquial flavour that crisp new dollars has. Instead of comparing
crisp new with spiksplinternieuwe, we may put the expression in Ross's
example on a par with the Dutch expression klinkende guldens ('ringing
guilders', i.e., guilders that do not have a "false ring", real guilders). Why
cannot the sentences (64b) serve as paraphrases of (64a)?
(64a) Dat kostte me 10 klinkende guldens.

'That cost me 10 ringing guilders.'
. {klinkend waren}
(64b) *Dat kostte me 10 guldens dIe klonken .
.
That cost me 10 gUllders that { were ringing} .'
rang
I believe that it can be maintained that klinkende in (64a) is what we may

call a 'syncategorematic' adjective, that it could be argued that it, like echt
(real) in echt geld (real money) or klinkende in klinkende munt ('ringing
coinage', real cash), is not a term (in Quine's sense 4 ) "marking out a ca-
tegory of objects in its own right." As Quine observes, a syncategorematic
adjective "makes sense only with (syn) such a term, e.g. 'mother', as part of
a further such term, e.g. 'expectant mother'. Even when a syncategorematic
adjective appears alone in the predicate, as in The honour is dubious', 'The
money is real', its dependence on its host term remains; an appropriate
4 A 'term' in, Quine's sense must be taken to be an expression which is 'true of" an object or
objects; but there are terms that are true of nothing, e.g., ·Pegasus·. (Quine (1960)).
5 "Predication", in Quine's words, "joins a general term and a singular term to form a sentence
that is true or false according as the general term is true or false of the object, if any, to which
the singular term refers." (Quine (1960), p. 96.) For instance, 'Mama (singular term) is a woman
(general term)'.
genuine predication 5 would be rather 'The thing is a dubious honour', 'The

stuff is real money'." 6
What can be said about klinkende guldens also holds for crisp new dollars;
crisp new is a combination that acts in the same way with respect to dollars
as klinkende does with respect to guldens. Crisp new might be called a 'syn-
categorematic adjectival'.
However this may be, clearly the problem at hand does not in particular
pertain to measure phrases. There are other examples, perhaps even more
convincing than the ones cited by Quine (such as his only son, the present
regime, the chief reason, an utter child, my principal enemy), which present
the same sort of problem and do not contain unit words.
To recapitulate, it would seem that relative clauses from which such
prenominal adjectives as stoffige (dusty), vermoeiende (weary), etc., derive
should not be excluded in MP sentences, and that the strangeness of sen-
tences such as (62) and (64b) is attributable to factors foreign to the question
of whether MP's are noun phrases or not.
2.1.3. 'Each/Either/Some of the' + M P; Differentiation and Individualization

I will now offer some comment on the examples (25a)-(25t) given earlier.
Ifin (25a, b) *Deze doos is ieder/een (or welke ook maar)/elk van de twee
voet lang (This box is each/one (no matter which) of the two feet long) we
substitute the singular voet by the plural voeten, thus getting (65)-(67),
below, the resulting sentences are again ungrammatical. To (65)-(67) may
be added (68), which is a similarly altered version of the earlier example
(25t), and which is equally ungrammatical.
(65) *Deze do os is ieder van de 2 voeten lang.
'This box is each of the 2 feet long.'
(66) *Deze do os is een (or welke ook maar) van de 2 voeten lang.
'This box is one (no matter which) of the 2 feet long.' (either
of the)
(67) *Deze doo's is elk van de 2 voeten lang.
'This box is each of the 2 feet long.' (either of the)
(68) *Deze doos is enige van de 10 voeten lang.
'This box is a number of the 10 feet long.' (some of the)
As we saw (p. 9), voet is an integer-independent unit word, but as we noted
(cf. (35)-(40» there are cases in which such unit words must occur in the
plural. Words that 'differentiate' (i.e., require the plural form, see p. 10) are
enkele ('a few', 'a small number of), ettelijke ('a fair number of), enige ('a
number of'), honderden (,hundreds of'), etc. It might be that expressions like
6 Quine (1960). p. 103.
MEASURE PHRASE SENTENCES; SOME OBSER VA TIONS 19
een ('one'), welke ook maar ('any', 'one', 'no matter which'), ieder ('each'),
elk ('each'), also somehow require the plural if they occur in expressions
such as the ones italicized in (65)-(68). (Cf. Dougherty (l968b), where such
words are said to carry the feature [ + individual]. See also p. 61 in Chapter
II). Therefore, it may be that we have eliminated one factor contributing to
the ungrammaticality of(25a, b, f) by replacing the singular voet by the plural
voeten. But the "individualizing" effect of the italicized expressions in
(65)-(68) still plays a role in the ungrammaticality of these sentences. Their
presence causes the abstract units of length to be represented as individual
entities differing from each other in a respect in which in· fact they are
identical.
When we measure the length of a given object, we do so in terms of
standard distance between points on a straight line. We can say that, tor all
units called "foot" which are continuously ordered on a measuring rod, any
foot is identical to any other foot as regards distance. They are non-identical
only with respect to their location on the rod. Since the location on a measur-
ing rod of any pair of points having a distance of one foot is totally irrelevant
if we want to express the length of an object in terms ofa specified number of
feet, it is not necessary to individualize the units. Just as it is irrelevant, for
instance, which of two guilders we pay for something as far as value is
concerned, it is irrelevant which of two feet on a measuring rod we point to
in order to indicate the length of a foot-long object. In other words, the
length of a foot-long object is not any "particular" foot.
In the three next subsections (2.1.3.1-3), a few further facts bearing upon
the examples (25a-f) will be discussed.
2.1.3.1. Definiteness and indefiniteness .. ;ncorporation of the definite element

If we omit in (65)-(68) van de + integer and change the plural into the
singular where this is required, we get (69)-(72):
(69) * Deze do os is iedere voet lang.
'This box is each (every) foot long.'
(70) Deze do os is een voet lang. *Deze doos is welke voet ook maar
lang.
'This box is one foot long.' 'This box is any foot long.'
(71) *Deze doos is elke voet lang.
This box is either/each/every foot long.'
(72) *Deze doos is enige voeten lang.
This box is a number of feet long.'
The expression welke voet ook maar in the second sentence of (70) has
exactly the same meaning as elke willekeurige voet ('any arbitrary foot').
The difference between, on the one hand, een (one) (and all other integers,
for that matter) and enige (some, a number of), and, on the other hand, iedere
(each, every) and elke (each, or in the case of two, either), is that the former
may occur in indefinite noun phrases and the latter can only occur in de-
finite noun phrases. In eliminating van de + integer, we have eliminated a
definite article (de). But in (69) and (71) there is still a definite element
present. It is incorporated in iedere en elke. In the second sentence of (70),
welke ... ook maar, which is equivalent to elke willekeurige, also a definite
element is present. The distinction between the two groups of expressions
pointed out above also holds for, on the one hand, enkele ('a few', 'a small
number of), ettelijke ('a fair number of), which may occur in indefinite noun
phrases, and, on the other hand, aIle (a/l), beide (both), de meeste (most),
which occur in definite phrases.
Simple declarative sentences with indefinite noun phrases as subjects
normally start with the word er ('there'). But er is excluded in sentences
with definite subjects. 7 Thus we have Er loopt een jongen op het gras (,There
walks a boy on the grass'), but not *Er loopt de jongen op het gras ('There
walks the boy on the grass'). The following examples 8 show the definite/
indefinite distinction between the two groups of words under consideration.
(73) Er liep een jongen op het gras.
'There walked one boy on the grass.'
(74) Er gingen enkele maanden voorbij.
There passed a few months.'
(75) Er waren ettelijke maanden verstreken.
'There had passed a fair number of months.'
(76) Er gingen enige kinderen met ons mee.
'There went a number of children with us.'
(77) *Er liep {~ldke
Ie ere
} jongen op het gras.
'There walked each/every boy on the grass.'
(7S) *Er lie pen aIle jongens op het gras.
'There walked all the boys on the grass.'
(79) *Er liepen beide jongens op het gras.
'There walked both boys on the grass.'
(SO) *Er gingen de meeste kinderen met ons mee.
'There went most children. with us.'
That aile and beide are definite is also borne out by (SI b, c, d) and (S2b, c, d),
7 See Bech (1952) on the Dutch word er. Also Kraak (1966). Chapter VI. Section 26.
8 Examples like (73)-(82d) are given in Kraak and Klooster (1968). Chapter 5.
which are synonymous with (Sla) and (S2a), respectively. The b, c and d
sentences contain the definite article de.
(SIa) AIle kinderen waren ziek.
'All children were ill.'
(SIb) De kinderen waren alle(n) ziek.
(SIc) De kinderen waren allemaal ziek.
(SId) Al de kinderen waren ziek.
(S2a) Beide kinderen waren ziek.
'Both children were ill.'
(S2b) De kinderen waren beide(n) ziek.
(S2c) De kinderen waren allebei ziek.
(S2d) Allebei de kinderen waren ziek.
The ungrammaticality of (69) *Deze doos is iedere voet lang (,This box is
each/every foot long') and (71) *Deze doos is elke voet lang (This box is
either/each/every foot long') can now be explained by the presence of an
underlying definite article, incorporated in ieder ( e) and elk ( e). The definite
article individualizes. It is because of this, that it is excluded before abstract
measure phrases, which do not refer to quantities of "particular" units. This
is demonstrated by (66) and (70), and by (6S) and (72).
Notice, meanwhile, that whereas the article is incorporated in words like
aile, iedere, elke, beide, as well as in enige and (in certain cases, see p. 23)
enkele, ettelijke, it is not incorporated in words like honderden (hundreds of),
duizenden (thousands of), tientallen (tens; in Dutch, the word twintigtallen
('twenties') is not as commonly used as scores is in English. In many cases,
however, we may translate tientallen as scores or dozens). Although enkele,
ettelijke, enige, as well as honderden, duizenden, etc., have in common the
property that they require that the unit word be in the plural, there is a sign-
ificant difference between negative sentences containing, on the one hand,
enkele etc., and, on the other hand, honderden, etc. With respect to negative
sentences, furthermore, words like honderden belong to the same group as
integers. The difference in question can be explained by the difference with
respect to incorporation or non-incorporation of the indefinite article. Con-
sider, for example, the following sentences.
(S3a) Hij had tientallen kleinkinderen.
'He had dozens of grandchildren.'
(S4a) Hij had tien kleinkinderen.
'He had ten grandchildren.'
(S5a) Hij had I :;;~~e 1kleinkinderen.

emge
I
'He had a IJ
small number
fair number of grandchildren.'
number
(83b) Hij had geen tientallen kleinkinderen.
'He had no dozens of grandchildren.' (did not have dozens of)
(84b) Hij had geen lien kleinkinderen.
'He had no len grandchildren.' (did not have ten)
I enkele I
I
(85b) *Hij had geen 1etll!lijke J kleinkinderen.
I
emge
small number
'He had no a fair number of grandchildren.'
I
number
(85c) Hij had niet

enkele I
J kleinkinderen.
ett~/ijke
I
emge
small number I
'He had not a fair number f of grandchildren.' (did not have
number etc.)
(86a) Het duurde tientallen minuten.
'It lasted dozens of minutes.'
I
(87a) Het duurde lien minuten.
'It lasted ten minutes.'
(88a) Het duurde Ir enkele

ett~/ijke minuten.
I small number I
emge
'It lasted a 1fair number J of minutes.'

number
(86b) Het duurde geen tientallen minuten.
'It lasted no dozens of minutes.' (did not last etc.)
(87b) Het duurde geen tien minuten.
I
'It lasted no ten minutes.' (did not last etc.)
enkele I
I
(88b) *Het duurde geen ett~lijke f minuten.
emge
'It lasted no a If fair

small number
number of minutes.'
number
MEASURE PHRASE SENTENCES; SOME OBSER VA TIONS 23
(88c) Het duurde niet 1:;t;~~~e Iminuten.

I
emge
'It lasted not a 1 ;:;~:;:,er of minutes.' (did not last etc.)

number
As the examples demonstrate, geen is excluded before enkele, ettelijke and
enige.
Before plural nouns as well as before mass nouns the indefinite article is
phonologically null, as in Er zijn kinderen in de tuin (,There are children in the
garden'), Er zit geld in zijn portemonnee (There is money in his purse').
Irrespective of whether it is null or non-null (0 or een), in negative sentences
the indefinite article fuses with NEG to form geen (no, as in I have no money =
Ik heb geen geld, I have no guilders = Ik heb geen guldens). We can explain the
ungrammaticality of (85b) and (88b) by saying that since the indefinite
article has already been incorporated in enkele, ettelijke and enige, it cannot
fuse with NEG. Geen is not excluded, on the other hand, before words like
tientallen (scores, dozens) or before integers, since the indefinite article is
never incorporated in them and is therefore free to fuse with NEG (cf. (83b),
(84b), (86b) and (87b».
As I indicated on p. 21, ettelijke and enkele do not always incorporate the
indefinite article. Otherwise it would be impossible to explain why we can
have such expressions as de ettelijke kilometers die hij ajlegde ('the fair
amount of kilometers that he covered') and de enkele meters die hen scheid-
den ('the few meters that separated them'). We do not have, on the other
hand, *de enige kilo's die de steen woog (something like 'the a number of
kilograms that the stone weighed').
2.1.3.2. Numerical elements and numbers

How are we to account for the fact that enkele, ettelijke, enige as well as
words like tientallen require the plural form of unit words regardless of
whether they are integer-independent or not, while integers do not? There is
a fairly regular relation between this difference and the different ways of
forming the English equivalents of Dutch expressions containing words of
of either group, which may lead us to an answer. Of the examples below, the
ones marked b are translations of the ones marked a.
(89a) enkele meters
(89b) a small number of meters
(90a) ettelijke meters
(90b) a fair number of meters
(9la) enige meters

(9lb) a number of meters
(92a) honderden meters
(92b) hundreds of meters
(93a) een groot aantal meters (= veel meters)
(93b) a large number of meters (= many meters)
(94a) tien meter
(94b) ten meters
(95a) een paar meter
(95b) a few meters
Notice that where the Dutch expression contains the plural meters, the
corresponding English expression contains the preposition of, but where
the Dutch expression contains the singular meter, the preposition is absent
in the English equivalent. It is not implausible to surmise that in these cases
the English versions more truly reflect underlying structure than the Dutch
equivalents, all the more so because the underlying indefinite article, which
is not apparent in the Dutch examples, is manifested as a word in their
English counterparts in the case of (89a)--(9l b).
The structure underlying expressions of the type of (89)--(93) therefore
might be something like I.
I INDEF + X + NUMBER + Y + OF + N + PLURAL

where 'X' may be null or an element underlying adjectives like small or
large, 'NUMBER' corresponds to such words as score, or number (in Dutch:
twintigtal, aantal, respectively; notice that the suffixes are identical) and
'Y' may be PLURAL or SINGULAR.
The structure underlying expressions of the type of (94) and (95) might
look roughly like II,
II INDEF + NE + N + PLURAL
where 'NE' stands for 'numerical element', which may dominate an integer
or paar as it occurs in een paar meter (a few meters).
Een paar in certain cases means a pair. If it has the latter meaning, it is not
an NE, but a NUMBER. Accordingly, in that case the English equivalent
contains the preposition of The noun followingpaar in Dutch then must be
in the plural. The expressions (96a) and (97a), below, are identical in form but
differ in meaning. In addition, we have (98a), which has only one meaning.
(96a) een paar voeten

(96b) a pair of feet
(97a) een paar voeten
(97b) a few feet
(98a) een paar voet
(98b) a few feet
It would seem that there is some rule in Dutch to the effect that, if N is an
integer-independent unit preceded by NE, the plural ending is deleted, or
simply not realized phonologically.
Notice, incidentally, thatpaar may be preceded by het/dat/dit (the/that/
this, neuter gender) or de/die/deze (the/those/these, plural for both genders).
In the former case paar means pair and is a NUMBER, in the latter case it
means few as in a few, and is an NE:
(99a)
I~;e I paar gulden (NE)
,I ~~:se I
deze
few guilder'
these
f 1I
het
(99b)
I dat paar voeten (NUMBER)
,I~~;t I
dit
pair of feet'
I~:~ I
thIs
(99c) * (NUMBER)
,I :~;t I
paar gulden
dit
pair of guilder'
this
The gender of the definite article and the demonstrative pronoun is deter-
mined by the gender of paar if it is a NUMBER (the gender of paar is neuter).
In general, if a NUMBER word precedes the unit word, the gender of the
article or pronoun preceding the NUMBER word is determined by the gen-
der of the latter. If a numerical element precedes the unit word, the
article or pronoun preceding the numerical element is in the plural (for all
genders de/die/deze), or, if the NE is 1, its singular form is determined by
the gender of the unit noun. Thus, in the case of uur (neuter gender), we have
for instance, dat ene uur ('that one hour'), die twee uur ('those two hour'), and
in the case of gulden (masculine gender), die ene gulden ('that one guilder'),
die twee gulden ('those two guilder').
Besides integers and een paar ('a few'), the words hoeveel ('how many')
and zoveel ('that amount of) should also be considered NE's. If hoeveel or
zoveel precedes an integer-independent unit noun, the latter does not take
on the plural form (cf. Hoeveel kilo weegt hy?('How many kilo weighs he?'),
Hy weegt zoveel kilo (,He weighs so many kilo'». On the other hand, veel
('many'), as we noted (p. 10, example (39», is a NUMBER word.
2.1.3.3. 'Parto!(the)'+MP
Of the examples (25a)-(25f), we have not yet dealt with (25c, e) *Deze doos
is een deel/stuk van de twee (or lien) voet lang (This box is part of the two (or
ten) feet long').
As was the case with the other 'box' examples, if we substitute voet by
voeten, the resulting sentence is still ungrammatical. We do not have *Deze
doos is een deel van de twee voeten lang. In fact. the latter sentence sounds
even worse than the corresponding one with the unit word in the singular.
If we eliminate the definite article, getting *Deze doos is een deel van twee
voet lang (This box is part of two feet long'), we still have a bad sentence.
The cause of the ungrammaticality of this sentence comes into focus if we
try to analyze what it might mean. A re-wording of it might go like this:
"There is a pair of points on a two-foot segment which have a distance equal
to the length of this box'. A statement such as this is strange, for consider
the two logical possibilities there are: (a) the box is exactly 2 feet long, or
(b) the box is less than 2 feet long. If (a) is the case, there is only one pair of
points on a 2-foot segment which have a distance equal to the box's length.
If the sentence in question is to be understood that way, it is just an odd and
superfluous way of saying "This box is two feet long". If (b) is the case, there
is an infinite number of pairs of points on the two-foot segment having a
distance equal to the box's length. Now in logicians' talk, there is an x
means 'there is at least one x, there are one or more x's', but in ordinary
language there is an x means that there is one x. What our sentence conveys,
then, is that there is one pair of points on a two-foot segment which cor-
responds to the box's length, which obviously is nonsensical in the case of
(b) for the same reason as is any statement expressing length in terms of a
unique pair of points on a measuring rod. I think it must be concluded that
the nonoccurrence of sentences like (25c, e) is due to certain characteristics
of what measure phrases denote rather than that it would have anything to
do with whether or not MP's are noun phrases.
2.1.4. Demonstratives, Possessive Pronouns, 'Principal', 'Chief', 'Utter'

Turning, finally, to Ross's example (26), *Het concert duurde diejmijnjde
voornaamste 20 minuten (The concert lasted those/my/the principal 20 min-
utes), we can say that the first of the three sentences of (26) (the one with the
demonstrative pronoun) is ungrammatical for the same reason as are the
sentences (25a-f), (65)--(68), (69) and (71), all of which contain one or more
definite articles in their underlying structure. The same goes for the second
sentence of (26) (the one containing the possessive pronoun). All possessive
pronouns, of course, are definite (cf. (l00».
mijn
jouw
Uw
haar
(100) *Er liep kind op het gras.
ZIJn
ons
jullie
hun
my
your
her
'There walked child on the grass.'
his
our
their
As for the third sentence, containing the word principal, notice that if this
word is translated as voornaamste (a superlative form), it only occurs preced-
ed by the definite article. It can also be translated by hoofd-, as may be done
in the case of, e.g., principal cause (hoofdoorzaak). In that case it may be
preceded by the indefinite article: Dat was een hoofdoorzaak (,That was a
principal cause'). The third sentence of example (26) is ungrammatical for
two reasons. Apart from the fact that the definite article causes it to be un-
grammatical, the word voornaamste causes the sentence to present a set of
abstract units of time as if they, in themselves, could be distinguished in any
way from any other such unit. As in (65)-(68) *Deze doos is iederjeen (or
welke ook maar)/elk/enige van de 2 voeten lang, the units are presented as
"particular", that is, unique, units, where they cannot be.
The fact that words like principal (voornaamste, hoofd-), chief (voornaam-
ste, opperste, eerste, hoofd-, opper-) and utter (volslagen, volstrekt, uiterst,
totaal) are excluded before MP's (as Ross observes), is in no wayan indica-
tion that MP's are not noun phrases. A phrase such as de baard (the beard),
for instance, is without a doubt a noun phrase. Yet the following sentences
are ungrammatical:
(101) *H··IJ sc h oor van ZIJn

.. . h td e
gezlc {voornaamste}
l I baard a.f
vo sagen
principal1
1
*He shaved the chief J beard off his face.
utter
Having examined the facts observed in the preceding sections, we may con-
clude, I think, that if we should want to claim that measure phrases are noun
phrases, the examples (25a) and (26)-{30) cited by Ross would not form a
serious obstacle.
2.2. Recapitulation
Meanwhile, in the discussion of (25a) and (26)-{30) a few important facts

about MP's have come up. Let us recapitulate.
First of all, MP's may contain either of two kinds of unit words: integer-
independent unit nouns and integer-dependent unit nouns.
Another distinction that can be made among unit words is that they either
are (I) nouns referring to 'abstract units', or (2) 'concrete nouns' or 'Type II
nouns'. We can also distinguish between 'continuous unit nouns' and 'dis-
continuous unit nouns'. A unit word is a noun referring to an abstract unit
if and only if it is a continuous unit noun. The term 'discontinuous unit noun'
isjust an alternative for 'Type II noun', that is, discontinuous unit nouns per-
tain to the parameter of duration and refer to things that are not contin-
uously ordered per se (two meetings may not be contiguous on the time
axis, two afternoons are never contiguous).
If a unit word is integer-independent, it is a continuous unit noun (but not
vice versa). Although it seems odd to think of an integer-independent unit
word like man ('hands' (e.g. ofa crew)) as a continuous unit noun, a moment
of reflection will make us see that it in fact is not so strange. Recall that
continuous unit nouns are abstract. This means that if we want to express
the strength of, say, a group of soldiers in terms of a number of units, we
take abstraction from the concrete individuality of the men in such a way
that we can represent the strength of the group on a scale of continuously
ordered units, that is, as a set of intervals with a standard length, and in such
a way that each unit on the scale is contiguous with the next one. An anal-
ogous case in English is the unit word head (of cattle), which is also integer-
independent. One herd may be compared to another one by representing the
number of cattle of each herd graphically by means of continuously ordered
units. The only special thing about such unit words as Dutchman and English
head ofcattle is that in the case of small numbers they do not occur in measure
phrases which are preceded by words like bijna (almost), or which contain
fractional numbers (*2t man, *bijna 3 man; an exception is formed by the
facetious expression anderhalve man en een paardekop (' 1t man and a horse's
head'), meaning 'very few people').
Continuous unit nouns have the property of referring to units which, if
represented on a scale, are identical in all respects except location. It is due
to this that only under certain circumstances may units or sets of units be
individualized (iedere meter die hij aflegde, 'each meter he covered'), de
laatste mijl ('the last mile'). Individualization is caused by the definite article
and other words which are definite. It causes a unit or set of units to be
presented as unique, i.e., as a "particular" unit or set of units.
'Differentiation', that is, not giving the quantity as a whole, but in the form
of the constituent parts, occurs in expressions like verscheidene kilometers,
honderden meters (several kilometers, hundreds of meters). (Verscheidene
etymologically comes from a word which means 'differentiated'.) Another
form of differentiation occurs in Hij wachtte een uur en nog een uur (He
waited for an hour and another hour). This type of differentiation will be dis-
cussed later on, when the relation between duren (last), and gedurende (for
(the duration of) will be dealt with.
In the case of individualization of a set of units, integer-independent unit
words preceded by an integer greater than I do not have the plural ending.
In the case of differentiation caused by such words as verscheidene, the plural
ending is always required. MP's may contain a NUMBER noun (aantal,
honderdtal(len) , honderden, tweetal, paar, etc.), or a numerical element
(NE), such as integers or paar (few as in a few). NUMBER nouns have a
differentiating effect, numerical elements do not.
The formal description of MP's will be discussed elsewhere (p. 180ff.).
3. PARAMETER ADJECTIVES AND MEASURE ADJECTIVES
As we saw from examples such as (5) Jan is 2 meter lang ('John is 2 meters
tall'), (6) Ze is 12 jaar oud ('She is 12 years old') and (7) De lat is
2 centimeter dik ('The lath is 2 centimeters thick'), there are adjectives which
take measure phrases in the same way as verbs like wegen and kosten do.
The class of adjectives that may occur in combination with MP's in this
manner (Le., in simple MP sentences) I shall refer to as 'measure ad-
jectives'.
From the examples given in the preceding sections, it can be seen that
ordinarily MP's in Dutch contain words referring to units of length,
weight, etc. (unit words). There are some exceptions. One is formed by
30 THE S T Rue T U R E UN DE R L YIN G M P SEN TEN C E S
sentences in which age of humans is referred to, in which case the unit
word may be omitted (cf. (12) Ze is twaalf (,She is twelve'». Other cases
in which the unit word may be omitted are to be found among MP sentences
pertaining to monetary value, if that value is expressed in guilders and
cents (e.g., Dat hoek kost twaalf vi}ftig (,That book costs twelve fifty'»,
and also among MP sentences pertaining to length and weight (e.g., Hi)
is een vijfentachtig (lang) (,He is one eighty five (tall)'), Hij weegt 81 ('He
weighs 81 '».
We may call length, monetary value, weight, etc., the 'parameters'
relevant to the units in question. The concept of 'parameter' is also
relevant in connection with measure adjectives, since they convey what
parameters we are talking about. However, there are adjectives which,
though pertaining to parameters, do not occur freely in association with
MP's. Adjectives of the latter type, together with measure adjectives,
constitute a class which I shall refer to as 'parameter adjectives'.
3.1. Parameter Adjectives

A number of parameter adjectives may occur in combination with an MP
only if they have the comparative form or if they are preceded by te (too), as
is demonstrated in the following examples:
(102) *Het water is 30 grad en warm.
The water is 30 degrees warm.'
(103) *Het boek is 12 gulden duur.
'The book is 12 guilders expensive.'
(104) Het water is 5 graden warmer/te warm.
'The water is 5 degrees warmer/too warm.'
(105) Het boek is 2 gulden duurder/te duur.
'The book is 2 guilders more expensive/too expensive.'
But, as we saw from (5)-{7), there is no such restriction with respect to such
measure adjectives as lang (tall, long) and oud (old). I will return to this
question on p. 101 and I 22ff.
Another distinction among parameter adjectives is illustrated by the
difference between, for instance, the adjective lang (long) used in con-
nection with duration (een lange pauze ('a long intermission'» and the
adjective lang used in connection with the one-space parameter (een lange
stok ('a long stick'». This difference can be demonstrated by comparing
lang with other parameter adjectives in the following way.
A temperature adjective, for instance, may not occur as a modifier of
the word temperatuur (temperature). Similarly, adjectives pertaining to
height, and those pertaining to monetary value cannot modify the words
hoogte (height) and prijs (price), respectively, and so on. Expressions like
(106) *een warme temperatuur

'a warm temperature'
(107) *een hoge hoogte
'a high (tall) height'
(108) *een lage hoogte
'a low height'
(109) *een dure prijs
'an expensive price'
(110) *een goedkope prijs
'a cheap price'
are ungrammatical.
It should be noted, in this connection, that we must distinguish between
two words hoog, say, hoog 1 and hoog 2 • Hoog 1 is a measure adjective and
carries the meaning 'tall' or 'high' in relation to physical objects. Hoog 2
expresses extent or degree. Thus we have een hoge temperatuur ('a high
temperature'), een hoge prijs ('a high price'). A similar distinction should
be made with respect to groot 1 and groot 2 ('large', 'big', 'great'). Groot 1
is a parameter adjective (een grote kamer ('a large room')). Groot 2 expresses
again extent or degree, but it occurs with different parameter nouns than
hoog 2 does. We do not have, e.g., *een grote temperatuur ('a great tempera-
ture') or *Het wordt verkocht voor een grote prijs ('It is being sold at a great
price'). Rather, it occurs in such expressions as een grote hoogte ('a great
height'), een grote afstand ('a great distance'), etc. The words gering and
klein may be used as the antonyms of groot 2 , whereas the antonym of groot 1
is only klein. The antonym of haog in both senses is [aag ('low'). Hoog 2 and
its antonym laag have a paraphrase relation with the verbs stijgen ('rise')
and dalen ('drop', 'fall'), respectively; groot 2 and its antonym gering with
toenemen ('increase') and afnemen ('decrease'). Thus we have de prijzen
stijgen/dalen ('the prices rise/drop'), de afstand neemt tae/neemt af ('the
distance increases/decreases'), but not *de prijzen nemen toe/nemen af ('the
prices increase/decrease') or *de afstand stijgt/daalt ('the distance rises/
drops'). (See also (161)-(164) on p. 42.)
While, as we saw from (106)-(110), such parameter adjectives as warm,
hoog1 , etc., cannot modify nouns referring to the corresponding parameters,
an expression like (Ill), below, is perfectly correct:
(111) een lange duur

'a long duration'
Furthermore, as a rule parameter adjectives cannot be combined with the

corresponding 'middle verbs'. Thus we do not have, e.g.,
(112) *Dat kost duur.
'That costs expensive. '
(113) *Dat kost goedkoop.
'That costs cheap.'
(114) *Jan weegt zwaar.
'John weighs heavy.'
(115) *Jan weegt licht.
'John weighs light.'
But a sentence like
(116) Het concert duurde lang.
'The concert lasted long.'
is perfectly correct. Admittedly, many children and a considerable number
of adult speakers use sentences like (112), (114) and (115). But I think it
can be maintained that they are ungrammatical, or substandard. As any
speaker of standard Dutch will agree, the sentences in question have a
pleonastic air about them. Why this is so, will be explained later on, when
we will have discussed the underlying structures of sentences with kosten
and wegen. Sentences such as Dat kost veel or Dat is duur (,That costs
much', 'That is expensive'), Jan weegt veel or Jan is zwaar ('John weighs
much', 'John is heavy') and Jan weegt weinig or Jan is licht ('John weighs
little', 'John is light') are much better.
The combination zwaar wegen may, however, occur in a sentence such as
(117) Dat argument weegt zwaar.

'That argument weighs heavy.' (carries much weight)
But the verb wegen clearly does not have the "literal" meaning here. Or,
perhaps more accurately, it is a different verb, not having the meaning
of wegen used in connection with physical objects, a word with different
paraphrases. The sentences (l18a) and (119a), below, are grammatical,
but the corresponding b sentences are not.
(118a) Die steen weegt veel.

'That stone weighs much.'
(118b) *Dat argument weegt veel.
'That argument weighs much.'
(119a) Die steen weegt niets.
'That stone weighs nothing.'
(lI9b) *Dat argument weegt niets.

'That argument weighs nothing.'
That there must be a difference between, on the one hand, the relation
lang has to duren, and, on the other hand, the relation of such adjectives
as duur ('expensive') and zwaar ('heavy') to kosten and wegen, respectively,
is also suggested by the fact that duren may not be followed by quanti-
ficatory phrases which may follow kosten en wegen:
(120) Dat kost haast niets.
That costs almost nothing.'
(121) Jan weegt haast niets.
'John weighs almost nothing.'
(122) *Het concert duurde haast niets.
'The concert lasted almost nothing.' 9
Apparently, the adjective lang used in connection with duration, is not
a 'duration adjective' in the sense in which a word like warm is a 'tem-
perature adjective' or a word like zwaar a 'weight adjective'. To keep my
terminology clear, I shall not call lang a 'duration adjective', although no
doubt it is a parameter adjective.
What has been said of lang with respect to duration, partly holds for
the adjective ver (far) with respect to range, and the adjective diep (deep)
with respect to draught (of ships), as the following examples show:
(I 23a) Het geschut draagt ver.
'The artillery carries far.'
(123b) Het schip steekt diep.
The ship draws deep.'
(I 24a) *Het geschut draagt haast niets.
The artillery carries almost nothing.'
(I 24b) *Het schip steekt haast niets.
'The ship draws almost nothing.'
However, although we have (Ill) een lange duur ('a long duration'), we
do not have (125a, b):
(I 25a) *een ver bereik
(125b) *een diepe diepgang
instead, we must have:
(I 26a) een groot bereik
(126b) een grote diepgang
9 I am indebted for these examples to H. J. Verkuyl.
I will return to the problems posed by these observations later on

(Chapter IV).
3.2. Objective Gradables and Subjective Gradables;

Neutral and Non-Neutral Sense
All parameter adjectives are grad ables, i.e., they may occur in the com-
parative form or the superlative form, be preceded by te (too), erg (very), etc.
Gradables can be subdivided into two classes, which I shall call 'sub-
jective gradables' and 'objective gradables'. All measure adjectives are
objective gradables. All objective grad abies tum out to be parameter ad-
jectives, and vice versa, by the criteria that I am following. Parameter
adjectives, in the sense in which I prefer to use this term, refer to
properties which can be measured. Thus, beautiful is not a parameter
adjective; it is a subjective grad able, because beauty cannot be measured
objectively, or rather, no theory of beauty has been developed thus far
which would enable us to express beauty in terms of standard units.
The difference between objective gradables and subjective gradables can
be characterized in terms of possible occurrence on the place of the
blank in constructions of the form Ik vind x -er dan y ('I find x --er
than y (more - than y)'). Although, with a few exceptions,10 grad abies
may occur in the complement of vinden ('find', 'think', as in I find/think
her beautiful), only subjective grad abies may occur in the construction
indicated (cf. (1 27a)-(l 28c».
(l27a) Jan is langer dan Piet.
'John is taller than Peter.'
(l28a) Ingrid is mooier dan Marie.
'Ingrid is more beautiful than Mary.'
(l27b) Ik vind J an lang.
'I find John tall.'
(128b) Ik vind Ingrid mooi.
'I find Ingrid beautiful.'
(127c) *Ik vind Jan langer dan Piet.
'I find John taller than Peter.'
(128c) Ik vind Ingrid mooier dan Marie.
'I find Ingrid more beautiful than Mary.'
10 Exceptions are gradables like misselijk ("sick', 'nauseated'). Such words refer to experiences
which cannot be shared with others. Subjective statements like *Ik vind hem zeeziek ('I find/
think him seasick') are odd because the experience of seasickness cannot be subject to judg-
ments of this sort on the part of others than the one who feels seasick. Adjectives of this kind
may, however, occur in contexts like Ik voel me - ('I feel -').
Many objective gradables (and, among these, all measure adjectives) can
be used in a "neutral" sense, whereas subjective grad abIes invariably
lack this capacity. The difference between the neutral oud (old) and
the non-neutral oud (id.) is demonstrated in the following examples:
(129) Die jonge persoon is 12 jaar oud.

'That young person is 12 years old.'
(130) Die persoon is oud.
'That person is old.'
(131) *Die jonge persoon is oud.
'That young person is old.'
In (129), oud is used in the neutral sense. If we leave out the MP, we
obtain (131). Omitting the MP has the effect, as it were, of turning oud
into the non-neutral adjective; (130), in which oud is non-neutral, is
possible, but (131), in which oud is non-neutral as well, is odd because
oud now contradicts jonge (young).
Consider the difference between the a sentences and the b sentences of
the examples below:
(l32a) Truus is even oud als Ingrid.

'Trudy is just as old as Ingrid.'
(132b) Truus is even mooi als Ingrid.
'Trudy is as beautiful as Ingrid.'
(l33a) Truus is ouder dan Ingrid.

'Trudy is older than Ingrid.'
(133b) Truus is mooier dan Ingrid.
'Trudy is more beautiful than Ingrid.'
In (132a), we do not presuppose that Trudy or Ingrid is old, whereas in

(l32b) we do assume that both are beautiful. Similarly, in (l33a) Trudy
need not be old, in (133b) we presuppose that she is beautiful. In (l32a)
and (l33a) the word oud is used in the neutral sense. However, mooi,
which is a subjective gradable, cannot be used in the neutral sense even
though it occurs in the same context here as oud does.
Moreover, whereas (133a) entails (134), and vice versa, (133b) does
not entail (135) or vice versa:
(134) Ingrid is jonger dan Truus.

'Ingrid is younger than Trudy.'
(135) Ingrid is lelijker dan Truus.
'Ingrid is uglier than Trudy.'
Vol (full) is an objective grad able in (136), for we do not have (138)
alongside (137):
(136) Het glas is vol.
'The glass is full.'
(137) Het glas is nu voller dan het was.
'The glass is now fuller than it was.'
(138) *Ik vind het glas voller dan het was.
'I find the glass fuller than it was.'
But there is no neutral sense of vol; (137) does not entail (139a) or vice
versa; (139b), on the other hand, means the same as (137):
(139a) Het glas was leger dan het nu is.
'The glass was emptier than it is now.'
(139b) Het glas was minder vol dan het nu is.
'The glass was less full than it is now.'
The situation appears to be that if an adjective is a subjective gradable
it cannot be used in the neutral sense. But the converse does not hold.
3.2.1. 'Warm'; Non-Neutral, Subjective or Objective

The adjective warm forms a complicated case. It appears that it can be
used both as a subjective gradable, and as an objective gradable, but it
cannot be used in the neutral sense. Thus, if it is used as an objective
gradable, it behaves like vol. That warm can be used as a subjective
grad able is borne out by the fact that (140), below, is grammatical.
(140) Ik vind het water warmer dan de melk.
'I find the water warmer than the milk.'
However, (140) is only appropriate in situations where no measuring
device is used. It is just a statement conveying what is being perceived
directly about the temperature of water and milk. A well-known experiment
demonstrates that perception of temperature can be highly deceptive. If,
after having put one hand in hot water and the other one in cold, one puts
both hands in water of "average" temperature, the same water can be both
"cool" and "warm" at the same time. We are speaking of this kind of
warmth when using a sentence like (140). The word warm can be used in
an objective way, however. A statement like
(141) Het water is warmer dan de melk.
'The water is warmer than the milk.'
may be checked with a thermometer. But there is no way to use warm in
a neutral sense. Sentence (141) does not entail (142) exactly:
(142) De melk is kouder dan het water.

'The milk is colder than the water.'
Rather, (141) entails (143):
(143) De melk is minder warm dan het water.
'The milk is less warm than the water.'
Consider also the following example:
(144) Het water is even warm als de melk.
'The water is just as warm as the milk.'
In (144) it is presupposed that the water and the milk are not cold,
whereas in (132a) Truus is even oud als Ingrid ('Trudy is just as old
as Ingrid') there is no reason why Trudy and Ingrid should not be young.
3.2.1.1. 'Warm' and other gradables in 'hoe' questions

The word hoe (how) in combination with a subjective gradable questions
the subjective degree, while if it is combined with an objective gradable,
it is the MP which is questioned, or an objective measure which is not
expressed by an MP proper (e.g., voor de helft (half». Let us call MP's
and such phrases as voor de helft 'quantificatory phrases'. It can then
be said that adjectives occurring in combination with quantificatory
phrases cannot occur in the complement of vinden. Thus, we do not have:
(145) *Ik vind het glas half vol.
'I find the glass half full.'
(146) *Ik vind Jan twee meter lang.
'I find John two meters tall.'
Since hoe in combination with such adjectives questions quantificatory
phrases, the following sentences are also ungrammatical:
(146a) *Hoe vol vind je het glas?
'How full do you find the glass?'
(147a) *Hoe lang vind je Jan?
'How tall do you find John?'
If we use hoe in combination with a subjective gradable, we get a question
which is not entirely ungrammatical but appears to be difficult to answer.
Thus, a question like
(148) ?Hoe mooi is Truus?
'How beautiful is Trudy?'
is not answerable in the sense in which such hoe questions with objective
gradables like vol and lang are answerable:
(149) Hoe lang is Jan?

'How tall is John?'
(150) Hoe vol is het glas?
'How full is the glass?'
The only possible answers to (148) seem to be sentences like Mooier dan
Ingrid ("More beautiful than Ingrid'), Minstens zo mooi als Ingrid ('At
least as beautiful as Ingrid'), but such answers do not sound very adequate.
Heel mooi ('Very beautiful') sounds odd as an answer. Hoe questions
containing subjective grad abIes which occur as the complement of vinden
sound somewhat better than such hoe questions not occurring in the com-
plement of this verb but, though better than (148), they still are unnatural:
(151) ?Hoe mooi vind je haar?

'How beautiful do you find her?'
(152) ?Hoe ijverig vind je haar?
'How industrious do you find her?'
Questions like Vindje haar (erg) mooi? ('Do you find her (very) beautiful?')
and Vind je haar ijverig genoeg? ('Do you find her industrious enough?')
are much more natural.
As we saw, warm may be used as a subjective grad able, but it also occurs
as a non-neutral objective gradable. The fact that hoe questions which
contain subjective gradables are somewhat unnatural may be the reason
why we prefer to interpret a sentence like (153), below, as one containing
the objective gradable warm rather than as one containing the subjective
gradable warm:
(153) Hoe warm is het water?

'How warm is the water?'
An answer to (153) might be Het water is 40 graden Celsius ('The water

is 40 degrees centigrade'). (Notice that (153) presupposes that the water is
not cold.)
As I just noted, hoe questions with subjective gradables occurring as the
complement of vinden are somewhat unnatural (cf. (I 5 l}-(I 52», though
perhaps not entirely ungrammatical. A sentence of this form containing
warm therefore should be open to two different judgements. If it is
interpreted with warm as an objective grad able it is worse than if it is
interpreted with warm as a subjective grad able :
(154) *Hoe wann vindje het water?

'How wann do you find the water?'
Recapitulating what has been said thus far on gradables, we can say that
they can be divided into subjective and objective gradables. Subjective
gradables may not occur in the neutral sense, whereas many objective
gradables (that is, parameter adjectives) may. Among the parameter ad-
jectives that may occur in the neutral sense are measure adjectives.
3.3. Bierwisch's Observations on Polarity and Orientation of Adjectives;

'Warm' an Unoriented Adjective
Apart from warm and vol (and perhaps a few others), there is another set
of parameter adjectives which never occur in the neutral sense. It is con-
stituted by words like klein (small), jong (young), licht (light), etc., in short,
by the words which are the antonyms of parameter adjectives that can be
used in the neutral sense. (For ease of reference, I shall call parameter
adjectives which can be used in the neutral sense 'neutralizable parameter
adjectives'.)
In Bierwisch (1967) some examples are cited demonstrating that ad-
jectives which are the antonyms of neutralizable parameter adjectives, be-
sides not taking MP's, do not occur either with such expressions as dubbe! zo,
twee keer zo, half zo, tienmaa! zo (twice as, two times as, half as, ten
times as). I quote his examples here, adding the Dutch and English
equivalents:
(154a) Der Tisch ist doppeJt so lang wie die Bank.

De tafel is twee keer zo lang als de bank.
The table is twice as long as the bench.
(154b) Das Auto fahrt halb so schnell wie die Eisenbahn.
De auto rijdt half zo snel als de trein.
The car travels half as fast as the train.
(154c) Sein Bruder ist halb so alt wie er.
Zijn broer is half zo oud als hij.
His brother is half as old as he is.
(155a) *Der Tisch ist halb so kurz wie die Bank.

*De tafel is half zo kort als de bank.
*The table is half as short as the bench.
(I 55b) *Das Auto fahrt doppeJt so langsam wie die Eisenbahn.
*De auto rijdt dubbel zo langzaam als de trein.
*The car travels twice as slow as the train.
(155c) *Sein Bruder ist doppelt so jung wie er.

*Zijn broer is twee keer zo jong als hij.
*His brother is twice as young as he is.
(See Bierwisch (1967), p. 8.)
Bierwisch assigns to parameter adjectives of the type that occurs in (154)
the marker (+ Pol) (for '( + Polarity),), and to the ones of the type oc-
curring in (155) the marker (- Pol). In this way he comes to something
like an "orientation" of the polarity (oriented (+ Pol) adjectives may be
preceded by twice as, half as, etc., whereas oriented ( - Pol) adjectives may
not). This orientation, Bierwisch observes, does not hold for all pairs of
adjectives. Thus there are two subsets of pairs of adjectives: those for
which the marker ( + Pol) marks an orientation and those for which it does
not (un oriented adjectives, whether marked ( + Pol) or ( - Pol), may always
be preceded by twice as, etc.). Demonstrating the latter type of adjectives,
he gives examples with gut/schlecht and dunkel/hell (cf. (156) and (157».
(156a) Peter spielt doppelt so gut wie Klaus.
Peter speelt twee keer zo goed als Klaus.
Peter plays twice as well as Klaus.
(156b) Peter spielt halb so schlecht wie Klaus.
Peter speelt half zo slecht als Klaus.
Peter plays half as badly as Klaus.
(157a) 1m Zimmer ist es halb so dunkel wie im Korridor.
In de kamer is het half zo donker als in de gang.
In the room it is half as dark as in the corridor.
(157b) 1m Zimmer ist es doppelt so hell wie im Korridor.
In de kamer is het twee keer zo licht als in de gang.
In the room it is twice as light as in the corridor.
(Bierwisch, op. cit., p. 9.)

To these examples we may add (158):
(158a) Het is half zo warm als gisteren.

'It's half as warm as it was yesterday.'
(158b) Het is twee keer zo koud als gisteren.
'It's twice as cold as it was yesterday.'
As we saw, warm cannot be used in a neutral sense (cf. (140}-(144) and

(153». The fact that the polarity of a given adjective is not oriented entails
that it cannot be used in the neutral sense.
"Within the oriented set," Bierwisch remarks, "there is a further subset
that can be modified by M ( easure) P (hrase). Here the orientation is more
clearly distinguished. We have only the sentences [I add the Dutch and
English equivalents, WGK]:
(l59a) Der Zug is 10 Wagen lang.
De trein is 10 wagons lang.
The train is 10 carriages long.
(159b) Der Fluss ist 250 Meter breit.
De rivier is 250 meter breed.
The river is 250 meters wide.
(l59c) Die Maschine fliegt 2000 Meter hoch.
Het toestel vliegt 2000 meter hoog.
The plane flies 2000 meters high.
(159d) Achim ist 35 Jahre alt.
Achim is 35 jaar oud.
Achim is 35 years old.
The following sentences are indisputably odd:
(l60a) *Der Zug ist zwei Wagen kurz.
*De trein is twee wagons kort.
*The train is two carriages short.
(160b) *Der Bach ist einen Meter schmal.
*De beek is een meter sma I.
*The creek is a meter narrow.
(160c) *Die Maschine fliegt 100 Meter niedrig.
*Het toestel vliegt 100 meter laag.
*The plane flies 100 meters low.
(l60d) *Katharina ist zwei Jahre jung.
*Catharina is twee jaar jong.
*Catharine is two years young.
Only the ( + Pol) marked elements of an antonymous pair of adjectives can
take an MP, and in this case the whole Adjectival does not indicate one
of the poles involved, but only the scale which is established by the
pair and a certain point within the scale. The orientation can be taken
as "neutralized"." (Bierwisch, op. cit., p. 9.)
As regards Bierwisch's last remark quoted above, we may add that not
all elements which he would mark ( + Pol) take MP's. An example is duur
(cf. (103) *Het boek is 12 gulden duur).
3.3.1. An Additional Criterion for the Polarity Sign; '( + Pol)' Adjectives
That Do Not Take MP's
It is not clear from what Bierwisch says whether we should mark warm
( + Pol) or ( - Pol), since he only gives a criterion that works with oriented
adjectives. As we saw (cf. (I58a, b), warm belongs to the unoriented set.
Perhaps we can find an additional criterion. As was remarked on p. 31,
the word hoog 2 and its antonym laag have co-occurrence relations with
stijgen ('rise') and dalen ('drop'), respectively, while groot 2 and gering
co-occur with toenemen ('increase') and afnemen ('decrease'), respectively.
Now consider the following synonymous triples:
(I61a) De prijzen van de boeken stijgen/dalen.
'The prices of the books rise/drop.'
(I61 b) De prijzen van de boeken worden hoger/lager.
The prices of the books become higher/lower.'
(I 6 lc) De boeken worden duurder/goedkoper.
'The books become more expensive/cheaper.'
(I 62a) De lengte van het touw nam toe/af.
'The length of the rope increased/decreased.'
(I 62b) De lengte van het touw werd groter/geringer.
The length of the rope became greater/smaller.'
(162c) Het touw werd langer/korter.
'The rope became longer/shorter.'
(I 63a) De temperatuur van het warme water steeg nog iets meer.
'The temperature of the warm water rose some more still.'
(1 63b) De temperatuur van het warme water werd nog iets hoger.
The temperature of the warm water became a bit higher still.'
(I 63c) Het warme water werd nog iets warmer.
'The warm water became a bit warmer still.'
(I 64a) De temperatuur van het ijswater daalde nog iets meer.
'The temperature of the ice-water dropped some more still.'
(l64b) De temperatuur van het ijswater werd nog iets lager.
'The temperature of the ice-water became a bit lower still.'
(164c) Het ijswater werd nog iets kouder.
The ice-water became a bit colder still.'
As we can see from the examples (l61a)-(l62c), the "extent word" hoger
and the verb stijgen have a co-occurrence relation with duurder, while
the "extent word" lager and the verb dalen have a co-occurrence relation
with goedkoper. Likewise with groter/kleiner, toenemen/afnemen and langer/
korter.
Now the words duur and lang, as we have seen, should be marked ( + Pol).
The examples (161a)-(l62c) suggest that if an adjective is (+Pol), it
co-occurs with stijgen or toenemen, as the case may be, whereas if it is
( - Pol), it co-occurs with dalen or afnemen. Furthermore, and this is

what we were looking for, the examples (163a)-(164c) suggest, on the basis
of the preceding triples, that warm should be marked ( + Pol). For, consider
again the triples (161) and (162). The words in the a and b sentences
which tell us what parameter is referred to are prijzen and lengte. These
parameter nouns are strictly neutral with respect to "high" or "low", or
"great" or "small". But if they occur in the subjects of such verbs as
stijgen or toenemen, or of hager worden or grater worden, we get sentences
which can be paraphrased with the help of ( + Pol) adjectives. Likewise,
with the sign reversed, if the parameter nouns occur in the subject of dalen
or afnemen, or of lager worden or geringer worden. But the parameter
noun temperatuur in the a and b sentences of the triples (163) and (164)
is also strictly neutral. Hence the only factor determining whether we will
get warmer or kouder in the c sentences is the verb in the a sentences and
the copula + "extent word" construction in the b sentences. Since these
factors determine in the other cases whether we will get a (+ Pol) or a
( - Pol) adjective, it is reasonable to claim that the same is happening in
(163) and (164).
Having said that warm is also ( + Pol), we can now add one more thing
to Bierwisch's last quoted remark, namely, that not only words like duur
are examples of elements which are ( + Pol) but do not take MP's, but also
the word warm. As we noted, though both warm and duur are ( + Pol) in
Bierwisch's terminology, they differ in that warm is nonneutralizable and
duur is neutralizable. As will become clear later on, warm and duur for
entirely different reasons do not take MP's. These reasons have something
to do with the fact that there are lexical rules which cause the neutral
temperature adjective to be left unrealized and the underlying element for
a word like duur to be incorporated in kosten.
4. SEMICOPULAS
4.1. Middle Verbs and Semicopulas
If a simple MP sentence does not contain a copula, it contains a verb

belonging to the set of words called 'middle verbs', or, more precisely,
to a subset of these, which for reasons that will become apparent in due
course, I shall call 'semicopulas'. In the examples (165)-(178), below, the
italicized verbs are semicopulas:
(165) De fuga duurde vijf minuten.

'The fugue lasted five minutes.'
(166) Onze cactus heet Arthur.

'Our cactus is called Arthur.'
(167) "Oui" betekent "ja".
'''Oui'' means "ja".'
(168) Het voorwerp weegt 2 kilo.
'The object weighs 2 kilos.'
(169) De Zoeloebruid Mabalel kostte veel koeien.
'The Zulu bride Mabalel cost many cows.'
(170) Het schip meet 10.000 ton.
'The ship measures 10,000 tons.' (The ship's capacity is, etc.)
(171) De vloer meet 2 bij 2 meter.
'The floor measures 2 by 2 meters.'
(172) Het peloton telt 20 man.
'The platoon numbers 20 men.'
(173) Het geschut reikt 2 mijl.
'The artillery carries 2 miles.'
(174) Het jacht steekt 1 vadem.
'The yacht draws 1 fathom.'
(175) De som bedraagt 100 gulden.
'The sum amounts to 100 guilders.'
(176) De prijs beloopt ettelijke ponden.
'The price amounts to a fair number of pounds.'
Semicopulas have obligatory complements specifying the price, weight,
meaning, name, etc. of the things mentioned by their subjects. A subset of
phrases of the set of all such 'specifying complements' have the form of
MP'S.ll
4.1.1. 'Differ' + MP
There is a number of middle verbs which take MP's, but which, at first glance,
do not seem to have obligatory complements. Cf. the sentences (177) and
(178) :
(177) Deze latten schelen 2 millimeter.
'These laths differ by 2 millimeter.'
(178) Deze latten schelen.
'These laths differ (in length, width or thickness).'
Other such verbs are afwijken, (differ, deviate) and zich verheffen (have an
elevation (of)). The verbs considered here are similar to copula + measure
11 See, for the term 'specifying complement' ("specificerend complement"), Klooster, Verkuyl
and Luif (1969).
MEASURE PHRASE SENTENCES; SOME OBSERVA nONS 45
adjective constructions in that in the case of the latter, too, we may omit
the MP without the sentence becoming ungrammatical (cf. (129) and (130)
in Section 3.2). But, as we noted, if we leave out the measure phrase in the
latter type of constructions, we get sentences in which the measure adjectives
are no longer neutral. Sentence (130) Die persoon is oud (That person is
old') means that according to a certain norm, the person indicated has
passed the age under which he was not yet considered 'old'. Looking at it
this way, we can say that MP's (and certain other phrases) are obligatory
complements of constructions of the form copula + neutral measure ad-
jective. Something similar appears to be the case with verbs like schelen
(differ). If two objects differ to a negligible extent in length, we do not say
that they differ. Only if a certain norm (which may vary from case to case) is
exceeded, do we say that there is a difference in length. In other words, the
norm, or criterion, by which one decides to consider two objects as differing
or not differing in length, and which varies with the circumstances, deter-
mines the point at which one starts using the verb schelen. This norm, which
also may vary from person to person (because it depends on personal
judgment), introduces an element of subjectivity in schelen as it occurs in
(178). This subjective element is not related to the parameter of length, but
rather to whether or not the difference in length is important enough.
All (or almost all) laths differ in length, although the difference may be
microscopically small. But we only say that they differ in length if the dif-
ference for our purposes becomes appreciable. However, there is no such
norm involved if we state how great the difference is, as in (177). Therefore,
it seems best to distinguish between two verbs schelen (as we also do with
respect to copula + measure adjective constructions), one which is a meas-
ure semicopula and one which is not a semicopula at all.
4.1.2. Passive and Manner Adverbials

Middle verbs, and hence semicopulas, cannot be passivized and do not take
manner adverbials. A sentence such as
(179) Mabalel kostte precies 40 koeien.
'Mabalel cost exactly 40 cows.'
is not a counterexample to the latter statement, because there appears to
be sufficient reason not to call precies (exactly, precisely) in (179) a manner
adverb. Manner adverbs occur only with 'non-stative' verbs (see for this
term p. 69), that is, verbs which, among other things, can occur in command
imperatives (whereas stative verbs cannot). The word oplettend (,attent-
ively') is a typical example. It does not occur with the stative verb horen
('hear'), but it does with the non-stative verb luisteren ('listen'):
(180) Karelluisterde oplettend naar het verhaal.

'Charles listened attentively to the story.'
(181) *Karel hoorde het verhaal oplettend.
'Charles heard the story attentively.'
But kosten in (179) is a stative verb. Precies may occur as a manner adverb
with the non-stative verb werken ('work'), as in (182):
(182) Jan werkte precies.
'John worked precisely.' (with precision)
With only a few exceptions, all manner adverbs which in Dutch have the
form of predicative adjectives are synonymous with corresponding met
phrases (trots - met trots ('proud' - 'with pride'), enthousiast - met enthou-
siasme (,enthousiastic' - 'with enthousiasm'), voorzichtig - met voorzich-
tigheid (,careful' - 'with care'), and so on). But while the adverb in (179)
cannot be paraphrased by met precisie (with precision), the adverb in (182)
can be so paraphrased:
(183) *Mabalel kostte 40 koeien met precisie.
'MabaleI cost 40 cows with precision.'
(184) Jan werkte met precisie.
'John worked with precision.'
(See also Klooster, Verkuyl and Luif (1969) for a distinction between
true manner adverbials and other adverbials which sometimes have the same
appearance: "bepalingen van hoedanigheid" (true manner adverbials) vs.
"bepalingen van wijze" (,adverbials of the way in which').)
4.1.3. Measure Semicopulas

Measure semicopulas, i.e., semicopulas which take MP's, like measure ad-
jectives contain information about the parameter referred to in the sentences
where they occur. Thus, kosten in (169) De Zoeloebruid Mabalel kostte veel
koeien indicates that price is referred to. In the case of (2) Dat boek kost 12
gulden (,That book costs 12 guilders'), we know that price is referred to
from the presence of kosten, not because of gulden (guilders) in the MP. The
unit word here only tells us that the more general parameter of monetary
value is involved. In other cases, the parameter implied by the semicopula
is identical to the one implied by the unit word, as for example in (1) Jan
weegt 80 kilo.
4.2. Other Verbs Taking MP's
The question may be raised which, if any, of the italicized verbs in the
examples below are semicopulas:
(185) De ober rekende 75 cent voor een pils.

'The waiter charged 75 cents for a beer.'
(186) De thermometer wees 15 graden aan.
'The thermometer indicated 15 degrees.'
(187) Mary typte 60 woorden per minuut.
'Mary typed 60 words per minute.'
(188) Zijn auto reed 120 km. per uur.
'His car travelled 120 kms. per hour.'
The passive sentence (192), below, is decidedly ungrammatical; the sentences
(190) and (191) are doubtful:
(189) Door de ober werd 75 cent gerekend voor een pils.
'By the waiter 75 cents was charged for a beer.'
(190) ?Door de thermometer werd 15 graden aangewezen.
'By the thermometer 15 degrees was indicated.'
(191) (*)Door Mary werden 60 woorden per minuut getypt.
'By Mary 60 words per minute were typed.'
(192) *Door zijn auto werd 120 km. per uur gereden.
'By his car 120 kms. per hour was travelled.'
As was remarked above, semicopulas cannot be passivized. Hence we may
conclude that (185) does not contain a semicopula. The doubt we have
with respect to (190) probably is caused by the fact that the verb aanwijzen
(indicate) also occurs with human subjects. In that case it may be passivized.
Compare also (193) and (194):
(193) Jan wees het enthousiast aan.
'John indicated it enthusiastically.'
(194) ?De thermometer wees het enthousiast aan.
'The thermometer indicated it enthusiastically.'
Probably, (190) and (194) are odd for the same sort of reason. Unless we
see the thermometer as human, (190) is strange. Because 15 graden in (186)
may not be left out, we might think that aanwijzen in (186) is a semicopula.
However, aanwijzen differs from verbs like kosten and dragen in that the
noun referring to the parameter in connection with which the unit word is
used may occur in the paraphrase of (186) in the way exemplified in (195),
whereas similar constructions with kosten and dragen are excluded:
(195) De thermometer wijst een temperatuur van 15 graden aan.
'The thermometer indicates a temperature of 15 degrees.'
(196) *Het geschut draagt een afstand van 10 kilometer.
'The artillery carries a distance of 10 kilometers.'
(197) *Het boek kost een geldswaarde van 12 gulden.

'The book costs a monetary value of 12 guilders.'
The verb aanwijzen in (186), therefore, does not belong to the set of verbs
which I have termed 'semicopulas'.
Sentence (191) is ungrammatical as a general statement about Mary's
typing speed. It is less unnatural if it means that at a certain time words
were being typed by Mary at a rate of 60 per minute. In that case it is not a
general statement about Mary's typing speed. Sentence (187) means either
that, at a certain time, Mary was typing words at a rate of 60 per minute, or
that Mary's typing speed was (used to be) 60 words per minute. In the latter
case it cannot be paraphrased as (191), and the measure phrase 60 woorden
per minuut cannot be left out. It would seem, then, that if typen ('type')
means 'have a typing speed of', it is a semicopula, but if it simply means
'write with a typewriter', it is not.
In (188), the phrase 120 km. per uur may be omitted without the sentence
becoming ungrammatical. However, (188) can mean two things. Either it
means that the car at a given time was doing 120 kms. per hour, or that the
car's top speed or perhaps cruising speed, is 120 kms. per hour. If it has the
first meaning, (188) can be paraphrased as
(I 88a) Zijn auto reed met een snelheid van 120 km. per uur.
'His car travelled with a speed of 120 kms. per hour.'
It cannot be paraphrased by (l88a) if it has the second meaning. If we take
(188) to mean that the car has a cruising or top speed of 120 kms. per hour,
the MP cannot be left out without changing the meaning of reed. If (188) has
the first meaning of the two mentioned above, the phrase 120 km. per uur
can be left out without changing the meaning of the verb. But irrespective
of what (188) means, it cannot be passivized. A sentence like
(I 88b) Zijn auto reed.
'His car travelled.'
cannot be passivized either. The verb rijden can be passivized, however, if
it has a human subject and means 'drive'.
Apart, then, from rijden taken in the sense of 'drive', there are at least
two other verbs rijden, one of which exactly behaves like verbs such as kosten
and duren, namely, the one with an obligatory complement and the meaning
'have a cruising (or top) speed of.
4.3. Semicopulas Taking Adjectival Complements
As we saw in Section 3.1 (p. 32), among measure semicopulas a distinction

can be made as to whether or not they take parameter adjectives. Semi-

copulas which do, are duren (last), steken (draw), reiken (carry) and dragen
(carry). The remaining measure semicopulas given in the examples above do
not. Thus, if we want to indicate by means of a semicopula sentence that the
number of units with respect to the parameter referred to is relatively large,
but leave the exact number unspecified, we may use a non-neutral parameter
adjective in the case of the four verbs just mentioned, while in the remaining
cases the semicopula is followed by veel ('much', 'a 10C). In the case of in-
dicating but not actually specifying a relatively small number of units, we
may use the respective antonyms:
(l97a) De wedstrijd duurde lang.

'The match lasted long.'
(197b) De tas woog veel.
'The briefcase weighed a lot.'
(l98a) De wedstrijd duurde kort.
'The match lasted short.'
(l98b) De tas woog weinig.
'The briefcase weighed little.'
The way in which we may account for this difference will be discussed
elsewhere (p. 199ff.). More characteristics of semicopulas will be discussed
in Chapter II.
4.4. 'Cost' + Indirect Object
There are a few semicopulas which can occur with indirect objects. Such
verbs are kosten and schelen. In this section I shall discuss the differences
with the normal cases this gives rise to. I shall demonstrate them here with
the verb kosten.
Consider the following examples:
(l99a) Dat horloge kostte 300 gulden.
'That watch cost 300 guilders.'
(l99b) Dat horloge kostte me 300 gulden.
That watch cost me 300 guilders.'
Sentence (199a) may tell us either that, in the past, the price of the watch was
300 guilders, or that at some time in the past 300 guilders were actually
paid for it. Sentence (199b) can only be interpreted in one way; it means that
the person indicated by the indirect object me paid 300 guilders for the watch.
The difference between the two interpretations of kosten is even more
pronounced in the examples (200a) and (200b), below:
(200a) Die dingen kostten veel geld.

'Those things cost a lot of money.'
(200b) Die dingen kostten Truus haar baan.
'Those things cost Trudy her job.'
In (200a) the "price" was not necessarily paid, but in (200b) the "price"
actually was paid. The difference between the two meanings of the semi-
copula kosten is also made clear by such examples as the following:
(201a) Ik weet niet hoeveel al die verzekeringen hem kostten.
'I don't know how much all those insurances cost him.'
(201b) *Ik weet niet hoeveel al die verzekeringen kostten.
'I don't know how much all those insurances cost.'
(202a) Ik weet niet hoeveel al die boetes hem kostten.
'I don't know how much all those fines cost him.'
(202b) *Ik weet niet hoeveel al die boetes kostten.
'I don't know how much all those fines cost.'
(203a) Ik weet niet hoeveel die auto schade hem kostte.
'I don't know how much that car damage cost him.'
(203b) *Ik weet niet hoeveel die auto schade kostte.
'I don't know how much that car damage cost.'
It seems that we can distinguish between two semicopulas kosten; kosten 1
does not occur with an indirect object, while kosten2, in general, may not
occur with one. The verb kosten 1 has a meaning which may be circumscribed
as 'be obtainable by paying something in exchange', whereas the meaning of
kosten 2 is something like 'oblige someone to pay on account of something'.
There is a co-occurrence relationship between kosten 1 and kopen (buy)
which distinguishes kosten 1 from kosten2, as is demonstrated by (204)-(209):
kosten 1 :
(204a) De auto kostte veel geld.
The car cost a lot of money.'
(204b) Hij kocht de auto voor veel geld.
'He bought the car for a lot of money.'
(205a) He! huis kostte f 60.000,-.
'The house cost f 60.000,-.'
(205b) Jan kocht het huis voor f 60.000,-.
'John bought the house for f 60.000,-.'
(206a) De copyrights kostten een gering bedrag.
'The copyrights cost a small sum.'
(206b) De copyrights werden voor een gering bedrag gekocht.

'The copyrights were bought for a small sum.'
kosten2 :
(207a) De parkeerboetes kostten hem veel geld.
'The parking fines cost him a lot of money.'
(207b) *Hij kocht de parkeerboetes voor veel geld.
'He bought the parking fines for a lot of money.'
(208a) Die alimentatie kostte hem veel geld.
'That alimony cost him a lot of money.'
(208b) *Hij kocht die alimentatie voor veel geld.
'He bought that alimony for a lot of money.'
(209a) Het s/echte moreel kostte de vijand veel verliezen.
'The low morale cost the enemy many casualties.'
(209b) *De vijand kocht het s/echte moree/ voor veel verliezen.
'The enemy bought the low morale for many casualties.'
In addition, while kosten t co-occurs with moeten betalen met (have to pay
with) as well as moeten betalen (haw! to pay), kosten2 only co-occurs with
moeten beta/en met in the following sentences:
kostent:
(2 lOa) Het werk kostte een tientje.
'The job cost a tientje (ten guilder note).'
(2 lOb) Hij moest voor het werk een tientje betalen.
'He had to pay a tientje for the job.'
(21 Oc) Hij moest voor het werk met een tientje betalen.
'He had to pay for the job with a tientje.'
kosten2 :
(211a) Het werk kostte hem zijn gezondheid.
'The job cost him his health.'
(211 b) *Hij moest voor het werk zijn gezondheid betalen.
'He had to pay his health for the job.'
(21Ic) Hij moest voor het werk met zijn gezondheid betalen.
'He had to pay for the job with his health.'
If monetary value is involved (cf. p. 12f.), in sentences where betalen occurs

without moeten (have to) the preposition met is excluded. With sentences
containing moeten beta/en met, however, the situation is different. Thus we
S2 THE STRUCTURE UNDERLYING MP SENTENCES
have Daarvoor moest hij betalen met 1500 gulden as a paraphrase of Dat
kostte hem 1500 gulden. In both of these sentences the MP is abstract, i.e.,
it does not refer to means of payment, although met precedes it in the former
sentences.
Kosten2 can take definite specifying complements where kosten j cannot.
Thus we have such sentences as (200b) Die dingen kostten Truus haar baan
(Those things cost Trudy her job'), with haar baan as a definite specifying
complement. Since kosten without an indirect object normally is interpreted
as kosten j, the b sentences below are ungrammatical under normal inter-
pretation:
(212a) Oat kost je je voortanden.

That'll cost you your front teeth.'
(212b) *Oat kostje voortanden.
That costs your front teeth.'
(213a) Oit object kostte hem het andere object.
This object cost him the other object.'
(213b) *Oit object kostte het andere object.
'This object cost the other object.'
Note that sentences like (212a) must be translated in English with that'll cost,
whereas a kostenj sentence such as Het stuk speelgoed kost twee dollar must
be translated as The toy costs two dollars, without will (or a contracted form).
This difference has to do with the fact that kostenj, by itself, does not imply
any event (except maybe the event of pricing), whereas kosten 2 always does,
the event being the act of paying.
Another important difference, finally, between kosten j and kosten2 is
that only kosten j may undergo reduction. Thus we have (214b) along with
(214a), but not (2ISb) along with (2ISa):
(214a) De auto kost 6000 gulden.

'The car costs 6000 guilders.'
(214b) De auto is 6000 gulden.
'The car is 6000 guilders.'
(2ISa)
Oat kostte hem zijn baan.
That cost him his job.'
(2ISb) *Oat was hem zijn baan.
That was him his job.'
The underlying structure of semicopula sentences will be discussed in the

next chapter.
5. RECAPITULATION
In this chapter we have considered three important constituents occurring

in simple MP sentences, namely, measure phrases, measure adjectives
(which form a subset of all parameter adjectives), and semicopulas.
The main conclusion with respect to MP's is that there seems to be no
reason not to consider them noun phrases, although especially MP's con-
taining abstract or continuous unit nouns (both terms refer to the same
thing) exhibit certain properties that set them apart from other noun phrases.
The remaining class of MP's consists of phrases that contain either concrete
or discontinuous unit nouns.
Integer-independent unit nouns (i.e., unit nouns which do not take the
plural ending irrespective of the preceding integer, or in general, the preced-
ing NE (see below)) all are abstract or continuous unit nouns, but not vice
versa. The units referred to by continuous unit nouns are 'non-unique' or
'non-particular', except with respect to their location on a measuring scale.
Because of this they cannot be individualized, except where their location is
relevant. Individualization is caused by the definite article and other words
which are definite. A concrete unit noun refers to some concrete object
which may be referred to in order to express a certain size, a measurement
(coins, mile-long stretches of road, etc.). Temporal nouns such as verga-
dering (meeting) and middag (afternoon) are discontinuous (i.e., they either
mayor must be non-contiguous on the time axis). These are the so-called
'Type II nouns'. The remaining class of temporal nouns ('Type I nouns') are
continuous unit nouns (uur (hour), minuut (minute), etc.). As we have seen,
the ungrammaticality of Ross's examples containing relative clauses with
MP antecedents, as well as those containing each, either, some, etc., preced-
ing the MP, must be ascribed to the non-uniqueness of abstract units.
'Differentiating' words, such as ettelyke ('a fair number of'), honderden
(,hundreds of) cause integer-independent unit nouns to take on the plural
form. In connection with this phenomenon we must distinguish between the
underlying categories NUMBER and NE (NUMERICAL ELEMENT).
NUMBER phrases differentiate, NE's do not.
Parameter adjectives refer to measurable properties. Not all parameter
adjectives take MP's freely. A few of those that do not occur in the com-
plement of semicopulas in the absence of a measure phrase (cf. Het duurde
lang ('It lasted long')). An adjective such as lang in Het duurde lang is not a
'duration adjective' in the sense in which, e.g., zwaar ('heavy') is a 'weight ad-
jective'. Some parameter adjectives which do not take MP's freely may only
do so in comparative constructions or if preceded by te (too); cf. vyf gulden
duurder/te duur (,five guilders more expensive/too expensive').
The set of all parameter adjectives is identical to the set of all objective
gradables. No subjective grad abies (i.e., adjectives which may occur in
contexts such as Ik vind x -er dan y ('I find x ~r than y (more - than y)')
are neutralizable, and there are objective grad abies which are not either.
Among those objective gradables which are not are the antonyms of neutral-
izable parameter adjectives (kort (,short'), jong ('young'), etc.). Bierwisch
makes a distinction between two sets of adjectives, which he marks '( + Pol)'
and '( - Pol)" respectively. In addition, he distinguishes oriented and un-
oriented adjectives. The latter, whether marked ( + Pol) or ( - Pol), can al-
ways be preceded by twiee as, half as, etc., but of the oriented set, only the
ones marked ( + Pol) can be preceded by such expressions. In Section 3.3.1
I proposed a criterion by which to distinguish '( + Pol)' and '( - Pol)' ad-
jectives, irrespective of whether they belong to the oriented or unoriented
set. (There is a paraphrase relation between '( + Pol)' adjectives and stijgen
('rise') or toenemen ('increase') on the one hand, and between '( - Pol)'
adjectives and dalen ('drop') or afnemen ('decrease') on the other). Within
the set of oriented '( + Pol)' neutralizable parameter adjectives there is a
further subset which takes MP's. These are called 'measure adjectives'.
Simple temperature MP sentences do not contain a semicopula or a
measure adjective, but simply the copula followed by an MP. Nonetheless
there exists a temperature parameter adjective (warm), which, however, like
vol ('full'), is non-neutralizable. Unlike vol, it may also occur as a subjective
gradable. Since hoe ('how') in combination with objective gradables (i.e.,
parameter adjectives) questions quantificatory phrases, which, however,
cannot occur in the complement of vinden ('find', 'think'), a sentence like
* Hoe warm vind je het water? ('How warm do you find the water?') is un-
grammatical if warm is taken as a parameter adjective. If we take it as a
subjective gradable, the sentence sounds slightly better. A question such as
Hoe warm is het water? ('How warm is the water?') on the other hand, is
grammatical and can be answered with, e.g., 40° Celsius (but not with 40°
onder nul (below zero), since warm is '( + Pol)' and non-neutralizable). Here,
warm is taken as an objective gradable.
A subset of the set of all middle verbs is formed by semicopulas. These
have obligatory complements specifying the price, weight, meaning, name,
etc., of the things referred to by their subjects. Some measure semicopulas,
like some copula + measure adjective combinations, may undergo reduc-
tion in simple MP sentences. Reduced simple MP sentences have the form
NP + Copula + MP.
A middle verb like selielen ('differ (in length, width, etc.)') can either be
a semicopula or a middle verb that does not take complements. Like, e.g.,
oud zijn ('be old'), sehelen may occur either in the non-neutral sense, in which
MEASURE PHRASE SENTENCES; SOME OBSER VATIONS 55
case semantically speaking some 'norm' is exceeded, and no specifying com-

plement may follow, or in the neutral sense, in which case it is a measure
semicopula.
There are other verbs besides semicopulas which take MP's. A clear
example is rekenen ('charge'); middle verbs, and hence semicopulas, cannot
be passivized, but rekenen can. Aanwijzen (,indicate') is a somewhat less
clear case. In sentences such as De thermometer wees 15 graden aan ('The
thermometer indicated 15 degrees'), it is a stative verb (for instance, it does
not take manner adverbs). It is, moreover, non-passivizable. In addition, the
MP cannot be left out. These three facts are all typical of semicopulas. But
one difference is that the above sentence has a paraphrase of the form
NP + Verb + Indefinite Article + Parameter Noun + of + MP, while
such paraphrases are impossible with measure semicopulas. Verbs like
typen ('type') and rijden (,travel', said of cars), if they mean 'have a typing
speed of, and 'have a top (cruising) speed of, respectively, are semicopulas.
In all other cases they are not.
A few semicopulas may occur with indirect objects. Thus we can distin-
guish between kosten t (no indirect object; 'be obtainable by paying some-
thing in exchange') and kosten2 (+ indirect object; 'oblige someone to pay
on account of something'). An important difference between the two verbs
kosten is that kosten t may undergo reduction, while kosten2 may not.
In the next chapter it will be argued that an adequate description of
simple MP sentences precludes the possibility of pre-transformational
lexical attachment in the way it has been proposed by Chomsky (1965). It
will be necessary to postulate a much more abstract type of underlying
structure than is allowed for in the 'standard theory'.
CHAPTER II
THE STRUCTURE UNDERLYING

SIMPLE MP SENTENCES
I. REDUCTION IN SIMPLE MP SENTENCES
In this chapter it will be argued that simple MP sentences, despite their

varying surface structures, all have similar underlying structures. One of
the main advantages of such a claim is that it will enable us to formulate the
process of reduction in simple MP sentences in a simple and uniform way.
I shall be primarily concerned with reduction in simple MP sentences which
results in be + MP constructions. The other kind of reduction, resulting in
omitting the unit word, as in Ze is 12 (,She is 12') will be considered in the
next chapter.
Let us return now to the examples (l}-(II) of Chapter I. They aregiven
once more below, supplemented with a few others and grouped in a
different way:
Type!
(la) Jan WEEGT 80 kilo.
'John weighs 80 kilograms.'
(2a) Dat boek KOST 12 gulden.
That book costs 12 guilders.'
(3a) Jan IS 2 meter LANG.
(4a) Ze IS 12 jaar OUD.
(lb) Jan IS 80 kilo.
'John is 80 kilograms.'
(2b) Dat boek IS 12 gulden.
'That book is 12 guilders.'
(3b) Jan IS 2 meter.
'John is 2 meters.'
(4b) Ze IS 12 jaar.
'She is 12 years.'
Type II
(Sa) De boot STEEKT 1 vadem.
'The boat draws 1 fathom.'
STRUCTURE UNDERLYING SIMPLE MP SENTENCES 57
(6a) Het geschut DRAAGT 10 km.

'The artillery carries 10 kms.'
(7a) Het papier IS 0,1 mm. DIK.
'The paper is 0.1 mm. thick.'
(8a) Het bureau IS 10 jaar OUD.
The desk is 10 years old.'
(5b) *De boot IS 1 vadem.

'The boat is 1 fathom.'
(6b) *Het geschut IS 10 km.
'The artillery is 10 kms.'
(7b) *Het papier IS 0,1 mm.
'The paper is 0.1 mm.'
(8b) *Het bureau IS 10 jaar.
The desk is 10 years.'
The examples now are grouped according to whether we have a simple MP

sentence which can be reduced or one which cannot, ignoring the difference
between semicopula constructions and copula + measure adjective con-
structions.
In order to be able to formulate a rule or rules for reduction of this kind,
applying irrespective of whether we have a semicopula sentence or one
containing a measure adjective, we shall have to be able to state non-trivial
generalizations about the underlying structure of MP sentences. This causes
us to look for similarities in the behaviour of these sentences, no matter how
widely they vary in their surface structures.
The pieces of evidence in favour of the type of underlying structure that
I am going to propose in this chapter are the following.
In the first place, there appears to exist a significant relation between, on
the one hand, the surface verb hebben (have) and, on the other hand, semi-
copulas and copula + measure adjective constructions.
All simple MP sentences have paraphrases containing hebben. The
relation of semicopulas to hebben is, furthermore, borne out by certain
phenomena exhibited by elkaar (each other) sentences, and the fact that
hebben as well as semicopulas cannot be passivized and are 'stative' verbs.
Secondly, there are a few other facts, not having to do with the relation
to hebben, which also point in the direction of highly similar underlying
structures of simple MP sentences; in certain cases semicopula sentences
have exact paraphrases containing copula + measure adjective construc-
tions. Furthermore, MP's, which are not direct objects in copula + ad-
jective constructions, do not behave like direct objects in semicopula
sentences either. In both types of simple MP sentences, MP's are obligatory

complements.
Thirdly, all simple MP sentences show a relation to met ('with').
2. SIMILARITIES IN THE BEHAVIOUR OF SIMPLE MP SENTENCES
2.1. The Relation to 'Hebben'
All MP sentences of the type under discussion have paraphrases containing

hebben. The following examples are hebben paraphrases of simple MP
sentences given earlier:
(9) Jan heeft een gewicht van 80 kilo. (Cf. (1), Chapter I)
'John has a weight of 80 kilograms.'
(10) Dat boek heeft een prijs van 12 gulden. (Cf. (2), ibid.)
'That book has a price of 12 guilders.'
(11) Jan heeft een lengte van 2 meter. (Cf. (5), ibid.)
'John has a height of 2 meters.'
(12) Ze heeft de leeftijd van 12 jaar. (Cf. (6), ibid.)
'She has the age of 12 years.'
(13) De boot heeft een diepgang van 1 vadem. (Cf. (3), ibid.)
'The boat has a draught of 1 fathom.'
(14) Het geschut heeft een bereik van 10 km. (Cf. (4), ibid.)
'The artillery has a range of 10 kms.'
(15) Het papier heeft een dikte van 0,1 mm. (Cf. (6), ibid.)
'The paper has a thickness of 0.1 mm.'
(16) Het bureau heeft een ouderdom van 10 jaar. (Cf. (7), ibid.)
'The desk has an age of 10 years.'
These paraphrases suggest that the underlying structure of MP sentences

in all cases contains an element or elements relatable to the surface verb
hebben. (Simple MP sentences can also be paraphrased with sentences con-
taining van constructions, e.g. De prijs van het boek is 12 gulden (,The price
of the book is 12 guilders'). But, as we shall see (Chapter III), such van con-
structions are derived from structures which also underlie the hebben para-
phrases.) In the following subsections I shall try to show that such a claim is
supported by several other facts.
2.1.1. Semicopulas Show a Relation to 'Hebben'

2.1.1.1. 'Hebben' paraphrases reveal the source of the ungrammaticality of
'each other' semicopula sentences
A sentence like
(17) Jan zag Wim en Wim zag Jan.
'John saw Bill and Bill saw John.'
can be paraphrased as
(18) Jan en Wim zagen elkaar.
'John and Bill saw each other.'
More pairs like (17) and (18) can be thought up without any difficulty. No
doubt there is a regular relationship between elkaar (each other) sentences
and sentences like (17), although it is not entirely clear how this relationship
can be made explicit in the form of rules.
One can imagine a situation, for instance of people playing Monopoly,
in which someone observes:
(19) Een hotel kost vijf huizen en vijf huizen kosten een hotel.
'One hotel costs five houses and five houses cost one hotel.'
We do not have, however, (20):
(20) *Een hotel en vijf huizen kosten elkaar.
'One hotel and five houses cost each other.'
As I shall attempt to show in the next four subsections, the assumption of
an underlying element or string relatable to hebben in sentences containing
semicopulas is hardly escapable, if we want to determine the general
source of the ungrammaticality of elkaar sentences containing semicopulas.
In Subsection 2.1.1.1.1, below, I shall briefly sketch two proposals for
the derivation of each other sentences. (As I shall point out in Subsection
2.1.1.1.3, it does not matter with respect to the final point to be made which
hypothesis we should adopt.)
Semicopula sentences contain noun phrase complements (in particular,
MP's) which at first glance exhibit'a structural relation to the verb that is
indistinguishable from the relation the direct object has to the verb. Thus, if
we assume that a semicopula is simply the V in the base phrase marker, there
will be no difference between semicopula complements and direct objects.
This, in itself, constitutes an argument of sorts against describing semi-
copulas as directly dominated by V in the base phrase marker.
Each other phrases generally have the function of a direct or indirect
object, or they are the noun phrase in prepositional phrases. Although semi-
copula complements have none of these functions, the ungrammaticality
of each other semicopula sentences should not be explained in terms of the
function of semicopula complements. For, there are exceptions to the rule
that each other phrases are (in)direct objects or the objects of prepositions.
These points will be discussed in Subsection 2.1.1.1.2.
In Subsection 2.1.1.1.3 it will be pointed out that the ungrammaticality of
each other semicopula sentences is caused by the fact that the condition of
co-reference is not met. (It is irrelevant which hypothesis concerning the
derivation of each other sentences we want to adhere to.) Hebben paraphrases
provide a crucial argument for this explanation.
The occurrence of elk- (each) in each other sentences containing a measure
semicopula is an extra source of ungrammaticality, since elk individualizes
(cf. p. 21). But we can isolate the factor consisting in the absence of co-
reference in each other sentences containing semicopulas such as betekenen
('mean'). Again, hebben paraphrases are crucial. This will be shown in Sub-
section 2.1.1.1.4.
2.1.1.1.1. The PSR hypothesis vs. the transformational hypothesis. With

respect to the derivation of 'reciprocal' constructions, in particular of each
other sentences, various proposals have been put forward in the literature.
The 'transformational hypothesis', as Dougherty 12 calls it, implies that
each other sentences derive from sentence conjunction. In other words, a
sentence like (17) is supposed to be representationally significant with regard
to the structure underlying (18). Dougherty's 'Phrase Structure Rule hy-
pothesis' (PSR hypothesis), on the other hand, says that sentence conjunc-
tion as well as phrasal conjunction is generated directly by the branching
rules of the base component. Thus, the base structure of (18), according to
Dougherty, should be something like I.
I
s
~VP
NP
NP
~ Q
~
V NP
~ [:~~] I I
NP NP I zagen de ander
I I saw the other
Jan Wim elk
John Bill each
12 Dougherty'S own hypothesis, the 'PSR' hypothesis, is introduced briefly in Dougherty

(1969), from which the rules 1I are quoted here on p. 61. Cf. also Dougherty (I 968a, b).
The noun phrase John and Bill each is generated by II, where (b) is a rule
schema:
II
(a) NP -+ NP' (Q(DADV))
(b) NP' -+ NP (NP)n
'Q' is a distributive quantifier (each, all, both, either, neither, respectively,
etc.) and 'DADV' is a distributional adverb (singly, alone, together, in con-
cert, mutually, simultaneously, at once, en masse, etc.). The feature complex
[+ indi~idualJ
- totalIty
becomes the surface f~rm each (in Dutch: elk, which presumably may 'fuse'
with de ander (the other) to form the word elkaar). Each is [+ individual]
for it co-occurs with alone. It is [- totality] since it does not co-occur with
simultaneously.
The transformational hypothesis requires rules which, in a structure like
John saw Bill and Bill saw John, conjoin the two subjects and convert the
'chiastically' co-referential noun phrases into something realized as each
other. Deriving each other from two noun phrases under 'chiastic' referential
identity with the two subjects is possible if the former two noun phrases are
(in)direct objects or if they are parts of prepositional phrases (where the
functions or prepositions associated with them must be the same)Y It is
also possible in certain cases in which it is not immediately clear what the
function of the relevant NP's should be said to be (see, for example, sentences
such as (78)-(80) on p. 72).
2.1.1.1.2. Assuming that semicopulas are simply V's leaves the ungrammatic-
ality of 'each other' semicopula sentences unexplained. As has been es-
tablished in Section 2.1 of Chapter I, there appears to be no reason to assume
that MP's are not simply noun phrases. On the contrary, the syntactic
behaviour and the appearance of MP's are such that it is quite reasonable
to claim that indeed they are noun phrases. No doubt they form a specific
class of phrases, which is why I shall keep referring to them with the symbol
'MP'. But apart from the fact that MP's are distinct from other NP's in a
number of important respects, they show the general characteristics typical
of NP's: they occur with prenominal adjectives, or as the antecedent of
relative clauses; they take the plural ending, which with MP's is of the same
13 See also Gleitman (1965), p. 280-283, Lakoff and Peters (1966), p. 78. Seuren (l969a),
p. 236-237. and Dik (l969a), p. 259-260, for some discussion of the derivation of each other
sentences.
form as that in other NP's; they can be distinguished as to gender of the head
noun, and so on.
Should we assume that kosten is generated directly as the V in the sentence,
then it would be impossible to determine from the structure index that the
MP (given that it is an NP) is not a direct object. There is no structural
difference between, say, III and IV.
III s
~VP
NP
I~
V
een hotelNP
one hotel
I
kost
I
5 huizen
costs 5 houses
IV s
~
NP VP
I~
Jan V NP
John I I
zag Wlin
saw Bill
It might be objected that assigning to the phrase 5 huizen in III the structural
property of being dominated by the VP node may be unjustified (that is,
the question could be raised why the measure phrase could not be considered
a sister node of VP (immediately dominated by Predicate Phrase) and thus
be distinguished from direct objects). The question could conceivably be
relevant, since if it could be shown that MP's arc not in the VP, the un-
grammaticality of each other semicopula sentences could possibly be ex-
plained in terms of their grammatical function. 14
14 Thinking of a proposal in Chomsky (1965), we might consider NP's like 5 huizen in III as
constituents whose function can be further defined in terms of strict subcategorization of verbs.
Since middle verbs like kosten do not take manner adverbials and cannot undergo the passive
transformation, Chomsky suggests "that tl]e Manner Adverbial should have as one of its re-
alizations a "dummy element" signifying that the passive transformation must obligatorily
apply." (op cit., p. 103). Thus we might have a rule of the form ·Manner .... by.-.Passive'. If
b/--Passive occurs in a deep structure, the passive transformation thus must apply. We might
now try to explain in terms of a negative specification of semi-copulas for the strict subcate-
gorization feature [-NPManner) that semicopulas do not take each other phrases. But this
will not do, since there are verbs followed by NP which do not take manner adverbials but which
But insofar as anything can be said about the structural relation to the
VP of direct objects, everything that may be relevant to the latter is also
true of the relation ofMP to VP. Lakoffand Ross (1966) have claimed that
do so replaces all of the constituents of the verb phrase and only these, in the
sense that elements which may occur after do so are "outside" the VP (are
not constituents of VP), and elements which cannot so occur are inside the
VP. Their claim embodies to some extent a departure from Chomsky (1965),
pp. 101-105, where a principle is proposed of strictly local subcategorization
to account for the fact that some adverbials are restricted in their occur-
rence with certain classes of verbs, whereas others are not.
Lakoff and Ross illustrate that the phrase do so "is a proform which may
substitute for a verb phrase" with the following examples:
(21) Harry forged a check, but Bill could never bring himself to forge
a check.
(22) Harry forged a check, but Bill could never bring himself to do so.
Do so cannot be used in this way, however, with verb phrases containing
'stative' verbs, like know. VP's containing adjectives may not reduce to
do so either. The Dutch equivalents of do so are doen + dat ('do' + 'that')
and doen + het ('do' + 'it'). Thus we have:
(23) Jan schreef, en hij schreef met een pen.
'John wrote, and he wrote with a pen.'
(24) Jan schreef, en hij deed dat met een pen.
'John wrote, and he did that with a pen.'
In the cases where the doet dat (does so) test does not work, we can use the
en wei test (I shall translate en wei as and ... so) :
(25) *Wim wist het antwoord en (hij) deed dat direct.
'Bill knew the answer and (he) did that immediately.'
(26) Wim wist het antwoord, en wei direct.
'Bill knew the answer, and immediately so.'
Sentences like (23) are called in Kraak and Klooster (1968) 'specifying
conjunctions' (op. cit., p. 258ff.). Obviously, the forming of doet dat sen-
tences is very similar to pronominalization. In specifying conjunctions, and
can occur in passive sentences and each other sentences (for example, Zij hoorden elkaar ('They
heard each other'; see also p. 70). We might therefore, embracing the PSR hypothesis, introduce
a strict subcategorization feature which in some way or other contains a representation of the
context typical of deep structures underlying each other sentences, for which semicopulas would
have to be negatively specified. But this solution would fail to explain why verbs followed by a
VP-dominated NP do not take each other phrases if they belong to the class of verbs not oc-
curring in nominalizations of the type Jans V-en van NP ('John's V-ing of NP'; see pp. 78-9),
i.e., to the class of transitive verbs.
in a host of other cases, the conditions for pronominalization, the doet dat
substitution, and deletion are of the same sort; there must be some sort of
"identity", which for the time being let us call 'co-reference' or 'referential
identity' (although it may be maintained that the referents of, e.g., the two
phrases drank a glass of water, or of the pair 'Lolita' and it in John drank
a glass of water and Bill drank a glass of water and John bought 'Lolita' and
Bill bought it too, respectively, are not identical). Clearly, there can only be
referential identity between two strings of words if each of them is ex-
clusively dominated by one node, that is, if each of them is a constituent.
Thus in (27)-(30) the italicized parts are single constituents:
(27) Jan hielp zijn zoon en Piet zijn dochter. (second hielp deleted)
'John helped his son and Peter his daughter.'
(28) Jan helpt zijn zoon en Piet slaat hem. (zijn zoon = hem)
'John is helping his son and Peter is beating him.'
(29) Jan helpt zijn zoon en Piet ook. (second helpt zijn zoon deleted)
'John is helping his son and Peter too.'
(30) In de tuin hielp Piet zijn zoon en hielp Jan zijn dochter.
'In the garden Peter helped his son and John helped his daugh-
ter.'
Moreover, it is reasonable to claim that if two constituents have identical

references, they are of the same category. Lakoff's and Ross's claim that
do so (or in Dutch doet dat or weI) replaces all the constituents of the VP,
thus can be substantiated if it can be shown that the smallest constituent
which is referentially identical with do so is indeed a verb phrase. There can
be no doubt about it that the verb schreefin (23) and (24) is a verb phrase and
that it is the smallest sort of constituent with which doet dat can be co-
referent. In (27), doet dat cannot be inserted between Piet and zijn dochter,
from which it can be inferred that hielp zijn zoon is a verb phrase. Doet dat
can be inserted between Piet and ook in (29).
Since the b sentences of the examples below are excluded, we can now say
that both NP and MP are inside the VP:
(3Ia) Jan zag Wim.
'John saw Bill.'
(3Ib) *Jan zag, en weI Wim.
'John saw, and Bill so.'
(32a) Een hotel kost vijf huizen.
'One hotel costs five houses.'
(32b) *Een hotel kost, en weI vijf huizen.
'One hotel costs, and five houses so.'
Hence, for all we know, a structure of the fonn III would be correct if we
should generate kosten directly as a V.
Thus it would be difficult to explain in terms of syntactic function why
each other semicopula sentences are ungrammatical. On the other hand,
there is sufficient reason to assume that MP's are not direct objects in simple
MP sentences (see pp. 78-9). We need not, however, call upon this fact in
order to explain the ungrammaticality of (20). Indeed such an explanation
would remain unsatisfactory as long as it is not completely established that
elkaar co-occurs exclusively with (in)direct objects and NP's in preposi-
tional phrases (cf. my remark in the first paragraph on p. 61, and (78)-(80)
on p. 72.
As we shall see, there is another, more important condition which is
not met, namely, that of referential identity.
2.1.1.1.3. 'Hebben' paraphrases reveal that the co-reference condition is

not met. Suppose that the two sentences Een hotel kost 5 huizen ('one hotel
costs 5 houses') and Een hotel heeft de waarde van 5 huizen ('one hotel has the
value of 5 houses') have identical underlying structures. In that case we may
assume that the hebben paraphrases (33) of (19) is representationally signif-
icant with respect to the underlying structure of (19):
(33) Een hotel heeft een waarde die 5 huizen bedraagt en 5 huizen
hebben een waarde die een hotel bedraagt.
'One hotel has a value that amounts to 5 houses and 5 houses have
a value that amounts to one hotel.'
What can be learned from (33), is that neither the two noun phrases een
hotel nor the two noun phrases 5 huizen can be referentially identical in
(19); it is not the case that one hotel is five houses and five houses are one
hotel. Rather, the values of one hotel and five houses are, respectively, five
houses and one hotel. Of each pair of noun phrases in (19) the ones oc-
curring first are the names of physical objects that have a certain value,
whereas the ones occurring second are the names of the values of physical
objects. An object having a certain value cannot be identical to that value.
Therefore, the condition of referential identity is not met.
Suppose that the transfonnational hypothesis is wrong, and that Dough-
erty's analysis of each other sentences, as illustrated in I, is essentially
correct. In that case the non-occurrence of sentences of the type of (34)
must have something to do with the non-occurrence of sentences like (35),
which presumably is closer to the base structure:
(34) *Een object X en een object Y kosten elkaar.
'An object X and an object Y cost each other.'
(35) *Een object X en een object Y kosten elk het andere.

'An object X and an object Y each costs the other.'
The fact that (35) is excluded must be accounted for the same way as
must be the ungrammaticality of (36):
(36) *Elk object kost het andere.
'Each object costs the other.'
To be sure, there may be an interpretation of the verb kosten giving a
grammatical reading of (36). However, in that case we do not have a spec-
ification of the value of some object, but a reference to some physical
object ('the other') which will have to be "sacrificed" in order to obtain the
thing mentioned by the subject, as in This will cost you your front teeth (cf.
p. 52). But it is not this verb cost that I have in mind. The sense intended here
is that of value specification. Sentence (36) is bad for the same reason as are
the sentences (37) and (38):
(37) *Dit object kost het andere object.
'This object costs the other object.'
(38) *Het object X kost het object Y.
'The object X costs the object Y.'
Sentence (37), apart from tense, is identical to (213b) on p. 52. The un-
grammaticality of such sentences as (37), with kostent. is caused by the
same factor that, in general, causes simple MP sentences with definite MP's
to be ungrammatical (cf. Section 2.1.3, Chapter I). If value is meant, no
matter whether it is expressed by referring to concrete objects (coins, notes,
kauri shells, cows or other means of payment) or by means of abstract unit
words, it is irrelevant to indicate a "particular" unit or set of units. It is for
this reason that it is nonsense to say, e.g., * This book costs that dollar over
there.
2.1.1.1.4. Semicopulas that do take definite complements are also excluded

from 'each other' sentences. The fact that each occurs in sentence (20) no
doubt isa factor contributing to its ungrammaticality (cf. Section 2.1.3,
Chapter I). But it turns out that in this way we will not be able to give a
general explanation of why semicopulas are excluded from each other
sentences, for there are semicopula sentences which do contain definite
specifying complements. An example is (39):
(39) Dat betekent dit; dit betekent dot.
'That means this; this means that.'
Yet we do not have (40):
(40) *Oitendatbeteken{:n} elkaar. 15

'This and that mean(s) each other.'
Consider the hebben paraphrase of Dat betekent dit:
(41) Oat heeft een bepaalde betekenis; die betekenis is dit.
'That has a certain meaning; that meaning is this.'
Notice the important difference between (41) and (42); the latter is a pa-
raphrase of (167) in Chapter I "Oui" betekent "ja":
(42) "Oui" heeft een bepaalde betekenis; die betekenis is "ja".
'''Oui'' has a certain meaning; that meaning is "ja".'
The difference in question is reflected in the fact that the words dit and "ja",
which refer to 'what the meaning is', differ in that the former is not in
quotes, whereas the latter is, and in that the literal translation in the case of
(41) gives dit as this, but "ja" simply as "ja". It is because of the difference re-
flected in this that we cannot paraphrase (41) as (43), whereas we can para-
phrase (42) with (44):
(43) *Oat heeft een bepaalde betekenis; die betekenis is de betekenis
dit.
'That has a certain meaning; that meaning is the meaning this.'
(44) "Oui" heeft een bepaalde betekenis; die betekenis is de bete-
kenis "ja".
'''Oui'' has a certain meaning; that meaning is the meaning "ja".'
The sentences (43) and (45) are ungrammatical for the same reason:
(45) *Oat woord heeft een bepaalde betekenis; die betekenis is dit
woord.
'That word has a certain meaning; that meaning is this word.'
Dit in (43) as well as dit woord in (45) do not actually represent the meanings
which the things referred to by Dat en Dat woord, respectively, are supposed
to have. Dit and dit woord merely refer to representations of the intended
meanings, they are not representations of the intended meanings themselves.
The ungrammaticality of (40) *Dit an dat betekenen/betekent elkaar must
be related to the ungrammaticality of (46)-(49) :
(46) *Oe woorden X en Y betekenen elkaar.
'The words X and Y mean each other.'
IS I have given both possibilities with respect to the number of the verb because. to some.
sentences like Dit en dat betekenen het::el[de (,This and that mean the same') seem to sound
acceptable, whereas in the judgment of others the verb should be in the singular in such cases.
Judgments in this respect may also vary with different complements following betekenen.
(47) *Elk woord betekent het andere.

'Each word means the other.'
(48) *Dit woord betekent het andere woord.
This word means the other word.'
(49) *Het woord X betekent het woord Y.
The word X means the word Y.'
Dit and dat in (40) refer to expressions, words, or symbols. Thus we may
substitute Dit en dat by De woorden X en Y ('The words X and Y'); The
source of ungrammaticality will not change in character. Sentence (47) is
analogous to (36), (48) to (37), and (49) to (38).
The hebben paraphrases, below, of (49) make clear why (49) is ungram-
matical, just as (45), above, makes clear why (43) is ungrammatical:
(50) *Het woord X heeft een betekenis die het woord Y is.
'The word X has a meaning which is the word Y.'
(5 I) *De betekenis die het woord X heeft is het woord Y.
The meaning which the word X has is the word Y.'
(52) *Het woord X heeft een bepaalde betekenis; die betekenis is het
woord Y.
The word X has a certain meaning; that meaning is the word Y.'
As can be seen from (43), (45) and (50)-(52), the ungrammaticality of such
sentences as (40) and (46)-(49) must be related to the fact that a meaning is
put on a par with something which carries a meaning. The meaning of a
word is not identical to a word. Ifwe assume that dit in (40) refers to a word,
we can explain the ungrammaticality of (43) by saying that a meaning
cannot be specified by something that refers to a word. We cannot say *de
betekenis dit ('the meaning this'). The same holds, a fortiori, for (45) with
respect to dit woord. The hebben paraphrase of (49), given as (50)-(52), all
contain expressions in which a meaning is said to be a word. The hebben
paraphrases given here make explicitly clear why sentences like (40) do not
occur.
The NP in I dominating de ander (the other) in some way must have a
complex reference. It should be stated in such a way that it is indicated
that with respect to John, the other is co-referent with Bill and that with
respect to Bill, the other is co-referent with John. How this is to be done I
shall not try to formulate. However, if it is feasible, we can say, within
the framework of the PSR hypothesis as well as within the framework of
the transformational hypothesis, that the non-occurrence of each other
sentences containing semicopulas can be explained in a general way by the
fact that the condition of co-reference is not met. The fact that this can
be brought out in an explicit way by hebben paraphrases lends credence to
the claim that the structure underlying simple MP sentences with semi-
copulas contain an element (or string) relatable to hebben.16 (What has been
said here with respect to hebben paraphrases also holds for paraphrases
containing van constructions like De betekenis van dit woord is etc. (The
meaning of this word is' etc.). But as was remarked earlier, suchvanconstruc-
tions can be derived from structures which also underlie the hebben para-
phrases.)
2.1.1.2. Semicopulas are non-passivizable and stative

Both semicopulas and the verb hebben cannot be passivized and carry, in
Lakoff's terms, the feature [+ stative] (see Lakoff (1966)). Stative verbs
have the property that they do not occur in command imperatives (or
'true' imperatives), or in the complements of the verbs verge ten ('forget')
and be/oven ('promise'). Verb phrases in which they occur cannot be
replaced by doen + het/dat ('do + 'it/that').17 Compare the semicopula
sentences below with those containing the verb hebben:
Passives:
(53) *Tachtig kilo wordt door Jan gewogen.

'Eighty kilos are weighed by John.'
(54) *Twaalf gulden wordt door het boek gekost.
Twelve guilders are cost by the book.'
(55) *Een fiets wordt door Jan gehad.
'A bicycle is had by John.'
(56) *Door Kees wordt geelzucht gehad.
'By Cornelius jaundice is had.'
Stative/ Non-Stative Test:
(57) *Weeg tachtig kilo.

'Weigh eighty kilos.'
(58) *Hij vergat/beloofde tachtig kilo te wegen.
'He forgot/promised to weigh eighty kilos.'
(59) *Jan woog tachtig kilo en Piet deed het ook.
'John weighed eighty kilos and Peter did so too.'
(60) *Heb een fiets. *Heb geelzucht.
'Have a bicycle.' 'Have jaundice.'
16 In Verkuyl (1970) the PSR hypothesis is rejected along with the transformational
hypothesis. Instead, it is proposed to derive sentence conjunction transformationally from
phrasal conjunction (in the cases where this is semantically possible). But within the frame-
work of Verkuyl's hypothesis analogous arguments can be given with respect to hebben.
17 See Lakoff (1966), passim, Kraak and Klooster (1968), p. 208-9, and Klooster, Verkuyl
and Luif (1969), p. 30-31, on the properties of non-stative verbs ("handelingswerkwoorden ").
(61) *Hij vergat/beloofde een fiets/geelzucht te hebben.

'He forgot/promised to have a bicycle/jaundice.'
(62) *Hij had een fiets/geelzucht en zij deed het ook.
'He had a bicycle/jaundice and she did so too.'
There are verbs which can be passivized but nonetheless are stative. Com-
pare, for example, (63)-(66):
(63) Het geluid werd door iedereen gehoord.
'The sound was heard by everybody.'
(64) *Hoor het geluid.
'Hear the sound.'
(65) *Hij vergat/beloofde het geluid te horen.
'He forgot/promised to hear the sound.'
(66) *Hij hoorde het geluid en zij deed het ook.
'He heard the sound and she did so too.'
Thus, although the properties of being non-passivizable and being stative
do not necessarily go together, they do go together in the case of semi-
copulas as well as in the case of hebben. This fact can be explained if we
assume an underlying element (or string) in the case of semicopula sen-
tences which also underlies hebben sentences. Thus, at least in the case of
semicopulas, we have a possibility of explaining in terms of one single
factor why they have both properties under discussion at the same time.
The fact that verbs such as passen (fit), schelen (differ, see pp. 44-5), smaken
(taste, intransitive), ruiken (smell, intr.), klinken (sound, intr.), lijken (re-
semble), functioneren (function), verongelukken (meet with a (fatal) ac-
cident), also show the combined properties of being non-passivizable and
stative, strengthens the case if it can be shown in other ways that they, too,
are related to hebben. And, in fact, this appears to be the case. Consider, for
example, the following a sentences and their paraphrases (the b sentences):
(67a) De schoen past.
'The shoe fits.'
(67b) De schoen heeft de juiste vorm (maat).
'The shoe has the right form (size).'
(68a) Die twee latten schelen.
'Those two laths differ.'
(68b) Die twee latten hebben een verschil (in lengte, breedte, dikte).
'Those two laths have a difference (in length, width, thickness).'
(69a) Het smaakt goed.
'It tastes good.'
(69b) Het heeft een goede smaak.

'It has a good taste.'
(70a) Het ruikt vreemd.
'It smells strange.'
(70b) Het heeft een vreemde geur.
'It has a strange smell.'
(71a) Dat klinkt mooi.
'It sounds beautiful.'
(7Ib) Dat heeft een mooie klank.
'That has a beautiful sound.'
(72a) De piano klinkt mooi.
'The piano sounds beautiful.'
(72b) De piano heeft een mooi geluid.
'The piano has a beautiful sound.'
(73a) Die dieren lijken precies walvissen.
'Those animals exactly resemble whales.'
(73b) Die dieren hebben een exacte gelijkenis met walvissen.
'Those animals have an exact resemblance to whales.'
(74a) Hij functioneert als voorzitter.
'He functions as president.'
(74b) Hij heeft de functie van voorzitter.
'He has the function of president.'
(75a) Hij is verongelukt.
'He has met with an accident.'
(75b) Hij heeft een ongeluk gehad.
'He has had an accident.'
There are a few middle verbs which cannot be so easily paraphrased in this
way, but they are the exception rather than the rule. As far as I have been
able to ascertain, the factor that makes hebben paraphrases difficult to
construct in such cases often is that in the paraphrase the metaphorical
character is easily lost (Karel past niet in dit gezelschap (,Charles doesn't
fit in this company'».
Verbs such as vallen (fall), sterven (die), verharden (harden, intr.), smelten
(melt, intr.), which also show the two properties in question, probably will
have to be analyzed in a different way. (At least a number of these can be
analyzed in terms of underlying 'strings of elements containing be; for
instance, sterven (die): Inchoative + be + not alive. 18 But this in fact will
18 See, for a similar analysis of kill, McCawley (1968).
strengthen our case, since, as we shall see, have in tum can be related to be.)
2.1.2. Copula + Measure Adjective Constructions Show a Relation to

'Hebben'
Apart from the hebben paraphrases (11), (12), (15) and (16), the observations
presented above directly or indirectly support the claim that there exists a
relation between hebben and semicopulas. But in themselves the observations
regarding semicopulas of course do not constitute evidence of such a relation
between hebben and copula + measure adjective constructions. However, all
that has been said thus far with respect to semicopulas and hebben is also true
of zijn (be) + measure adjective constructions and hebben, as I shall now
proceed to show.
2.1.2.1. 'Hebben' paraphrases reveal the source of the ungrammaticality of

'each other' measure adjective sentences
(76) Het is niet altijd zo dat een dichtregel een vinger lang is en een
vinger een dichtregellang is.
'It is not always the case that one line of poetry is one finger long
and one finger is one line of poetry long.'
(77) *Het is niet altijd zo dat een dichtregel en een vinger elkaar lang
zijn.
'It is not always the case that one line of poetry and one finger are
each other long. '
The ungrammaticality of (77) cannot be attributed to the fact that it con-
tains a predicate nominal, for sentences like (7S}-{SO) are perfectly correct:
(7S) Jan en Piet zijn elkaar beu.
'John and Peter are each other tired.' (are tired of each other)
(79) Harry en Estelle zijn elkaar moe.
'Harry and Estelle are each other tired.' (are tired of each other)
(SO) Dik en Tom zijn elkaar goedgezind.
'Dick and Tom are each other kindly-inclined.' (are kindly in-
clined towards each other)
The explanation of the non-occurrence of (77) is analogous to the one given
with respect to (20) *Een hotel en vijf huizen kosten elkaar (,One hotel and
five houses cost each other'). A certain length cannot be identical with an
object which has length. As we saw (cf., for example, p. 21 and p. 15), mea-
sure semicopulas and measure adjectives in simple MP sentences do not take
definite complements and abstract units are something essentially different
from objects the values of whose parameters are expressed in terms of ab-
stract units. This becomes clear in hebben paraphrases of (76), such as (76a):
(76a) Het is niet altijd zo dat een dichtregel een lengle heeft die een
vinger bedraagl en dat een vinger een [engte heeft die een dicht-
regel bedraagt.
'It is not always the case that one line of poetry has a length that
amounts to one finger and that one finger has a length that
amounts to one line of poetry.'
Sentence (76a), by virtue of analyzing lang zijn as lengte hebben, illustrates
by explicit formulation that the first occurring phrase een vinger (one finger)
and the last occurring phrase een dichtregel (one line of poetry) are both
specifications oflength, in the sense that they are used as unit words, and not
the names of physical objects (een lengte die een vinger bedraagt ('a length
that amounts to one finger'), etc.). The ungrammaticality of(8l), below, is
also related to that of (77), and forms an illustration analogous to the one
given earlier with kosten (cf. pp. 85-6):
(81) *Oe lengte die het ene object heeft is het andere object.
'The length that the one object has is the other object.'
2.1.2.2. Measure adjectives are stative

Sentences containing a copula, of course, cannot be passivized, as is the
case with hebben sentences and semicopula sentences, and, just as the latter
two types, simple MP sentences containing measure adjectives show char-
acteristics typical of statives. Lakoff (1966) has shown that the distinction
'stativejnon-stative' applies not only to verbs but also to adjectives. An
example of a non-stative adjective is voorzichtig (careful):
(82) Wees voorzichtig alsjeblieft.
Do be careful.
(83) Hij vergat voorzichtig te zijn.
He forgot to be careful.
(84) Hij beloofde voorzichtig te zijn.
He promised to be careful.
A difference between verb phrases containing non-stative verbs and those
consisting of a copula and a non-stative adjective, as Lakoff and Ross (1966)
have observed, is that the latter cannot be substituted by do so:
(85) Jan luisterde en Piet deed het ook.
'John listened and Peter did so too.'
(86) *Jan was voorzichtig en Piet deed het ook.
'John was careful and Peter did so too.'
The fact that simple MP sentences containing a copula cannot be substituted

by do so therefore is not significant in this connection. But since sentences like
(87}-(89), below, are also ungrammatical, we can still say that what has
been said about semicopula sentences above is also true of simple MP
sentences containing a copula.
(87) *Wees 2 meter lang alsjeblieft.
*00 be 2 meters tall.
(88) *Hij vergat 12 jaar oud te zijn.
*He forgot to be 12 years old.
(89) *Hij beloofde 2 meter lang te zijn.
*He promised to be 2 meters tall.
(There is also a sentence in Dutch of the form (88) that is grammatical and
means 'He forgot that he was 12 years old', but that of course is not the one
intended here.)
As was the case with single verbs (p. 70ff.), there are be + adjective
constructions which do not belong to the set under consideration but which
show the same characteristics as do be + measure adjective constructions in
these respects, and which also show a relation to hebben demonstrable in
other ways as well. Consider the following examples:
(90a) *Hij was Teuns prietpraat zat.
'He was fed up with Tony's poppycock.'
(90b) * Wees Teuns prietpraat zat (alsjeblieft).
'(Do) be fed up with Tony's poppycock.'
(9Oc) *Hij vergat/beloofde Teuns prietpraat zat te zijn.
'He forgot/promised to be fed up with Tony's poppycock.'
(90d) Hij had genoeg van Teuns prietpraat.
'He had enough of Tony's poppycock.' (had had enough of, etc.)
(91a) Ze was gewoon buitenstaanders alles te vertellen.
'She was habituated to telling outsiders everything.'
(9Ib) * Wees gewoon buitenstaanders alles te vertellen (alsjeblieft).
'(Do) be habituated to telling outsiders everything.'
(91c) *Ze vergat/beloofde gewoon te zijn buitenstaanders alles te ver-
tellen.
'She forgot/promised to be habituated to telling outsiders every-
thing.'
(91d) Ze had de gewoonte buitenstaanders alles te vertellen.
'She had the habit of telling outsiders everything.'
(92a) Hij was bekend met die zaken.
'He was aware of those things.'
(92b) "'Wees (alsjeblieft) bekend met die zaken.

'(Do) be aware of those things.'
(92c) "'Hij vergat/beloofde bekend te zijn met die zaken.
'He forgot/promised to be aware of those things.'
(92d) Hij had kennis van die zaken.
'He had knowledge of those things.'
(93a) Die mensen waren enigszins overeenkomstig.
'Those people were a bit similar.'
(93b) '" Wees (alsjeblieft) enigszins overeenkomstig.
'(Do) be a bit similar.'
(93c) "'Die mensen vergaten/beloofden enigszins overeenkomstig te zijn.
'Those people forgot/promised to be a bit similar.'
(93d) Die mensen hadden enige overeenkomst.
'Those people had some similarity.'
There are adjectives which are stative if they carry one meaning but non-
stative if they carry another. An example is energiek (energetic). If it is a sta-
tive adjective, it can be paraphrased with the help of hebben, if not, it cannot
be so paraphrased (cf. (94a) and (94b), below). As a stative adjective, it
indicates a constant or inherent property; as a non-stative adjective it refers
to an incidental property and means 'doing something with energy', 'acting
in an energetic way'. Thus, although one may not be a particularly energetic
person, one may, on a given occasion, do something energetically for some
particular reason without however being called an energetic person. One
cannot be an energetic person to order, but one can act in an energetic
way to order.
(94a) ("')Hij beloofde/vergat energiek te zijn.
("')He promised/forgot to be energetic.
(94b) "'Hij beloofde/vergat energie te hebben.
"'He promised/forgot to have energy.
Colour adjectives are also stative. Possibly, a noun like rood (red) is similar
to 'material nouns', like zilver (silver). (Compare, in this connection, such
colour nouns as mafs (maize) and fraise (strawberry), and tjoklat ('choco-
late') in Bahasa Indonesia, which means 'brown' and is used instead of
merah (which comprises 'red') if the colour in question has to be distin-
guished from what we call red.) Een rode kleur (A red colour) then could be
analyzed in the same way as een zilveren kleur (a silver colvur), een gouden
kleur (a gold( en) colour) are. Zilveren and gouden are 'material adjectives'
(they end in -en and cannot be used predicatively).
Consider the following synonymous pair:
(95a) De Volkswagen is rood.

The Volkswagen is red.
(95b) De Volkswagen heeft een rode kleur.
The Volkswagen has a red colour.
Semantically, the relation between rood/red and Volkswagen seems to differ
from the relation between rode/red and kleur/colour. This is confirmed by
the fact that we do not have, along with (96a), the sentence (96b), although
we do have (95b) along with (95a):
(96a) De kleur is rood.
The colour is red.
(96b) *De kleur heeft een rode kleur.
*The colour has a red colour.
Now, 'material adjectives' can be paraphrased by van (of) phrases:
(97a) Een zilveren {kleur }

voorwerp
'A'I
SI ver
{ cOlour}
b' ,
o ~ect
(97b) Een { kleur } van zilver
voorwerp
'A { cOlour}
. 0 f'l
SI ver ' 19
o b~ect
Suppose we analyze a predicate such as is rood in (95a) as something
corresponding to heeft een kleur van rood ('has a colour (made) of red'),
whereas we analyze is rood in (96a) as something like is van rood ('is (made)
of red'). We could then explicate the semantic difference felt between the
two phrases is rood in De Volkswagen is rood and De kleur is rood, and the
the similar difference felt in Een rode Volkswagen and Een rode kleur,
reflected in the fact that (96b) is excluded. We could say that there are two
kinds of colour adjective predicates, differing in that one contains an un-
derlying element or string relatable to hebben, whereas the other does not.
The fact that the former type of colour adjective predicates is stative
then must be attributed to an element or string relatable to hebben, while the
fact that the latter type is stative is caused by the same factor that makes
19 There is some reason to believe that constructions like een voorwerp van zilver, een zilveren
voorwerp, are related to maken van (,make of'). Thus een voorwerp van steen ('an object of
stone'), in its most natural interpretation refers to an artifact, not an object occurring in nature
as a thing not made by man. Similarly, scherven van glas ('fragments of glass'), just as glazen
scherven ('glass fragments'), as a paraphrase of glasscherven (shivered glass), may be odd for the
same reason as scherven gemaakt van glas ('fragments made of glass') is odd as a paraphrase
of the latter word. See also Kraak and Klooster (1968), p. 161 If.
all 'material adjective' predicates stative. Hebben, as we shall see, is relatable

to the copula. That is, an element 'be' plus something else, underlies hebben.
'Be' probably can be seen as just 'tense'. The other element underlying
hebben, together with 'be', seems to exclude non-stativeness. The copula
itself appears to be neutral with respect to stativeness or non-stativeness, just
as 'tense' is. It is something which is the same element in the adjective as in
hebben that causes stativeness. 'Be' + non-stative adjective is possible
because 'be' is neutral with respect to it. As pointed out, Hij had energie ('He
had energy') can only serve as a paraphrase of Hij was energiek ('He was
energetic') if in the latter energiek is a stative adjective.
2.2. Further Evidence that the Underlying Structures of Semicopula Sentences

and Measure Adjective Sentences Are Similar
2.2.1. Synonymy of Semicopula and 'Be' + Measure Adjective

Semicopula sentences questioning an MP and semicopula sentences con-
taining an element of degree (with or without an MP) have paraphrases
containing a copula + measure adjective construction. If it is true that the
structure underlying MP sentences is so far removed from surface structure
that it may also be said to underlie the hebben paraphrases, then it is
certainly plausible that the a sentences and the corresponding b sentences
of the examples below have common underlying structures:
(98a) Hoeveel weegt ze?

'How much does she weigh?'
(98b) Hoe zwaar is ze?
'How heavy is she?'
(98c) Hoeveel kost dat boek?

'How much does that book cost?'
(98d) Hoe duur is dat boek?
'How expensive is that book?'
(98e) Ze woog (2 pond) meer.

'She weighed (2 pounds) more.'
(980 Ze was (2 pond) zwaarder.
'She was (2 pounds) heavier.'
(98g) Het boek kost (een gulden) meer.

'The book costs (one guilder) more.'
(98h) Het boek is (een gulden) duurder.
'The book is (one guilder) more expensive.'
(98i) Ze woog (2 pond) te veel.

'She weighed (2 pounds) too much.'
(98j) Ze was (2 pond) te zwaar.
'She was (2 pounds) too heavy.'
etc.
The fact that sentences containing such semicopulas as duren (last), steken
(draw) and dragen (carry) can never be paraphrased by a copula + measure
adjective construction has something to do with the fact that the cor-
responding adjectives (lang (long), diep (deep) and ver (far), respectively) do
not pertain to the parameters referred to by the respective semicopulas, as
has been remarked earlier (p. 30ff.). I shall elaborate on this later on (see
p. 180ff.).
2.2.2. M P's Do Not Occur as Direct Objects in Simple M P Sentences
The complements of semicopulas do not have the function of direct object,
as I already indicated when discussing diagram III (Section 2.1.1.1), since, as
will be demonstrated directly, they do not have a property characteristic of
direct objects. This is not surprising if it is true that the underlying structures
of MP sentences with semicopulas and MP sentences with copula + measure
adjective constructions are essentially the same. For predicate nominal
sentences in general do not contain direct objects either. Typically, a direct
object becomes part of a van (of) construction in the case of nominalization,
as in the examples below:
(99a) Jan raakt het doelwit.
'John hits the target.'
(99b) Het raken van het doelwit.
'The hitting of the target.'
(99c) Ze eet de pudding.
'She eats the pudding.'
(99d) Het eten van de pUdding.
'The eating of the pudding.'
But the examples (lOOb, d,f, h) below are ungrammatical:
(lOOa) Jan weegt 80 kilo.
'John weighs 80 kilos.'
(lOOb) *Het wegen van 80 kilo.
'The weighing of 80 kilos.'
(lOOe) Mabalel kostte veel koeien.
'Mabalel cost many cows.'
(IOOd) *Het kosten van veel koeien.

'The costing of many cows.'
(WOe) Ze is 12 jaar oud.
(lOOt) *Het oud zijn van 12 jaar.
'The being old of 12 years.'
(IOOg) Jan is 2 meter lang.
'J ohn is 2 meters tall.'
(IOOh) *Het lang zijn van 2 meter.
'The being tall of 2 meters.'
Direct objects, furthermore, occur in passivizable sentences. But simple MP
sentences are not passivizable.
2.2.3. Mrs Cannot Be Omitted in Simple Sentences in Which They Are
Not Direct Objects
As pointed out on p. 34, it can be maintained that MP's are obligatory com-
plements of constructions of the form copula + neutral measure adjective
(although seemingly the MP can be left out in sentences such as Hij is twee
meter lang ('He is two meters tall') without changing anything in the
remainder of the sentence).
In simple MP sentences with copula + adjective which also contain an
indirect object, we actually get an ungrammatical sentence no matter how
we interpret it, if we omit the MP. An example is the following:
(lOla) Hij is mij t2 gulden schuldig.
'He is me 12 guilder owing.' (owes me 12 guilders)
(lOtb) *Hij is mij schuldig.
'He is me owing.'
The explanation must be that schuldig can only be used as an adjective
taking MP's if it is accompanied by an indirect object, and, as we saw, the
MP cannot be left out in simple adjective-containing MP sentences without
affecting the remainder of the sentence. In fact, the word schuldig means
something totally different in sentences in which it does not serve as an
adjective taking MP's (see also p. 119 for a discussion of schuldig). The
sentence Hij is schuldig means 'He is guilty'.
One of the characteristics of semicopulas is, as we know, that their com-
plements are obligatory. Thus if we distinguish neutral measure adjectives
from other adjectives by marking them with an index n, we may put semi-
copula sentences and measure adjective sentences on a par in the following
way:
(102a) Het speelgoed kost een dollar.

'The toys cost a dollar.'
(102b) *Het speelgoed kost.
'The toys cost.'
(103a) Het bed is I meter breed n.
'The bed is I meter widen.'
(103b) *Het bed is breedn.
'The bed is widen.
It would of course be of importance if we could account in a uniform way
for the fact that MP's are not direct objects and cannot be left out.
3. POSSIBLE UNDERLYING STRUCTURES OF SIMPLE MP SENTENCES
I will now consider two possible types of underlying structure for simple MP
sentences, one in the section below, the other in the section following it.
After discussing the reasons for rejecting them, I will present arguments in
support of a third possibility.
3.1. Underlying 'Hebben'
On the basis of the similarities between simple MP sentences with differing

surface structures and their relation to the verb have, one might consider
assigning an underlying structure to simple MP sentences which contains
the verb have, roughly as in V, below.
V s
~VP
NP
!~NP
Jan V
JOhn! ~
heeft NP S
has_~:::::~~~=~~--:=~________~~ ~
een bepaald(e) {g,eWiCht} ~ ~VP
engte / /' '"
/ ,
a certain {~:::~:} {~~tg;;"lch~t'} y /~~,
die lengte : ~~____ ~~"'"
{that weight l bed~aagt {80 kilo }
that height J amounts to 2 meter
{ 80 kilOS}
2 meters
If we could set up transformational rules converting V optionally into

something like VI,
VI s
~VP
NP
i~
Jan
V NP
John i ~
heeft NP PP
has ///~"'" ~
~"--------':::> P MP
een {geWiCht} I /''',
lengte i
I /',
L_____ .::'"
a {we~ght} van { aD kilo }
heIght of 2 meter
{ aD kilOS}
2 meters
and other rules converting it into surface structures containing a semi-

copula or a measure adjective, we could conceivably account for at least
some of the facts noted in the preceding sections.
3.2. Underlying Adjective.
An alternative solution, in which no underlying have is assumed to be

present, could be something like VII:
VIJ s
NP
~VP
Jan
l~
V Adjectival
John i ~
is Adj MP
is I
I
I
{zw~ar}
lang
{ heaVY}
tall
Or, if we should want to conform to a proposal in Ross (l966a), we could

possibly have something like VIII.
VIII 5
~VP
NP
l~
Jan V NP
John i ~
is NP 5
I
is
~VP
I
I
I
het NP
I
it
!
Jan Adjectival
John ~
Ad, J MP
/',
I
I
/ '
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ !tr.
/;' '"
{z~~~r}
~
{ 80 kilO}
2 meter
{h;:,?} { 80
2 meters
kilOS}
(Let US assume, for the moment, that [NP it SNP] structures are, in general,
justified, although it is not clear why underlying it could not be dispensed
with here.)
Ross's arguments for assuming underlying structures of the type NP 1
be [NP it [g NP 1 [v Adj v] s] NP] boil down to the following.
In several languages, it is possible with pronouns to refer to properties
expressed in the form of adjectives: 'pro-adjectives' are often phonologically
identical to pronouns which replace nouns. In German there is a rule moving
NP, prepositional phrases and adverbs to the front of a sentence: Bohnen/im
Garten/genusslich haben wir gegessen. Ross argues that these should be all
regarded as being dominated at some point in their derivational history by
NP, so the preposing rule should only mention that NP can be moved to the
front of the sentence. The fact that adjectives can also be preposed (Stolz auf
dich muss er sein!) can be automatically accounted for if the phrase stolz
auf dich is dominated by NP. Furthermore, in English and other languages,
an element which starts a noun phrase cannot be moved alone to the front
of the sentence by the question transformation (* Whose did you read
book?) the whole NP which the questioned element starts must be moved
with it ([NP Whose book NP] did you read?). That the same thing is true of
adjectives ([NP How old NP] is John? but not *How is John old?) again suggests
that adjectives must be dominated by NP in the underlying structure, even
though later rules remove all trace of this node, so that adjectives in the
surface structure do not appear to have anything in common with noun

phrases.
I think that Ross's argument is valid in sofar as there must be a noun
phrase dominating the element(s) underlying adjectives. However, since
this aspect of the description of measure adjective sentences is not relevant
in this study, I shall leave it out of the discussion of the structure underlying
MP sentences. (But see pp. 85-6, for a few further remarks on this topic. No-
tice, in passing, that in general structures such as John-be-it-John-heavy pose
a problem. An underlying structure of this form accounts for sentences like
John is heavy, but he doesn't look it, but it does not account for sentences in
which the two surface subjects are not co-referent, such as Jan is zwaar en
dat ben ik niet ('John is heavy and that I'm not'). A consequence of Ross's
proposal could be that the structure underlying the latter sentence would
have to be something like John be [NP it [.; John heavy s] NP] and NEG I be
[NP it [.; John heavy s] NP], which would obviously be wrong. Possibly, the
problem can be solved by simply leaving the subject of the embedded
sentence unspecified, thus getting structures like John be [NP it [.; L\ heavy s]
NP]')
An underlying structure for simple MP sentences which, regardless of
surface structure, always contains an adjective would be more in accordance
with the following remark made in Ross (1964): "( ... ) there is adequate
evidence to support the proposal to relate be expensive and cost, be heavy
and weigh, etc., in such a way as to derive the verbs from the corresponding
adjectives. "
3.3. Disadvantages of Underlying 'Hebben' and of Underlying Adjective
A difficulty would be that kosten and duur zijn (cost and be expensive) or
wegen and zwaar zijn (weigh and be heavy) differ too much phonologically
to be realizations of the same underlying morphological structures. The
disadvantages of V are similar. If we accept a structure like V, we must
require that hebben + gewicht (have + weight) may be converted into wegen
(weigh) (and in some cases into zijn + zwaar (be + heavy), cf. the examples
(90a)-(94b)). If we accept VII or VIII, we must require that zijn + zwaar
may be converted into wegen or hebben + gewicht. (I will not go into the
question of the treatment of the determiner in such cases.)
No matter which of the two alternatives indicated in the preceding two
subsections we choose, the difficulties in either case will be essentially of the
same nature:
(a) Both solutions necessitate rules that would be thrust upon us by one
of the two types of underlying structure we would opt for, while it is by
no means clear which of the two is to be preferred over the other. The
choice, and the ensuing rules, would be arbitrary. In either case, moreover,
the rules would be just as complex, so that in that respect there is no criterion
for a choice either.
(b) The 'standard theory' requires that the terminal strings of deep
structures be strings of morphemes. Consequently, the transformational
rules operate upon structures with phonologically specified terminal strings.
As we noted, the strings that are to be related via transformational rules,
differ phonologically to such an extent that such rules, apart from being
cumbersome, would lead to trivial solutions. Instead of being related trans-
formationally, semicopulas, adjectives and hebben should be related in the
lexicon.
3.4. Underlying WITH String
The considerations (a) and (b), presented in the preceding subsection, tend
to cause us to look in another direction.
Suppose that we assign to simple MP sentences an underlying structure
which does not contain morphemes as terminal elements, a structure,
moreover, sufficiently abstract for us to be able to circumvent a choice
between an underlying have or an underlying adjective for all simple MP
sentences. Such a structure might roughly look like IX.
I do not want to imply that a structure like IX is a base structure. Quite
possibly, a number of structural changes will have to take place before
anything like IX will result. At present, however, this will not concern us.
IX s
~VP
NP
i~
(Jan)
V PP
I~
BE P NP
I
WITH
/~S
NP 1
I~
{WEIGHT} NP1 VP
HEIGHT I ~
{WEIGHT} V MP
Jan {weegt 80 kilo } HEIGHT I / /
/", " ,
L ______ -'>
is 2 meter lang
John [",:eighS 80 kilOS} BE <{ 80 kilO}
IS 2 meters tall 2 meter)
In IX, I have neglected the Determiner, among other things, because

it is not immediately relevant to the present discussion. However, the
embedded sentence possibly should not be immediately dominated by the
second NP down in IX, but by a Determiner node. In addition, it will be
convenient to introduce a category REL dominating relative clauses. As
will become clear later on, such a category can be made use of in the setting
up of certain lexical entries and transformational rules. Thus, IX possibly
should be replaced by IXa.
IXa s
~VP
NP
i~
V
(Jan) PP
I~
BE P NP
I~
WITH DET N,
~I
ARTREL {WEIGHT}
I HEIGHT
S
~VP NP
~N,
DET V
~MP
I I , /
",,//"-.,
"'------_'\.
WEIGHT}
{ BE
HEIGHT
<{280meter)
kilO}
Which of the two types of underlying structures is to be preferred how-

ever is of minor importance at present. Questions concerning the under-
lying articles and tense I want to leave out of the discussion at the
moment. The exact description of what here provisionally is labelled 'MP'
will have to wait until later on.
We can easily adapt structures like IX and IXa so as to account for the
examples cited by Ross (l966a) in support of his claim that adjectives are
noun phrases. We would then have structures such as IX(i) or IXa(i),
respectively:
IX(i)
IXa(i)
NP1 BE [NP 6 ~ [vp WITH [NP [OET ART REL OET] N NP] yp] s] NP]
(something like 'John be [NP 6 ~ with [NP height 6 height be MP s] NP] s] NP]',
or 'John be [NP 6 ~ with [NP [OET ART REL OET] height NP] s] NP]', where, in
the latter structure, REL dominates 'DET height be MP'.)
However, we can ignore elaborations of this kind, and I shall neglect
them throughout this study. There will be no problems in adapting the
rules to be proposed later on so as to allow for Ross's claim.
The words written in capitals in IX and IXa stand for elements that do
not have the status of morphemes, but of semantic categories, and therefore
must be considered arbitrary symbols, not "spellings". They are supposed
to form part of the vocabulary of the base component, just as the categories
NP, VP, V, etc.
Possibly, it would be justifiable to use the symbol 'TENSE' instead of
'BE'. The function of the copula be/zijn does not seem to be much more than
that of being the tense carrier. The further specification 'WITH' of the
more general category 'P' must be regarded as the category representing a
specific relationship which is often expressed in Dutch by means of the
word met. The parameter categories WEIGHT and HEIGHT are tentative.
I am aware that there is some unclarity here as to the criteria by which
one should distinguish between sy'ntactic and semantic categories. But
then, problems of this sort are not entirely new or surprising, for, as
Chomsky notes, "it is clear that the intuitive notion of grammatical well-
formedness is by no means a simple one and that an adequate explication of
it will involve theoretical constructs of a highly abstract nature, just as it is
clear that various diverse factors determine how and whether a sentence
can be interpreted." (Chomsky (1965), p. 151.) In fact, "it should not be
taken for granted, necessarily, that syntactic and semantic considerations
can be sharply distinguished." (id., p. 77). However, theoretical considera-
tions with regard to the 'syntax' j'semantics' distinction need not concern us
here directly, as we are at present dealing with highly tentative descriptive
devices, which only after having more fully explored their possibilities we
may fruitfully discuss in this respect.
Lexical insertion, in structures like IX and IXa, does not necessarily take
place before application of transformational rules. 20 More on the subject
of lexical insertion will be said later. At present, it suffices to say that the
categories symbolized as BE and WITH form a string which may become
manifest as the word hebben (have). Strings roughly like WITH + WEIGHT
20 See McCawley (1968) on the subject of prelexical transformations.

and WITH + HEIGHT may under certain circumstances turn into the
adjectives zwaar (heavy) and lang (tall), respectively. The latter two words in
that case must be taken in their neutral sense. Parameter adjectives occurring
in the non-neutral sense have a more complex underlying structure. The
WITH string underlying such a non-neutral adjective contains some element
of degree and/or norm.
Measure adjectives, then, and in general parameter adjectives, are analyz-
ed as prepositional phrases. The verb hebben is analyzed as BE + WITH,
and semicopulas as verbs which are partly copulas, i.e., as BE + WITH + NP.
Later on, I shall propose a number of transformations which, among
other things, can express the relation between structures of the type of IX
and X or, with some alterations, between IXa and X (whichever may be the
more correct alternative):
X s
NP
~VP
I
~PP
I
I
(j~n) V
I~
BE P NP
I~
WITH NP MP
A
,,
I
/
./
4 _ _ _ _ _\.
{WEIGHT} ({ 80 kilO})
HEIGHT 2 meter
The derivation of sentences containing van ('of') + MP constructions of

the type een gewicht van 80 kilo ('a weight of 80 kilos') will be discussed on
p. 150ff.
In the following sections I shall present a number of arguments sup-
porting the claim that simple MP sentences have underlying structures
containing a WITH string of the sort proposed.
4. ARGUMENTS FOR AN UNDERLYING 'WITH' STRING
4.1. Generalization of Relative Clause Reduction
The fact that the following a examples are synonymous with the correspond-
ing b examples is evidence for the relation of hebben to met (with):
(l04a) Een man die een gewicht van 80 kilo heeft
'A man who has a weight of 80 kilos'
(104b) Een man met een gewicht van 80 kilo

'A man with a weight of 80 kilos'
(105a) Een stoel die vier poten heeft
'A chair which has four legs'
(1 05b) Een stoel met vier poten
'A chair with four legs'
Met constructions of the sort of (104b), with MP's, are not restricted to
expressions related to semicopulas «(104) is related to wegen); they are also
possible with expressions related to measure adjectives. Thus een 2 voet
lange stok ('a two foot long stick'), een stok die een lengte van 2 voet heeft
('a stick that has a length of two feet') and een stok met een lengte van 2 voet
('a stick with a length of two feet') are all synonymous. Examples like
(104a, b) are possible with all kinds of MP's. Pairs like (l05a, b) to which
can be added an unlimited number of similar ones, illustrate, moreover,
that the relation to met is not restricted to MP sentences.
Apart from the synonymy between the a and b examples above, the
possibility of generalizing the rule of Relative Clause Reduction also con-
stitutes an argument in favour of an underlying structure containing the
category WITH in constructions like (104a)--(105b). If we analyze hebben
as BE WITH, the relation between the relative clauses in (104a) and (105a)
and the prepositional phrases in (104b) and (105b) can be described in the
same manner as the relation between the relative clause in (106a), below,
and the prepositional phrase in the synonymous sentence (106b):
(106a) Een patient die onder behandeling is
'A patient who is under treatment'
(106b) Een patient onder behandeling
'A patient under treatment'
In (106b) as well as in (104b) and (105b) deletion of an underlying be can
be assumed, in accordance with Relative Clause Reduction, which within the
framework of standard theory can be formulated as follows (I have taken
this version of the rule from a summary of rules mimeographed at M.I.T.
in 1967):
RELATIVE CLAUSE REDUCTION
NP)
SD.: X - [NP - [ [+ Wh
{AUX
[
be}) -X) ) _ X OPT ~
NP S X be 5 NP
2 3 4 5
sc: 2 o 4 5
4.2. Comparing Different Languages
The analysis of be+adjective and have+noun phrase as BE followed by a

WITH string provides the opportunity to state a generalization with respect
to different languages. This will be demonstrated with respect to Dutch,
English, French, German and Estonian in this section, but I am sure ex-
amples from many more languages could be cited.
In the following examples the a and b sentences are exact translations of
each other:
(107a) Ik heb honger.
(107b) I am hungry.
(108a) Ik heb er spijt van.
(108b) I am sorry for it.
(109a) I have a cold.
(109b) Ik ben verkouden.
(llOa) J'ai soif.
(lIOb) I am thirsty.
(lIla) She is with child.
(lll b) Ze is zwanger.
(l12a) Quel age as-tu?
( 112b) How old are you?
(l13a) Ik heb slaap.
(l13b) Ich bin schliifrig.
(lI4a) J'ai peur.
(lI4b) Ik ben bang.
(lI5a) Je hebt gelijk.
(lI5b) You are right.
The generality of language description would gain in an important respect
if we could assign to such sentences as these underlying structures which
are essentially alike. The nouns honger, dorst, etc., correspond to the English
adjectives hungry, thirsty, etc. There are, however, also the Dutch adjectives
hongerig and dorstig. Nevertheless, Ik ben hongerig (and also Je suis affame)
does not mean the same thing as I am hungry, nor is Ik ben dorstig synony-
mous with I am thirsty. Therefore, the strings underlying hongerig zijn,
dorstig zijn must differ from those underlying be hungry, be thirsty (just as
hunger and thirst probably should be analyzed in a way different from the
way in which honger and dorst are analyzed). The differences in meaning
are often highly subtle, and it is by no means always clear how one should
go about formulating them in terms of underlying strings. We have a
somewhat clearer case in such pairs as Ik heb geluk-I am lucky. The senten-
ces Ik ben gelukkig and I am lucky mean totally different things and accord-
ingly the analysis of gelukkig (happy) here should include an abstract noun
category representing a meaning clearly different from the one represented
by the category underlying the word geluk in Ik heb geluk.
A close approximation of the Estonian sentence (116a), below, is given,
in Lehiste (1969), in the form of (166b); that of the synonymous sentence
(117a) in the form of (117b). In Estonian, there is no surface verb 'have'.
The word on is the third person singular of 'be' in the present tense.
Noormees ('the young man') is the singular of the nominative and uhke
hoiakuga ('proud bearing') is the singular of the comitative. Noormehel in
(117a) is in the adessive case and uhke hoiak is in the nominative case.
(116a) Noormees on uhke hoiakuga.
(116b) 'The young man is with a proud bearing.'
(117a) Noormehelon uhke hoiak.
(l17b) 'The young man has a proud bearing.'
The closest approximation, apparently, of the comitative case ending is
the preposition with. The verb have presumably expresses adequately the
relation of 'possession' (lIse Lehiste's characterization) given with the ades-
sive case ending. The comitative may correspond to the abstract relational
category symbolized as WITH.21
4.3. Possibility of Uniform Reduction in Simple MP Sentences
Once we have rejected ad hoc transformational rules mapping phonological

strings into totally unrelated ones, and accept in principle underlying
structures lacking phonologically specified strings and containing abstract
WITH strings, we will be able to state a generalization otherwise missed.
Suppose we accept underlying structures with phonologically specified
21 Cf., in connection with the relation between have and with, Chomsky (1965), note 28 to
Chapter II (p. 218-19), where it is noted that "many of the Manner Adverbials, like many other
Adverbials, are Sentence transforms with deleted Subjects. Thus underlying the sentence "John
gave the lecture with great enthusiasm", with the Adverbial "with great enthusiasm", is the
base string "John has great enthusiasm" (note that "with" is quite generally a transform of
"have"), with the repeated NP "John" deleted, as is usual ( ... )."
Bendix (1966), too, analyzes have as 'be with'. It may be that underlying structures of the form
a
NP 1 BE WITH NP 2 there are structures of the form NP 2 BE TO NP 1 (cf. c'est moi, mihi est),
or vice versa. Another possibility is that the relation between TO and WITH is expressed in a
strings but reject rules relating strings like weegt and is zwaar. We would then
be forced to assign dissimilar underlying structures to simple MP sentences;
some with V's dominating semicopulas, others with Adj's dominating
parameter adjectives. In that case we could no longer state the generaliza-
tion that ( 1b) Jan is 80 kilo and (3b) Jan is 2 meter are both instances of
optional reduction. We would have to maintain that the structure under-
lying (l b) is distinct from the one underlying (la) with wegen, and either
that the sentences (1 b) and (3b) are not reductions at all, or that (lb) and (3b)
are instances of deletion of underlying adjectives, in the former case
obligatory, in the latter case optional. But it cannot be reasonably main-
tained that in the former sentence obligatory deletion has taken place of an
underlying adjective zwaar (the non-occurrence of *Jan is 80 kilo zwaar
notwithstanding), whereas in the latter sentence the adjective lang has been
optionally deleted. Similarly, although *The toy is 2 dollars expensive is
ungrammatical, it is implausible that The toy is 2 dollars is an obligatory
reduction, while John is six feet one is an optional reduction.
4.4. Non-Occurrence of Reduced Type II Sentences
Without the generalization made possible by the assumption of an under-

lying WITH string, it would be difficult to explain the ungrammaticality
of Type II sentences such as (5b) *De boot is 1 vadem (,The boat is I fathom')
and (6b) *Bet geschut is 10 km. ('The artillery is 10 kms.'), for we would be
stuck with an impossible choice between two remaining explanations,
numbered 1 and 2 below, provided we reject underlying structures contain-
ing an underlying category HAVE, which would lead to improbable so-
lutions anyway. Under 1, no underlying adjectives are assumed where they
calculus of the kind envisaged in Gruber (I 967a) (see pp. 4 and 303). TO corresponds to what
in Fillmore's terminology would be Dative, under which the Estonian adessive would have to
be subsumed (see Fillmore (1968a)). As is remarked in Fillmore (l968b), "relations between
verbs that are like the converse relations of the theory of predicates involve position-switching
for subject and object ( ... )" (op. cit., p. 337). The same could then be said of such elements as
WITH and TO. Perhaps these categories should be seen as V's (see p. 220), which would be
more or less in keeping with proposals in Lakoff (1965).
If our analysis of adjectives like tall as prepositional phrases is essentially correct, Fillmore's
remark no longer holds from a linguistic point of view that a predicate with one argument has the
simple predicate adjective or intransitive verb Pa (where' P' stands for 'predicate' and 'a' is
the argument; Fillmore (1968b), p. 375-6), for tall should then be seen as a two-place predicate
WITH NP • NP ' The McCawley-type base structure representation of NP I is tall would then be
Is Iv WITH vl NP I NP2 sl·
It is worth noting that the surface preposition with occurs also in numerous types of sentences
where it cannot be assumed to correspond to the category which I have labelled WITH. Nor,
of course, is 'have' always to be analyzed as BE WITH. (Cf. She was with me, She had me.)
See also, on 'have' and 'be', Bach (1967).
never manifest themselves as words in simple MP sentences; under 2, under-

lying adjectives are assumed in all cases.
1. We could assign underlying structures to (5a) and (6a) containing the
categories DRAW and CARRY, respectively, and to a sentence like (la)
one containing WEIGH, where these categories are not phonologically
specified strings. We could then somehow try to set up rules converting
optionally the underlying semicopula categories into BEjust in case mention
in one way or another of the parameters in question may be omitted. In the
case of measure adjective sentences we could delete the underlying adject-
ives optionally under the same condition. In all other cases b-type sentences
thus would be excluded.
There is no decisive argument for or against such an explanation. On
the one hand, it is true that in the case of Type II sentences explicit mention
in one way or another of the parameter we are talking about cannot be
dispensed with. But on the other hand, we would like to take into account
a rule which apparently in one form or another operates upon the structure
of simple MP sentences, and which has the effect that in such sentences the
occurrence of a neutral parameter adjective is delimited by the existence in
the lexicon of the appropriate semicopula (e.g., not *Jan is 80 kilo zwaar
because there exists a semicopula wegen). In order to account for this re-
gularity in a general way, we could consider the alternative explanation 2.
2. The alternative explanation would have to be based on the claim that
in Type J sentences as well as in Type II sentences the underlying measure
adjective is prohibited from becoming manifest as a word if and only if an
appropriate semicopula exists in the lexicon. Suppose we accept this claim
as correct. We could then attempt to set up rules in the following way. One
rule optionally deletes the underlying measure adjective in simple MP
sentences if and only if it pertains to a parameter which need not be men-
tioned in the sentence in order to be understood (as in Jan is 2 meter, Dat
boek is 12 gulden); another rule obligatorily converts BE + ADJECTIVE
into a semicopula whenever a semicopula exists. The former rule would
have to apply before the latter.
However, the claim on which this way of accounting for the non-occur-
rence of the b sentences of Type II would be based cannot be substantiated
because it presupposes the existence of underlying adjectives in Type II
sentences like (5a) and (6a) (with steken (draw) and dragen (carry), res-
pectively), which under no circumstances can become manifest as words
(whereas, in the case of Type J, we can at least point to the existence of
adjectives like zwaar (heavy) and duur (expensive) in connection with the
semicopulas wegen and kosten). There are, of course, the words stekend
(,drawing') and dragend (,carrying'), but these are hardly comparable with
zwaar and duur (Dat boek is iets zwaarder/duurder (,That book is a little
more heavy/expensive') vs. *Dat schip is iets stekender (That ship is a little
more drawing'), *Dat geschut is iets dragender (,That artillery is a little more
more carrying'». It would therefore be rather arbitrary to prefer 2 over 1;
under 1, no underlying adjectives were assumed where they never manifest
themselves whereas under 2 they were assumed in all cases.
Thus, should we abandon the idea of an underlying WITH string, or
some other underlying string serving the same explanatory purpose, a
choice would be forced upon us between two possible explanations, neither
of which is really satisfactory.
On the other hand, if we should substitute "WITH string" for "measure
adjective", the latter explanation would no longer be based on an arbitrary
claim, since, as we saw, there is evidence supporting the assumption of such
a string.
4.5. Adjectives Corresponding to 'Met' Phrases

It would of course be important if it could be shown that the relation to
met is not restricted, apart from semicopulas and hebben, to parameter
adjectives. As we saw, there are adjectives which are not parameter adject-
ives, in English, Dutch and German, and which probably are relatable to-
'with' (cf. the b examples of (107)-(115».
It should be stressed at this point that it is not claimed that all adject-
ives are WITH phrases in underlying structure. Adjectives which probably
are not, are for example 'material adjectives' (houten (wooden), etc.), and
words like huidig (present, as in the present regime), aanwezig (present, as in
Everybody was present), enige (only).
But there appears to be a great variety of adjectives which show a clear
relation to met phrases. Compare the following examples:
(l18a) Een erg enthousiaste jongen.
'A very enthusiastic boy.'
(l18b) Een jongen met vee I enthousiasme.
'A boy with a lot of enthusiasm.'
(l19a) Een vrij accurate leerling.
'A rather accurate pupil.'
(l19b) Een leerling met vrij veel accuratesse.
'A pupil with quite some accurateness.'
(120a) Een kinderloos echtpaar.
'A childless couple.'
(l20b) Een echtpaar zonder kinderen (zonder = met negated).
'A couple without children.'
(121a) Een langdurige operatie.

'A long-lasting operation.'
(121b) Een operatie met een erg lange duur.
'A operation with a long duration.'
(122a) Een veelkleurige bal.
'A many-coloured ball.'
(122b) Een bal met veel kleuren.
'A ball with many colours.'
(123a) Een erg ervaren man.
'A very experienced man.'
(123b) Een man met grote ervaring.
'A man with a lot of experience.'
(124a) Een zeer waarschijnlijk toekomstbeeld.
'A very likely image of the future.'
(124b) Een toekomstbeeld met een hoge mate van waarschijnlijkheid.
'An image of the future with high degree of likelihood.'
(12Sa) Een opzettelijke fout.
'A deliberate mistake.'
(12Sb) Een fout met opzet.
'A mistake with purpose.'
In fact, if we list adjectives such as these and the corresponding 'with'
phrases, it turns out that there is an overwhelming number of such pairs.
In some cases the surface adjective seems to be derived from the cor-
responding noun (moed - moedig (courage - brave», in other cases the
form of the noun seems to be derived from the adjective (duidelijkheid -
duidelijk (clarity - clear». Sometimes the surface forms are identical (trouw-
trouw (faithfulness - faithful), trots - trots (pride - proud», and again some-
times the surface forms are totally unrelated (verve - gloedvol (verve - glow-
ing), snelheid - hard (speed - fast), gewicht - zwaar (weight - heavy». From
these facts it must be concluded, I think, that the appearance of the words
in question does not provide a clue as to what is the more fundamental
category. There seems to be no regularity in this respect, at least from a
synchronic viewpoint.
There are adjectives which are identical in form to past participles. Thus
there are the two sentences (126) and (127), which have the same appearance:
(126) Je bent ontslagen. (passive; present perfect)
'You have been fired.'
(127) Je bent ontslagen. (predicate nominal; present imperfect)
'You are fired.' ('a fired man')
Alongside (126) we do not have (128), below, (if we exclude frequency),

whereas we do have (129) alongside (127):
(128) *Je bent nu al een tijd ontslagen.
'You have been fired for some time already now.'
(129) Je bent nu al een tijd ontslagen.
'You are fired (a fired man) for some time already now.'
Accordingly, we do not have (128a), the active counterpart of (128):
(128a) *Men (iemand) heeft je nu al enige tijd ontslagen.
'They have (someone has) fired you for some time already now.'
The adjective ontslagen corresponds to hebben, the participle with hebben
gekregen ('have goe):
(130) Hij heeft zijn ontslag.
'He has his discharge.'
(131) Hij heeft zijn ontslag gekregen.
'He has got the sack.'
The relation to met in this case is confirmed by such sentences as
(132) Hij is met oneervol ontslag weggegaan.
'He left with a dishonorable discharge.'
It can be concluded that the phenomena discussed in this subsection are
so general that the assumption ~f an underlying category WITH in measure
adjective MP sentences is certainly justified.
5. RECAPITULATION
In the first section of this chapter it was pointed out that there can be made
a distinction between two types of simple MP sentences. Type I sentences
may undergo reduction, whereas Type II sentences cannot. In order to be
able to formulate a rule or rules for reduction in simple MP sentences, and
also to account for other phenomena exhibited by them, a number of
pieces of evidence have been presented in favour of a certain uniform type
of underlying structure in simple MP sentences.
One similarity in the behaviour of simple MP sentences consists in the
fact that they all have the same paraphrase relation to hebben, which more-
over can be used as evidence in support of the claim that the structure under-
lying MP sentences contains a WITH string.
Hebben paraphrases reveal the source of the ungrammaticality of senten-
ces with each other as the complement of either a semicopula or a copula +
measure adjective construction. They show that the condition of co-

reference governing the correct derivation of each other sentences is not
met in the case of such sentences. The argument is independent of any
hypothesis concerning each other sentences in general. It is also independent
of any claim with respect to the structure underlying simple MP sentences,
but simply shows that there must be a significant relation to hebben. How-
ever, if semicopulas are taken to be V's, measure phrases in simple MP
sentences containing semicopulas cannot be distinguished from direct
objects as regards structural description. But since the complement of a
semicopula cannot be a direct object, whereas each other phrases must be
if occurring as the only complement noun phrase of a verb, taking semi-
copulas to be simply V's leaves the ungrammaticality of semicopula + each
other constructions unexplained. Each (elk-) in each other constitutes an
extra cause of ungrammaticality, since measure semicopulas nor measure
adjectives take definite complements. However, a semicopula like betekenen
(mean) does take definite complements. But each other sentences with be-
tekenen are also ungrammatical. Thus it can be shown, with hebben para-
phrases, that the most general cause of ungrammaticality in the cases under
consideration must be absence of co-reference.
Semicopulas as well as copula + measure adjective constructions are
stative and non-passivizable. So is the verb hebben. The fact that the two
properties of stativeness and non-passivizability consistently go together in
simple MP sentences and hebben sentences also points in the direction of
a significant relation between this verb and simple MP sentences. The
case is strengthened by the fact that there are constructions other than
simple MP sentences which also show a relation to hebben and which are
stative and non-passivizable as well.
Further evidence that the underlying structure of semicopula sentences
and measure adjective sentences are similar can be summed up as follows:
(I) In some cases semicopula sentences can be paraphrased by measure ad-
jective sentences; (2) MP's never occur as direct objects in simple MP sen-
tences (which makes it probable, incidentally, that semicopulas are not
simply V's but are at least as complicated in underlying structure as copula
measure adjective constructions); (3) MP's cannot be omitted, regardless
of whether they occur as the complement of a semicopula or of a measure
adjective.
Three possible types of underlying structure have been considered
in this chapter. The first contains an underlying verb hebben, the second
an underlying adjective (which would be in keeping with Ross's proposal).
The third does not contain a terminal string of morphemes but of semantic
categories, including a WITH string. Lexicalization may take place after
transformations have been applied. BE WITH may be realized as hebben,

WITH as met, WITH plus underlying parameter noun as a parameter ad-
jective, and BE WITH plus underlying parameter noun as a semicopula.
The disadvantages of the first two proposals are that they lead to ar-
bitrary and clumsy transformational rules which take over the task assigned
to the lexicon.
The arguments for assuming an underlying WITH string are the follow-
ing. (I) Relative Clause Reduction can be assigned a more general domain.
It could now relate relative clauses containing the surface verb hebben to
met phrases (and of course it could do the same with respect to semicopulas
and many adjectives on the one hand and met on the other); (2) An under-
lying WITH string will enable us to state non-trivial generalizations con-
cerning the structure underlying sentences which are translations of each
other, such as I am hungry and J'ai jaim, and accounts for phenomena in
languages lacking a surface verb 'have', such as Estonian. Thus language
description will gain in generality in this respect; (3) Reduction in simple
MP sentences can be carried out in a simple and uniform way; it consists
in deleting optionally the underlying WITH string; (4) No problems arise
as to the choice between possible alternatives accounting for the difference
between Type I sentences and Type II sentences; if an underlying WITH
string is assumed, claims concerning reducible and non-reducible simple
MP sentences are no longer arbitrary; (5) A strong argument for an under-
lying category WITH is that not only measure adjectives show a relation to
met, but a host of other types of adjectives as well.
In the next chapter it will be assumed that the above claim with respect
to the structure underlying simple MP sentences is correct. Some additional
observations will be presented in order to justify proposals for the technical
description of various types of MP sentences.
CHAPTER III
THE DERIVATION OF MP SENTENCES
1. LEXICAL ENTRIES AND LEXICAL RULES
This section will be devoted to the question of how polycategorial lexical

attachment is supposed to take place in the case of underlying structures of
the type proposed in the preceding chapter.
Following Gruber, I shall assume that the lexicon of a grammar is not
part of the base component, as it is according to the model proposed in
Chomsky (1965), but a separate component. In Gruber's version, the
lexicon contains lexical entries which may be represented in the form of
tree diagrams and which are associated with phonologically specified
strings. The entry for wegen thus might look like I.
I s
NP VP
v
~PP
I~
BEP NP
I
WITH NP NP
I
WEIGHT
'*' wegen '*'

The boxed-in configuration represents the 'simultaneous environment'.
The rest of the entry is the 'peripheral environment'. The simultaneous
environment represents the part of a derived structure where actual at-
tachment takes place. The peripheral environment acts as a contextual
restriction on the occurrence of a word.
The lexical entry for zwaar (the neutral parameter adjective) contains
at least part of the subtree which forms the entry for wegen. However, its
simultaneous environment cannot be just [pp WITH WEIGHT pp], for con-
sider again the examples (98a, b) Hoeveel weegt ze? ('How much does she
weigh 1'), Hoe zwaar is ze? ('How heavy is she1') and (98i, j) Ze woog
THE DERIVATION OF MP SENTENCES 99
(2 pond) te veel (,She weighed (2 pounds) too much'), Ze was (2 pond) te

zwaar (,She was (2 pounds) too heavy') of the preceding chapter (pp. 77-8).
The a sentence is completely synonymous with the corresponding b sentence.
The same holds for (98i, j). Suppose that both wegen and zwaar zijn were
analyzed as BE WITH WEIGHT. It would then be impossible to account
for the occurrence of veel in the a and i sentences and its absence in the
band j sentences. The simultaneous environment for zwaar therefore must
incorporate an element underlying veel which is not present in the
simultaneous environment of wegen, but manifested as a separate word in
wegen sentences. Let us call this e1emen: 'AMOUNT. The simultaneous
environment for the neutral parameter adjective zwaar may have roughly
the form of II:
II PP
P
~NP
I~
WITHNP NP
I
WEIGHT
I
AMOUNT
*' zwaar *'

We may assume two different entries for the neutral parameter adjective
lang (or rather, the two neutral parameter adjectives lang). One of them
incorporates AMOUNT, whereas the other does not (see p. 100).
The neutral adjective lang2 takes measure phrases, whereas the neutral
adjective lang l does not; lang 2 is a measure adjective, lang! is a parameter
adjective not occurring in simple MP sentences, but in questions like Hoe
lang is die stok? (,How long is that stickT) and sentences such as De stok is
te lang (,The stick is too long').
Gruber (1967a, b) has proposed a principle governing the rules of lexical
attachment which he has called the principle of disjunctive ordering. This
principle can be stated roughly as follows: Of two entries (one of which
is identical to part of the other) the greater one (i.e., the one with t'he larger
'total' environment) takes precedence over the smaller one; if the greater
entry may apply, the smaller one may not. Insofar as there is no absolute
precedence, this is due to the cyclical application of lexical rules. (Cf.
Gruber (l967a), p. 94ff. See also my footnote 28, p. 221).
The earlier mentioned 'rule' to the effect that the occurrence of a neutral
parameter adjective is subject to restrictions determined by whether or
not there exists an appropriate semicopula (cf. p. 192), cannot be considered
IlIa PP
~NP
P
I~
WITHNP NP
LENGTH
\ I
AMOUNT
+ lang, +
IIlb PP
~NP
P
I
WITH NP MP
I
LENGTH
an instance of Gruber's disjunctive ordering principle, since there is no

disjunctive ordering relation between the entries of, e.g., the neutral para-
meter adjective zwaar and the semicopula wegen (for, zwaar contains the
category AMOUNT in its simultaneous environment, whereas this category
does not occur in the entry for wegen).
If there would be cases of absolute precedence of one entry over another,
we would have the absurd situation of there being lexical entries which
could never apply. If, for example, there would be an entry BE [pp WITH
WEIGHT pp] NP, where [pp WITH WEIGHT pp] would form the simul-
taneous environment, it presumably would be disjunctively ordered after
the entry for wegen. The precedence over this hypothetical adjective should
moreover be absolute, since it is never manifested.
The fact that such an adjective does not have any entry in the lexicon
can be seen as an instance of a regularity which is closely akin to Gruber's
disjunctive ordering principle. It can be formulated as follows: A given
configuration A, occurring as part of the simultaneous environment of a
lexical entry B, cannot itself occur as the simultaneous environment of an
entry consisting of the same subtree as B. Thus, for instance, there cannot
be a lexical entry BE WITH WEIGHT NP in which WITH WEIGHT is
the simultaneous environment, because there is an entry BE WITH
WEIGHT NP in which BE WITH WEIGHT is the simultaneous environ-

ment. We could call this principle the 'economy principle'. It explains why
we do not have *Jan is 80 kilo zwaar or *Bet boek is 12 gulden duur. In short,
the economy principle comes into play in the case of a hypothetical pair
of entries consisting of completely identical trees, differing only in the
number of categories contained in the simultaneous environments. Only the
one with the larger simultaneous environment can exist.
Before a lexical item is attached, some structural changes of the subtree
are required. These structural changes appear to be always of the same
nature, so that possibly they can be viewed as governed by conventions.
Below I shall illustrate the restructuring operations as they should take
place along the lines of Gruber's proposals. I shall then give some comment
on them.
The first step in restructuring, say, the subtree identical with the simul-
taneous environment of wegen, consists in an operation known as 'Chomsky
adjunction' .
1st step
IV S V S
~VP
NP
~VP
NP
V
~PP --;;.. ~PP V
I~
BE P NP
I~NP
BE PP
I ~Y
WITH NP
~~
P NP Y
I
WEIGHT
I
WITH
I
WEIGHT
Next, once more Chomsky adjunction is applied (VI).

The encircled label in VI has become irrelevant and the corresponding
node is pruned. (A category is irrelevant if it does no longer dominate its
left-branching 'head'. The NP immediately dominating Y will not be
pruned if Y does not render it irrelevant, where Y is a string variable.) Next,
the order of terminal nodes is reversed in two steps, after which lexical
attachment takes place (see VII and VII/). (The lexical attachment to the
'post-order-reversal' tree VIII can also be seen as a transformation-like
process.)
As can be seen from III- VI, the first and second steps each have as a result
that a node comes to dominate immediately another node bearing an
2nd step
VI s
NP
~VP
--~ v --..,.
~PP
V NP
I~
BE P NP
~y
I
WITH
I
WEIGHT
3rd step 4th step
VIII s
VI~
NP VP
~VP
NP
~NP
V
~NP
V
V
~~Y ~ --".
~~ V Y ~
I~
BE NP P
~I
NP P BE
WEIGHT
I I
WITH
I
WEIGHT
I /
WITH /
---------- ------\/
\,,'
wegen
identical label; PP comes to dominate PP in V, V comes to dominate V

in VI.
However, we might ask whether the following objections could not be
raised. In the first place, it is highly unusual for a V to dominate V +PP, as
is the case in VI-VIII. We might therefore consider having a VP node in-
stead of a V node dominating BE WITH WEIGHT.
Secondly, in the case of V, the rightmost node immediately dominated by
VP comes to dominate a newly created node PP, whereas in the case of VI,
the leftmost node immediately dominated by VP is itself a newly created
constituent (the result of combining V and PP). In other words, one could
say that, of the nodes immediately dominated by VP, only the leftmost node
is replaced by a new one. There is some inconsistency in this.
What could be the possible answers to these objections?
First, one could say that the string BE WITH WEIGHT (or WEIGHT
WITH BE) is a string underlying a verb and not a verb phrase. This
argument would be along the lines of Gruber (1967a), where he objects to
considering enter anything else but a V. The lexical entry of enter, according
to Gruber, should look something like IX:
IX
VP
~
v PP
GO
I P NP
INTO
I
'II' enter 'II'
In a phrase marker containing a subtree identical to the one occurring

in IX, the former will be restructured, by virtue of Gruber's conventions
governing lexical attachment, so as to result in X (where the encircled node
is pruned):
X VP
v
~V
P NP
I
INTO
.....
GO
I
/'
'.......
,....,." ....
,./
'*' enter *'
.......
As Gruber remarks, the point of restructuring subtrees prior to actual

lexical attachment is that "in order for transformations to be able to apply,
there must be [an appropriate category] defining the word. In fact, the re-
sulting word must be a V and not a P or some vague combination. It cannot
be a P because transformations which apply to PP do not work:
The house into which John went
*the house entered which John
It must be a verb, because tense is attracted to it, it passivizes, etc." (op. cit.,
p. 130.)
One might attempt to answer the second objection as follows. It is not

necessary to view the highest V node in VI as a new node, replacing the
original V which dominates BE in V. This can be made clear in an infonnal
way by representing the "restructuring history" of the VP as in XI.
XI a b
VP VP
~PP ---;.
V
~PP ---;.
V
I~
BE P NP
I~
BE P NP
I~
WITH NP Y
I NP ~Y
WITH
WEIGHT
I I
WEIGHT
c d
VP VP
~PP
V ---.;.
~PP
V ---..;.
BE
I ~NP I
BE PP'
~NP
P NP
~Y ~NP
P
~Y
I I
WITH WEIGHT
I
WITH
I
WEIGHT
e (Cf.Y) f
VP VP
~PP
V ---.;. V
~PP ---.;.
BE
I~
PP' NP
I
BE PP'
~NP
~~
PNP Y P
~~
NP Y
WITH
I I
WEIGHT
I
WITH
I
WEIGHT
9 h
VP VP
~PP
v ---~
~PP
V ---~
~NP ppl VI ppJ

~NP
BE
A~
P NP Y BE
I P
A NP
~y
I
WITH
I
WEIGHT
I
WITH
I
WEIGHT
i (Ct. JlI)
VP
~PP
V
~ppl ~NP
VI
I P~~
BE NP y
I
WITH
I
WEIGHT
The newly introduced nodes are marked with primes.

But there is an inconsistency in XI. Instead of "extending" a new left
branch ending in a node with an identical label (as PP may be said to do),
the VP node retains its left branching V (cf. g, above). Thus it would be more
consistent to have the sequence XII. See pp. 106-7.
I think that for the sake of consistency, we should opt for the latter type
of restructuring. The fact that consequenctly we should call wegen a 'VP'
will be no cause of serious difficulties. This departure from Gruber's views
will require the reformulation of several transformations, but this will not
present any obstacles.
Let us return now to the third and fourth steps (VII and VIII), which
represent the order reversals. The principle of order reversal is supported
by a number of observations presented by Gruber (see, for example, Gruber
(l967a), p. 13Iff.). Gruber has observed that polymorphemic words cor-
responding to expressions consisting of more than one word show, as a
rule, a morpheme order which is the exact reverse of that in the correspond-
ing many-word expressions (homeward-toward home, John's-oJ John,
XII a b
VP VP
~PPV ---~
~PP
V ---~
I~
BE P NP
I
BE
~NP
I~
WITH NP Y P NP
~Y
I
WEIGHT
I
WITH WEIGHT
I
c d (Cf.]Z")
VP VP
~PP
V ---~
~PP
V ----+
BE
I~
pp' NP
I~
BEpp' NP
P NP
~Y ~NP
P
~Y
WITH
I I
WEIGHT
I
WITH WEIGHT
I
e f
VP VP
~PP ---~
~
VP. PP ---~
V pp'
~NP V PP'
~NP
IA
BE P NP
~I ~~
Y BE P NP Y
I
WITH WEIGHT
I I
WITH
I
WEIGHT
THE DERIVA TlON OF MP SENTENCES 107
vp
~PP VP'
v
~~ pp' NP
I~~
BE P NP Y
I
WITH
I
WEIGHT
enter/exit-go in/go out, traverse-go across, painted (past}-did paint,

redden-become red, re-do-do again, overturn-turn over, body-snatch-
snatch bodies, etc.), and has hypothesized that this morphemic order distinc-
tion is universal. 22 Later on, we shall see that the principle of order-reversal
may be relevant with respect to copula + measure adjective constructions.
Now that we have a general idea of the sort of lexicon that we must
have if underlying structures of the type proposed are accepted, we may try
to work out in more detail the envisaged apparatus while discussing the
description of simple MP sentences. But before we can do this, we must
examine more closely one of the most important phenomena in MP
sentences, namely, that of reduction.
After having inquired into the conditions under which reduction occurs,
I shall attempt to show that a uniform way of deriving reduced MP
sentences becomes possible if we accept the type of structures and de-
scriptive devices in favour of which I am arguing. It is because of this that
so much attention is given here to reduction-the fact that we can account
for it in a simple and uniform way by assuming underlying WITH strings
is one of the main arguments in favour of the descriptive proposals present-
ed thus far.
2. WHEN DOES REDUCTION OCCUR?
By 'reduction' in this section I mean the kind we have observed in

sentences such as (8}-( 11) in Chapter I, not reduction in the MP itself
(Ze is twaalf (,She is twelve'), Dat kost een vijftig ('That costs one fifty').
22 According to the view presented in Gruber (1967a), however. no order reversal takes place
where it is not apparent in the morphemic order. But I think it will simplify a grammar if we
need not state in any way in every specific case whether or not order reversal is to take place.
As is pointed out on pp. 127~8. it may be preferable for productive affixes to have lexical en-
tries whose simultaneous environments include categorial variables or unspecified categories re-
presenting the classes of morphemes to which affixes are connected. rather than to postulate
Reduction in MP sentences is only to be found among sentences in which

the measure phrase specifies the value of a spatial, durational (or perhaps
we should say, time), weight or monetary value parameter, or in sentences
referring to the number of units (de lengte bedraagt 2 meter ('the length
amounts to 2 meters'». Within these confines, whether reduction mayor
may not occur does not depend upon the parameter involved in the MP,
but upon the parameter noun occurring in the underlying WITH string.
We can distinguish between two types of MP sentences in which the
underlying WITH string (or part of it) is not manifested as a word; in
simple MP sentences we only have optional reduction, while among
van + MP constructions we find cases where the underlying parameter noun
occurring in the underlying WITH string cannot become manifest as a word,
as well as cases of optional reduction. No reduction occurs in other types
of MP sentences in Dutch besides the two mentioned here.
I shall deal with the subject of reduction below in two subsections. The
first subsection will be devoted to reduction in simple MP sentences; the
second, to reduction in van + MP sentences.
2.1. Reduction in Simple M P Sentences
It appears that reduction in simple MP sentences is possible at least

A. (i) with a human subject, if the parameter noun in the WITH string
refers to age, height, or weight,
(ii) with an inanimate subject, if the parameter noun in the WITH
string refers to area, volume, weight, price, or if the number of
units is referred to.
(Cf. (la)-(2b), below.)
We may call age, height and weight the 'main parameters' of humans.
That is, they are the parameters which need not be mentioned explicitly
incomplete lexical items which after having been connected with other lexical items are at-
tached to the derived tree, as Gruber proposes. This means that we could introduce another
type of 'incomplete' lexical entries for affixes which could reverse the order of the affix node
or nodes and the as yet unlexicalized string of categories matching the categorial variables or
unspecified categories within the simultaneous environment (without affecting the order within
the latter string). Thus if A is the node underlying the affix and X the node underlying the
phonological string to which the affix is to be connected. where the prelexical order is A X. the
entry will change the order into X A, and lexicalize A. A further entry. applied afterwards. will
then lexicalize X. Thus order reversal as it is apparent in words consisting of two morphemes
will not be the result of attaching the polymorphemic word in stages. since order reversal will
already have taken place during lexicalization of A. If X is a string of two or more nodes (where
X corresponds to a string variable in the simultaneous environment). only the order of A X
will be reversed during the first stage. while a further entry (or further entries) will reverse the
order within X.
by means of an adjective or semicopula because in the respective cases it

goes without saying what parameters we are referring to, The main para-
meters of inanimates are, then, area, volume, weight, and price, In addition,
I
bedragen ('amount to') can be reduced,
is { zesendertig jaar oud } j

I I.
(Ia) Jan 2 meter lang ,
weegt 80 kilo
'John is { ~h~~~S:: :a~;rs Old}

weighs 80 kilos
r zesendertig jaar 1
(lb) Jan is \2 meter ,
80 kilo
thirty-six years 1
1
'John is 2 meters
80 kilos
..
{ meet 21 m (m )
2 3 }
(2a)i. H
I
r is 21 m 2 (m 3 ) groot
et voorwerp weegt 30 k'l10
J
'
I
kOSI 100 gulden
21 m 2 (m 3 )}
j,
measures
{
'Th b' is 21 m (m 3 ) large
2
e 0 ~ect 'h s 30 k'llOS
welg '
costs 100 guilders
prijs
grootte
ii, De lengte bedraagt zo en zoveel eenheden,
helling
I
I
price
volume/area
'The length amounts to so-and-so many units,'
I
gradient
J 21 m (m
2 3
)
(2b)i, Het voorwerp is 130 kilo ,
100 gulden
The object is 130 kilos

r 21 m 2 (m 3) 1"
100 guilders
prijs
grootte
ii. De lengte is zo en zoveel eenheden.
helling
price
volume/area
'The length is so-and-so many units.'
gradient
In certain cases reduction may also occur with human subjects if the para-
meter is price (Deze slaaf is 200 dollar (,This slave is 200 dollars'». Such
sentences are less common as humans are not usually bought and sold. If
the subject refers to an animal or animals, reduction in MP sentences
referring to price is possible as well (Dat hondje in de etalage is 75 gulden
(,That doggie in the window is 75 guilders'». Reduction in sentences with
kosten is not possible if kosten2 is meant (see p. 52).
Age is often treated as a main parameter of animals, particularly pets.
This is one of the many instances of the 'humanizing' of animals reflected
in language.
We may now replace A with the conditions under B:
B. Reduction may occur in the case of
(i) age: with human subjects and sometimes with subjects referring
to animals,
(ii) weight: with animate subjects and subjects referring to physical
objects,
(iii) height: with human subjects (Dutch: lengte),
(iv) price: with subjects referring to things that can be bought, ab-
stract or concrete,
(v) area: with subjects referring to physical objects,
(vi) volume: id.
(vii) quantity of units: with subjects containing parameter nouns.
There are a number of cases which do not meet B but are nonetheless not
entirely ungrammatical. Thus, for instance, (3) and (4) do not sound odd:
(3) Die toren is 100 meter.

'That tower is 100 meters.'
(4) Deze lat is 2 meter.
'This lath is 2 meters.'
THE DERIVATION OF MP SENTENCES III
But there is a slight preference for (5) and (6), respectively:

(5) Die toren is 100 meter hoog.
'That tower is 100 meters tall.'
(6) Deze lat is 2 meter lang.
'This lath is 2 meters long.'
As can be seen from (2a), there is no disjunctive ordering between meten
('measure') and groot zijn ('be large'). This fact can be explained if we assume
that the structure underlying meten differs from the one underlying groot
zijn. The parameter noun occurring in the hebben paraphrase of meten is
afmeting (,measurement'), whereas the parameter noun corresponding to
groot zijn may be grootte ('size'), oppervlak ('area', 'surface'), or volume
('volume'). Groot zijn cannot be used in connection with length in MP sen-
tences. We do not have
(7) *Deze lat is 6 voet groot.
'This lath is 6 feet large.'
But meten can be so used:
(8) Deze lat meet 6 voet.
'This lath measures 6 feet.'
In other words, meten may refer to a one-space, two-space, or three-space
parameter, whereas groot zijn only refers to either a two-space or a three-
space parameter. The acceptability, to a certain extent, of sentences such as
(3) and (4) may have something to do with, among other things, the fact
that length and, in principle, height, are subsumed under the parameters
called afmeting; this word is the parameter noun corresponding to the verb
meten, as we saw.
To a greater extent than is the case with 'height' and 'length' sentences, the
contextual and/or situational condition that the relevant parameter be
the topic of discourse has to be met for (9}-( 11) to sound natural:
(9) Dit stuk karton is 0,5 millimeter. (thickness)
'This piece of cardboard is 0.5 millimeter.'
(10) (*)Mijn schrijfbureau is 2 meter. (width)
'My desk is 2 meters.'
(II) (*)Deze put is 10 meter. (depth)
'This well is 10 meters.'
A general rule with respect to one-space parameters seems to be that it is
more acceptable to omit explicit mention if they are associated with the
greatest axis of a physical object and if we view this axis as 'height' or
'length'. Thickness' is not related to a greatest axis. 'Width' in a number of

cases is, but reduction in 'width' sentences is rather unnatural. Reduction in
'depth' sentences is even more unnatural.
At this point it may be useful to take note of Bierwisch's analysis of
German spatial adjectives. In order to distinguish the behaviour of the
adjective lang (long) from that of hoch (high, tall) and breit (wide, broad), he
proposes the markers (± Max).
Furthermore, the markers (± Second) are introduced. They have to do
with the fact that length - which is associated with the marker ( - Second) -
is the primary dimension, whereas width is secondary. If the maximal axis
of a given object is called its 'length', the object may also have an axis
called its 'width'. But if the maximal axis is 'width', there can be no 'length'
axis in the normal cases. Hoch (hoog ('tall', 'high')) is neither ( + Second)
nor ( - Second). If one of the axes is the 'length' axis, however, that axis
normally is the maximal axis. Observer-related dimensions, such as depth,
are marked ( + Observ).
As an example we may take the word bureau ('desk'). Its three axes are
breedte ('width'), hoogte ('height'), and diepte ('depth'). According to Bier-
wisch, breedte is ( + Max) in the case of a desk. It is, furthermore, ( + Second).
Hoogte is ( - Max) for desks, and it is neither ( + Second) nor ( - Second).
Diepte is marked ( + Observ) and ( - Max). Now, lengte cannot be used in
connection with desks, for an object can only have one maximal axis.
As Bierwisch remarks, "an object may - but need not - have a maximal
axis. This axis is occupied by hoch if it is normally vertical, and by lang
otherwise. But if an object is marked ( + Observ) for one of its dimensions
and this dimension is not at the same time maximal, then lang is ruled out
completely. In that case, if the vertical axis is not simultaneously the
maximal one, the ( + Second)-marked dimension may be maximal. This, for
instance, is the case with Schreibtisch ['desk']".
The facts noted about lang, hoch, tief and breit, Bierwisch goes on to
say, "can be described by a marker ( + Max) for the maximal dimension of
an object, in case there is one, and (- Max) for all other dimensions."
(Bierwisch (1967), p. 18).
As is the case with the spatial adjective hoog, diep can be used in two ways.
It can refer to locati.on, as in (12), below, or to a 'dimension', as in (13).
As is demonstrated in (14) and (15), the difference between the two mean-
ings of the spatial adjective hoog is similar. In (14), hoog cannot be translated
as tall.
(12) De duikboot bleef diep onder het oppervlak.
The submarine remained deep under the surface.'
THE DERIVA nON OF MP SENTENCES 113
(13) De kast was een halve meter diep.

'The cupboard was half a meter deep.'
(14) De ballon zweefde hoog boven de stad.
'The balloon floated high above the city.'
(15) De toren was 100 meter hoog.
'The tower was 100 meters tall.'
The difference between the words haag and diep in their 'dimensional'
meaning is that haag generally can be used for objects that mayor may not
be hollow, whereas with diep there is a clear preference for hollow objects.
For instance, we do not have
(16) *een diepe muur
'a deep wall'
but
(17) een dikke muur
'a thick wall'
whereas instead of
(18) *een dikke kast
'a thick cupboard'
we have
(19) een diepe kast
'a deep cupboard'
although in both cases the other dimensions may be called haagte ('height')
and breedte ('width', 'breadth').
But, on the other hand, we do have
(20) Het water is diep.
'The water is deep.'
in which case diep seems to be applied to an object which is not hollow.
However, the dimensional adjective diep can only be used in connection
with water if it is contained in seas, lakes, ponds, etc., not if it is contained
in such things as pipes, cups, or bowls. We do not have, for instance,
(21) *Het water in deze kom is diep.
'The water in this bowl is deep.'
The phrase het water in (20) does not really refer to water, but to the basin
containing it, whereas in (21) het water cannot refer to anything but the
liquid itself.
Diep differs from all other dimensional parameter adjectives in that it
conveys information about shape, or inner structure. Of the words lang,

hoch, and breit, according to Bierwisch, hoch is the only other adjective,
beside tief('deep'}, that is directional. Not, however, because it would have
anything to do with the observer (for it has not), but because it implies some-
thing about the position of an object relative to the surface of the earth.
For hoch he proposes a marker (+ Vert).
There are a few facts which cast some doubt on the correctness of Bier-
wisch's putting breit on a par with lang and hoch as regards unrelated ness
to the observer. Bierwisch only considers the 'away from (or towards),
relation between axis and observer (the observer, as Bierwisch remarks, is
by no means necessarily the speaker or hearer). But, of course, a dimensional
axis may also be related in other ways to the observer. The maximal axis of,
for instance, a desk, is normally 'transversely' positioned with respect to
the observer; it stretches horizontally across his vision field. This axis, as
Bierwisch himself remarks, is referred to by the word breit. The same goes,
e.g., for television screens. The fact that we speak of width instead of length
in such cases, not implausibly can be related to the way such objects are
normally positioned relative to the observer.
On the other hand, there are cases which seem to contradict this. Thus,
for example, the breadth or width of laths and belts appears to have nothing
to do with the relation to the observer. The width of a belt normally even
is vertical. Such cases seem to confirm, then, that width is merely, in Bier-
wisch's terms, associated with the marker ( + Second). As far as I have been
able to ascertain, however, there are no cases with width as the maximal
axis in which that axis is not clearly related to the observer in a specific way,
namely, parallel to his own breadth.
As Bierwisch puts it,
There are good reasons to believe that the semantic markers in an adequate description of a
natural language do not represent properties of the surrounding world in the broadest sense. but
rather certain deep seated. innate properties of the human organism and the perceptual
apparatus. properties which determine the way in which the universe is conceived. adapted.
and worked on. (op. cit .• p.3).
We might speculate, in this vein, that length and height in some way are
associated in our conceptual framework with the main axis of the human
body and that this is why the 'secondary' dimension called width or breadth
so often turns out to involve position relative to the observer. However, I
shall not here take this matter any further. A thorough inquiry into it
would involve many aspects beyond the scope of this study. I think, non-
etheless, that it is reasonable to claim that, in all cases where the maximal
axis is width, the position relative to the observer is relevant.
Returning to the question of the different degrees of acceptability of
reduction in simple 'dimension' MP sentences with subjects refering to

physical objects, we can now say that, in the case of spatial parameters
which are not main parameters, it is to a certain extent acceptable to omit
explicit mention of the parameter, if it is associated with the maximal axis,
provided that the meaning of the parameter word does not include any
relation to the observer.
2.2. Reduction in 'Van' + MP Constructions

Van + MP constructions are derived from structures underlying simple
relative MP clauses (in a way that will be discussed later on in detail).
Thus there is a relationship between the a examples below and the corre-
sponding b constructions:
(22a) een lengte die twee meter bedraagt
'a length which amounts to two meters'
(22b) een lengte van twee meter
'a length of two meters'
(23a) een lat die twee meter lang is
'a lath which is two meters long'
(23b) een lat van twee meter
'a lath of two meters'
Van + MP constructions relatable to embedded clauses containing measure
adjectives do not themselves contain measure adjectives; they may, however,
contain a parameter noun:
hoog zijn
(24) een pilaar van zes meter
'a pillar of six meters'
(25) een pilaar van zes meter hoogte
'a pillar of six meters height'
(26) *een pilaar van zes meter hoog
'a pillar of six meters high'
breed zijn
(27) een bureau van 2 meter
'a desk of 2 meters'
(28) een bureau van 2 meter breedte
'a desk of 2 meters width'
(29) *een bureau van 2 meter breed
'a desk of 2 meters wide'
lang zijn
(30) een weg van 10 kilometer
'a road of 10 kilometers'
(31) een weg van 10 kilometer lengle
'a road of 10 kilometers length'
(32) *een weg van 10 kilometer lang
'a road of 10 kilometers long'
To some speakers, including myself, expressions like (26), (29) and (32)
sound quite acceptable. But the majority of my informants reject them. I
shall therefore regard them as ungrammatical.
The conditions for reduction in van + MP constructions are different
from those for reduction in simple MP sentences, as can be seen from
examples like the following:
(33a) een pauze van 20 minuten
'an intermission of 20 minutes'
(33b) *De pauze is 20 minuten.
'The intermission is 20 minutes.'
(34a) een bureau van 2 meter
'a desk of 2 meters'
(34b) *Het bureau is 2 meter.
'The desk is 2 meters.'
Reduction during the derivation of van + MP constructions may take place

in the case of length, height (of non-humans) or width (provided the latter
two are maximal axes), whereas in these cases simple MP sentences may
not reduce, or at least become more or less unnatural if reduced (cf. (3)-(6)
and (10». If depth is involved, reduction is not possible in van + MP
constructions. It is even unnatural if the topic of discourse is clearly depth.
In the case of thickness, the parameter noun can only be eliminated if it
refers to the topic of discourse. Thus, leaving special conditions out of con-
sideration, both of the a examples below can be called ungrammatical:
(35a) *een put van 10 meter

'a well of 10 meters'
(35b) een put van 10 meter diepte
'a well of 10 meters depth'
(36a) *een stuk karton van 0,5 millimeter

'a piece of cardboard of 0.5 millimeter'
(36b) een stuk karton van 0,5 millimeter dikte
'a piece of cardboard of 0.5 millimeter thickness'
Are there cases in which 'depth' refers to the maximal axis? The maximal
measurement of a vertical mine-shaft is its depth. But 'hole-like' things,
such as mine-shafts, wells, pits, etc., are not objects proper in the sense
desks are, and cups, cupboards, houses, etc. (all of which have depth). We
do not use the word 'axis' in connection with 'hole-like' things, whereas we
do use it in connection with objects proper. This difference can be related
to the following observation. It is unthinkable that 'hole-like' things can
move unless their immediate environment moves, whereas on the other hand
it is not unthinkable that objects proper, regardless of their mass, move
without their immediate environment moving, too. Objects proper can be
imagined to have an axis around which they can be moved independently;
'hole-like' things cannot. There are no objects proper, at least that I have
been able to think of, whose maximal axis is referred to as 'depth'. It seems
clear that we must differentiate between axis measurements and other
spatial measurements. (Compare (36a) *een stuk karton van 0,5 millimeter
(axis measurement) and (35a) *een put van 10 meter (not an axis measure-
ment). (35a) is always unnatural, whereas (36a) is not when the topic of
discourse is thickness.)
If the van + MP construction refers to a non-spatial parameter or to
the main one-space parameter (i.e., to height of humans), the MP cannot be
followed by a parameter noun; if it refers to a spatial parameter, the MP is
either optionally or obligatorily followed by a parameter noun, depending
on whether it refers to either a two-space or three-space parameter, or to a
maximal axis parameter (provided, of course, the construction does not
refer to the main one-space parameter):
(37a) een vloer van 9 m 2 oppervlak
'a floor of 9 m2 area'
(37b) een vloer van 9 m 2
'a floor of9 m 2 '
(38a) een booms tam van 2 meter omvang
'a log of 2 meters circumference'
(38b) een boomstam van 2 meter
'a log of 2 meters'
(39a) een boot van 1 vadem diepgang
'a boat of 1 fathom draught'
(39b) *een boot van I vadem
'a boat of I fathom'
(40) een man van 2 meter (*Iengte)
'a man of 2 meters (height)'
liS THE STRUCTURE UNDERLYING MP SENTENCES
(41) een man van 36 jaar (* leeftijd)

'a man of 36 years (age)'
(42) een versterker van 10 Watt (*vermogen)
'an amplifier of 10 Watts (power)'
(43) een electrolyt van 16 JlF (*capaciteit)
'an electrolyte of 16 JlFds (capacitance)'
(44) een man van SO kilo (*gewicht)
'a man of SO kilos (weight)'
(45) water van 30 graden (* temperatuur)
'water of 30 degrees (temperature)'
Of the b examples of (37)-(39), only the first one can be considered a correct
reduction of its corresponding a counterpart; (3Sb) is not synonymous
with (3Sa), and (39b) is ungrammatical.
We may conclude the following: The measure phrase is optionally fol-
lowed by a parameter noun if the expression refers to a maximal axis para-
meter (cf. (24), (25), (27), (2S), (30) and (31) or to a two-space or three-space
parameter. It must be followed by a parameter noun if the expression refers
to a non-main spatial parameter (cf. (36a) and (39a, b». It cannot be follow-
ed by a parameter noun if the expression refers to a non-spatial parameter
(cf. (41)--(45» or to the main one-space parameter (height of humans; cf.
(40».
There are MP sentences which have no van + MP counterpart. Thus,
alongside the a examples below, we do not have the corresponding b
constructions:
(46a) een man die (mij) 12 gulden schuldig is

'a man who owes (me) 12 guilders'
(46b) *een man van (mij) 12 gulden (schuld)
'a man of (me) 12 guilders (debt)'
(47a) een {~:e~ } dat 100 jaar oud is
'a {~:e~k } that is 100 years old'

(47b) *een {~doe:k } van 100 jaar (ouderdom)
'a { ~~~k } of 100 years (age)'
(4Sa) een eik die dertig jaar oud is
'an oak that is thirty years old'
(48b) *een eik van dertig jaar (leeftijd/ouderdom)

'an oak of thirty years (age)'
As for (46a, b), it can be remarked that schuld (,debt') does not refer to a
property; it refers to a relation. Therefore, it cannot refer to a measurable
property, that is, it cannot be considered a parameter noun.
The ungrammaticality of (47b) must be explained in another way. There
are only two cases in which constructions are possible of the form
NP + van + MP where the measure phrase refers to temporal units: (l) the
case in which the first noun phrase refers to humans (sometimes animates
in general), (2) the case in which the first noun phrase refers to things that
have duration (events). Inanimate nondurational nouns do not seem to be
associated with the notion of time as directly as are nouns referring to
humans and events. As we have postulated, age is a main parameter of
humans. A complete description of HUMAN nouns therefore should in-
clude (or at least imply), among other things, the fact that one of the main
parameters of humans is age. A complete description of the meaning of a
word can, in principle, be given in terms of the semantic categories present
in the entry of that word. Therefore the entry of say, man should somehow
indicate that a category AGE, and hence TIME, is involved. It should do
this either implicitly or explicitly. In the former case we shall need some
mechanism deriving the implication in question. In the latter, we may
simply include the category AGE in the entry of man. One of these two pos-
sibilities should be the case if we want to be able to explain in terms of
semantic categories why sentences like *Algernon's habit of scratching
himself behind the ear is twenty-one years of age are ungrammatical. Let us
assume, for the present, that the latter of the above possibilities is the case,
and that, consequently, words referring to humans must incorporate a
semantic category representing the notion of time. With regard to nouns
referring to events (such as operation), it seems clear that they, too, must
then incorporate such a category. Apparently, we must assume, further-
more, that no such category is incorporated in noun phrases referring to
inanimate non-durational entities (such as boek (book) and idee (idea», for
their meanings do not seem to be directly associated with the notion of time.
On the' other hand, we must explain why expressions like (47a) are
possible. For, if boek and idee do not incorporate a category TIME, one
would expect the same situation here as in the case of such words as
wedstrijd ('match'), pauze ('intermission'), etc., with respect to, for instance,
weight. We do not have *De pauze weegt 10 kilo (,The intermission weighs
10 kilos'). Presumably, this is because pauze does not incorporate categories
corresponding to the parameter of weight. A possible explanation for these
apparently conflicting facts is the following.

When we say of something that it is a certain number of years old, we
are saying that up to the moment of speech it has been in existence for that
number of years. But we are not referring to a period of existence in this
way when we specify the age of a person. Consider, in this connection, the
following examples:
(49a) Is dat iets nieuws of bestaat het allang?

'Is that something new or has it existed already for a long time?'
(49b) *Is dat een jonge man of bestaat hij allang?
'Is he a young man or has he existed already for a long time?'
(50a) Is dat iets ouds of bestaat het nog maar kort?

'Is that something old or has it been in existence for only a short
time yet?'
(50b) *Is dat een oude man of bestaat hij nog maar kort?
'Is he an old man or has he been in existence for only a short time
yet?'
The antonym of the non-neutral word oud, used in connection with non-
durational inanimate entities, is nieuw ('new'), not jong ('young'). The
reason why we apply the word young instead of new to persons who have
lived for a relatively short time yet, must be that new refers to the period
of existence, whereas young does not, or only by implication. (At present we
may ignore such sentences as Are you new around here?, and Volgens de
jongste berichten is hij gearriveerd (,According to the youngest reports he
has arrived'), which are rather special cases.)
Suppose we assign to the sentence The book is 100 years old an under-
lying structure which may be roughly represented as [NP,DET BOOKNPJ
- PERF BE - [IN [NP2EXISTEN CE NP '] - NP 2 BE WITH [NP 3TIME MP NP3]].
We would then be in a position to offer an explanation for the possibility
of expressions like (47a) despite the fact that no category TIME can be
assumed to be present in the entries of non-durational inanimate nouns. The
word existence would then have to be a noun which does incorporate the
category TIME, and we may assume in that case that the category
EXISTENCE is in some way associated with the parameter category TIME.
Suppose, furthermore, that there are pre-lexical rules relating the structure
indicated above to another structure which we might represent as
DET BOOK - BE [pp WITH [PERF TIME OF EXISTENCE - MP]pp].
We could then assign to the neutral word oud, used in connection with non-
durational inanimate nouns, a lexical entry. containing a WITH string in
which no parameter category occurs that corresponds to any parameter
associated with non-durational inanimate entities. (As will be noted, the

category PERF has become part of the NP which is a sister node of the
preposition WITH, i.e., of PERF TIME OF EXISTENCE - MP. The
category PERF is tentatively used to express the notion of 'having oc-
curred in the past', or 'completion'. Thus it will be manifested as the
perfect tense when associated with a verb, but, when attracted to TIME
OF EXISTENCE, it forms part of the meaning oud insofar as oud means
that the time of existence up to the moment of speech has already elapsed.
PERF cannot remain associated with BE if we want to describe The book is
old, since, if it did, neither the absence of the perfect tense nor the notion of
'having already elapsed' in oud could be explained.)
With respect to the ungrammaticality of (48b), possibly a similar ex-
planation can be given. It should be noted, however, that there is less cer-
tainty as to the ungrammaticality of (48b) than there is with resp~ct to the
ungrammaticality of (46b) and (47b). It seems that van + MP constructions
referring to the age of plants and animals sound better insofar as the
particular plant or animal referred to is in a phase in which age differences
can be clearly seen or are of importance in everyday life. That is, it appears
that age is a relevant feature of non-human animates insofar as it is
relevant to growth and development. (Cf., for example, een welp van twee
weken ('a cub of two weeks'), bibit Uonge rijstplantjes) van drie weken {'bibit
(young rice plants) of three weeks'.) When, after a certain period, growth
and development no longer play a significant role, we stop regarding
plants and animals as entities to which the parameter of age is of any
relevance. (Cf. *een albatros van 12 jaar ('an albatross of 12 years') and
(48b) *een eik van dertig jaar.) What has been said here can be extended to
things that grow but are neither plants nor animals. A clear example is
provided by the following expressions:
(Sla) een baard die twee dagen oud is

'a beard that is two days old'
(SIb) een baard van twee dagen
'a beard of two days'
After a certain length of time, the growth of a beard is no longer of any

importance as far as its appearance is concerned. We do not have:
(SIc) *een baard van een jaar

'a beard of a year'
After some time, a beard even stops being regarded as a thing with a
particular age. We do not have (SId) either:
(SId) *Zijn baard is een jaar oud.

'His beard is a year old.'
It would seem that here, too, we are dealing with the restriction on the
derivation of van + MP constructions that the antecedents of the underlying
relative clause should incorporate a parameter category which is identical
to the one present in the underlying WITH string. Insofar as a layer of ice
on a lake can be regarded as something that can 'grow' (that is, become
thicker), an expression such as ijs van een nacht ('ice of one night') can be
cited as another example of van + MP constructions referring to things that
grow but are neither plants nor animals. We do not have, e.g., *ijs van drie
weken ('ice of three weeks').
To recapitulate, there are at least seven factors we shall have to take into
account as regards the derivation of van + MP constructions:
C. (a) the measure phrase cannot be followed immediately by a para-
meter noun if
(i) the expression refers to a non-spatial parameter (cf.
(41}-(4S», or
(ii) the expression refers to the main one-space parameter
(height of humans; cf. (40»,
(b) the measure phrase is optionally followed by a parameter noun if
(iii) the expression refers to a maximal axis parameter (cf.
(24)-(31», or
(iv) the expression refers to a two-space or three-space para-
meter (cf. (37a}-(38b»,
(c) the measure phrase must be followed by a parameter noun if
(v) the expression refers to a non-main spatial parameter (cf.
(3Sa)-(36b», or
(vi) the expression refers to a non-maximal axis one-space
parameter (cf. (39a, b»,
(d) no van + MP construction can be derived if
(vii) the antecedent of the underlying relative clause does not
incorporate a parameter category identical to the one re-
presented in the WITH string (cf. (46a}-(48b».
3. A NON-EXISTENT NEUTRAL PARAMETER ADJECTIVE
How should we account for the fact that simple temperature MP sentences
can only have the form NP+ Copula + MP?
The sentence
(S2) Het water is 30 graden.
'The water is 30 degrees.'
is not a reduction, comparable with, e.g., Jan is 2 meter. Neither is it possible

to assume that a neutral temperature adjective is obligatorily deleted. The
point is, rather, that there is no neutral temperature adjective in Dutch
(cf. p. 30 and 36ff.).
This means that we may have a lexical entry having the form of XIII.
XI/I PP
P
~NP
I
WITH NP MP
I
TEMPERATURE
Clearly, there is an infinite number of concepts which can be circum-

scribed but for which single words do not exist. There is no proper noun
Glarf meaning 'the nail on the third toe of Lyndon Johnson's left foot',
to use an example of McCawley's (1970) and unless we refer to this example
often enough, there probably never will be. But proper nouns, in this context,
provide less suitable examples, since, after all, it is more or less incidental
whether or not we assign to something a proper name. With common nouns,
the situation is different, for there are concepts of which it is highly un-
likely that they ever will be referred to by newly created single nouns. Thus,
there is no common noun for the concept circumscribed in (53), and there
never will be:
(53) intermittently hurting upper left premolar of ambidextrous
bipeds inhabiting the southern hemispheres of Mars, Earth,
and Ganymede
It would obviously be nonsensical to include an entry in the lexicon for a
phonologically zero word with the meaning of (53), since the non-existence
of such a word does not really constitute an irregularity. There is no tendency
in the lexicon on the basis of which we could call the non-existence of the
word in question an unexpected fact: It does not constitute a 'gap' in the
lexicon. The fact that there is no neutral temperature adjective, on the other
hand, does seem to be an irregularity.
The alternative course we could follow in dealing with temperature
MP sentences and, perhaps, a few others of the same type, would be to set
up an obligatory transformation deleting the underlying WITH string
whenever a neutral parameter adjective is lacking. However, the conditions
to which the application of this rule would be subject would, as far as I can
see, do no more than list a very small number of special cases, or perhaps
the transformation in question would be applicable only in the case of
temperature MP sentences. This would amount to essentially the same (but
in the wrong component) as what in fact the lexicon is supposed to do,
that is, provide us with "a list of basic irregularities" (to use Bloomfield's
(1957) formulation in his Language (p. 274)).
Let us call the set of MP sentences which cannot contain a semicopula
or a measure adjective the 'defective set of MP sentences' (or, for brevity,
'defective MP sentences'). The defective set of MP sentences contains as a
subset the defective set of simple MP sentences (or, 'defective simple MP
sentences'; that is, the set of simple MP sentences that only occur in the form
NP + Copula + MP). The complement of the latter set we may call 'de-
fective periphrastic MP sentences' (i.e., the set of periphrastic MP sentences
which have no counterparts in the form of simple MP sentences).
In general, there are no neutral adjectives or semicopulas for parameters
of recent invention, such as voltage, luminosity and electrical resistance. It
should be noted that only under special circumstances and in a highly re-
stricted number of these cases may the MP sentence take on the form of
NP + Copula + MP. In the remaining cases, which form the majority within
the defective set of MP sentences, only periphrastic forms containing
parameter nouns occur. We may speculate that, although temperature
sentences thus do not belong to the set of defective periphrastic MP
sentences, the fact that there is no temperature adjective or semicopula may
nonetheless have something to do with the historically relatively recent in-
vention of devices capable of giving an objective measurement of
temperature.
Most or all of the small group of defective simple MP sentences (except
temperature sentences) are acceptable only under special contextual and/or
situational conditions «*)Die peer is 75 watt (,That bulb is 75 Watts'),
(*)Die weerstand is 30 ohm (,That resistor is 30 Ohms')). I do not think the
absence of the parameter words in question in these cases should be account-
ed for in the lexicon, at least not in the way proposed above for simple
temperature MP sentences. Possibly some transformational mechanism
operating in cases where normally non-reducible simple MP sentences may
undergo reduction under the special conditions just mentioned should also
account for the defective cases under consideration.
It appears that defective simple MP sentences are highly exceptional.
As a rule a defective MP sentence is periphrastic. About the only really
acceptable type of defective simple MP sentences are simple temperature
MP sentences. The latter form an exception within the set of all simple MP
sentences as well, namely, in that they are defective. It is because of this that
the lack of a lexicalizable WITH string should be considered an irregularity
in the case of temperature MP sentences, which must be accounted for in the
lexicon. If temperature MP sentences had not been able to have the form
NP+Copula+MP, they would have belonged to the set of defective
periphrastic sentences. For such sentences we need the sort of entries which
are necessary for all periphrastic MP sentences (including the hebben
paraphrases of simple MP sentences), such as entries for parameter nouns,
and an entry for hebben (cf. XIV).
XIV VP
~PP
V
I
BE P NP
I
WITH
# hebben #
There is one other fact about temperature MP sentences which can be ac-
counted for by assuming the existence of a phonologically null temperature
adjective. Reduction is prohibited in simple MP sentences if they occur as
restrictive relative clauses. Thus we do not have, e.g.,
(54) *een man die twee meter is
'a man who is two meters'
(55) *een steen die twaalf kilo is
'a stone which is twelve kilos'
But simple temperature MP sentences that occur as restrictive relative clauses
are grammatical even though they do not contain an overt adjective:
(56) water dat 30 graden is
'water that is 30 degrees'
It is highly improbable that the MP sentence in (56) has undergone reduction
at some point in the prelexical derivation, for we would then have to claim
that there is a transformational rule obligatorily deleting the underlying
WITH string in relative simple MP sentences only when the underlying
parameter noun is TEMPERATURE (and perhaps in one or two other
cases). A solution of this sort is repellent. This strengthens our argument
that the adjective in (56) must be considered present, but that it is a zero
morpheme.
4. TREATING 'ZIJN' AS AN AFFIX
Suppose we consider such combinations in Dutch as diep zijn ('deep be',

be deep), lang zijn ('long/tall be'), hoog zijn ('tall/high be'), etc., as single
words, contrary to orthographic convention. We could then explain why
in Dutch the infinitive form of these 'verbs' show the order adjective(")copula
rather than copula(")adjective, as in English, French, etc. The explanation
could be given in terms of the order-reversal principle, which should also
govern the behaviour of separable compound verbs in Dutch.
Gruber (l967a) proposes to characterize a word as a string of morphemes
separated by no more than one boundary symbol' #' (op. cit., p. 122). It
may very well be that, as Gruber contends, the criteria for spelling as a single
word differ from language to language. If I interpret him correctly, he goes
on to suggest that, in the case of German, the strings which are written as
single words may be defined as the morpheme strings which are attached in
single operations. This would mean that, for instance, the German infinitive
form lang sein ('long be') is not attached at once. Suppose however that
Gruber's criterion for spelling as a single word in Dutch and German is
not correct, but that the characterization of a word as a string of morphemes
separated by no more than one' #' is right. In addition, let us suppose that
there is only one boundary symbol between lang and zijn in lang zijn. The
schematized post-order-reversal trees (see p. 101, for this term) given under
XV, below, may give the reader an idea of how productive affixation can be
treated. The process of affixation here is represented in the same manner as
it is in Gruber (l967a), p. 122ff.
XV
A
iF op iF+
A "*' eten "*' =
A "*'
"*' op eten '*' "*'
Affixation is here represented as a kind of adding operation on two trees
having already undergone order-reversal, with the morphemes already
attached. In reality, order reversal would take place before actual attach-
ment. But we shall consider the technical aspects of affixation in some more
detail later on in this section. We shall also have to discuss ways of ac-
counting for separation and re-ordering of such forms as opeten and lang
zijn in sentence types where separation and re-ordering occur, resulting in
eten ... op ('eat. .. up') and zijn ... lang ('be .. .long/tall'). This could be done by
a post-lexical transformation resembling Particle Movement (cf. p. 176).
If two forms are separated by more than one '#' symbol, they are
separated by a word boundary. Therefore #op#eten# # is a single word
if it is preceded by an item ending in at least one boundary symbol.
One difference between lang and op in lang zijn and opeten, as they occur
with their noun phrase complements, is demonstrated in the following
examples (in the "literal" translations the word order is preserved):
(57a) Jan is 2 meter lang.
(57b) Twee meter lang kan Jan niet zijn.
'Two meters tall can John not be.' (Two meters tall John cannot
be.)
(58a) Jan eet de sandwich op.
'John eats the sandwich up.'
(58b) *De sandwich op kan Jan niet eten.
The sandwich up can John not eat.'
The status of lang differs from that of op in that with the former a noun
phrase is associated, viz., the complement twee meter, whereas op cannot
have a complement (in this case, de sandwich). In (58a), de sandwich is the
complement of opeten, or perhaps eten. This difference is a reflection of the
fact that op is an affix, while lang is not (neither is eten). Accordingly, eten
in the second schematized tree of XV is immediately preceded and followed
by a boundary symbol, while in XVI, below, it is lang which is immediately
preceded and followed by one in the second tree. In lang zijn, zijn in this view
should be looked upon as the affix. The combination lang zijn can be treated
in the same way as opeten in XV, as is illustrated in XVI.
A A
XVI
=IF zijn 'fI= + '1/= lang '1/= = =lF4I= lang 41= zijn =IF
The string # # lang # zijn #, occurring before an item starting with at

least one boundary symbol, is a single word.
Zijn can be seen as the element which makes lang zijn a verb, much like
the affix -en with respect to the verb blauwen ('be blue'; b!auw means 'blue');
loensen ('be slightly cross-eyed') and ronden ('be round') are similar cases.
As I remarked earlier (p. 86), it would possibly be justifiable to use the sym-
bol TENSE instead of BE, as the function of the copula does not seem to
consist in any more than serving as a tense carrier. Thus, was in Het huis
was duur (,The house was expensive') may be put on a par with the 'past'
morpheme -te in the synonymous sentence Het huis kostte vee! (The house
cost much').
If we take zijn to be an affix, we must have an entry for it indicating that
it occurs as part of a 'word'. Since zijn, in that case, would have to be con-
sidered a productive affix, we must have an 'incomplete' entry. According

to Gruber (\967a), we may, for productive word extensions, require the
existence in the lexicon of "incomplete lexical items, which, upon the at-
tachment of other lexical items to them, become complete and can then be
attached to the general string." (p. 118). Thus, in Gruber's view, the lexical
items in cases such as these are first attached to each other, and only after-
wards are they attached to the derived tree. Alternatively, and, to my mind,
preferably, we might conceive of the following course of things during
lexicalization of compound words containing a productive affix. After
having arrived at the final derived prelexical tree, the list of lexical entries
forming the lexicon is run through several times. That is, the entries in the
lexicon apply cyclically, in the sense that the order of application of the
cycles is defined, among other things, in terms of subsequently lower levels
in the derived tree. During the VP cycle, say, a matching entry is found
for the affix zijn. Since it is an incomplete entry, complete attachment of the
compound word does not yet take place. However, restructuring of the
derived subtree matching the simultaneous environment of the affix entry
will already take place, followed by attachment of the affix. During a lower
level cycle, a matching entry is found for, say, an adjective. The subtree
matching the simultaneous environment of the latter then undergoes
restructuring and lexical attachment, thus completing the compound form.
If we opt for this way of handling productive affixation, it will be
unnecessary to rely on information-storing during the subsequent applica-
tion of lexical cycles, whereas the alternative solution would require
that part of the compound word be stored until, at some point during the
subsequent cycles, attachment of the string of morphemes at once will be
allowed. Given the solution proposed here, the entry for zijn should then
look like XVII.
XVII vp
~X
v
I
BE
'iF - - - - - z i j n 'iF
In XVII, the blank represents the string associated with the category that
may occur on the place of the variable X (where X is non-null). The strings
that may occur in the place of the blank will ultimately form a single 'word'
together with the affix zijn.
Note that, while a transformational cycle works on S's from bottom to
top, the lexicalization cycle works, at least within each S, from top to bottom.
Working downwards during lexicalization is necessary in view of the fol-
lowing considerations. Suppose the V node were lexicalized before the
VP node. In that case, in a derived structure like [vp BE [pp WITH WEIGHT
MP pp] vp], BE would be lexicalized first. This would be wrong, since the
rest of the VP then could no longer be lexicalized, for there is no entry
containing the simultaneous environment WITH WEIGHT (cf. p. 100).
Instead, BE WITH WEIGHT should be lexicalized (as wegen). This dif-
ficulty can only be circumvented if we work from top to bottom.
The subtree containing the string of categories to which, ultimately,
lang zijn (first zijn, then lang) will be attached thus will be restructured com-
pletely after the PP cycle: first, during the VP cycle, the V node and the PP
node swap places, resulting in [vp [pp WITH LENGTH pp] BE vp] (with BE
lexicalized), then the P node and the NP dominating LENGTH swap places
during the PP cycle, thus giving [vp [pp LENGTH WITH pp] BE vp). That is,
in effect, the string BE WITH LENGTH will be reordered in the same
way as the string underlying wegen (cf. pp. 106-7), thus giving rise to
structures like the one represented under XVIII, below, which underlies the
sentence Het is twee meter lang ('It is two meters long').
XVIII s
~VP
NP
vp'
~MP
/"'-.. /\
/
pp' v
"'"
! I \
\
A
NP P
I
BE "
/ \ \
I
LENGTH WITH
I 1
I "
/ \
\
" I I I \
I " / I I \
II "I II I \
*
'.J L _____________ ~
# het # # # lang # zijn # # twee # 'IF meter
('it -long - be - two - meter')
(Of course, more trimmings will be necessary to get is, not zijn, in this
case. Notice that the NP dominating the parameter category in the lexical-
ized structure no longer forms a constituent together with MP. Compare, for
the way in which we arrive at this result, pp. 106-7.) As will be shown later
on, a post-lexical transformation can be set up which will turn the string
attached to the tree of XVIII into a string in which the elements, including
the boundaries, are put in the right order, that is, into a string of the type
#het# #zijn# #twee# # meter # # lang # (,it-be-two-meter-Iong').

However, morphemic order in infinitive constructions (such as een boek
lezen ('a book read')}, in itself, probably is not sufficient evidence for their
being single 'words'. It may be that stress patterning is relevant here. Com-
pare, for instance, the positions of stress in lang zijn and ope ten with those in
lang duren and hard werken ('long last' and 'hard work', respectively).
In both pairs of infinitive constructions the stress may be moved, but lang
zijn and opeten, as well as tang duren and hard werken are not neutral but
contain contrastive stress. Thus the normal position of stress in the case
of lang zijn and opeten may be said to be that part of the construction which
after order-reversal becomes the first, while in the case of lang duren and
hard werken this does not hold. This could be indicative of the difference
between the former and the latter pair as to whether we have single 'words'
or not. (Compare also the difference in stress patterning between lang
blijven ('stay long', as in I stayed long at Julia's) and tang blijven ('stay long'
as in The beans stayed long instead of becoming shorter). Similar examples
are cited in De Groot (l959}.)
But even these facts about stress cannot by themselves be regarded de-
cisive evidence in favour of the one word/many word distinction considered
here between lang zijn, etc., on the one hand, and lang duren, etc., on the
other. Stress patterning rules are no simple matter, and more evidence is
needed besides morpheme order and stress to substantiate any general
claim concerning the question of whether or not a given Dutch infinitive
construction is' a single 'word'. We do not, without inquiring any further
into the matter, want to assume anything concerning whether or not a form
such as tand meten ('land measure', measure land) can be described as a
single 'word'.
We should not exclude the possibility that such forms as land meten
and een boek lezen ('a book read') are explained as to order of con-
stituents by a process of lexical order-reversal although we may not have
single 'words' here (the position of stress may be due to factors that have no
bearing upon the one word/many word distinction). Gruber remarks:
It is possible. that a lexical entry may be so incomplete as to have no lexical items terminating it.
There is no reason to exclude such an entry, since the mechanism of an incomplete entry is
necessary to formulate productive affixation. Such an entry. without any phonological ter-
minations. might be one, say, connecting the object of a verb with the verb, as in:
VP
V
~NP
This could be a possible entry, in the schema we are representing, and would require the
introduction into it of a V and an NP in order to complete it before attaching it to the derived
tree. But since both V and NP would have to be separate lexical items, they would both bring
with them # boundaries: Hence, there would be two between the V and the NP, forming two
words. Is this the way it should be? Conceivably it is. (Gruber (1967a), p. 123--4.)
It is only in the latter part of his study from which I have quoted above
that Gruber introduces the idea of entries with boxed-in simultaneous
environments. It is not clear which part or parts in the above entry should
be boxed in. We may replace Gruber's proposed entry by XIX:
XIX vp
v
~X
'/F----
Again, the blank here is associated with the X node. By XIX order-
reversal of the V and X will take place during the VP cycle, after which further
entries will introduce actual lexical items. We may formulate a convention
so as to prohibit application of XIX if the VP matches an entry causing a
VP to be lexicalized as a single word (as will be the case, for example, with
wegen and, possibly, lang zijn).
It may be of interest, in connection with the verb(")object order, and the
morpheme order in compound words in Dutch and German, to note that,
apparently, as Gruber observes, in Japanese there are some pieces of
evidence (stress, phonological rules and subsequent application of trans-
formations)
that post-positions, quantifiers and other things which manifest left-branching ( ... ) actually
form one word. (op. cit., p. 124.)
He then goes on to say,
But while the order between the verb and its object is also left-branching (object followed by
verb) there is no similar evidence that we have formed one word here. It would be reasonable
to claim that Japanese is a language which likes to preform its constituents in the lexicon before
attaching to the derived tree. Suppose left-branching is normal for morphemes being attached
to the derived tree as one lexical item ( ... ). We could then explain the word order between the
object and the verb in Japanese if we claimed they were attached at once by a lexical entry ( ... ).
But these are treated as separate words by transformations and phonological rules, and hence
we see that the rule holds that two # boundaries make two words. It appears that the entry
must be doubly incomplete here, because both the verb and the object are open word classes.
Also they never appear except with nouns, whereas NP may appear elsewhere than as the ob-
ject of the verb; thus while articles and post positions can be treated as affixes, the object of a
verb cannot be productively treated so. (id., p. 124).
Clearly, a solution like the one proposed by Gruber, even in its amended
form, will still not be adequate to account for the order of constituents
manifested in such infinitive constructions as het huis binnengaan ('the house

inside-go', go inside the house). An entry like XIX would cause X and the
V to undergo order-reversal, which would result in a string roughly like
INSIDE DEF HOUSE GO. We will then run into serious technical dif-
ficulties if we want to have a further lexical entry connecting GO and
INSIDE and placing them in the correct order, and if we want a consistent
system of lexical restructuring. Instead, the lexicon must first connect GO
and INSIDE, so as to get binnengaan ('inside-go'), and afterwards by some
mechanism reorder binnengaan and het huis. In order to do this, we may try
restating the earlier proposed convention (in the paragraph following
diagram XIX). It would then have to run like this: Any lexical VP entry
in which any terminal part of the simultaneous environment greater than
one element is associated with a phonological string takes precedence over
the entry represented above as XIX. As a result, GO INSIDE THE HOUSE
then will be restructured, first, as INSIDE GO THE HOUSE. But since
INSIDE GO will also have been lexicalized as binnengaan, some post-
lexical mechanism will have to account for the word-order in het huis
binnengaan. Constructions like tachtig kilo wegen ('eighty kilo weigh')
would have to be dealt with in the same way.
If we want to handle in the lexicon such cases as the ones cited in the
preceding paragraph, it will therefore be necessary to devise something
different from what has been discussed here, and probably considerably
more complex. I shall not try, however, to find a solution for this problem
here.
It seems clear, in any case, that there is some advantage in treating zijn
as an affix. We may now be able to explain the fact that sometimes we find
adjective"copula infinitives written as single words in Dutch (weg zijn, but
also wegzijn ('gone be')}. The same can be said with respect to such combina-
tions as uitgaan ('out-go', stop burning), doodgaan ('dead-go', die), weg-
raken (,lost-get', get lost), gereedkomen (,finished-come', get finished),
etc., all of which may also occur written as separate words, and all of
which contain (inchoative) copula elements.
5. BASE RULES AND ENTRIES
Having considered the question of when reduction occurs and how in

principle we might deal with non-existent measure adjectives and copula
+ measure adjective constructions, we can now attempt to set up a number
of base rules and lexical entries, after which we shall be able to formulate
a set of prelexical transformations stating the relations between MP sen-
tences (Section 6).
Suppose we start with the following rules:
{sn
I
PAR
XX (i) S-+ NP VP} UNIT
(viii) ABSTR -+ EVENT
(ii) IDET
NP-+ Npn N VAL
NP S
(iii) VP-+ V PP
I
(iv) V-+ BE
(v) PP-+ P NP (ix) CONCR-+ {A~IM}
(vi) !WITH
P-+ AT
(vii) N-+ {ABSTR }

CONCR
where 'PAR' is short for 'PARAMETER', 'ANIM' stands for ' ANIMATE',
and 'V AL' means 'VALUE' (see below).
The category symbol 'UNIT' is introduced for the generation of unit
nouns in abstract measure phrases. The category EVENT is meant to
dominate such words as vergadering (meeting), opera tie (operation), which
may occur in the subject of MP sentences referring to duration.
In (ii) a rule schema is introduced. Since nouns usually are associated
with more than one parameter, where the number of parameters may be
extremely large, we probably must have a rule schema for a category domin-
ating PAR (viz., NP), rather than a single rule.
Something should be said here, in connection with rule (viii), about the
verb bedragen (amount to). So far, it has been assumed that bedragen is a
semicopula no different from other semicopulas. We shall have to modify
this to a certain extent, for bedragen has no really natural hebben para-
phrases. To me, at any rate, sentences like De [engte heelt een waarde (be-
drag) van 2 meter (something like 'The length has a value (an amount) of
2 meters') sound unnatural. Suppose, however, that there is some under-
lying noun category present in the simultaneous environment for bedragen,
but that there is no entry for a noun corresponding to the semicopula be-
dragen in the way, for example, gewicht ('weight') corresponds to wegen
(this is not to say, however, that the underlying noun category incorporated
in bedragen cannot manifest itself in different environments; cf., e.g., De
temperatuur bereikte hoge waarden (,The temperature reached high values'».
In that case we could account for the fact that bedragen behaves exactly like
other semicopulas, although there is no appropriate noun corresponding
to it. I shall assume that the underlying noun category in the WITH string
incorporated in bedragen is the category VAL (for 'VALUE'), which also

appears in the entries of hoog 2 and groot 2 (cf. p. 31).
The parentheses in the tenth rule, given under XXI, below, indicate that
the rule is optional; ANIM mayor may not be rewritten. If it is, it comes to
dominate HUMAN, otherwise ANIM (given that it occurs in a generated
tree) will simply be a terminal element of the prelexical tree. This rule is based
on Gruber's claim that there cannot be any class of verbs which requires
that an associated noun belong to the class of all animate, but not human,
nouns. That is, "having a specification for + Human (i.e., HUMAN) and
none for - Human is motivated by the fact that there are selectional restric-
tions which require the class of all animate but not human nouns." (Gruber
(1967a), p. 23).23 In general, in the system that I am following there are either
positive specifications or none at all. The introduction of optional rules of
the type of (x) is a consequence of this.
The next two rules, (xi) and (xii), are also optional. If ART is not re-
written, it is assumed to correspond to the indefinite article. Abstract
MP's, as we have seen (p. 15f.), may refer to 'non-particular' sets of units.
In that case they cannot appear, for example, in the antecedent of relative
clauses. When this occurs, we must somehow indicate the fact that they are
'non-particular' by means of the determiner. It is assumed here that if DET
is not rewritten, the measure phrase refers to a 'non-particular' set of units,
that is, a set of units which are undetermined as to their location on a mea-
suring scale. 24 (Alternatively, we could introduce some category, say, IND,
signifying that 'individualization' is possible. DET might then be allowed
to be rewritten as 'ART (lND)'. At any rate, it seems clear that measure
phrases do have a determiner, in simple MP sentences as well as in other
types of MP sentences. For otherwise we could not account for geen (cf.
p. 21f.) in such sentences as Hij weegt geen 80 kilo ('He weighs no 80 kilos',
He doesn't weigh 80 kilos). Notice that one drawback of the above assump-
23 Since objects are either abstract or concrete, we might therefore, in a less sketchy proposal,
do away with either the category ABSTR or the category CONCR.
A probably apparent counterexample, also cited by Gruber, with respect to the claim that
there are no selectional restrictions requiring the class of animate non-human nouns is the
German word fressen (= Dutch vreten), which means the same as essen (eat) except for
fressen occurring, as a rule, with subjects referring to animals. But, as McCawley (1971) cor-
rectly observes, "it is not clear that [essen and fressen] refer to the same kind of eating (which
verb do you use in reporting a well-mannered chimpanzee's eating something with a knife
and fork?)" (op. cit., p. 290).
24 An argument which seems to support the idea that 'non-particular' units do not occur in
MP's with underlying indefinite articles is the fact that sentences containing covert indefinite
articles like Hi} leest (geen) boeken (,He reads (no) books') correspond to er constructions
of the type Er zi}n (geen) boeken die hi} leest ("There are (no) books which he reads'), while
a sentence like Hi} weegt (geen) 80 kilo (,He weighs (no) 80 kilo') does not correspond to
*Er is/zi}n (geen) 80 kilo ( 's) die hi} weegt ("There is/are (no) 80 kilo(s) which he weighs').
tion may be that geen now is allowed to result from NEG+ DET as well as
from NEG+ART. There are, of course, interesting problems involved in
finding really adequate DET rules. But I shall not go into that matter
here.)
Rule (xiv) rewrites PAR as a string containing optionally the category
MAIN, which will be needed whenever the MP sentence refers to main
parameters (see p. 108).
XXI (x) ANIM -+ (HUMAN)
(xi) DET-+ (ART)
(xii) ART-+ (DEF)
I
SPACE
TIME
(xiii)
1
UNIT -+ TEMPE~ATURE
I TIME
SPACE
(xiv) PAR-+ (MAIN) l TEMPE~ATURE
1
(xv) I
JONES PACE
SPACE-+ TWOSPACE
THREESPACE
As has been observed earlier (p. 114), width appears to be related to the
notion of 'observer' if it is the maximal axis of a physical object. Depth,
whether or not it happens to be the greatest measurement, always is observer-
related (p. 112f.). It appears, furthermore, that for simple MP sentences
containing spatial parameters which are not main parameters, it is to a
certain extent acceptable to omit explicit mention of the parameter, if it
is associated with the maximal axis, provided the parameter does not
involve the observer (cf. p. 100f.).
Thus, in simple MP sentences it is, to a certain extent, possible to delete
lang and hoog, when used in connection with the maximal axis of a physical
object. But it is unnatural to do so in the case of breed and diep. In van + MP
constructions, it is possible to eliminate not only the parameter constituents
corresponding to lang and hoog, but also the one corresponding to breed; if,
however, depth is referred to, there can be no reduction. 'Depth' never refers
to a maximal axis. In all cases that we have a possibly or necessarily observer-
related axis parameter, we have a sentence referring to an object with at
least two dimensions. Therefore we may conclude that the notion of 'ob-
server' comes into play only if we are dealing with objects to which two-space
or three-space parameters are relevant.
Length and height do not necessarily imply more than one dimension.
Width implies at least two dimensions, depth always three (recall our ob-
servation concerning depth and shape, or inner structure). There are other
types of measurements which can be classified according to the number of
dimensions they involve, such as radius, diameter, circumference, etc.
It therefore seems justifiable to introduce categories indicating the
minimum number of dimensions which are involved. Since with spatial
parameters it cannot be the case that no dimensions are involved, it will
suffice to have a category signifying that no less than two dimensions are
implied, and a category signifying that no less than three dimensions are
implied, '201M' and '301M', respectively. Thus we may automatically
assume that one or more dimensions are involved if no 'DIM' category
appears at all under the category SPACE.
We may assume that as far as measurements are concerned, 'length' is
the one unspecified term, in the sense that 'width', 'height', 'depth', etc., are
all to be considered as 'length' plus some further specification. It may be
useful, therefore, to introduce a tentative category 'SPEC', which dominates
all semantic categories incorporated in one-space parameters not involved
in'length'.
It is assumed here, that if a one-space measurement ('MSR') parameter
is unspecified in the sense that it does not incorporate SPEC (i.e., if it is
'length'), it always includes a category MAX. It will be assumed, further-
more, that 'length' in all cases is an axis word, even applied to abstract one-
space objects. Thus 'length' applied to a line segment is also assumed to
include MAX.
If we have a specified (SPEC) measurement, it may be non-maximal.
Hence our rules must allow for this possibility.
In view of these considerations, the rules for spatial categories may look
something like XXII (below). Note that (xvi), (xviii), (xxii) and (xxiii) of XXII
are optional. In certain cases it is unnecessary to indicate anything more than
that one-space, square or cubic units are involved. The category 'DIST'
(DISTANCE) in (xviii) is introduced in order to differentiate between
'length' and 'distance', and between the 'locational' and 'axis' meanings
of hoog(te} and diep(te}.
According to (xx), there are two types of TRANSV (TRANSVERSE,
'width') axes. One is observer-related, the other is not. In the case of 'depth'
(associated with the tentative category 'PERSP' (PERSPECTIVE)), the
category 'OBS' is always present. The category 'TRANSV' may also be
useful for the description of such words as across, which is related to width.
For example, the sentence Fred went across the road means that Fred went
'along the width' of the road. The category 'OBS' may also be needed in
entries for such words as left, right, back,forward, sideways, etc. No doubt a
category like 'THICKNESS' will have to be replaced, eventually, by some-
thing more adequate and illuminating, but at present it will suffice.
XXII (xvi) ONESPACE ..... ({(SPEC) MAX})

SPEC MSR
(xvii) MAX ..... MSR
(xviii) MSR ..... ( {AXIS})
DIST
(xix) SPEC ..... J~~~1

I
13DIM
(OBS) TRANSV )
2DIM ..... CIRCUM
I~~~IUS
(xx)
(xxi)
J OBS PERSP
l
3DIM ..... THICKNESS
RADIUS
I I
(xxii) TWOSPACE ..... (ONESPACE ONESPACE)

(xxiii) THREESPACE ..... (ONESPACE ONES PACE
ONESPACE)
There are two parameters related to TIME. One is duration, and the other
is age of humans, and sometimes animates in general. If the age parameter
is applied to humans, it is a main parameter. In general, the age para-
meter of nonhuman animates is not. As was remarked on p. 121, the lexical
entry for oud (old) used in connection with inanimate objects probably
will be something like WITH PERF TIME OF EXISTENCE. As we shall
see, 'duration' can be analyzed as, roughly, TIME WITH LENGTH. We
may provisionally introduce the category AGE for animates, which is
dominated by a category PAR which mayor may not be preceded by
MAIN. (Cf. condition (i) under B in Section 2.1.) As far as monetary
value and price are concerned, I shall assume that if MONVAL (for 'MON-
ETARY VALUE') is not rewritten as PRICE, it corresponds to (gelds)-
waarde ('(monetary) value'). We may therefore introduce the following
rules:
XXIII (xxiv) TIME ..... (AGE)
(xxv) MONV AL ..... (PRICE)
The rules of XX-XXIII permit us to be more specific about the simultaneous
environments of parameter words. Below, on p. 139, examples are given
of structures which may be part of the entries of a number of parameter

nouns. (In several of the items below I have combined two possible con-
figurations. Thus, for instance, XXVa,b represents two subtrees, one with-
out MAX, the other including it, since hoogte can-but need not-be a
maximal axis.)
Notice that the entries enable us to explain why, if an object has breedte
applied to its maximal axis, lengte cannot be used in connection with any
of the axes of that object. That is, it will now be possible to explain in terms
of semantic categories why e.g., *de lengte van het filmdoek ('the length of
the movie screen') is unacceptable. Width is the MAX axis of a movie
screen. Since lengte always includes MAX, *de lengte van het filmdoek
implies that the movie screen has two MAX axes, which leads to a contra-
diction.
In XXIX-XXXI a number of simultaneous environments are given for
nouns which may appear in the subjects of MP sentences. They will
probably have to be simplified.
In order to avoid extremely large entries, caused by the large number of
parameters that may be associated with a given entity, we could set up a
set of definitory rules within the lexical component stating the parameters
which can be associated with, e.g., any concrete noun. (Rules of this kind will
probably also be necessary, incidentally, with respect to all sorts of non-
measurable properties.) If such a set of rules is incorporated in the lexical
component, we need only state in the entries, with respect to, e.g., spatial
parameters, a single property from which the parameters can be deduced
(circular, globular, square, or the like.) Thus we might, for instance, sub-
stitute the two leftmost ONESPACE subtrees in XXIX by the single cat-
egory CIRe. This category could then be considered to be, in effect, an
abbreviation of the two subtrees in question. I shall not elaborate on the
technical problems that are involved, as for our present purposes these will
not concern us here.
Clearly, the rules (i)-(xxv) will also enable us to set up simultaneous
environments for parameter adjectives. The only difference from those for
parameter nouns is that they also include a category PP, dominating
WITH NP. Notice that the word tall in English has, in possibly all cases, a
simultaneous environment different from the one for the Dutch word lang,
that is, even if the latter adjective is used in connection with height of
humans. Both the English adjective referring to height of humans and its
Dutch equivalent incorporate the category MAIN. But the English adjective
possibly incorporates the category VERT, while the Dutch adjective does
not. There is no English noun length incorporating the category MAIN,
whereas the Dutch word lengte ('height of humans' or 'length') may incor-
THE DERIV A nON OF MP SENTENCES 139
I
ASSTR
XX'Za,b
ONESPACE
I
PAR
~
SPEC (MAX)
I
SPACE
I
VERT MSR
I
I
ONESPACE AXIS
I
I
MAX hoogte ('height' )
I
MSR
I
AXIS
XX'Zc
ONESPACE
lengte (' length' )

~
SPEC MSR
I
VERT OIST
I
XXJ'Ia
ONE SPACE hoogte ('altitude')
~
SPEC MSR
I
201M
I
AXIS
XX¥ib
ONESPACE
I
TRANSV
~
SPEC
MAX
breedte ('width')
I
201M MSR
I
OSS
~TRANSV AXIS
I
XXJlIIa,b
ONESPACE breedte ('width')
~
SPEC (MAX)
I
301M MSR
I IX!ZIl C, d, e, f
ONESPACE
OSS
~PERSP
~
SP1EC CMr)
diepte ('depth') 301M MSR
~ I
OSS PERSP {OIST}
AXIS
XXJl1[[
PAR
~
diepte ('depth')
MAIN TIME
AGE
I
leeftijd ('age (of humans)')
x~
CONCR PP
P NP
I
WITH NP NP NP
A
OET N OET
A N
A
OET N
ABSTR
I I
ABSTR ABSTR
I
I I
PAR PAR
prI
~
MAIN
SPACE
~
MAIN
WEIGHT
I
THREESPACE
ONESPACE ONESPACE ONESPACE
SPEC
~MSR SPEC
~MSR
~
SPEC MSR
201M
I 201M
I I
301M
CIRCUM
I OIA
I I
THICKNESS
schijf ('disc')
porate it. Hence we see that different ways of looking at things may be
reflected in differences between the lexicons of various languages.
It will also be possible, of course, to set up simultaneous environments
for semicopulas with the base rules given above.
It should be stressed that the rules (i)-(xxv) are tentative. Many problems
remain to be solved, and, even quite apart from that, it will certainly be
possible to set up alternative rules which may be simpler and more general.
However, for our present purposes they suffice, and I shall not here try to
improve upon them or consider alternatives.
Note, finally, that our base rules also generate structures that we do not
want. We can, however, rely on the filtering effect of the lexicon, which
permits only certain structures to qualify for lexical attachment. Thus we
have two components acting as filters, the transformational component as
well as the lexical component. The objection to having rules with a filtering
effect can be answered with Chomsky's remark that the apparent absurd-
ity in this is "simply a corollary to the deeper absurdity of regarding the
system of generative rules as a point-by-point model for the actual con-
struction of a sentence by a speaker. ( ... ) But a generative grammar as it
stands is no more a model of the speaker than it is a model of the hearer.
Rather, ( ... ) it can be regarded only as a characterization of the intrinsic
tacit knowledge or competence that underlies all actual performance."
(Chomsky (1965), p. 139-140).
I am not convinced that Seuren's criticism of this answer applies here.
Seuren observes that a matter of principle is involved:
We can either allow structures to shoot up freely within ihe most general limits set for structures
and use grammatical rules as calibres, or filters, rejecting the structures that do not fit. Or one
can predetermine the growth of structures in such a way that only such structures will be
XXX N
~PP
CONCR
P
~NP
I
WITH NP NP NP
A
DET N
A
DET N
A
DET N
A8STR
I
ABSTR
I ABSTR
I
I
I
PAR
I
PAR
I
PAR
~
MAINSPACE
/\
MAIN WEIGHT MAIN
~MONVAL
I
THREESPACE
ONESPACE ONESPACE ONESPACE
~
SPECMAX SPEC
A MSR SPEC
A MSR
I MSRI
201M
I
VERT
I
AXIS 301M
I I
AXIS
/\ I
OBS TRANSV AXIS
A
08S PERSP
bureau (desk')
XXXI~
CONCR PP
P
I
WITH
---------------
NP
NP
~=:::::::::::--
NP
A
DET N
A
DET N
ABSTR
I ABSTR
I
I
PAR
I
PAR
MAIN
~~
TWOSPACE MAIN MONVAL
~
ONESPACE
ONESPACE
SPEC
~MSR
~
SPECMSR
I
VERT
I
AXIS
I
2DIM
I
AXIS
I
TRANSV
foto ('photograph')
generated as can end up as well-formed sentences. Chomsky's grammar is essentially of the

latter type. Deviant collocations, intransitive verbs with objects, etc .. could be sorted out and
rejected by filter-rules, but they are not: the subcategorization rules aim at ensuring the survival
of the structures generated. This type of competence description would seem psychologically
more plausible in that it would be more easily relatable to an account of the production and
understanding of sentences. (Seuren (I969b), p. 51-2.)
It is by no means clear why a base component containing rules that aim at

minimizing the number of types of "wrong" structures would be more plaus-
ible psychologically than a grammar weeding out from structures that are
allowed to "shoot up freely" the ones that do not qualify as inputs of the
transformational component, or as lexicalizable trees. We have no evidence,
so far, that competence and performance are interrelated'in a way that
should even in part be accounted for by a base component set up in such a
way as to prevent the generation of unwanted phrase markers.
Whether we should try to avoid base rules generating "wrong" structures,
and to what extent this will be possible, is quite another question. As Seuren
remarks, how it can be done is not a simple matter, but I think we should
agree that nonetheless the matter seems worth investigating. Quite possibly,
a base component generating a semantic language will become in some
sense simpler to the extent that we are able to have it avoid generating
meaningless or contradictory representations. But even so, it may not be
possible to dispense completely with components acting as filters. We
should not exclude beforehand the possibility that the filtering effect of
components may be a reflection of an aspect of linguistic competence that
can be related to performance just as adequately as (or even more ade-
quately than) a base component with the tendency to avoid the generation of
ill-formed structures.
6. THE TRANSFORMA TIONAL DERIVA TION OF MP SENTENCES
In the next four subsections I shall discuss a number of transformations for

the derivation of several types of MP sentences. In Section 6.1, rules will be
discussed for the derivation of simple MP sentences and their paraphrases.
In Section 6.2, van + MP constructions will be discussed, and rules will be
considered to account for them. Section 6.3 will be devoted to expressions
like twee liter water ('two liter water', two liters of water) and expressions
such as twee meter hoogte ('two meter height'). In Section 6.4, the relation
between sentences like Het gewicht van de steen is 10 kilo (,The weight of the
stone is IO kilos') and other MP sentences will be discussed. Also in that
subsection, two postlexical rules will be considered.
6.1. Simple MP Sentences and Their Paraphrases
I shall assume that underlying unreduced simple MP sentences not contain-

ing bedragen ('amount to') are structures of the type of XXXII (p. 144).
As will be pointed out below, a structure such as XXXII may be considered
the result of several transformations. In the above representation, as in all
other diagrams and structural descriptions in the sequel, the measure phrase
is labelled 'MP', although this is not a category generated by the base. As
was shown, there can be hardly any doubt that measure phrases are NP's. But
for the sake of the exposition it will be more convenient to use the label
'MP'. The reader is asked, however, to keep in mind that measure phrases
are assumed to be NP's and may undergo the same operations all other
NP's are subject to.
As was indicated earlier (pp. 134-5), the semicopula bedragen ('amount
to') probably incorporates a category which we may represent as VAL (for
'VALUE'). The value of a parameter is itself not a parameter. Thus, the
structure directly underlying simple MP sentences with bedragen does not
XXXII S
~VP
NP
~~
DET N V PP
I~
BE P NP
I~
WITH NP MP
~N
DET
I ABSTR
ART
I
PAR
I
A
(MAIN) ...
contain a WITH string in which the category PAR appears. Instead of PAR,
it must contain the category VAL.
But the structures underlying other simple MP sentences, at some stage
preceding XXXII, probably will also have to include the category VAL,
since they can be paraphrased with sentences containing the verb bedragen.
Compare, for example, the following a sentences and their paraphrases
(the b sentences):
(59a) De stok is I meter lang.
'The stick is I meter long.'
(59b) De stok heeft een lengte die I meter bedraagt.
'The stick has a length that amounts to I meter.'
(60a) Het boek kost 12 gulden.
'The book costs 12 guilders.'
(60b) Het boek heeft een prijs die 12 gulden bedraagt.
'The book has a price that amounts to 12 guilders.'
It seems plausible to assume that, at some stage preceding XXXII, we must
have a structure containing VAL somewhere under the second highest NP
node in XXXI/. Therefore, we should now ask how one may arrive at a
structure of the form XXXIII, which is the lower part of the structure un-
derlying simple MP sentences not containing bedragen (cf. XXXII, above;
I have omitted irrelevant details in XXXIII):
XXXIII
~ NP
NP
~MP
~
DET PAR
I
ART
Suppose we assume that a structure like XXXIII is derived from a structure

like XXXIV. It will then be possible to relate bedragen paraphrases of simple
MP sentences to MP sentences not containing bedragen:
XXXIV
~NP
~REL
NP1
A
DET PAR S
I
I~
ART NP VP 1
A PAR v~PP
DET
ART
I BE
I~
P NP
I~REL
WITH NP2
A
DET VAL
I
S
I
ART
~VP
NP2
DET
AA VAL V PP
I
ART
IA
BE P MP
I
AT
(See, for the category REL ('RELATIVE CLAUSE'), pp. l7Iff., below.)
If we interpret 'value' as something definable as a point on a calibrated
scale, the preposition AT in XXXIV can be taken to represent the relation
between the value and a certain point corresponding to the number of units
expressed in the MP.
By RELATIVE CLAUSE FORMATION, which we may state as XXXV,
a structure like XXXIV will be changed into XXXIVa:
XXXV RELATIVE CLAUSE FORMATION (prelexical)

S.D.: X[NP [NPI ART N NPI] [aEL Y[NP 1 -ART N -NPJ Z REd NP] W
OBL
2 3 =>
S.C.: PRO 3
(Hyphens in the S.D. separate the numbered terms.)
XXXIVa
~NP
~REL
NP,
A
DET PAR
I
S
I~
ARTNP, VP
DET
A~
PAR V PP
ART
I BE
I~
P NP
I~REL
WITH NP 2
A
DET VAL
I
S
I
ART
~VP
NP2
I~
PRO
V PP
I~
BE P MP
I
AT
(where PRO corresponds to the element in the simultaneous environment

for the relative pronoun; the peripheral environment then contains REL.)
RELATIVE CLAUSE FORMATION is here stated in such a way as to
prevent the derivation of relative clauses with 'non-particular' NP's as their
antecedents; the antecedent in XXXV is specified in the structural descrip-
tion as ART N (recall that we have assumed that if DET is not rewritten by
the base rules as ART, the noun phrase is considered to be 'non-particular').
RELATIVE CLAUSE REDUCTION (which I shall state below) applies
after RELATIVE CLAUSE FORMATION in the cycle. Hence, the lowest-
down REL may undergo reduction now that the former rule has applied.
When the cycle has been run through once, RELATIVE CLAUSE FOR-
MATION will once again apply, followed again by RELATIVE CLAUSE
REDUCTION. Thus, XXXIVa may now be changed by repeated applica-
tion of both rules into XXXVII.
XXXVI RELATIVE CLAUSE REDUCTION (prelexical)

S.D.: X [NP NP l [REL - [NP, PRO NP,] BE - PP REd NP Z
1 2 3 OPT
s.c.: o 3
=>
XXXVII
~NP
~REL
NP 1
DET
A PAR
ART
I
PP
~NP
P
I~
WITH NP REL 2
DET
A VAL
ART
I
PP
P
~MP
I
AT
(In the following it will be assumed that there are transformations which
operate cyclically. However, running through a cycle an nth time does not
automatically mean that a transformation in that case will operate on the
nth lowest S of the (restructured) tree; it will be assumed that any time a
transformation is applied, it must operate on the lowest S of the derived
tree (except of course ifthe S.D. contains an embedded S). For our purposes
this matter does not seem to constitute an issue of major importance. Al-
ternatives to this way of interpreting the cyclical mechanism will merely
require reformulations of certain rules without affecting the essence of the
proposals below.)
The encircled nodes in XXXVII must be pruned. I am following here
Gruber's criterion for tree-pruning, according to which a node is pruned as
soon as it has become irrelevant. A node is irrelevant if it no longer dominates
its left-branching 'head'. (Cf. p. 101. See also Ross (I966b), where a some-
what different criterion is proposed.)
I shall assume, furthermore, that REL is pruned if it comes to dominate
only PP. In general, there do not seem to be transformational or lexical
rules operating upon PP, the application of which would be contingent
upon the presence of a REL node immediately dominating it. Hence REL
may be assumed to be always irrelevant as soon as it comes to dominate PP
directly. XXXVII then, after tree-pruning will result in XXX VIla.
XXX VIla
~NP
~PP
NP
~~
DET PAR P NP
I
ART
I~
WITH NP PP
~~
DET VAL P MP
I
ART
I
AT
We may now have a rule of PAR-MP CONTRACTION, turning the

structures underlying simple MP sentences not containing bedragen into
structures of the type of XXXII. This rule would have to look like XXXVIII:
XXXVIII PAR-MP CONTRACTION (prelexical)
S.D.: X NP BE WITH DET PAR - WITH DET VAL AT - MP Y

2 3 OBL
S.c.: o 3
PAR-MP CONTRACTION will have to be prelexical, for there are no
sentences in which structures like XXXVII are lexicalized. That is, we do not
have sentences such as *De stok heeft een lengte met een waarde van 1 meter
(,The stick has a length with a value of 1 meter'). Since we shall not want
structures of the type of XXXVII for further transformations, we may
assume that XXXVIII is obligatory.
Alternatively, we could have lexical entries incorporating WITH DET
VAL AT. The entries for e.g. wegen and lang would then have to look like
[5 np [vp BE [pp WITH DET WEIGHT [pp WITH [NP DET VAL [pp AT
mp pp] NP] pp] pp] vp] 5] and [pp WITH DET LENGTH[pp WITH[NP DET
VAL [pp AT mp pp] NP] pp] pp], respectively (where the italicized labels in
capitals are in the simultaneous environments and the others in the peri-
pheral environments). Since it is not clear at present whether or not inde-
pendent evidence can be found for the justification ofPAR-MP CONTRAC-
TION, or a rule like it with an extended domain, I shall leave the matter
open. Although it is of minor importance for the rest of the argument, it will
be assumed (if merely as a matter of convenience) that PAR-MP CON-
TRACTION is an existing rule.
If the above analyses are essentially correct, we may assume that simple
MP sentences containing bedragen have the structure 6 NP [vp BE (pp
WITH [NP DET VAL [pp AT MP pp] NP] pp] vp] s]. Since simple MP sentences
containing main parameters as well as those containing VAL can be
optionally reduced, it should be simple to state a reduction rule to that
effect. The structural description of SIMPLE MP SENTENCE REDUC-
TION should indicate that reduction may only occur if the simple MP
sentence is not a restrictive relative clause (see p. 126, where it was shown
that reduction may not take place in sentences with restrictive relative
clauses, as in (54) *Een man die twee meter is. However, if the relative clause
is non-restrictive, reduction is allowed: Deze stenen, die stuk voor stuk 12
kilo zijn, kunnen niet gebruikt worden (,These stones, which are 12 kilos
each, cannot be used').) I shall mark the category REL with the subscript
'n' to indicate that it is nonrestrictive. (For restrictive relative clauses I shall
use the subscript 'r'; see also pp. 171-2.) The reduction rule obviously will
have to be prelexical, since its applicability is not contingent upon whether
we have a semicopula sentence or a measure adjective sentence.
XXXIX SIMPLE MP SENTENCE REDUCTION (prelexical)

VAL AT }
S.D.: X ( [ ) [NP BE - WITH DET { [ MAIN Y 1 - MP 1 ( 1) Z
RELn S PAR PAR S RELn
~T ;:
2 3
S.c. : o 3
The substring WITH DET (PAR MAIN Y PAR] in XXXIX will of course have
to be extended in the event that we reject PAR-MP CONTRACTION. In
that case we should have, instead, WITH DET [PAR MAIN Y PAR] WITH
DET VAL AT.
To recapitulate, we have now stated four prelexical transformations,
which may apply in the order in which they are listed below:
RELATIVE CLAUSE FORMATION (obI.)

RELATIVE CLAUSE REDUCTION (opt.)
PAR-MP CONTRACTION (obI.)
SIMPLE MP SENTENCE REDUCTION (opt.)
6.2. 'Van'+MP Constructions
In Gruber (l967a) it is claimed that the genitive marker (often realized as

van ('of) in Dutch) represents a relative clause which has had all its content
deleted except some one noun phrase. A transformation is proposed (op, cit.,
p, 139ff.) which performs this (unrecoverable 25) deletion in a way which is
represented by Gruber as follows:
XL NP NP
~N1
DET DET
~N1
~REL
ART ART
~REL
I I
S S
X
~
NP Y 2
I
NP 2
2 3 4 ;: 1 3
25 Gruber (ibid.) notes that "unrecoverable deletion may be avoidable if we simply allow the
generation of a noun phrase under the REL as well as a full sentence, and then allow this to have
a complete ambiguous interpretation." However, as we shall see, an unrecoverable deletion of
the type that Gruber's rather unsatisfactory proposal may require can also be avoided in other
Tree-pruning conventions which subsequently apply simplify the resulting

tree into XLI:
XLI NP
~N,
DET
~REL
ART
I
NP2
"The attachment of of," Gruber proceeds to say, "would seem to be con-

ditioned by the presence of a noun phrase that is directly dominated by REL,
without any S intervening. Hence, we can have the following lexical entry:
XLII
# of #
The attachment of of, then, is like the attachment of case markings (... )."
Gruber's deletion rule will have to be restated in a more precise way, so
as to prevent the derivation of such sentences as *Dit is een boot van 1
vadem (This is a boat of I fathom'), *Het leger gebruikte geschut van 10
kilometer (The army used artillery of 10 kilometers'), which would be the
result of deletion of the subject NP and the categories underlying steken
('draw') and dragen ('carry').
For our purpose we shall need some other 'REL stripping' rule, deleting
PRO BE WITH in restrictive relative clauses, stated in such a way as to
restrict its applicability to embedded sentences in which the subject is co-
referent with the antecedent in the matrix sentence. For instance, it should in
some way relate a structure such as XLIII (below) to XLIV:
ways. although these do not account for the putative fact that the expressions John's book,
a book of John's, the book of John, etc., do not only have the reading "the/a book which John
has." They could. according to Gruber, have readings like "the/a book which John read",
"the/a book which John saw," or "wrote," or "burned," or "threw a pebble at." It seems to me
that if we want to avoid a mind-boggling set of recoverable rules relating these expressions to
John's book, etc .. we could interpret Gruber's list of possible readings as part of the class of
things that maybe referred to by the expression the/a book which John is (in some way)
associated I\·ith. which may be taken to correspond to the structure underlying John's book,
etc., thus granting that the latter is "ambiguous", albeit not homonymous.
XLIII
~NP
~RELr
NP,
A
DET PAR
I
S
A
NP, VP
IA
PRO V PP
I~NP
BE P
,~
WITH NP2 RELr
/'\ ,
DET VAL S
~VP
NP2
I~
PRO
V PP
I~
BE P MP
I
AT
(e.g., 'a length which be with a value which be at MP').
XLIV
~NP
~RELr
A ,
NP,
DET PAR MP
(e.g., 'a length lREL, MP RELJ', which may be lexicalized as 'a length ofMP'.)
In order to do this by means of a rule deleting only PRO BE WITH in XLIII,
we shall have to get rid of the string DET VAL PRO BE AT. Part of the latter
string can be deleted by RELATIVE CLAUSE REDUCTION, which will
turn the subtree XLV of XLIII into XLVI (in the latter, REL, S, and VP are
pruned).
We cannot delete DET VAL AT in XL VI by PAR-MPCONTRACTION,
for the highest NP in XLVI, as it occurs in structures of the kind under dis-
cussion, either is not preceded by WITH (contrary to what the S.D. of this
rule requires), or, if it is, WITH will be deleted by our REL stripping rule,
which should delete PRO BE WITH. The reason that the REL stripping
transformation must delete WITH together with PRO BE is, as we shall see,
that by the same rule we must derive constructions such as van twee meter
[engte ('of two meters length'). In the latter type, too, WITH preceding PAR
has been deleted. Obviously, this cannot be the result of PAR-MP CON-
TRACTION.
XLVI
XLV ~
NP
~NP
~RELr
NP2
~PPNP2
~VAL SI
DET ;
~~
DET VAL P MP
~VP
NP2
I
AT
I~
PRO V PP
BE
I~
P MP
I
AT
We cannot, either, make use of SIMPLE MP SENTENCE REDUCTION

in relating somehow XLIII to XLIV, since the latter rule does not apply
to restrictive relative clauses. Therefore, we need some 'MP-tail shortening'
transformation which deletes DET VAL AT in cases such as these. As we
shall see, such a rule may be necessary anyway for other types of con-
structions. In short, at least three transformations are involved here, namely,
RELATIVE CLAUSE REDUCTION, some REL stripping rule. and a rule
deleting DET VAL AT in the 'MP-tail'. (But see p. 238f.)
Let us call the REL stripping rule under consideration 'EQUI-SUBJECT
REL STRIPPING'. It strips a special class of REL clauses down to the
bare essentials, so that they can be turned into van phrases. We may state
it, provisionally, as follows:
XLVII EQUI-SUBJECT REL STRIPPING (first version)
S.D.:X[YPARZ][ -PRO BE WITH-DET VAL [ WMP] ]V
NP NP RELr REL~ REL~ RELr
2 3 OPT;
S.c. : o 3
This rule will turn XLIII into XLVIII, below:

XLVIII ~
NP
r
NP,
~PAR
DET
NP
~RELr
NP2
~VAL
DET
I
S
~VP
NP2
I
PRO
~PP
v
I~
BE
P MP
I
AT
(The encircled node is pruned.)
RELATIVE CLAUSE REDUCTION can change XLVIII into XLIX:
XLIX
~NP
~RELr
NP,
~PAR
DET
I
NP
NP2
~VAL
DET
PP
P
~MP
I
AT
We can now state our tail shortening operation as follows:

L MP-TAIL SHORTENING (first version)
S.D.: XNP [REL DET VAL AT - MP REd Y
r -
OBL
1 2 3 ~
S.C.: o 3
Application of L to XLIX will result in LI:
LI ~
NP
~RELr NP
~PAR
DET
MP
In LI, PP and NP will be pruned, in that order (we may assume that,
unless there are other requirements which decide which node is pruned
first, the pruning takes place, in principle, from bottom to top.)
We could now make use of a Gruber-type entry for the insertion of van
(of) in LI. It could be objected that the word van in such expressions as
Het boek van Jan (,The book of John'), for which Gruber's rule was intended,
may have an entry different from the one for van in van + MP constructions.
But, although the various types of van constructions probably will have
different sources, there is no need to assume that the word van in the latter
case should have an entry different from that for the word van in Het boek
van Jan, until evidence to the contrary should become available.
The entry for van, then, may be given as follows:
LII NP
N0~l
'*' '*' van
NP
As will be pointed out later, it may be necessary to have more entries like
the one above for special cases in which in Dutch the genitive morpheme
is zero.
We are now able, in principle, to derive expressions such as een [engte
van twee meter ('a length of two meters') from underlying structures having
the form of XLIII ([NP DET PAR NP] [RELr PRO BE WITH DET VAL
lRELr PRO BE AT MP REd REd).26
I shall now discuss the way in which to derive van + MP constructions in
which the underlying antecedent does not contain a parameter noun (as it
does in een lengte van twee meter), and in which no overt parameter noun is
present, for instance, expressions like een steen van 2 kilo Ca stone of2 kilos').
LIII "'"
NP
~RELr
NP
I
s
~VP
NP
I~PP
PRO V
I~NP
BE P
I~RELr
WITH NP
A
DET PAR
I
S
1\ A
(MAIN) X NP VP
I~PP
PRO V
I~NP
BE P
I~RELr
WITH NP
DET
A VAL
I
S
NP
~VP
I~
PROV PP
I~
BEP MP
26 See p. 157.
I
AT
The structure underlying expressions like the latter can be represented,

roughly, as LIlI.
EQUI-SUBJECT REL STRIPPING (and subsequent tree-pruning)
will turn LIlI into LIV:
LIV
~NP
~RELr
NP
I
S
~VP
NP
I~PP
PRO V
I~NP
BE P
I~RELr
WITH NP
A
DET PAR
I
NP
I \AA
(MAIN) Rlr
DET VAL S
~VP
NP
I~
PRO V PP
I~
,
BE P MP
AT
26 Cf. Wunderlich (1970). where constructions of this type having the form van+MP (or
rather. von + M p. since he uses German examples) are also transformationally related to
bedragen (German: betragen). Underlying bedragen is a string of the form BE WITH DET
VAL AT. which isa string that will be yielded by RELATIVE CLAUSE REDUCTION applied
twice to XLIII.
RELATIVE CLAUSE REDUCTION will simplify the second lowest

RELr in LIV, giving LV:
LV
~ NP
~RELr
NP
I
5
~VP
NP
I~PP
PRO V
I~NP
BE P
I~
WITH NP RELr
A
DET PAR
I
NP
1\
(MAIN) X NP RELr
DET
A VAL S
PP
~MP
P
AT
I
We shall now restate EQUI-SUBJECT REL STRIPPING so that it may
also apply to structures such as L V, above.
LVI EQUI-SUBJECT REL STRIPPING (prelexical)

S.D.:x[ Y PAR 1 Z ] [ -PRO BE WITH-U{~~1}[ W MP ] ]y
NP NP RELr RELr RELr RELr
2 OPT
3
S.c. : o 3
Note that LVIa specifies that the PAR category present in the antecedent
noun phrase must be identical to the one occurring in the third term of
the structural description. This is in accordance with condition (vii) of C,
on p. 122 (no van + MP construction can be derived if the antecedent of the
underlying relative clause does not incorporate a parameter category identi-
cal to the one present in the WITH string; compare, for example, *een
bureau van 10 jaar (ouderdom/leeftijd) ('a desk of 10 years (age)'). See also
p. 119, in connection with nouns not incorporating the category TIME).
The variable U stands for DET, or in the case of sentences with 'double
WITH strings' (see Chapter IV), such as duration sentences (cf. p. 137,
second paragraph), for DET PAR WITH DET.
Application of EQUI-SUBJECT REL STRIPPING, as stated now, to
LV, will result in L VIla:
LVIIa
----------
~
NP
NP RELr
I
NP
~RELr
NP
~PAR
DET
I
NP
~~
(MAIN) X NP PP
~~
DETVAL P MP
I
AT
The rule of MP-TAIL SHORTENING (and subsequent tree-pruning)

will turn L VIla into L VIIb (p. 160).
In order to avoid the derivation of such expressions as *een steen van een
gewicht van 2 kilo ('a stone of a weight of 2 kilos'), we must now have a rule
obligatorily deleting DET PAR. We can combine this rule with the rule of
MP-TAIL SHORTENING as in LVII (p. 160).
Rule L VIII will then apply again, since no structural descriptions of other
rules fit L VIIb. Therefore L VIII, and subsequent tree-pruning, will auto-
matically turn L VIIb into LIX (p. 160).
LVlIb
~NP
~RELr
NP
I
NP
~RELr
NP
~
DET PAR
I
MP
~X
(MAIN)
LVIII MP-TAIL SHORTENING (prelexical)
S.D.: X NP [ - DET {V~A~T} - MP 1y

RELr RELr
2 3 OBL
S.c. : o 3
LIX
~NP
~RELr
NP
I
MP
Structures of the type of LIX immediately underlie expressions such as een

steen van 2 kilo ('a stone of f kilos').
However, our transformations, as they now stand, will not allow the
derivation of van + MP constructions like een stok van twee meter lengte
('a stick of two meters length'), since MP-TAIL SHORTENING will
automatically delete the parameter noun.
In order to prevent MP-TAIL SHORTENING from deleting parameter
nouns where they may occur after the MP in van + MP constructions, we
must have a rule preceding it which moves MP relative to the parameter
noun, so that MP-TAIL SHORTENING may no longer apply if this 'MP
shift' has taken place. (See, however, p. 238f.)
As we saw, the measure phrase in van + MP constructions is optionally
followed by a parameter noun if the expression refers to a maximal axis
parameter, or if it refers to a two-space or three-space parameter. The

MP must be followed by a parameter noun if the expression refers to a
non-main spatial parameter, and also if it refers to a non-maximal axis
one-space parameter (conditions (iii)-{iv) of C, p. 122). We shall need
one extra rule, besides 'MP SHIFT', to account for these facts. For, there
must be a rule preceding the latter which optionally deletes the spatial
parameter categories that may optionally follow MP in van + MP con-
structions. We may state this rule as follows:
S.D. : X NP (
REL
r
I {
LX SPACE DELETION (prelexical)
- DET ( (
Y
TWOSPACE }
MAIN THREESPACE
SPACE MAX
AXIS
1 1
MAX SPACE
]
- MP
OPT
2 3 ;
S.c. : o 3
In LX the structural description is stated so that the main one-space

parameter (i.e., height of humans) cannot be optionally deleted; Y can
only be VERT, 201M, 301M or zero. The category MAIN is not dominated
by SPACE (cf. the base rules (xiv) and (xv), on p. 135). Instead, the main
one-space parameter will be obligatorily deleted by MP-TAIL SHORTEN-
ING. Thus we can account for the fact that we do not have *een man van
twee meter lengte ('a man of two meters length'), whereas we do have een
man van twee meter ('a man of two meters').
If the SPACE parameter noun phrase specified in the optional rule of
SPACE DELETION is not deleted, the MP will have to be moved with
respect to the parameter noun. Furthermore, we will have to get rid some-
how of the article preceding the SPACE parameter noun (we do not have
*een stok van twee meter een lengte ('a stick of two meters a length'). Sup-
pose we assume that the article is replaced by MP during MP SHIFT. We
could then state MP SHIFT as follows (I shall restate MP SHIFT in the
next section, and also discuss there the question of eliminating the
article) :
LXI MP SHIFT (first version)
S.D.: X [ [ - ART - {MAIN{T~~~ES;:A~EE} } [

1 - MP - 1 1Z
RELr DET DET ONESPACE RELr RELr RELr
2 3 4 5~
S.C: 4 3 o 5
Thus, if we have a structure like LXII (below), it will either undergo SPACE
DELETION, or (if we do not apply that rule) it must undergo MP
SHIff. Therefore, we will get either LXlIIa or LXIlIb:
LXII ~
NP
---------------
NP RELr
NP
I
~ DET
---------------I
NP
PAR
RELr
MP
I
ART MAIN
~TWOSPACE
LXlIIa LXIlIb ~
~NP NP
NP
---------------
RELr NP
I~
MPDET PAR
(SPACE DELETION)
I
MP
~
MAIN TWOSPACE
(MP SHIFT)
LXlIIb then would be the type of structure underlying such expressions as

een stok van twee meter lengte ('a stick of two meters length').
In LXlIIa first the encircled NP node is pruned, then the encircled
REL node. If NP immediately dominates only REL, the former has be-
come irrelevant; the configuration [NP X REL NP] only plays a role in trans-
formations and lexical entries if X is not empty, whereas the configuration
[REL NP REd certainly does playa role in transformations and lexical entries.
Therefore, in configurations such as the one occurring as a portion of
LXII/a, of the form [NP [REL MP REd NP] (where, as will be recalled, 'MP'
r
is an NP), it is the higher NP node which will be pruned, not the REL node.
The reasoning is analogous to what has been said with respect to the
configuration ~EL PP REd on p. 147, but here it is the REL node which is
irrelevant with regard to transformations and the lexicon.
Furthermore, if a given category A immediately dominates only some
other category B, and if A and B are categories of the same kind (for in-
stance, both are REL), then A will be pruned. Hence, the higher REL node
in LXII/a, as soon as it comes to dominate immediately the lower REL
node, will be pruned.
Any node which is generated as a preterminal node only, will be pruned
if it no longer dominates anything. The same goes for preterminal nodes
that are newly introduced by the transformational component. Therefore,
the encircled REL node in LXI/lb will also be pruned. The encircled NP
node in the latter structure will be pruned as well, since it now immediately
dominates only a category of the same kind.
The rule of MP SHIFT should also account for sentences like:
(61) De ball on zweefde op 300 meter hoogte.
'The balloon floated at 300 meters altitude.'
(62) De duikboot bleef op 300 meter diepte.
'The submarine remained at 300 meters depth.'
(63) Op twee meter afstand kon je hem niet meer horen.
'At two meters distance you couldn't hear him any more.'
One way to account for sentences such as these is to assume that their
underlying structure before MP SHIFT contains a PP roughly like LXIV:
LXIV
~PP
P
~NP
I~
ATNP REL
~N
DET
I
NP
r
I
ART
I
POINT
~RELNP
~PAR MPI
DET
r
ART
I I
ONESPACE
MP SHIff could turn LXIV into LXV:

LXV
~PP
~NP
P
I~
ATNP RELr
~N
DET
I
NP
I
ART
I
POINT DET
~PAR
MP
I I
ONESPACE
We could then consider having a rule deleting DET [N POINT N] in

structures such as these, which would give us LXVI:
LXVI
~PP
o
AT
I
REL
NP
r
~PAR
DET
I
MP
I
ONESPACE
The encircled NP node is pruned because it immediately dominates only

REL r • Van insertion in structures like the one above will not take place,
because they do not fit the entry for van (cf. p. 155).
Alternatively, we could have an entry for op incorporating DET POINT,
which would then look like [pp AT[NP [NP DET POINT NP] x NP] pp] (where
the simultaneous environment is represented by the italicized labels in
capitals and x is the peripheral environment). Since, as has been argued
on p. 129, the lexicalization cycles work from top to bottom, attachment
of op will precede attachment at lower levels in LXV, causing it to be
restructured so as to become first [pp [pp POINT AT pp] [REL r [NP [OET MP OET]
PAR NP] REd pp] (where op is attached to the nodes represented by
italicized labels; see, for the elimination ofDET preceding POINT, p. 206f.).
Since we will then have a structure of the general form [pp PP' [REL NP REd pp],
the entry for van (which is in a later cycle because RELr is lower than PP)
no longer fits, which is as it should be. It would seem that the latter solution
is less costly than setting up a transformation deleting DET POINT, so
incorporation instead of deletion in this case may be preferable.
Notice that MP SHIFT, as stated above, need not be revised in order to
account for sentences such as (61)-(63).
To sum up, we now have the following order of rules:
RELATIVE CLAUSE FORMATION (obI.; p. 146)
RELATIVE CLAUSE REDUCTION (opt.; p. 147)
PAR-MP CONTRACTION (obI.; p. 149)
SIMPLE MP SENTENCE REDUCTION (opt.; p. 150)
EQUI-SUBJECT REL STRIPPING (opt.; p. 158)
SPACE DELETION (opt.; p. 161)
MP SHIFT (obI.; p. 161)
MP-TAIL SHORTENING (obI.; p. 160)
All of these rules apply within the same cycle. Some of them may be
assigned another place relative to the rest of the rules listed above. Thus,
it may be that the four transformations appearing at the bottom should
be placed between RELATIVE CLAUSE FORMATION and PAR-MP
CONTRACTION. However, the order of the first four rules is probably
correct. It is necessary, furthermore, that MP SHIFT precede MP-TAIL
SHORTENING, as it will otherwise be impossible to prevent deletion of the
parameter noun phrase in all cases where we want to derive van + MP +
parameter noun constructions. SPACE DELETION should precede MP
SHIFT, lest the parameter noun be ultimately deleted by the obligatory
rule of MP-TAIL SHORTENING in cases where optional SPACE
DELETION has not applied. The structural descriptions of the last three
rules, finally, are such that they cannot apply unless EQUI-SUBJECT
REL STRIPPING has been applied, and it, in turn, cannot apply if
RELATIVE CLAUSE REDUCTION has not been applied. Alternatives
to idiosyncratic rules are mentioned in Chapter V.
6.3. Applied Amount Terms and Related Expressions
Before restating MP SHIFT, let us briefly examine expressions like twee

liter water ('two liter water', two liters of water), twee kilo stenen ('two
kilo stones', two kilos of stones), etc., that is, expressions that have been
called, by Parsons (1970), 'applied amount terms' (op. cit., p. 378).
It seems plausible to relate applied amount terms to expressions of the

form 'a quantity of MASS which amounts to MP', that is to structures
which may take on the form of LXVII (below), after application of the
same transformations that are required for the derivation of constructions
like een steen van 2 kilo (cf. pp. 156-60), the only difference being that the
underlying highest antecedent NP in this case does not dominate een steen
but may dominate een hoeveelheid x ('a quantity of x').
LXVII NP
~
NP RELr
~RELr NP
I
MP
~
DET QUANTITY
I
NP
I
ART
~N
DET
I
ART
I
MASS
I shall not try to answer the question as to the source of structures like
[NP DET QUANTITY [REL DET MASS REd Npl, since the possibilities
r
are, at least at first glance, rather large in number. (A quantity of x might

be related to a quantity taken from x, a quantity being part of the total of all x,
a quantity which consists ofx, etc., or it might even be derived from a structure
like [NP [REL r [NP ART MASS NPl REd [REL r [NP ART QUANTITY NPl REd Npl,
via some revised form of 'MP SHIFT', which would then have to be re-
named (for instance, 'QUANTIFIER SHIFT' (cf. also p. 186».)
Suppose we have an optional rule of QUANTITY DELETION, stated as
follows:
LXVIII QUANTITY DELETION (prelexical)
S.D.: X - DET QUANTITY - [REL r DET MASS REd Y

OPT
I 2 3 =
S.c.: o 3
We could then arrive, after tree-pruning, at a structure like LXIX (p. 167).
(An alternative to LXVIII might be optional incorporation of DET
QUANTITY. See also p. 239). It is possible to restate MP SHIFT in such a
way as to make it applicable to structures like LXIX as well. The revised
rule probably should convert LXIX into LXX.
LXIX NP
~REL
REL
I I r r
NP MP
~N
DET
I
ART
I
MASS
LXX NP
M~
I NP
~
DET N
I
ART
I
MASS
That is, in the case of applied amount terms, MP probably should not replace
ART preceding MASS, if the English equivalents of Dutch applied amount
terms are any indication of the kind of underlying structure we should
assign to the latter. In an expression like two liters of water, water in all
probability should be seen as a complete noun phrase, not just a noun. A
structure such as LXX accounts for the presence of of in applied amount
terms in English, if we accept a lexical entry of the type of LII (p. 155) for
of Such an entry would require that water in two liters of water be a noun
phrase, not a noun. The fact that applied amount terms in Dutch do not con-
tain van can be accounted for by introducing an extra lexical entry applicable
in cases such as these. This entry is basically of the form of LII, but, for the
class of expressions under consideration the sister NP of the REL which
constitutes the simultaneous environments should be specified further as,
possibly, DET QUANTITY, or some such string, at any rate as something
which can be considered to represent the class of noun phrases which are
not followed by van when preceding, for instance, mass terms. The REL-
dominated NP will probably also have to have some further specification,
e.g., DET MASS. The REL node should then be associated with a zero
morpheme. This type of entry would thus account for the absence of a
genitive marker in, for instance, twee liter water. In some cases we find
the case marker -s representing the REL node in Dutch (2 bladzijden druks
(two pages of print», but generally it is absent. For an expression like the
one just given a separate entry with a complete specification of the NP
dominating druk ('print') will be required, where, furthermore, the REL
node should be associated with the morpheme -s, specifying that it comes
after the NP druk, not before it.
The situation is exactly the same, as far as lexical entries are concerned,
with expressions such as the ones considered in Section 2.1.3.2 of Chapter I,
i.e., expressions like enkele meters (a number of meters), ettelijke meters
(afair number ofmeters), etc. (cf. (89a)-(93b) on pp. 23-4). That is, in the case
of these expressions we shall also need a lexical entry for a zero case
marker. This entry may be actually the same as the one suggested for the
zero case marker in Dutch applied amount terms.
Presumably, applied amount terms are essentially similar in structure
to expressions such as these. Therefore, we could replace I on p. 24 by a
structure like LXXI. (I was proposed for such expressions in Chapter I.)
NP
---------------I
LXXI
NP RELr
~N
DET NP
I
ART
~~
X
NUMBER DET N
I
ART MASS
~UNIT
I
PLURAL
According to Gruber (1 967a), we have an optional base rule of the following

form:
LXXIIa MASS-+(PLURAL)
If MASS is not rewritten, we have a non-count noun, such as water; if it
is rewritten as PLURAL, we have such plural forms as stenen (stones) or
meters.
Comparing LXXI to LXVIIa (above), we can see that the relationship
between expressions like ettelijke meters and applied amount terms can be
accounted for.
Returning to the question of how to restate MP SHIFT, we may now
first ask whether or not the lexicalizable structure underlying expressions
like tien meter hoogte ('ten meter height'), containing spatial parameter
nouns, should also contain a complete NP immediately underlying the para-
meter word. This question is directly relevant to the problem of describing
the difference between, e.g., on the one hand a height, a length, etc., and on
the other hand height, length, etc. in MP + parameter noun constructions.
The most plausible solution would seem to be to regard spatial parameter
words as non-count nouns. This means that we should look upon an ex-
pression like een hoogte van 10 meter ('a height of 10 meters') as containing
a non-count noun hoogte ('height'), despite the fact that it is preceded by an
overt indefinite article.
As is well known, there are many constructions in which nouns appear
preceded by an overt indefinite article although normally they are not
preceded by one, for instance, the non-count noun enthousiasme in Hij
toonde een enthousiasme dat mij verbaasde ('He showed an enthusiasm that
surprised me'). Always when we are dealing with sentences such as these,
the presence of the indefinite article can be explained by the fact that it is
not really directly associated with the following non-count noun, but with
some other underlying constituent, such as, in this case, 'degree', or, in
other cases, 'great amount' or 'remarkable kind' (as in Wat een whisky!
(,What a whisky!', meaning What a great amount of whisky! or What a
remarkable kind of whisky!).
In the case of a height, a length, etc., we are probably dealing with
something similar. It may be that expressions like the latter two have an
underlying structure in which some element representable as 'amount of'
or 'measure of', or the like, is present and explains the overt indefinite article
in such expressions. Although at present I see no way of substantiating such
a claim, I shall assume that it will be possible to account for the occurrence
of the indefinite article in van + MP constructions in which van is preceded
by a parameter noun, by some rule stipulating that ART is manifested as
een before non-count nouns only if they are accompanied by some under-
lying attributive phrase referring to the quantity or kind of the non-count
noun (cf. Wat een (hoeveelheid/bijzondere) whisky! (,What a (quantity
of/remarkable) whisky!'), een enthousiasme dat mij verbaasde ('an en-
thusiasm that surprised me'), een hoogte van 2 meter ('a height of 2 meters'),
etc.). Suppose this is correct. We could then assume that it is also correct
that MP SHIFT should replace the category ART by MP in order to derive
MP + parameter noun constructions, thus relating, e.g., een hoogte van
10 meter ('a height of 10 meters') to 10 meter hoogte ('ten meters height').
It seems rather difficult to decide whether or not this course should be fol-
lowed. If MP + parameter noun constructions in Dutch are to be handled
in this way, there must be a difference in the transformational treatment of
such phrases between, for instance, French, and Dutch. For, a phrase like
twee meter breedte ('two meters width') translates in French as deux metres
de large ('two meters of width'), in which large should not be considered an
adjective but a noun phrase (compare expressions like etre au large, etre
au large de Brest, du large, se promener de long en large, prendre Ie large, Ie
vent du large, etc., in which it is not an adjective either). The word de ('of')
in deux metres de large suggests that there must be a REL node dominating
an NP large, rather than that large represents just an underlying N.
Another consequence of treating Dutch MP + parameter noun construc-
tions in the way considered above (i.e., by replacing ART by MP) will be
that we will then be able to account for such phrases in Dutch which
differ from that of applied amount terms in that the disappearance of
the indefinite article is seen as the result of replacing ART by MP in the
former case, and as the result of deleting DET QUANTITY in the latter.
I am not sure as to whether this is justifiable or not. In the formulation of
MP SHIFT below, however, it is assumed that it is.
LXXIIb MP SHIFT (pre lexical)
{ {
1 MAIN THREESPACE }}l [11
l t J[
[ [ ART
r
TWOSPACE
S.D. : X REl r DET _ _ DET ONESPACE [ _ MP _ 1 REl r Z
[ ¢ [ DET MASS 1 RELr REl r 1
NP RELr REl r NP
2 3 4 5 oel ;
S.c. : 4 3 o 5
(where the large square brackets indicate that if the upper half of possible
categories inside a pair of them is chosen, it should be chosen for all pairs
of them. Likewise for the lower half. The second term of the S.D. is empty
if we choose the lower half of possible strings. This is indicated by '0'.)
LXXIIb will convert LXIX into LXX, LXII into LXIIIb, and LXIV into
LXV (see above).
We can now add QUANTITY DELETION to our list of transformations.
It should apply before MP SHIFT, but after EQUI-SUBJECT REL
STRIPPING. It does not matter whether it comes before or after SPACE
DELETION.
RELATIVE CLAUSE FORMATION (obI.; p. 146)
RELATIVE CLAUSE REDUCTION (opt.; p. 147)
PAR-MP CONTRACTION (obI.; p. 149)
SIMPLE MP SENTENCE REDUCTION (opt.; p. 150)
EQUI-SUBJECT REL STRIPPING (opt.; p. 158)
SPACE DELETION (opt.; p. 161)
QUANTITY DELETION (opt.; p. 166)
MP SHIFT (obI.; p. 170; see also p. 239)
MP-TAIL SHORTENING (obI.; p. 160)
6.4. Embedding; Another Type of 'Van' Constructions; Postlexical Rules
Suppose we assign to all sentences containing relative clauses an under-

lying structure consisting of conjoined S's. We could then have the follow-
ing transformational rule:
LXXIII EMBEDDING (prelexical)
S.D. : X - [ Y - NPj - Z 1- [ u - NP j - W 1- v
S S S S
OPT
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
:]
3+[5 6 7 1
s.c. : REL REL 8
{: 6+[2 3 4 1
REL REL
(where the NP's with the subscript 'i' are identical; '+' means Chomsky
adjunction).
A rule of this kind would make the third rewriting possibility of the base
rule (ii) on p. 133, NP-NP S, unnecessary. It would relate, for instance,
both LXXV and LXXVI (on pp. 172 and 173, respectively) to LXXIV.
LXXIV S
S s ----s
~VP
NP,
~VP
NP2
~VP
NP,
~PP
V
~~
DET N V PP
~~
DET N V PP
I~
BE P .NP2
II~
PAR BE P NP,
II~
VAL BE P MP
I~
WITH
DET N
I
WITH DET
/''"--.N I
AT
I
PAR
I
VAL
(LXXV and LXXVI both have undergone RELATIVE CLAUSE FORMA-

TION.)
LXXV underlies simple MP sentences and a variety of paraphrases.
LXXVI underlies sentences like Het gewicht van de steen was 10 kilo ('The
weight of the stone was 10 kilos'), and also sentences containing hebben,
such as Het gewicht dat de steen heefl is 10 kilo ('The weight which the stone
has is 10 kilos').
As can be seen from LXXIII, EMBEDDING introduces a new node,
REL. The question now arises how we should go about differentiating be-
tween restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses. I shall not try to
an,swer this question here, restricting myself to mentioning a possible solu-
tion. It may be that arguments can be found for assuming underlying struc-
tures for restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses that differ in the way
LXXV s
A
NP1 VP
v
A PP
I~NP
BE P
I~REL
WITH NP2
DET
/ \N I
S
IA
PAR NP2 VP
IA
PRO V PP
I~NP
BE P
I~REL
WITH NP 3
DET
/ \N I
S
I~VP
VAL NP3
I~PP
PRO V
I~
BE
P MP
I
AT
indicated by the two analyses representable as [NP roET ART REL DET] N NP]
and [NP NP REL NP], respectively. This could mean that we should have two
different EMBEDDING transformations. However, since I do not know
whether or not such a solution is correct, I shall continue to indicate the
difference between the two kinds of relative clauses by means of the
subscripts Or' ('restrictive') and On' (,nonrestrictive'), and assume that both
types occur in the structure [NP NP REL NP]' No doubt the semantic
difference between restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses should
somehow be made explicit in the S.D. of EMBEDDING rules, if indeed
it is correct to assume that both types derive from sentence conjunction.
Clearly, an advantage of having some kind of EMBEDDING transforma-
tion is that we can now account for the synonymy between, e.g., De steen
---------------
LXXVI S
NP VP
NP2
~REL V
~PP
/ \N
DET S
I I ~NP
BE P
IA
PAR NP1 VP
I~REL
WITH NP 3
v
~PP A
DET N
I
S
I~
BE
P NP 2 VAL
I~
NP VP 3
I
WITH
I
PRO
I
PRO V
~PP
I~
BE
P MP
I
AT
weegt 10 kilo (The stone weighs 10 kilos') and Het gewicht van de steen
is 10 kilo (,The weight of the stone is 10 kilos') in a very simple way;
EMBEDDING implies that both derive from the same underlying structure.
(I have been told that, of the two types, only the latter is possible in
Japanese.) Another advantage may be that we will never get embedded
clauses with wrong antecedents. Seuren (l969b) calls attention to the
fact that a base grammar like the one in Chomsky (1965) may generate a
string like the dog (the dog Past be angry) Past frighten the man, but also,
for example, the dog (the man Past be angry) Past frighten the man, "which
cannot be further developed into a surface structure since any trans-
formation incorporating the bracketed clause in [the latter string] requires
that the remaining and the deleted element [i.e., in this case, the antecedent
noun phrase and the subject of the embedded clause, WGK] should be identi-
cal - a condition arising from the general requirement of recoverability of
deleted elements." (op. cit., p. 51). There is no way to prevent Chomsky's
base from generating strings like the latter. However, with an EM-
BEDDING-type rule we will never get such a string.
We cannot derive van constructions like het gewicht van de steen by
means of the EQUI-SUBJECT REL STRIPPING rule given earlier. There
must be a rule that eliminates BE WITH, as well as the object NP coref-
erent with the antecedent. Thus constructions like het gewicht van de steen
and, e.g. het boek van Jan ('the book of John'), de poten van de tafel ('the
legs of the table'), could be derived via this rule from structures we may
loosely represent as the book - John be with the book and the legs - the table
be with the legs, respectively.
In order to derive such expressions we shall need a rule that could be
formulated as follows:
LXXVII EQUI-OBJECT REL STRIPPING (prelexical)
S.D.: X NP1 lRELr NP - BE WITH [NP, PRO NP.l- REd Y

OPT
1 2 3 =>
S.C.: 0 3
EQUI-OBJECT REL STRIPPING will therefore turn a structure like
LXXVIII into LXXIX:
LXXVIII
~NP
~REL
NP'
I r
~VP
NP
~pp
v
I~
BE P NP,
I
WITH
I
PRO
LXXIX
~NP
~REL
I
N~
r
®
I
NP
The above structure qualifies for van attachment.

We now have two REL STRIPPING rules. The counterpart of EQUI-
OBJECT REL STRIPPING, namely, EQUI-SUBJECf REL STRIPPING
can probably be stated in a more general way than it is on p. 158, so that it

could also account for such van constructions as een man van grate charme
('a man of great charm'), een man van ervaring ('a man of experience'),
which can be related to een man die grate charme heeft ('a man who has great
charm') and een man die ervaring heelt ('a man who has experience'),
respectively. Such van constructions are possible with noun phrases follow-
ing van that may contain some element of degree or extent. Thus the rule
of EQUI-SUBJECT REL STRIPPING should be stated so as to be ap-
plicable only in cases where some noun phrase follows van that can be
modified by a measure phrase or an extent word. We could then account
for the fact that, e.g., *een man van geelzucht ('a man of jaundice') cannot
occur; neither of the two REL STRIPPING rules can apply in this case.
We shall need a further rule that will put the words in relative clauses
derived from LXXVI (p. 173) in the right order:
LXXX REL REORDERING (postlexical)
S.D.: X[NP NP 1 [REL - Y- [NPI PRO NPJ - Z REd NP] W
OBL
2 3 4 =
S.c.: 3 2 4
If Y is empty, PRO is the subject NP in the relative clause. In that case
the rule will operate vacuously. If Y is nonnull, PRO is the object noun
phrase. In that case, REL REORDERING will change, e.g., (61) into (62):
(61) De lengte - de stok heeft die - ...
'The length - the stick has which - ... '
(62) De lengte - die de stok heeft - ...
'The length - which the stick has - ... '
LXXX is here stated, tentatively, as a postlexical rule. There are no
specific arguments as to why it should be, aside from the fact that it
seems plausible that superficial phenomena such as word-order in embedded
sentences are to be handled after the prelexical transformations have
applied.
If we should adopt the idea of treating zijn as an affix (cf. Section 4
in this chapter), we shall need another postlexical rule putting in the
right order the substrings and # boundaries of, for example, XVIII
#het# # # lang #zijn # #twee# #meter# (,it-long-be-two-meter';
see p. 129). This rule, which we may dub BOUNDARY UNTANGLING,
resembles somewhat the rule of PARTICLE MOVEMENT (which changes,
e.g., He hung up his coat into He hung his coat up). It should also reorder
#Jan# #op#eten# # #de# # sandwich # (,John-up---eat-the-sand-
wich'), yielding (64), below. Since we also have intransitive separable

verbs (e.g., weglopen ('away-walk', walk away», the S.D. of this rule should
contain a complement NP which is optional. The rule might look like
LXXXI:
LXXXI BOUNDARY UNTANGLING (postlexical)
S.D.: XNP [: #] - # [:~T#] - [B#EV] # -(#)-(#NP #)- Y

OBL
2 3 4 5 6=>
S.c.: 3 5 2 4 6
(where 'PRT' stands for 'PARTICLE'. The category PP corresponds to the
PP' in XVIII on p. 129.)
Notice that if the input starts with X NP # - #PRT - # V #, it will
always continue with a non-null fourth term, i.e., a boundary symbol. If
the first three terms are NP # # - # PP # - BE #, the fourth term will
always be empty. (This is simply an automatic consequence of the two
different ways in which affixation can take place.) Therefore it will suffice
to put the fourth term in parentheses. As indicated above, the complement
NP (the fifth term) mayor may not be empty.
BOUNDARY UNTANGLING will convert a string like (63) into (64),
and a string like (65) into (66):
(63) #Jan# - #op - #eet# - # - # de # # sandwich #
'John up eats the sandwich'
(64) #Jan# - #eet# - #de# # sandwich # - #op - #
'John eats the sandwich up
(65) #het# # - #lang# - is# - #twee# # meter #
'it long is two meter'
(66) #het# # - is# - #twee# # meter # - #lang#
'it IS two meter long'
BOUNDARY UNTANGLING must not be allowed to operate if the
sentence is embedded. For, in that case, opeet and lang is should remain
single 'words'. Therefore we must state the following condition:
LXXXIa Condition on BOUNDARY UNTANGLING
Transformation blocks if the substring starting with the NP of
the first term and ending in the fifth term is dominated by an
embedded S.
The rule of BOUNDARY UNTANGLING of course will have to be stated
differently if it should tum out that zijn must not be considered an affix.
We have discussed a total of thirteen transformational rules in this
subsection and the preceding ones. They are listed under LXXXII:
LXXXII List of transformational rules
Prelexical
1. EMBEDDING (opt.; p. 171)
2. RELATIVE CLAUSE FORMATION (obI.; p. 146)
3. RELATIVE CLAUSE REDUCTION (opt.; p. 147)
4. PAR-MP CONTRACTION (obI.; p. 149)
5. SIMPLE MP SENTENCE REDUCTION (opt.; p. 150)
6. EQUI-SUBJECT REL STRIPPING (opt.; p. 158)
7. EQUI-OBJECT REL STRIPPING (opt.; p. 174)
8. SPACE DELETION (opt.; p. 161)
9. QUANTITY DELETION (opt.; p. 166)
10. MP SHIFT (obI.; p. 170)
11. MP-TAIL SHORTENING (obI.; p. 166)
Postlexical
12. BOUNDARY UNTANGLING (obI.; p. 176)
13. REL REORDERING (obI.; p. 175)
The EMBEDDING rule cannot be part of the same cycle as the rules 2-11,
for if it were, we could derive dubious sentences such as *De stok heeft een
lengte die twee meter is ('The stick has a length which is two meters'), in
which SIMPLE MP SENTENCE REDUCTION has taken place in a
sentence which ultimately will become a relative clause (cf. p. 125, examples
(54) and (55)). Such a sentence could be derived in the following way:
LXXXIII(=LXXIV) s
~---------------
~
s
~
s
~
s
NP, VP NP, VP NP, VP
~PP
v
~~
DET N V PP
~~
DET N V PP
I~
BE P NP,
II~
PAR BE P NP,
II~
VAL BE P MP
I~
WITH
DET N
I~
WITH
DET N
I
AT
I
PAR
I
VAL
EMBEDDING and RELATIVE CLAUSE FORMATION=>

LXXX/lla s
~s
~VP ~VP
NP1
~PP
v DET
An NP2
N V PP
I~
BE P NP 2
II~NP
PAR BE P
I A
WITH DET N
I~REL
WITH NP 3
PAR
I DET
A N
I
S
I~VP
VAL NP3
I~
PRO
V PP
BE
I~
P MP
I
AT
RELATIVE CLAUSE REDUCTION=>
LXXX/lIb s
s S
~VP /,,-,----
NP1 NP2 VP
~PP
V
~~
DET
N V PP
I~
BE
P NP
II~
PAR BE
P NP
2
I~N WITH
I~ NP PP
WITH DET 3
PAR
I ~~
DET N P MP
I I
VAL AT
SIMPLE MP SENTENCE REDUCTION=>

LXXXIIIc s
s s
~VP ~VP
NP2
NP,
~PP
v
~N V~MP
DET
I~
BE
P NP
I I
PAR BE
2
I~N
WITH DET
I
PAR
EMBEDDING and RELATIVE CLAUSE FORMATION=
LXXXII~
NP, VP
~PP
v
BE
I~
P NP
I~REL
WITH NP2
~N
DET
I
S
I~
PAR NP VP 2
I~
PRO
V MP
I
BE
LXXX/IId would lead to lexicalized structures like the one cited above
(* De stok heeft een lengte die twee meter is). It cannot undergo any further
transformations (aside from postIexicaI ones). Therefore, EMBEDDING
must be outside the cycle of the rules 2-11. That is, if it has been applied
(once or several times), it may not apply again after the cycle of 2-11 has
been run through once or several times.
7. THE DERIVATION OF MEASURE PHRASES
7.1. Unreduced Forms
According to the base rules (ii), (vii) and (xiii) in Section 5, the structure
underlying abstract measure phrases should contain at least the following
type of configuration:
LXXXIV NP
~N
DET
I
ABSTR
I
UNIT
I
SPACE
TIME
TEMPERATURE
In Chapter I, Section 2.1.3.2, we considered the following analysis of phrases

like 10 meter ('10 meters') and een paar meter ('a few meters'):
LXXXV (= II of Chapter I)
INDEF + NE + N + PLURAL
(where 'NE' stands for 'Numerical Element'. NE was assumed to dominate
integers or words like paar as in een paar meter.) In Section 5 of the present
chapter, it was assumed that if DET in a measure phrase is not rewritten,
it refers to a 'non-particular' set of units, that is, to a set of units which are
undetermined as to their location on a measuring scale. Insofar as this
assumption is valid, we could replace LXXXV by 'DET+NE+N+
PLURAL'. But it is also possible that NE is dominated by DET. In that
case LXXXV should be restated as something like [DET X NE Y DET] + N +
PLURAL. However, as we shall see in this subsection, there are more
possibilities, and we shall be able to restate LXXXV in a different way.
Jackendoff (1968) proposes the following structure underlying a phrase
like three men:
LXXXV/a NP
~
Det N PP
I
Art
I~
three of NP
~N
Det
I
Art
I
men
I
Indef
Since we do not have *three of men, Jackendoff introduces a transform-

ation which obligatorily deletes of in structures such as the one above (i.e.,
in structures where of is followed by 'indef).
Jackendoff argues that certain types of noun phrase constructions con-
taining, in his terminology, Group I words (a group, a herd, a score, a pound,
etc.), Group II words (the so-called quantifiers) and Group III words (afew,
many, one, three, etc.), are all instances of the same deep structure con-
figuration. Thus the highest N in LXXXV/a, according to Jackendoff, could
also dominate a quantifier like some. He concludes from the following
examples that the above-mentioned of-dropping rule should be the correct
transformation to handle the situation:
(67) Guess what we don't have any of: insect repellent.

(68) We don't have any insect repellent.
(69) *Guess what we don't have any: insect repellent.
(70) *We don't have any of insect repellent.
Adding to the grammar an of-deletion transformation "permits us to explain

these examples easily: in (67), the preposing of what prevents the of from
dropping as it does in (68)." (op. cit., p. 428).
Jackendoff then briefly discusses other proposals for quantifiers, the
first two of which are clearly inadequate. The third and more recent one has
been put forward in various forms by Lakoff (1965) and Carden (1968)
(see also Lakoff (1969) and (l970c), and Partee (1970». According to the
Lakoff-Carden proposal the structure underlying, e.g., Many of the men left
should be something like LXXXV/b (p. 182). This proposal is based on the
observation that a sentence such as Many of the men left is synonymous with
the archaic The men who left were many. As I shall attempt to show, my
proposal will combine elements of the two sketched above.
Suppose we assume that the following paraphrase is representationally
LXXXVlb s
NP
---------------
~
NP
5
VP
I
(were) many
I~
NP
the men VP
the men
I I
left
significant with respect to the structure underlying the phrase ten dollars:
(71) a number of dollars amounting to ten
We could then consider the underlying structure LXXXVII for ten dollars,
since the part amounting to ten represents an underlying relative clause.
Note that if we interpret VAL as something definable as a point on a
calibrated scale, the preposition AT, as it occurs in structures such as
LXXXVII, can be taken to represent the relation between the value and a
LXXXVII NP
~RELr
NP,
~
NP
RELr
I
S
~N
DET
I
NP
~VP
NP,
I I
ART QUANTITY DET
~N I V~PP
PRO
I
NUMBER
I~
ART MASS UNIT
I~
BE P NP
I
PLURAL MONVAL
I I~
WITH NP RELr
I
DOLLAR DET
~N I
S
ART
II~ VAL NP VP
I~PP
PRO V
BE
I~
P NP
I~
AT DET N
I
ART
I
NE
I
DEF
1
INTEGER
I
10
certain point corresponding to the integer expressed in the noun phrase

preceded by AT. Now if we regard the set of integers as points on a line or
scale, '10' in LXXXVII should be seen as representing the name of one
such point.
In LXXXVII I have left out the category ABSTR (which ought to domin-
ate UNIT in the structure underlying abstract measure phrases) because
for the present I shall assume that we are trying to describe the concrete
measure phrase ten dollars. However, if ABSTR were included, the question
might be raised whether its presence in combination with the category MASS
is justified, since ordinarily one thinks of 'mass' as pertaining to something
concrete. But let us assume that MASS may equally pertain to something
abstract (as in a mass of ideas). This, as we shall see, will enable us to derive
abstract measure phrases in pretty much the same way as concrete ones.
We can easily extend the domain of some of the transformations discussed
in the preceding sections. In particular, we could replace 'MP' in their
structural descriptions by, say, '[NP X INTEGER Y NPl', where, if Y is a
EQUI-SUBJECf REL STRIPPING~
LXXXVIIa NP
NP, RELr
~RELr
NP
I
NP
A
DET N
I
NP NP
~RELr
I I
ART QUANTITY DET
~N /\
DET
I N S
I
NUMBER
I~
ART MASS UNIT
IIA
ART VAL NP VP
I I
PLURAL MONVAL PRO V
I~PP
I
DOLLAR
I~NP
BE P
I~
AT DET N
I
ART
I
NE
I
DEF
I
INTEGER
I
10
UNIT, we have the description of an MP, but where, if Y is empty, we have

a phrase having the form of the lowest NP in LXXXVII. The rules ofEQUI-
SUBJECT REL STRIPPING, RELATIVE CLAUSE REDUCTION, and
those that were called 'MP-TAIL SHORTENING', 'QUANTITY DELE-
TION' and 'MP SHIFT', could then be applied in that order, starting with
LXXXVII. (For the sake of simplicity let us ignore RELATIVE CLAUSE
FORMATION.) Thus we would have the derivation LXXXVIIa-e (pp.
183-6).
Notice that once we have arrived at LXXXVIIe we have a structure which
more or Jess corresponds to Jackendoff's deep structure LXXXVla ('three
o/men,), where o/corresponds to the remaining REL node in LXXXVIIe,
the main difference being that in LXXXVla the numeral is preceded by
'indef and is a sister node of both 'indef and '0/ indef men'.
RELATIVE CLAUSE REDUCTION=>
LXXXVIIb NP
NP1
~RELr
NP
DET
A N
I
NP NP
I I
ART QUANTITY DET
~N /\
DET N
I
NUMBER
I~
ART MASS
UNIT
I I
ART VAL
I
PLURAL MONVAL
I PP
I
DOLLAR P
~NP
I~N
AT DET
I
ART NE
I
I
DEF
I
INTEGER
I
10
'MP-TAIL SHORTENING'=>
LXXXVIIc
NP,
~RELr
NP
~N
DET
I
NP
I
ART QUANTITY
i ~N DET NP
II~
NUMBER ART MASS UNIT DET
~N
I
PLURAL
I
MONVAL
I
ART NE
I
I
I I I
DOLLAR DEF INTEGER
I
10
QUANTITY DELETION=>
LXXXVIId NP
RELr
I
NP
RELr
I
NP
~N
DET
~N I
ART
I
NE
DET
I~UNIT
ART MASS
I
DEF
I
INTEGER
I
PLURAL
I
MONVAL
I
10
I
DOLLAR
'MP SHIFT'=>
LXXXVIIe NP
NP RELr
~N
DET
I NP
I
ART
I
NE
~N
DET
I
DEF
I
INTEGER
I
ART MASS
~UNIT
I
10 PLURAL
I I
MONVAL
I
DOLLAR
We could now introduce a rule which I shall call 'NE INCORPOR-

ATING', making the NE category a sister node of both the remaining DET
and the UNIT noun category (as a result, the DET node preceding [N NE N]
will be 'unsupported', and will be pruned (cf. p. 207)). We would then get
LXXXV/If:
LXXXV/If NP
RELr
I
NP
DET NE N
I
ART
I
INTEGER MASS
~UNIT
I
10
I
PLURAL
I
MONVAL
I
DOLLAR
Since the encircled N no longer dominates anything, it will be pruned.

The encircled NP node which immediately dominated it will then be pruned
as well, for the same reason. The remaining encircled NP node will then be
pruned too, since after pruning of the previously mentioned NP, it will
dominate only REL r •
Alternatively, we could have the rule of NE INCORPORATING change
LXXX VIle into LXXXVIlg:
LXXXVIlg RELr
I
NP
~N
DET
I~
ART NE N
I~
INTEGER MASS UNIT
I
10
I
PLURAL
I
MONVAL
I
DOLLAR
(tree-pruning is assumed to have taken place in LXXXVIlg. But see, with

regard to REL" p. 188.) The latter structure would seem to be more plausible
in that it clearly expresses the relation between DET and 10 PLURAL DOL-
LAR, whereas in LXXXVIlfthis relation is somewhat ambiguous since there
DET is a sister node of both NE and N (which is the head ?). This may be
relevant in view of the fact that the article or demonstrative preceding NE
has the gender and number of the unit noun, not of the NE (cf. Chapter I,
Section 2.1.3.2, in particular the examples (99a) de/die/deze paar gulden
(with paar as an NE) and (99c) *het/dit/dat paar gulden (with paar as a
NUMBER)). In LXXXVIlg the unit noun is the head noun, forming with
the NE a single constituent, in which the NE is a sort of modifier. Instead of
*het/dit/dat paar gulden (NUMBER), we may have het/dit/dat paar guldens,
where the article and demonstratives agree in gender with the NUMBER
paar (see also, for the overt plural morpheme, diagram XCII at the end of
this section). As I have pointed out, the structure underlying expressions
containing NUMBER (like het/een paar voeten/guldens (,the/a pair of feet/
guilders') and ettelijke meters ('a fair number of meters')) is akin to that un-
derlying applied amount terms (cf. LXXI). In this structure the article pre-
ceding the NUMBER forms a single constituent with the latter, which ex-
plains the fact that the article in, e.g., dat paar guldens agrees with the
NUMBER word instead of the unit noun. Hence, if there is a rule of gender/
number agreement between the article or demonstrative and some noun

following it which stipulates that this noun in question should be the head
noun, both LXXI and LXXXVIIg would allow for such a rule, whereas
LXXXVII/f does not seem to provide clear information as to whether 10
or dollars should govern the gender and number of the determiner. However,
it may be that there is no real reason to look upon LXXXVIIfas a structure
containing a determiner followed by a two headed monster obstructing the
agreement rule, since, after all, only the UNIT is an N. But still it may turn
out that the agreement rule could be formulated in a simpler way if we
would opt for LXXXVIIg (it would not have to allow for intervening
sister nodes of DET).
There do not appear to be rules, lexical or transformational, where REL is
of any relevance when it is a sister node of P. Note, for instance, that lexical-
ization of the semicopula or measure adjective in structures underlying
simple MP sentences (which precedes lexicalization lower in the tree)
would give rise to the structure [vp VP' (or BE PP') [REL r [NP DET NE (PLU-
RAL) UNIT NP] REd vp], if RELr were not pruned. Attachment of van
would not occur, since the entry does not fit (thus making the REL node
irrelevant). We may stipulate, then, that any REL node will be pruned which
occurs in a configuration of the form [pp P RELpp]. Hence, in the structure
underlying MP sentences measure phrases like 10 dollars will simply have
the form [NP DET [N NE (PLURAL) UNIT N] NP]'
Notice that, according to our previous assumption, LXXXVI/g would
have to be taken as the structure underlying concrete measure phrases,
since it was assumed that if DET is rewritten as ART, the MP must not
be regarded as referring to 'non-particular' units. But, as was remarked
before, there may be better solutions to the problem of distinguishing
'particular' units from 'non-particular' ones.
As was pointed out on p. 168, if applied amount terms are essentially
similar in structure to expressions such as a number ofmeters, we can replace
I of Chapter I (,INDEF+X+NUMBER+(Y)+OF+INDEF+PLU-
RAL', proposed for the latter type of expression) by the structure represented
in diagram LXXI in this chapter. We could improve on LXXI by re-drawing
it as LXXXVIII below, adding the category QUANTITY.
LXXXVIII is basically identical to the subtree dominated by NP 1 in
LXXXVII.
The two preceding diagrams enable us to account, on the one hand, for
the semantic relation of NUMBER categories to NE's, and on the other
hand for the difference between NUMBER words and NE's.
To what has been said thus far in this subsection, I shall add a few more
remarks on I, lexicalization of the REL node, 2, lackendoff's examples
LXXXVIII NP
NP RELr
~N
DET
I
NP
I
ART
I
QUANTITY
~N
DET
I
NUMBER
I
ART
~UNIT
MASS
I
PLURAL
(67)--(70), and 3, the similarity between the Lakoff-Carden proposal and the
one sketched here.
1. As was remarked before (pp. 167-8), it may be necessary to have more
entries like LII for lexicalizing the REL node. Thus, for the Dutch lexicon
and for certain cases in English, we shall probably need a REL-entry
associated with a zero phonological string. Thus we could account for the
difference between e.g., many people and a large number of people in the
lexicon, rather than state exceptions to Jackendoff's of-dropping rule.
(We can also account in this way for the superficial difference between, e.g.,
French beaucoup de monde and English many people.)
2. Will it be possible to account for Jackendoff's examples (67)--(70)
(Guess what we don't have any of. .. , We don't have any insect repellent,
etc.)? It will be, if the pre posing of what does not prevent lexicalizing the
REL node. According to our proposal, what we don't have any of would
have an underlying structure roughly like that of LXXXIX (p. 190).
Rules such as NEGATIVE PLACEMENT, DO-SUPPORT, and
SOME=>ANY will yield something like 'we do not have any [REL, WH ART
MASS RELJ'. Setting up an appropriate REL-entry and one for what will
enable us to get 'we do not have any of what'. A postlexical rule might now
prepose what, yielding what we do not have any of. The English lexicon should
furthermore indicate that the genitive marker is zero if ART QUANTITY
is lexicalized as some or any and is not followed by WHo
This admittedly sketchy description of how to derive (67) shows again
the necessity of having at least two REL-entries stipulating exactly when
the genitive marker should be zero and when it should not. It appears
possible, at any rate, to account for Jackendoff's examples without his
proposed of-dropping rule, which would have to specify with what word
classes it should apply (a great number of men, but not *many of men). It
would seem that a solution in terms of REL entries will be less costly than
adding an extra rule to the transformational component for eliminating of.
LXXXIX
~NP
I
S
~S
Q
~S
NEG
~VP
NP
I
(we)
~
(have) NP
~RELrNP
~N
DET
~NP
ART
I I~
QUANTITY
WH NP
~
(some)
~NP
DET
I
ART N
I
I
MASS
The simplicity criterion of the lexicon (cf. Gruber (1967a), 2.2.2) which is a
matter of counting types of configurations occurring in it, makes it clear that
it will always be more economical to account for rules with a relatively small
domain (and with exceptions) in the lexicon rather than in the transform-
ational component.
But we also have Guess what we don't have three of Presumably the
structure underlying the what clause of this sentence should be something
like LXXXIXa (p. 191).
NE INCORPORATING here cannot apply, since WH occurs between
the NE and ART PLURAL. The rest of the derivation is similar to that of
what we don't have any of
3. A similarity between the Lakoff-Carden proposal and the one present-
ed here is that in both cases the noun preceded in the surface structure by
the quantifying word is related in the underlying structure to the latter by
a verb phrase containing the quantifying word, at least in the case of
LXXXIXa
~NP
S
I
Q
~S
~S
NEG
~VP
NP
I
(we)
~
(have) NP
~RELr
NP
~N
DET
~NP
I
ART
I~
NE WH NP
I I
D\)GER I +5 ~
(three) PLURAL
numerals. That is, the Lakoff-Carden proposal implies that ten dollars is
related to a structure like 'dollars be ten'. In LXXXVII we have something
similar: here we could express it as '(a number of) dollars which be (with a
value which is at) ten'.
7.2. Integer-Dependent and Integer-Independent Unit Nouns
As to the distinction 'integer-dependent/independent' (cf. pp. 8-1O), it

seems clear that here we are dealing with something highly idiosyncratic
and language-specific. There is not even agreement among dialects on this
distinction. Hence it will probably be correct to account for it in the lexicon.
Let us assume that we have the following environments for the words
gulden ('guilder', integer-independent) and dubbe/tje ('dime', integer-
dependent; as will be recalled (cf. pp. 13-4), only abstract MP's can contain
integer-independent unit nouns}:
xc (NP)
~(N)
(DET)
~N
(NE)
~
(MASS) ABSTR
I
(PLURAL) UNIT
I
MONVAL
I
I
{ GUILDER}
DIME
We could then introduce the distinction of integer-dependency in the

following way:
XCla NP
~N
DET
NE N
~
(MASS)
ABSTR
I
(PLURAL) UNIT
I
MONVAL
I
I
GUILDER
"*' gulden,,*,
XClb N
(MASS) ABSTR
I UNIT
I
(PLURAL)
I
MONVAL
DIME
I
'* dubbeltje '*
Thus, integer-independent unit words simply incorporate the category

PLURAL when preceded by an NE, and when PLURAL is present, whereas
PLURAL is never incorporated in integer-dependent unit words but is
always lexicalized as a plural suffix instead.
If, on the other hand, a unit word is preceded by a differentiating word
(see p. 18) such as ettelijke, verscheidene, dozijnen, veel ('a fair number of,
'severaI', 'dozens of, 'many', respectively), the distinction no longer holds,
since differentiating words always require the plural. Thus we shall also need
the following entry:
XCII N
(MASS) ABSTR
I
(PLURAL)
I
UNIT
I
MONVAL
I
GUILDER
'*' gulden,*,
The cyclical ordering of lexical rules causes entries like XCla to take
precedence over XClb and XCII, since entries for integer-independent
unit words are in a cycle applying to higher nodes than the ones for integer-
dependent unit words (see pp. 128-9).
7.3. Reduction in Measure Phrases

(72) Ze is twaalf jaar oud.
'She is twelve years old.'
(73) Ze is twaalf jaar.
'She is twelve years.'
(74) Ze is twaalf.
'She is twelve.'
(75) *Ze is twaalf oud.
'She is twelve old.'
(76) Dat boek kost twaalf gulden vijftig (cent).
That book costs twelve guilders fifty (cents).'
(77) Dat boek is twaalf gulden vijftig (cent).
'That book is twelve guilders fifty (cents).'
(78) Dat boek kost twaalf vijftig (*cent).

'That book costs twelve fifty (cents).'
(79) Dat boek is twaalf vijftig (*cent).
'That book is twelve fifty (cents).'
(80) Hij weegt 82 kilo.
'He weighs 82 kilos.'
(81) Hij is 82 kilo.
'He is 82 kilos.'
(82) Hij weegt 82.
'He weighs 82.'
(83) *Hij is 82.
'He is 82.'
«83) is of course grammatical if it means 'He is 82 years old'.)
As can be learned from (75) *Ze is twaalf oud and (83) *Hij is 82, we
cannot simply reduce twaalfjaar and 82 kilo irrespective of whether SIMPLE
MP SENTENCE REDUCTION has taken place. As to (76)-{79), it may
be inferred that once an MP is partly reduced, it may be reduced completely.
In addition, if the first part is reduced (twaalf (gulden), then the second part
must also be reduced (not *twaalf vijftig cent).
Probably these phenomena will also have to be accounted for in the
lexicon. It would seem that a 'zero entry' for 'year' should indicate that it
only applies if SIMPLE MP SENTENCE REDUCTION has applied, and
that a 'zero entry' for 'kilo' should indicate that it applies only if this
transformation has not (XClIla and XCIlIb).
The weight unit word kilo cannot be zero if SIMPLE MP SENTENCE
REDUCTION has taken place (XClIIc takes precedence over XClIla; see
note 28, p. 221.)
XClIla N
NE N
~
(MASS)
ABSTR
I
(PLURAL)
I
UNIT
I
WEIGHT
I
KILO
"'kilo '"
XCIIlb S
~VP
NP
I~
HUMAN
V NP
I~
BE DET N
NE N
~
(MASS)
ABSTR
I
(PLURAL) UNIT
I
TIME
I
I
AGE
I
YEAR
XCI~
NP VP
~PP
V
I~
BE P NP
I~
WITH NP NP
DET
~~
N DET N
I NE
ABSTR N
I
PAR
~
(MASS)
ABSTR
~
MAIN WEIGHT
I
(PLURAL)
I
UNIT
I
WEIGHT
I
KILO
{ ,*,kiIO *}
'*' ¢ '*'
Other zero entries, such as those needed to account for (76)-(79), can be
given in a similar way (but here it will not be necessary to indicate in the
peripheral environment whether or not we have a case of SIMPLE MP
SENTENCE REDUCTION). There are other cases of MP reduction,
which occur under different conditions, but those can be dealt with in the
lexicon in rather obvious ways. Therefore, I shall not dwell on the subject
any longer.
7.4. Recapitulation
It will be noted that the three aspects of the description of measure phrases
(namely, the derivation of unreduced forms, the distinction between
integer-dependent and integer-independent unit nouns, and the description
of reduced forms) all rely rather heavily on the lexicon. This is not sur-
prising, for the presence or absence of the genitive marker as well as both the
'integer-dependent/independent' distinction and the reduction phenomena
appear to be highly idiosyncratic and hence language-specific.
As has been shown, there are certain points in my proposal for the
description of MP's (and related structures) which are similar to some of
those in the proposals put forward by lackendoff and by Lakoff and
Carden. One similarity is that there is some underlying element directly
relatable to of in lackendoff's proposal as well as in mine. Another simil-
arity is that the quantifying word in MP's (dozens, three, etc.) appears in
the underlying structure of a predicate starting with 'be' (where the unit
noun occurs in the subject) in both the Lakoff-Carden proposal and mine.
lackendoff's of-dropping rule can be dispensed with if the claim is correct
that the lexicon can, and should, deal with the presence or absence of a
phonologically non-null genitive marker. The Lakoff-Carden proposal does
not account for the differences between integers and differentiating words
like ettelijke ('a fair number of) and verscheidene ('several'), that is, between
NE's and NUMBER constituents. Furthermore, the derivation of MP's
can be handled by (slightly altered) transformations already available for
the derivation of all kinds of MP sentences, save one extra transforma-
tion ('NE INCORPORATING'). The approach suggested in this section
implies that numerals such as they occur in measure phrases and, in general,
in prenominal position, are all derived front underlying proper nouns, viz.,
number names. Hence, on the deepest level no distinction need be made
between number names and prenominal numerals, which opens the way
to new generalizations.
Apart from the fact that a systematic distinction can be made between
NUMBER constituents and NE's, expressible in structural terms in the
lexicon which at the same time explain the fact that they are akin to one
another semantically, there appears to be no special regularity as regards

integer-dependency and the differentiating effect of words like ettelijke. Fin-
ally, reduction in MP's also appears to consist of a small set of rather
unpredictable phenomena. These idiosyncrasies, as haG been shown, can be
dealt with in the lexicon, even though to a certain extent they are contingent
upon the application of a transformational rule.
CHAPTER IV
DURATION SENTENCES
1. 'DUREN'
In the following subsections I shall discuss a number of facts about sentences
referring to duration. As we saw (Chapter I, Section 3.1), the semicopulas
duren ('last'), steken ('draw'), reiken ('reach', 'have a range or) and dragen
('carry') are similar in that they take adjectival complements. But there is a
difference between the adjective occurring with duren and those occurring
with the other three (cf. (106}-(126b) of Chapter I). After having dealt with
duration sentences, I shall add a few remarks on the other three semicopulas
(Section 2).
1.1. Double WITH Strings
1.1.1. A Comparison with 'Simple' Semicopulas and Related Structures
As we observed in Chapter I, Section 3.1, the adjective lang, used in connec-
tion with duration, differs from other parameter adjectives in that it may
occur as the complement of the corresponding semicopula duren (Het duurt
lang vs. *Het weegt zwaar, *Het kost duur). 'Simple' semicopulas (i.e., semi-
copulas not taking adjectival complements, as opposed to 'complex' semi-
copulas like duren) may be followed by veel ('much') instead of an adjective
(Het kost veel vs. *Het duurt veel).
Suppose we have the following pair of entries for duren:
I 5
NP VP
~PP
v
I~
BE P NP
I
WITH NP PP
DET
A PAR P
~NP
I I~
TIME WITH NP NP
DET
~~PAR DET N
'*' durenl '*' I ~
LENGTH AMOUNT (X)
DURA TION SENTENCES 199
(where X may be something like GREAT, representing the underlying

element common to all non-neutrally used adjectives. But see also Chapter
V, pp. 241-2.)
II S
NP VP
v
~PP
I~
BE P NP
I~PP
WITH NP
A~
DET PAR P NP
I
TIME WITH
I NP MP
DET
~PAR
I
LENGTH
41= duren 2 4/:
(LENGTH in I and II can be seen as an abbreviation for the configuration of

categories underlying length.)
If we assume that I and II are essentially correct (i.e., if we assume that
duration sentences contain double WITH strings), we can explain the facts
discussed in the following paragraphs.
1. Note, first, that there is a semantic relation between duration and
length of time. This fact could be explained if we assume that the structures
underlying duration and length of time are closely related.
We may represent the structure immediately underlying length of time
as III:
III NP
N~
~
DET PAR
Rr
NP
r
I
LENGTH
~PAR
DET
I
TIME
It seems plausible that III is derived from IV, by EQUI-OBJECT REL

STRIPPING:
IV NP
~RELr
N~
~PAR
DET
I
S
I
LENGTH
~VP
NP,
DET
A~
PAR V PP
II~
TIME BE P NP
I
WITH PRO
I
Let us assume that the structure underlying duration is something like V:
NP
V ~RELr
NP,
~PAR
DET
I
S
TIME
I~
NP, VP
PRO
I~V PP
I~
BE P NP
I~PAR
WITH DET
I
LENGTH
Both REL constituents of IV and V derive from the same underlying relative
clause (via RELATIVE CLAUSE FORMATION), namely, [REL r DET
TIME BE WITH DET LENGTH RELJ. Suppose that the structure immedi-
ately underlying duration is one derived by RELATIVE CLA USE RED U C-
TION from V(V/).
Assuming that III and IV are essentially correct, we could account for the
fact that duration and length of time are semantically closely akin, or even
equivalent, but that they cannot be substituted for one another in all sorts
DURATION SENTENCES 201
VI NP
~PP
NP
~
DET
PAR P
~NP
II~
TIME WITH DET PAR
I
LENGTH
of contexts (e.g., The length of time for this pedal-chord is indeterminate but
not *The length of time of this pedal-chord is indeterminate, although The
duration of this pedal-chord is indeterminate is correct and means the same as
the first sentence; but *The duration for etc. is bad).
It seems clear that the noun duur and the verb duren must be related in
terms of underlying structure. Therefore it is plausible to assume that the
prelexical terminal strings underlying duration sentences must contain a
substring representable as (WITH) DET TIME WITH DET LENGTH.
2. As I mentioned earlier, een lange duur ('a long duration') is correct,
although we do not have expressions such as *een zwaar gewicht ('a heavy
weight') or *een dure prijs ('an expensive price')'. If we take the following
diagram to represent roughly the entry for the noun duur as it occurs in een
lange duur, we are in a position to explain this.
VII NP
~PP
NP
DET N
~NP
P
I
PAR
I~
WITH NP NP
I
TIME
~N
DET
~N
DET
I
PAR
~(X)
AMOUNT
11= duur, 'IF I

LENGTH
(where X again represents the element which is incorporated in all non-

neutral adjectives and which, under certain circumstances, may be mani-
fested separately as groot 2 or hoog 2 (cf. p. 31). It is parenthesized because
duur! may also occur in combination with the neutral adjective lang!
(cf. diagram IlIa, p. 99), as in een te lange duur ('a too long duration').
That parameter adjectives preceded by te must be neutral can be seen from

the fact that sentences like De stok is (weliswaar kort, maar toch nog (5
centimeter)) te lang ('The stick is (indeed short but still (5 centimeters)) too
long') do not imply that the thing mentioned by the subject is long.)
Note that the simultaneous environment of VII might also be taken to be
the one for tijd ('time') and that the whole tree given in VII may be the
structure underlying lange tijd. However, the entry or entries for tijd as it
occurs in all kinds of contexts not containing lang must be different insofar
as the peripheral environment for that particular noun tijd does not contain
WITH DET LENGTH DET AMOUNT X. The noun tijd as it occurs in
lange tijd also has an entry different from the one given above. Lange tijd only
occurs in duration sentences: Het duurde lange tijd ('It lasted a long time'),
(Gedurende) lange tijd moesten we wachten ('(For) a long time we had to
wait'). Presumably, the entry for the latter word tijd must have a peripheral
environment specifying that it may only occur in duration sentences. The
entry for duurl, on the other hand, cannot have such a peripheral environ-
ment since this noun cannot occur in duration sentences the way tijd may:
we do not have *Het duurde (een) lange duur, *(Gedurende) een lange duur
moesten we wachten. Instead, its occurrence may be said to cause a sentence
to be a duration sentence.
But among duration sentences containing the noun duur, there are also
MP sentences. The noun duur in such sentences cannot have the entry VII,
for duration MP sentences containing duur cannot contain lang.
Compare the following pairs of questions and answers:
(la) Hoe lang is die stok?
'How long is that stick?'
(lb) Die stok is twee meter (lang).
'That stick is two meters (long).'
(2a) Hoe groot 2 is de lengte?
, How great is the length?'
(2b) De lengte is (bedraagt) twee meter (*lang).
'The length is (amounts to) two meters (long).'
(3a) Hoe lang duurde de pauze?
'How long did the intermission last?'
(3b) De pauze duurde 5 minuten (*lang).
'The intermission lasted 5 minutes (long).'
(4a) Hoe lang was de duur?
'How long was the duration?'
(4b) De duur was (bedroeg) 5 minuten (*lang).
'The duration was (amounted to) 20 minutes (long).'
In the odd-numbered sentences the subject does not contain a parameter

noun, while in the even-numbered sentences it does. The structure under-
lying (I a) must be something we might loosely represent as 'with how much
length is that stick?'; the one underlying (3a) then should be something like
'with how much length was the duration of the intermission?' The structures
underlying sentences like ( 1b) and (2b) have already been discussed (see
p. l43ff.). What is questioned in (la) is the length of the stick; what is
questioned in (3a) is the 'length of the duration' of the intermission. How-
ever, the MP in (I b) can be followed by lang, whereas it cannot in (3b). We
can explain this apparent incongruity if we assume that duurde in (3b) already
incorporates WITH DET LENGTH. The sentence *De pauze duurde 5 mi-
nuten lang then would be ungrammatical for the same reason as, for in-
stance, *De stok is twee meter lang lang: The structure that would have to
underlie both ungrammatical sentences contains one prepositional phrase
WITH DET LENGTH too many.
The difference between the even-numbered pairs is, that in (2a) Hoe is
followed by groot 2 , whereas it is followed by lang in (4a).
Presumably, the structure underlying (2a) is something we might roughly
represent as Q [s DET LENGTH BE WITH [NP DET VAL AT WH NP
NP) s)· The structure underlying (4a) then might be something like Q[g DET
TIME BE WITH DET LENGTH WITH [NP DET VAL AT WH NP NP) s);
what is questioned in both sentences, is, ultimately, the point on a scale
where the value of the parameter is located. A paraphrase of Hoe groot 2 is x?
('How great is x?') is Hoe veel bedraagt x? ('How much does x amount to ?').
The analysis of groot 2 might be something like WITH DET VAL AT NP
(where the NP is DET AMOUNT), while bedragen, as we have seen, might
be analyzed as BE WITH DET VAL AT.
It would seem that the element 'WH' corresponds to hoe. The string
underlying veel (i.e., DET AMOUNT) is incorporated in groot 2 whereas
it is not in bedragen. Apparently some mechanism places hoe (i.e., WH) im-
mediately before the word containing DET AMOUNT in its underlying
structure. In the case of (2a), this is groot 2 ; in the case of Hoeveel bedraagt
x?, it is veel. The word lang in (la) is also such a word. Presumably, the same
holds for lang in (4a).
Now, it would be highly improbable that the difference between the
structures underlying (4a) and (4b) would consist in anything more than that
the declarative sentence (4b) lacks the elements Q and WH of (4a) and that
VAL AT in (4b) is followed by MP while it is followed by DET AMOUNT
in (4a). That is, it can hardly be assumed that the differences between the
structures of the first two wh-questions and their answers would not run
parallel to those between the second two wh-questions and their answers.
Or, to put it differently, that the underlying structure of (4b) does not
contain a string WITH DET LENGTH.
It would seem, in view of this, that we may have the following entry for
duur as it occurs in (4b) :
VIlI NP
~PP
NP
DET PAR P
~NP
I
TIME
I
WITH NP w
~PAR
DET
I
LENGTH
(where W contains MP.)

Thus we now have a pair of entries for duur, VlI and VIII, which together
enable us to explain that we have een lange duur (as opposed to *een zwaar
gewicht, etc.) and at the same time the fact that MP sentences containing
duur cannot contain lang. (The exclusion in both (2b) and (4b) of lang can be
accounted for by the fact that the structure underlying all bedragen sentences
and their reduced forms is such that no sentences can be derived from it in
which MP is followed by lang (see p. 149).)
As we saw from a comparison of the odd-numbered sentences above, a
similar pair of entries (that is, entries of the form I and II) may enable us
to explain why MP sentences with duren exclude lang, whereas on the other
hand sentences containing this word but not an MP require the presence of
lang. Thus the facts discussed so far constitute evidence that the 'double
WITH string' hypothesis (i.e., the hypothesis that all duration sentences con-
tain a double WITH string) can be maintained.
3. The ungrammaticality of
(5) *Jan is 80 kilo zwaar.
'John is 80 kilos heavy.'
(6) *Het boek is 5 gulden duur.
'The book is 5 guilders expensive.'
can be explained by the fact that, in accordance with the economy prin-
ciple (cf. pp. 100-I), there are no neutral parameter adjectives zwaar and
DURA nON SENTENCES 205
duur taking MP's (or, put differently, not incorporating DET AMOUNT).
However, we do have simultaneous environments in which WITH DET
WEIGHT and WITH DET PRICE are not followed by DET AMOUNT,
namely, those associated with wegen and kosten, respectively.
The following sentence is also ungrammatical:
(7) *De pauze duurde 5 minuten lang. (cf. (3b»
'The intermission lasted 5 minutes long.'
The fact that (7) is ungrammatical can be explained in terms of the economy
principle in the following way. The underlying structure of (7) would have
to be something like NP BE WITH DET TIME WITH DET LENGTH MP,
where BE WITH DET TIME would have to underlie duren. The economy
principle accounts for the non-existence of a semicopula duren having such
a simultaneous environment and matching the structure of a simple dura-
tion MP sentence if we assume that the entry II for duren2 (p. 199) is correct.
F or, the entries of this hypothetical duren and of duren 2 would both consist
of subtrees ending in the string NP BE WITH DET TIME WITH DET
LENGTH MP. The economy principle dictates that of two such entries, only
the latter can exist (i.e., only the one having BE WITH DET TIME WITH
DET LENGTH in its simultaneous environment).
In short, we can account for the ungrammaticality of sentences like (5),
(6) and (7) in a simple and uniform way (viz., in terms of the economy
principle) if the double WITH string hypothesis is correct.
Having discussed a number of facts that seem to support the double WITH
string hypothesis, I shall now add a few remarks that have some bearing on
the points considered above, after which, in the following subsection, an-
other type of duration sentences will be examined.
In connection with (7), above, the following should be added.
In certain cases it seems that lang is not wholly excluded in simple dura-
tion MP sentences, especially with MP's referring to relatively long periods.
For example, a sentence like William York's 'Four-Pedal-Appointed-Pro-
fessor-Give-Away'duurt twee uur lang is not entirely unacceptable. How-
ever, it seems that lang here is not a neutral adjective. It somehow emphas-
izes the fact that two hours is a relatively long time. It is not clear to me how
this phenomenon should be handled in the lexicon.
Finally, in connection with the entries given above, we may add the
following.
In Chapter III no attention was given to the DET node in entries for
words showing no trace of it. In the entries for wegen, zwaar, and the like,
I left out the DET node in order to keep matters simple. However in more
precise representations of such entries DET should be present, as it is in the
diagrams above. If it were not, they could not match any derived structure.
Structures directly underlying parameter adjectives and semicopulas
always contain DET as a result of the base rule NP-+DET N, and of the
fact that DET in such structures is not deleted by any transformation.
Hence we should now ask how one might deal with the determiner during
lexicalization of words like the measure adjective lang.
One way to explain the fact that the determiner has no phonological
correlate in lang is to assume that it is simply incorporated. Alternatively,
we could suppose that DET in the reversed string LENGTH DET WITH
somehow corresponds to a zero phonological element occurring in lang.
A third possibility is to assume that the element DET is omitted during
lexicalization of lang. This course is followed by Gruber.
Gruber (1967a) proposes a lexical restructuring rule of 'morpheme
omission'. He offers as an argument against ordinary transformational
treatment of word extension (such as affixation) the fact that for trans-
formations to apply it would often be necessary to specify that a good deal
of structure is not present. Thus we do not want to derive from He snatches
bodies the sentence *He bodies-snatches (rather, He body-snatches), or, to
give an example of a different kind of word extension (extending the mean-
ing of a word like can) from John put the fish into the big cans, the sentence
*John big canned the fish. Having cited these examples he then points out
that "if we were to treat these things by transformations, we would have to
specify either a series of things that must be absent in order for the trans-
formations to apply (not always possible, as in the case of obligatory articles)
or to specify ad hoc a large number of obligatory deletions)" (op. cit.,
p. 136). Therefore, some deletions should take place during lexical attach-
ment if we accept Gruber's rather plausible argument. It would seem that
his solution presents no special problems with regard to DET. It can be
eliminated as follows. The first step in restructuring the tree to be lexicalized
in the case of lang would take place as indicated below:
IXa PP IXb PP
P
~NP ---..,. ~NP
pp'
I~
WITH
NP MP
~~
PN NP MP
~N
DET
I
WITH
I
LENGTH DET
I
I
LENGTH
As a result of extracting N and Chomsky-adjoining it to P, the NP node

originally dominating DET LENGTH now dominates DET only. We may
stipulate that during lexicalization unsupported nodes be deleted. (By
'unsupported' is meant here that the generated right-branching sister node
is no longer present.) Hence DET can be deleted. The remaining NP node
will then be pruned, since it no longer dominates anything. As a result we
getIXc:
[Xc PP
PP' NP
P
~N MP
WITH
I I
LENGTH
The encircled NP node will also be pruned. Thus, after order-reversal and
attachment of the phonological string, we get the following configuration:
[Xd PP
~MP
PP'
N
~P
LENGTH
I I
WITH
................. ,..... /////
# ,'a.,,~ #
However, the other possibilities of dealing with DET mentioned above

cannot be ruled out. For lack of evidence, I shall leave the matter open.
1.1.2. The Relationship between 'Duren' and 'Gedurende'
In Klooster and Verkuyl (1972) it is argued that there is a transformational

relationship between sentences like (8) and (9):
(8) Gedurende een week lag Lex plat.
'For a week Lex lay fiat on his back.'
(9) Het platliggen van Lex duurde een week.
'Lex's lying fiat on his back lasted a week.'
A number of arguments adduced will be summed up below. Some additional
points made in Verkuyl (l972b) will also be mentioned.
Phrases like gedurende een week ('for a week'), with an indefinite de-
terminer, will be referred to as 'duration measuring adverbials' (DMA's),
as opposed to phrases like gedurende die week (,for (the duration of) that
week'), gedurende het weekend (,for (the duration of) the weekend'), with
definite determiners, which will be called 'duration dating adverbials'
(DDA's). In the latter, the determiner has a role in the identification of an
interval along the time axis.
Verb phrases of simple MP sentences (such as duurde een week) will be
called'MVP's'.
The following pieces of evidence can be presented in support of the
proposal that sentences like (8) and (9) are transformationally related to
each other.
1. If the gedurende phrase cannot contain a definite determiner, the
corresponding MVP cannot either:
(10) *Gedurende de week lag Lex plat.
(11) *For the week Lex lay flat on his back.
(12) *Het platliggen van Lex duurde de week.
(13) *Lex's lying flat on his back lasted the week.
2. DMA's and MVP's behave in the same way with constituents in post-
position:
(14) gedurende drie jaar achtereen
'for three years consecutively' (for three consecutive years)
(15) ... duurde drie jaar achtereen
' ... lasted three years consecutively' (three consecutive years)
(16) *gedurende drie jaar gevangenisstraJ
'for three years of imprisonment'
(17) *... duurde drie jaar gevangenisstraJ
' ... lasted three years of imprisonment'
3. In DMA's as well as in MVP's the conjunction of MP's is excluded:
(18) *Gedurende 2 uur en 3 uur regende het.
'For 2 hours and 3 hours it rained.'
(19) *De regen duurde 2 uur en 3 uur.
'The rain lasted 2 hours and 3 hours.'
But the italicized phrase is possible in sentences like 2 uur en 3 uur is
samen 5 uur ('2 hours and 3 hours makes 5 hours together'). To some
speakers (18) and (19) may sound acceptable if the italicized phrase is
interpreted as an expression synonymous with
(20) 2 uur en nog eens 3 uur

'2 hours and another 3 hours'
In the latter phrase, the total number of units is not given as a whole but in
its (relevant) constituent parts. In other words, what we are dealing with
in this type of phrase can be considered another form of differentiation
(ct'. pp. 10, 18 and 29). The relevance of the constituent parts of the total
number of units is to be found, in this case, in their location on the time axis
with respect to each other (they are ordered according to the order in which
they are mentioned, and they may be separated by an interval). It seems that
'uniqueness' of sets of units referred to in MP's as regards location is one of
the possible factors in differentiation. There must be other factors as well
that may give rise to it. At any rate, semicopula sentences and sentences
with measure adjectives allow of differentiation, as can be seen from ex-
amples like Het duurde verscheidene uren/een uur en nog een uur (,It lasted
several hours/an hour and another hour') and Zijn bezit is ettelijke bunders/3
bunder en nog eens 2 bunder groot ('His property is a fair number ofhectares/3
hectares and another 2 hectares large' (measures a fair number of hectares,
etc.». If (18) is accepted (i.e., if the italicized phrase in it is felt to be an ac-
ceptable form of differentiation), then so will be (19). If the former is not,
the latter will not be either. This confirms the claim that pairs like (8) and (9)
have a common underlying structure.
4. Both duren and gedurende exclude lang if there is an MP;
(21) *gedurende een week lang
'for a week long'
(22) *... duurde een week lang
' ... lasted a week long'
5. The fact that we do not have the expression
(23) *gedurende lang
'for long'
can be explained if we assume that gedurende is transformationally related
to duren2 (and not to duren 1 ; cf. diagrams I and /I). Duren 2 cannot be fol-
lowed by lang either.
In Klooster and Verkuyl (1972) an underlying structure is proposed for
the sentences (10) Gedurende een week lag Lex plat and (II) Het platliggen
van Lex duurde een week which can be roughly represented as X (p. 210). (In
the original proposal the double WITH string contained the category
DURA TION instead of TIME. But, as has been pointed out (p. 202), it
appears that we can do without the former.)
x s
~VP
NP
s
I V
~PP
//A", I ~
// ',BE P NP
/
L __________ -' ", I ~
(Lex liggen plat)
(Lex lie flat on his back) A
WITH NP
~
PP
DET TIME P NP
,~
WITH NP MP
/'.,
~
DET
LENGTH
//
L -'
"
_______"-.::..
(een week)
('a week')
A nominalization transformation will tum the S dominating Lex liggen

plat (Lex lie fiat on his back) into het platliggen van Lex (Lex's lying flat
on his back). Lexicalization will then give (9) Het platliggen van Lex duurde
een week.
For the derivation of Lex lag plat gedurende een week ('Lex lay flat on
his back for a week') a transformation called ADVERBIALIZA TION is
proposed, which can be stated as follows:
XI ADVERBIALIZA TION (first version)
S.D.: Xfs fs NP - VP - s] - BE - PP - s] y
OPT
2 3 4 5 6 =>
S.c.: 2+5 3 0 0 6
Applied to X, this rule will yield XII.

WITH DET TIME WITH DET LENGTH could now be lexicalized as
gedurende.
The following three sentences are synonymous:
(24) Hij ving gedurende twee weken vliegen.

'He was catching flies for two weeks.'
(25) Hij ving twee weken lang vliegen.
'He was catching flies two weeks long.'
(26) Hij ving twee weken vliegen.
'He was catching flies two weeks.'
XII S
~VP
NP
i~
(Lex)
VP PP
/ //"--... , ~
,~------.....:::.
(iiggen plat) P NP
('lie flat') I ~
WITH NP PP
DET
A~
TIME P NP
I~MP
WITH NP
, /.... ,
~ /
/ , ....
~:.<-----.::.:::::..
DET LENGTH (een week)
('a week')
We can infer from this that the expressions gedurende twee weken, twee
weken lang and twee weken are all synonymous in (24)-{26). In our article,
Verkuyl and I tried to account for this by having prelexical transforma-
tions drop either WITH DET TIME or the entire double WITH string
underlying gedurende. Deletion of WITH DET TIME thus would give
lang twee weken, which could be turned, post-lexically, into twee weken
lang, while deletion of the entire string underlying gedurende would
result in simply twee weken.
A disadvantage of this solution is that one would have to set up a rule or
rules in the transformational component for the sole purpose of handling
DMA's and DDA's, which seems rather ad hoc. A less costly alternative
would be handling the above phenomena in the lexicon.
In order to be able to suggest a solution along these lines, let us first con-
sider the following facts.
Note, first, that, although we have (27), (28) is ungrammatical:
(27) een langdurig verblijf
'a long-lasting stay' (a prolonged stay)
(28) *een twee weken langdurig verblijf
'a two weeks long-lasting stay'
Instead of (28), we must have
(29) een twee weken lang verblijf
'a two weeks long stay'
Secondly, langdurig, like most other compound adjectives starting with
lang- and ending in the suffix -ig, cannot be preceded by erg, whereas lang
itself can. Thus, although we have (30), we do not have (31)-(37):
(30) erg lang
'very long'
(31) *erg langdurig
'very long-lasting'
(32) *erg langharig
'very long-haired'
(33) *erg langbenig/langpotig
'very long-legged'
(34) *erg langschedelig
'very long-skulled' (dolichocephalous)
(35) *erg langvezelig
'very long-fibrilled'
(36) *erg langstelig
'very long-stemmed'
(37) *erg langorig
'very long-eared'
etc.
An exception is langdradig ('long-threaded', meaning prolix), but this word,
as opposed to the italicized ones above, is clearly a metaphor.
Thirdly, lang- in langdurig, etc., must be taken to be the affix, whereas
-durig, etc. cannot be, for, although we have, e.g.,
(38) lang- en kortharig
'long- and shorthaired'
we do not have
(39) *langharig en -benig
'longhaired and -legged'
Typically, it is the affix in compound words which can occur separately in
conjunctions of the above type.
By 'affix' I mean a phonological string occurring (if it is a productive
affix) in an incomplete entry (i.e., in an entry with one or more blanks),
or (if it is a non-productive affix) a proper substring y of a phonological
string xyz (where either x or z, but not both, may be empty) such that:
(I) y can be identified as corresponding to a proper substring Y of the
terminal string of categories XYZ of some simultaneous environment (where
again X or Z, but not both, may be empty), (2) X and Z, insofar as they are
not empty, each occur as the terminal strings of simultaneous environ-
ments in complete entries, and, (3) Y does not occur as the terminal string
of any simultaneous environment.
In the fourth place, lang- can only occur as an affix preceding N + -ig
if the latter string cannot occur alone (cf. *schedelig, *stelig, *orig, and
*werpig (from langwerpig, 'oblong')). Words like benig, potig, harig, vezelig
are only apparent counterexamples. The first two words have meanings
(viz., 'bony' and 'strong-limbed', respectively) that are at best remotely
related to the word-parts in (33) which are identical in form. The word
harig also has a meaning that differs from that of the part -harig in
langharig: een langharige linguist ('a long-haired linguist') refers to a
linguist with long hairs on the head, whereas een harige linguist ('a hairy
linguist') refers to a linguist with hairs all over his body in abundant
quantity. Likewise, the meaning of vezelig ('fibrous') differs from that of the
corresponding word-part in langvezelig (een vezelige substantie ('a fibrous
substance') but not *een langvezelige substantie ('a long-fibrilled substance')).
Moreover, although we have, e.g., both baardig ('bearded') and met een
lange baard ('with a long beard'), we do not have *Iangbaardig ('Iong-
bearded'), contrary to what we would expect if it were the case that lang-
could occur as an affix with strings of the form N + -ig which could also
occur by themselves.
Note, finally, that langdurig is not synonymous with lang, for (40) and (41)
are not paraphrases of each other:
(40) Hij verbleef er lang.
'He stayed there long.'
(41) Hij verbleef er langdurig.
'He stayed there very long.'
It can be illustrated that (40) and (41) are not synonymous by the fact that
lang may be preceded by erg whereas langdurig, as we have seen, cannot.
Sentence (40) is related to the English expression his long stay there, while
(41) is related, more or less, to his prolonged (protracted) stay there. Lang-
durig is equivalent to erg lang. Hence *erg langdurig is excluded for two
reasons: it is ungrammatical for the same reason as (32)-(37), and erg is
superfluous. Lang- in langdurig may be assumed to incorporate an element
underlying erg. If this is correct, lang- is not a productive affix in langdurig,
although it is in the other cases. On the other hand, it is clear that, if this
analysis is correct, the difference between lang- in langdurig and lang- in
the other compounds is very small; they differ only in that the former in-
corporates the element underlying erg whereas the latter does not.
The main point of the observations above is that there must be a relation
between words like lang (the temporal measure adverb and the non-neutral
temporal adverb), langdurig, and the surface preposition gedurende, ex-

pressible in terms of closely related underlying categorial strings, and that
the difference in meaning between the non-neutral lang and langdurig is
merely that langdurig appears to contain an element of degree which lang
does not contain.
These facts together with the synonymy in duration sentences between
gedurende+MP, MP+lang, and just MP, all point in the same direction
and can be accounted for if we introduce the entries given below. All of
them can be related to the double WITH string hypothesis.
XIII PP
P
~NP
I~PP
WITH NP
~~
DET X P NP
I~
WITH NP NP
~PAR DET~N
DET
I~
LENGTH
AMOUNT MODIFIER
I
GREAT
+ lang.-- - - - - - - - - . +
(The italicized labels in XIII together correspond to the blank, WITH

being lexicalizable by some other entry as -ig, and where G REA T is a ten-
tative category meant to underlie non-neutral adjectives, groot 2 , and the
non-neutrally used veel ('much').)
XIII accounts for the fact that the particular morpheme lang- it describes
can only be productively affixed to strings having the underlying form
WITH NP, as in langvingerig. (We have a very similar case in e.g., langoor
(,long-ear', creature with long ears) but here the NP dominating 'creature'
is incorporated). The variable 'X' in XIII stands for an N dominating a
subtree defining the class of morphemes to which lang can be affixed. There
will be an entry containing the terminal string WITH DET SHAPE WITH
DET LENGTH DET AMOUNT GREAT (where only the italicized
categories are in the simultaneous environment) associated with the string
XIIfa
PP
~NP
P
I~PP
WITH NP
A~
DET PAR P NP
II~NP
TIME WITH NP
~PAR DET
DET
~N
I~
LENGTH AMOUNT MODIFIER
A
GREAT VERY
'*' langdurig '*
XIIfb
PP
~NP
P
I~
WITH
NP PP
~~
DET
PAR P NP
II~
TIME
WITH NP NP
~PAR DET
DET
~N
I ~
LENGTH AMOUNT MODIFIER
GR~-X
'*' lang '*'
(where X may be empty or a category like VERY.)
x/v
PP
~NP
P
I~
WITH
NP ~
~~
DET
PAR P NP
II~
TIME
WITH NP MP
~
DET PAR
I
LENGTH
(where the italicized label corresponds to the blank.)
X/Va PP
P
~NP
I~
WITHNP PP
~~
PAR
DET
I
TIME
LENGTH
'*' gedurende '*'

# werp #, which occurs uniquely in langwerpig ('oblong'). The peripheral
environment is such that this string, although it is not an affix, cannot occur
unless connected with the affixes lang- and -ig. Lexicalization of lang-
occurs in a higher cycle than lexicalization of strings manifesting DET
SHAPE, and will therefore precede it. Hence, during lexicalization of a
structure containing the string WITH DET SHAPE WITH DET LENGTH
DET AMOUNT GREAT, the entry for lang- will apply before the entry
for vorm ('shape'). It will also apply before the entry for the separate ad-
jective lang. This state of affairs prevents phonological realizations such as

*met een lange vorm ('with a long shape') and *langvormig ('long-shape-y').
Instead, we get the correct form # # lang # werp # ig # #. (The entry for -ig
also brings two boundaries with it: #-ig#. Some convention will have to
be set up for the placement of boundaries in strings containing suffixes as
well as prefixes.)
As is implied by XII/a, lang- is not a productive affix in langdurig.
Langdurig incorporates an element under the (tentative) category MODI-
FIER which is absent in the simultaneous environment of XII/. This in-
corporated element (VERY) also accounts for the superfluity of erg before
langdurig.
The entry XII/b is necessary to account for the meaning of the word
lang in Bij verbleef er lang ('He stayed there long'), as opposed to
langdurig as in Bij verbleef er langdurig (cf. (40) and (41). There must also
be a transformational relationship between sentence pairs like Bij verbleef
daar lang and 2ijn verblijf daar duurde lang ('He stayed there long' and 'His
stay there lasted long', respectively). X/IIb helps to account for this.
X/V is an entry much like X/X of Chapter III, but it differs from that
entry in that where the space to the right of the blank in the latter is left
open, it is filled in X/V with a string preceded and followed by a
boundary symbol. If we assume that lexical attachment always implies
order-reversal, the order in phrases like twee weken lang, dagen lang ('two
weeks long', 'days long', respectively) thus can be considered the result of
lexicalization. In some idiolects expressions like weken + lang are felt to be
single words and are spelled as such (twee wekenlang, dagenlang). The
temporal lang then should be seen as an affix. In that case we could omit
the boundary symbols around lang in X/V. In X/V it is furthermore as-
sumed that instead of lang we may also have a 0 morpheme, which accounts
for the synonymy between DMA's like twee weken lang and twee weken.
Note, with respect to X/V and X/Va, that the economy principle is not
violated although the simultaneous environment of duren 2 (given as
II on p. 199) contains an identical string as part of a longer string. The
reason that it is possible for X/V and X/Va to occur in the lexicon is that II
contains categories which are not included in X/V and X/Va. The economy
principle only comes into play in the case of a hypothetical pair of entries
with completely identical trees, differing only in the number of categories
contained in the simultaneous environments.
Given the entries X/V and X/Va, and the rules of ADVERBIALIZATION
and NOMINALIZA TION, it seems now possible in principle to relate
duren and DMA's by assuming that they occur in sentences with identical
underlying structures.
But, as is pointed out in Klooster and Verkuyl (1972) with regard to this
claim, there are cases which seem to be counterexamples. For instance, we
have a sentence like
(42) Gedurende vier middagen wandelden ze naar het strand.
'For four afternoons they walked to the beach.'
which does not correspond with
(43) Hun wandeling naar het strand duurde vier middagen.
'Their walk to the beach lasted four afternoons.'
Sentence (42) can only mean that the persons referred to took repeated
walks to the beach, that they did so on four afternoons, and either that
each walk to the beach took them one such afternoon or that they spent
each of the four afternoons taking several walks to the beach. Sentence (43),
on the other hand, means that the persons referred to took one single walk
that was interrupted three times, and reached the beach at the end of the
last of four afternoons, having spent those afternoons walking in the
direction of the beach.
We have a similar case in the sentences (44) and (45):
(44) Jarenlang werd Yvonne de U.S.A. uitgezet.
'Yvonne was deported from the U.S.A. for years.'
(45) *Het uitzetten van Yvonne uit de U.S.A. duurde jaren.
'Yvonne's deportation from the U.S.A. lasted years:
These incongruities seem to be caused by the fact that underlying the
italicized constituents of (43) and (44) is a structure containing categories
which cause them to have a momentaneous and a terminative aspect,
respectively (cf. Verkuyl (l972a».
The non-durative aspect of the italicized part of (42) wandelden ze naar
het strand is described in Verkuyl (1972b) in terms of categories occurring
in the structure underlying sentences that can be said to have such a non-
durative aspect. Together the categories in question, occurring in a certain
configuration, can be seen as the complex of categories constituting the
non-durative aspect.
According to Verkuyl, a sentence of the form NP1 - [yp V - NP 2 (or
QC) - (NP 3) vp] (where 'QC' is either a 'Quantifying Complement' or a
directional Prep Phrase (such as naar het strand), and where the paren-
thesized NP is the indirect object), should conform to the structural de-
scription, or schema, of the form XVa, below, if it can be said to have a
non-durative aspect (I have abbreviated 'SPECIFIED QUANTITY OF
X' as 'SQ-X' in XVa):
XVa l 5Q-X ]}
[[ 5Q-X )-[ [VERB] - { NP2 NP2 -([5a-x» ]]
5 NP, NP, VPV V QC NP3 NP3 VP 5
Conditions: (i) 'VERB' stands for a subcategorial node like MOVE-

MENT, PERFORM, TAKE, ADD (TO), CHANGE,
DO.
(ii) XVa does not apply to negative sentences.
As for NP 1 in XVa, Verkuyl (1972a) presents evidence that the subject of
a sentence is involved in the composition of the aspects (Er stroomt urenlang
water uit de rots (,Water is streaming out of the rock for hours') vs. *Er
stroomt urenlang een liter water uit de rots ('A litre of water is streaming out
of the rock for hours'». The subject should denote something finite in
quantity in non-durative sentences. As for NP 2 , it is clear that the object,
too, must be finite (cf. *Hij dronk urenlang een fles whisky ('For hours he
drank a bottle of whisky'». As Verkuyl (l972b) observes, the indirect ob-
ject, too, can contribute to the composition of the aspects (Den Uyl over-
handigde een uurlang het PvdA-speldje aan congresleden ('Den Uyl handed/
gave the Labour Party badge to congressists for an hour') vs. *Den
Uyl overhandigde een uurlang het PvdA-speldje aan een congreslid ('Den
Uyl handed/gave the Labour Party badge to a congressist for an hour.'».
Hence NP 3 should be characterized in the same way as NP 1 and NP 2 • If
we interpret the latter sentence as referring to a repetitive series of events,
it is grammatical. The same holds for the asterisked examples above. See,
for further details, Verkuyl (l972b).
Verkuyl proposes the following condition on ADVERBIALIZATION
(it is given in Verkuyl (1972b) and is somewhat adapted here):
XVb Condition on ADVERBIALIZATION

If ADVERBIALIZATION applies to structures whose PP domi-
nates TIME, and if, in such a structure, the subject S dominates
a set of categories matching the non-durative schema XVa, then
it must be the case that the number of events referred to in the
subject S is greater than l. If it equals I, ADVERBIALIZATION
blocks.
Thus ADVERBIALIZATION cannot relate (42) to (43). Instead, (42) can

be related to (43a):
(43a) Hun wandelingen naar het strand duurden (samen) vier mid-
dagen.
'Their walks to the beach lasted (together) four afternoons .'
The fact that we do not have (45) *Het uitzetten van Yvonne uit de U.S.A.
duurde jaren is accounted for in Klooster and Verkuyl (1972) by means
of a condition on nominalization of the subject S in structures of the type
of X which can be formulated as follows:
XVI NOMINALIZA TION of the subject S blocks if, in structures
where the matrix S dominates a VP containing the categories BE
WITH DET TIME WITH DET LENGTH, the VP of the subject
S is non-durative.
We can now replace XVI by XVIa:
X VIa Condition on NOMINALIZATION
Nominalization of the subject S blocks if, in structures where
the matrix S dominates a VP containing BE WITH DET TIME
WITH DET LENGTH, the subject S matches the non-durative
schema XVa.
One thing that is not accounted for by ADVERBIALIZA TION is the fact
that the tense-less subject S in X acquires the same tense that is carried by
duren in (9) Het platliggen van Lex duurde een week. In order to account
for this we might replace X by a structure roughly like XVII:
XVII
NP VP
I I
V
S2
~VP
NP
I
TENSE
I
S3
~NP
WITH
I
PAST
/ /\ , ~
/ '
/ '\ NP PP
l~ ______ ~~~ ~
(Lex liggen plat) DET
~NP
TIME WITH
~MP
NP
~
DET
LENGTH
A predicate-raising process 27 could, after nominalization of S3' and

appropriate tree-pruning, tum XVII into something like XVIII:
27 See. for a more detailed discussion of tense and time reference. McCawley (in press). and.
for a discussion of predicate raising, De Rijk (1968),

XVIII S
~VP
'"
NP
---platliggen-
(Hef
----~----
---- VP/ '
van-Lex)
~
PP
V
I~
WITH NP
I~
TENSE NP PP
I ~~
PAST DET TIME WITH NP
~MP
NP
~
DETLENGTH
A proposal of this kind implies that zijn ('be') should be regarded as a

tense carrier. This would require several restatements, and, among other
things, replacement of the entry XVII of Chapter III (p. 128) by something
like XIX:
XIX VP
~X
VP
I v
I
TENSE
#----zijn#
(cf. also my remark on p. 86 regarding BE. Provisions will have to be made

in order to prevent TENSE from being manifested as zijn if the former is
attracted to a surface verb, and also to allow for attachment of hebben in
the appropriate cases if X starts with WITH.28
In the case of ADVERBIALIZA nON, XVII would have to be converted
into something like XX:
28 The latter point might be taken care of by Gruber's principle of disjunctive ordering. As
was pointed out on pp. 99-100, of two entries (one of which is identical to part of the other) the
greater one takes precedence over the smaller one; if the greater entry may apply, the smaller
one may not, or, more precisely: A given entry A takes precedence over some other entry B
if the total environment of A contains one or more categories which are 'outside' the total en-
vironment of B, if B's total environment is otherwise identical to that of A. Comparing the
entries for hebben and, e.g., wegen (pp. 125 and 99, respectively), we can see that wegen is
disjunctively ordered before hebben.
xx S
~VP
NP
i~
(L~X) V VP
l~
TENSE VP PP
I .c::~~~~~~~. ~NP
PAST (Ijggen plat) P
I~PP
WITH NP
A~
DET
TIME P NP
l~MP
WITH NP
DET
~LENGTH
ADVERBIALIZATION, then, might tentatively be restated as follows:

XXI ADVERBIALIZATION (second version)
S.D.: X [ [NP - VP - ]- [ WITH NP ] - TENSE -] y
SS S VP VP S
OPT
2 3 4 5 6
s.c.: [5 + [2 + 4]]3 6
VP VP VP VP
A solution along these lines can probably be worked out in a satisfactory
way.
The fact that there must be a transformational relationship between
duren MP sentences and gedurende MP sentences provides additional evi-
dence in favour of the double WITH string hypothesis. For, it is plausible
to assume that duurde in (9) Het platliggen van Lex duurde een week in-
corporates a string which is related to lang in the paraphrase Lex lag een
week lang plat. As the entries XIII, XIIla, b, and XIV (which account for a
relatively large number of facts) make clear, it is the string WITH DET
LENGTH which directly corresponds to the phonological string lang in
various ways. This string must also be present in the underlying structure
of (9). Moreover, as we have pointed out already, both gedurende and duren
in MP sentences exclude lang. The double WITH string hypothesis neatly
covers these facts if it is assumed that the explanation is to be found in the
incorporation of WITH DET LENGTH in gedurende as well as duren z (cf.
II and XIVa, respectively).
1.2. The Transformational Derivation of Duration M P Sentences

Not Containing DMA's
In the following two subsections I shall discuss the possibility of deriving

transformation ally MP sentences and related constructions referring to
duration, except those already discussed in the preceding subsection (the
ones with DMA's).
It will be assumed that the structure underlying MP sentences contains
a category BE, instead of TENSE, and that this category is not a 'higher
verb' as has been suggested in the preceding subsection, although this may
very well be the case. However for our purpose this will make little dif-
ference. The suggested possibility of viewing BE (i.e., TENSE) as a higher
verb will only require an extra transformational rule of predicate raising
and a slight revision in earlier stated rules. Therefore I shall not elaborate
upon this possibility below, but merely examine the way duration MP
sentences could be derived by application of the transformations proposed
in the preceding chapter.
1.2.1. Simple Duration M P Sentences

Assuming that the rules of EMBEDDING (p. 171) and RELATIVE
CLAUSE FORMATION have already been applied, we may start with the
structure XXII (p. 224) underlying a simple duration MP sentence like De
pauze duurt 5 minuten (,The intermission lasts 5 minutes') (I shall omit the
DET nodes and other irrelevant details.).
The optional rule of RELATIVE CLAUSE REDUCTION (p. 147), ap-
plied twice, can simplify the RELr dominating PRO BE AT MP, and the
one dominating PRO BE WITH VAL REL" so that the subtree of XXII
starting with the NP dominating NP 2 RELr will be changed into XXIII.
(Throughout the derivation it will be assumed that tree-pruning takes
place whenever required.)
PAR-MP CONTRACTION (p. 149) now obligatorily applies to XXIII,
yielding XXIV (p. 225).
RELATIVE CLAUSE REDUCTION may now once again apply, so that
the complete tree underlying the sentence De pauze duurt 5 minuten will look
like XXV (p. 226).
Lexicalization of this tree will give De pauze duurt 5 minuten.
SIMPLE MP SENTENCE REDUCTION (p. 150) cannot take place
because its S.D. does not fit XXV; we do not have *De pauze is 5 minuten.
It appears, then, that none of the transformations need be restated
for the derivation of simple duration MP sentences. For the derivation of
sentences like De pauze heeft een duur die 5 minuten bedraagt (The inter-
XXII
s
~VP
"
NP1
//~'"
.£~------~
"-
A
(de pauze)
(the intermission) I A
V PP
BE P NP
IA
WITH NP2 RELr
I I
TIME S
A NP2 VP
IA PRO V PP
IA BE P NP
IA WITH NP3 RELr
I
LENGTH
I
S
A
NP3 VP
IA
PRO V PP
IA BE P NP
IA WITH NP4 REL r
I I VAL S
A NP4 VP
IA PRO V PP
IA BE P MP
,,
I
/~,
,
/
/
/
"- _____ ..a.
AT (5 min.)
XXIII "'"
~P
~LrI
NP2
I
TIME
S
~
VP
NP2 ~
I
PRO V ~
PP
I
BE I
WITH
~p
NP3
NP
I
LENGTHP ~
NP
I
WITH NP4 ~
PP
I
VAL PI
MP
/"',
/ ',.
AT (S"""inin.)
XXIV
~p
~ELr
NP2 I
TIME
I ~
S
VP
NP2 ~
PRO
I VI ~
PP
NP
BE P ~
WITH
I NP3
MP
/'',..
'/'-''-,-
I (~minuten)
LENGTH (5 minutes)
xxv s
~VP
NP,
L~~~~~" ~PP
(de pauze) V
(the intermission) I ~
BE P NP
I~PP
WITH NP2
I~NP
TIME P
I~MP
WITH NP
I
3
/ ,./',
/ '
~~-----~~
LENGTH (5 minuten)
(5 minutes)
miSSIOn has a duration which amounts to 5 minutes') we can apply

RELATIVE CLAUSE REDUCTION twice to XXII: once to DET VAL
PRO BE AT MP and once to DET TIME PRO BE WITH DET LENGTH
REL" which will result in a terminal prelexical string of the form NP BE
WITH DET TIME WITH DET LENGTH PRO BE WITH DET VAL
AT MP. After lexicalization we get NP hee.ft een duur die bedraagt MP,
which, by the postlexical rule of REL REORDERING (p. 175) will be
changed into NP heeft een duur die MP bedraagt.
It will be possible, to be sure, to derive wrong structures, but those will
be filtered out by the lexicon.
1.2.2. 'Van'+MP Constructions Referring to Duration
As will be demonstrated below, the derivation of constructions like een
duur van 5 minuten ('a duration of 5 minutes') will not necessitate re-
statement of earlier given rules either, though the derivation of een pauze
van 5 minuten ('an intermission of 5 minutes') will.
First, let us derive (De pauze heeft, een pauze met, etc.) een duur van 5
minuten. The structure underlying this expression is represented under
XXVI (RELATIVE CLAUSE FORMATION has already been applied).
The optional rule of EQUI-SUBJECT REL STRIPPING (p. 158) can
convert XXVI into XXVII (p. 228).
RELATIVE CLAUSE REDUCTION may now apply next, yielding
XXVIII (p. 228).
The obligatory rule of MP-TAIL SHORTENING will turn XXVIII into
the structure immediately underlying een duur van 5 minuten (XXIX, p. 229).
XXVI ~
NP
~PP
NP,
I~NP
TIME P
I~RELr
WITH NP 2
I
LENGTH
I S
~VP
NP2
I~
PROV PP
I~
BE P NP
I~REL r
WITH NP3
I
VAL
I
S
~VP
NP3
I~
PRO
V PP
I~
BE
P MP
"", " ,
I
AT
/' / '
L-.::.. ____ ~~
(5 minuten)
(5 minutes)
The structure underlying een pauze van 5 minuten presumably should look
like XXX (p. 229).
EQUI-SUBJECT REL STRIPPING can simplify XXX so that we get
XXXI (p. 230).
After RELATIVE CLAUSE REDUCTION, we get XXXII (p. 231).
MP-TAIL SHORTENING now obligatorily reduces XXXII to XXXIII
(p. 232); which, after RELATIVE CLAUSE REDUCTION, will be reduced
to XXXIV (p. 233).
The rule that should (again) apply is EQUI-SUBJECT REL STRIPPING.
It should delete the italicized categories in XXXIV. If we assume that
a noun like pauze, referring to something that has duration, has a simul-
228 THE STR UCTURE UNDERLYING MP SENTENCES
XXVII
~NP
~PP
NP1
I~NP
TIME P
I~RELr
WITH NP2
I
LENGTH
I
NP
~RELr
NP3
I
VAL
I
S
~VP
NP3
I~
PROV PP
I~
BE
P MP
I L~~~'::::-'"
AT ( 5 minuten)
(5 minutes)
XXVIII
~NP
~PP
NP1
I~NP
TIME P
I~RELr
WITH NP2
I
LENGTH
I NP
~PP
NP 3
I~MP
VAL P
I ""
/A-..,
-.. -..
L _ _ _ _ _ _-.,.
AT (5 minutM)
(5 minutes)
DURA nON SENTENCES 229
XXIX
xxx
NP
~
,~;
RELr
/' ", I
L ________ .:-...
(een pauzej S
~VP
NP1
I~PP
PRO V
I~NP
BE P
I~RELr
WITH NP2
I I
TIME S
NP2
~VP
I~PP
PRO V
I~NP
BE P
IA
WITH NP3 RELr
I
LENGTH
I
S
~VP
NP3
I~PP
PRO V
I~NP
BE P
I~RELr
WITH NP4
I
VAL
I S
A
NP4 VP
I~PP
PRO V
I~
BEP MP
I " ,A,'-,
/
AT (5min~;
XXXI
NP
~RELr
NP,
"
/,"'--,
' ...
I
~::----:~
(een pauze) S
~VP
NP,
I~PP
PRO V
I~
BE P NP
I~RELr
WITH NP2
I
TIME
I
S
~VP
NP2
I~PP
PRO V
I~
BE P NP
I~RELr
WITH NP 3
I
LENGTH
I
NP
~RELr
NP4
I
VAL
I
S
~VP
NP4
I~PP
PRO V
I~
BE P MP
I /"'-',
L-:. _____-
/ ~~
AT (5 minuten)
taneous environment incorporating TIME as well as LENGTH, we need

not restate EQUI-SUBJECT REL STRIPPING. The first tenn of the S.D.
of this rule, 'X [NP Y PARt Z NP]" describes the antecedent noun phrase
of the REL node following it. The parameter category incorporated in
it should be identical to the one appearing in the third tenn, which is in-
dicated by the identity of subscripts. The third tenn has the fonn (as far as
it is relevant here) 'U PARt ~ELr W MP REd REd V'. Let U be DET TIME
WITH DET, and PARt> LENGTH. In that case PARt in the third tenn
XXXII
NP
~RELr
NP1
-' /'..
-'
L.:_____
, "-
.:::~
I
(een pauze) S
~VP
NP1
I~PP
PRO V
I~
BE P NP
I~RELr
WITH NP 2
I
TIME
I S
~VP
NP2
I~
PROV PP
I~
BE P NP
I~RELr
WITH NP3
I
LENGTH
I
NP
~PP
NP4
I~
VALP MP
/",
I ",,"" -' "
"
AT ~------~
(5 minuten)
XXXIII NP
~RELr
NP1
'" '
/ /
(een pauze)
"-
"
L /_ _ _ _ _ _ -!:Io.
I
5
~VPNP1
I~PP
PRO V
I~
BE
P NP
I~RELr
WITH NP2
I
TIME
I
5
~VP
NP2
I~PP
PRO V
I~
BE
P NP
I~
WITH NIP RiLr
LENGTH MP
stands for a parameter category identical with one of the parameter

categories incorporated in the antecedent noun described in the first term.
Hence, if our assumption about the simultaneous environment of a noun
like pauze is correct, the S.D. of EQUI-SUBJECf REL STRIPPING fits
the structure given under XXXIV. This rule will then change XXXIV into
XXXV (p. 233).
Since we do not have *een pauze van 5 minuten duur, MP SHIFT should
not be able to apply. To prevent structures of this form from being derived,
we need not restate MP SHIFT. However, the italicized categories in XXXV
should be eliminated. Presumably, this should be done by application of
MP-TAIL SHORTENING (p. 160). But the structural description of this
rule does not fit; its second term, 'DET PAR', should be restated, so that
DURATI ON SENTENCES 233
XXXIV NP
A
NP RELr
/ A'" I
/ ---.::.:~ s
reenpauzeA
/\p
NP VP
I'
PRO VIA
NP
BE P ~
I
WITH NP2 A PP
I NP
TIME PI ~
WITH NP3 I
RELr
I
LENGTH
MP
/",
/ ,
fs~mTnutenJ
XXXV
we may have the following revised formulation of MP-TAIL SHORTEN-

ING:
XXXVI MP-TAIL SHORTENING (prelexical, third version)
SO.: X - NP [ -OET {PAR (WITH OET PAR)} -MP 1 y

RELr VAL AT RELr
OBL }
2 3
S.c. : o 3
Since no other transformations can apply to XXXV, and since MP-TAIL

SHORTENING is obligatory, XXXV will now automatically be converted
into XXXVII, which immediately underlies een pauze van 5 minuten:
XXXVII
As we shall see, one other slight revision will be necessary.
2. OTHER COMPLEX SEMI COPULAS
As was already mentioned, duren and the verbs dragen, steken and reiken
behave in a similar way. Therefore it seems plausible to assume that the
double WITH string hypothesis holds in all these cases. This means that we
can have three pairs of entries analogous to the pair for duren.
The only difference between the adjectives that may occur as the comple-
ment of dragen, steken and reiken on the one hand and lang on the other,
is that the adjectives corresponding with the first three verbs may not modify
the related parameter nouns, whereas lang may modify duur (not *een ver
bereik, *een diepe diepgang, although een lange duur is correct).
We may account for this by introducing entries for bereik and diepgang
which incorporate ver and diep, respectively. Thus the entries for bereik
and diepgang might look something like XXXVIII and XXXIX.
Note that XXXVIII and XXXIX are of the same type as VIII on p. 204.
If we exclude from the lexicon entries for bereik and diepgang of the type
of VII, the fact that ver and diep cannot modify bereik and diepgang, re-
XXXVIIla, b NP
~PP
NP
DET PAR P
~NP
I
ONESPACE
I
WITH NP w
I ~
DETPAR
{ RANGE}
REACH
I
ONESPACE
I
DIST
# bereik #
XXXIX NP
~~PP
NP
DET PAR P
~NP
I
ONESPACE
I
WITH NP w
I
DRAUGHT
~
DETPAR
I
DEPTH
41= diepgang #
spectively, thus could be accounted for. It should be stressed that categories

such as RANGE (which is also meant to underlie dragen), REACH (which
may also underlie reiken), and DRAUGHT are highly tentative. In XXXIX
the category DEPTH should be seen as an abbreviation standing for a
subtree of the form [ONESPACE [sPEC [301M OBS PERSP 301Ml SPEd [MAX [MSR
DIST MSR] MAX] ONESPACE] (see XXVII on p. 139).
Since we do not have *een zender van 10 kilometer ('a transmitter of 10
kilometers'), but rather een zender van 10 kilometer bereik ('a transmitter
of 10 kilometers range'), and, similarly, not *een schip van 1 vadem ('a ship
of I fathom') but rather een schip van 1 vadem diepgang ('a ship of I fathom
draught'), we must restate MP SHIFT (p. 170) so that it applies in the case
of expressions referring to range, reach and draught. Thus the upper half of
possible strings of categories between large square brackets in LXXII on
p. 170 (the earlier given statement of MP SHIFT) should be restated in
such a way that the third term of the S.D. gets the form XL:
XL
{ TWOSPACE } }
{ MAIN THREESPACE
_ DEf ONESPACE (WITH DET PAR) _
DET MASS
Note that the optional rule of SPACE DELETION (p. 161) need not be
restated. Its structural description is such that it cannot apply in the cases
considered in this section.
CHAPTER V
EPILOGUE
In this study the possibilities have been examined of describing measure

phrase sentences and related constructions in terms of base rules, trans-
formations and lexical entries, set up along the lines of Gruber (l967a, b),
which conform in principle to the model of generative semantics (or, as it
has been called by Seuren (1972), 'semantic syntax', as opposed to
'autonomous syntax', i.e., interpretative semantics).
As we have seen, a number of Gruber's proposals concerning the func-
tions of the lexicon in formal descriptive grammar are either wrong or in
need of clarification, although the general idea must be considered a
valuable innovation greatly extending the explanatory power of generative
grammar.
The restructuring conventions governing lexical attachment are probably
in need of revision, as has been pointed out with respect to Chomsky-ad-
junction (pp. 10 1-7). The order-reserving operation, on the other hand,
seems to be supported by an overwhelming number of examples, though
from a technical point of view there are some problems here as well. One
difference, as regards restructuring during lexicalization, between Gruber's
proposals and the assumptions made here is that, in Gruber (I 967a),
order-reversal is applied only when this reversal is apparent in the
morpheme order, whereas in the present study it is assumed to take place
even when it is not apparent. Gruber believes (personal communication)
that the latter assumption may be correct, and would then mean that re-
versal is not a result of lexical attachment of a polymorphemic word in
stages, but rather of attachment of the word as a whole (but see note 22).
In the model Gruber proposed in 1967,29 the base rules generated
'derived non-terminal categorial trees', which formed the input to both
the calculus (deriving equivalences, implications, and contradictions)
and the lexicon. These structures were then partly lexicalized (when pos-
sible) and run through the transformational component. The output of the
latter was again 'fed' to the lexicon where the transformed structures were
further lexicalized, again forming an input for the transformational com-
ponent. The resulting structures then underwent lexicalization again, if
29 In an earlier conception (Gruber (1965)) the base rules did not generate semantic re-
presentations. But in Gruber (1967a, b) they do. Cf.also the diagram given in Gruber (1967a),
p.6.
necessary, and so on, until no further operations could take place in either
component. At this stage the 'derived phonologically terminal trees' entered
the phonological component which turned them into pronounceable strings.
As seems clear, it will not be necessary, at least in the case ofMP sentences,
to organize a grammar in this way, i.e., to view lexical insertion rules as a
kind of 'anywhere rules', like tree-pruning. Instead we may make a clear
distinction between prelexical and postlexical transformations, the former
operating upon structures not even partly lexicalized, and the latter operat-
ing upon completely lexicalized structures. As McCawley (1968) remarks
(p. 78-79), having all lexical insertions take place after the cycle but before
the post-cyclic rules would be a possibility worth investigating in view of the
fact that transformations which can be argued to be prelexical are also rules
that appear to be in the cycle. As we have seen, if a rule of EMBEDDING
is assumed to be present in the transformational component, it cannot be
part of the same cycle as the other prelexical rules that we considered, al-
though it will have to precede the latter. Therefore it might be that there
is more than one cycle of prelexical transformations, or that there is one
prelexical cycle preceded by rules that are not ordered cyclically.30
The transformational rules that have been proposed above will not
stand, at least not in their present formulations. However there appears
to be some independent evidence for most of them if put in one form or
another. Thus, the rule of EQUI-SUBJECT REL STRIPPING can prob-
ably be formulated in such a way as to relate not only various measure phrase
constructions but also constructions containing human propensity nouns
(a man who has great charm-a man of great charm) and other construc-
tions of the same general type (eyes that had an astonishing intensity-eyes
of an astonishing intensity; a theoretical construct which has a highly abstract
nature-a theoretical construct of a highly abstract nature; an object that
has an irregular shape-an object of irregular shape). Similarly, there is
independent justification for EQUI-OBJECT REL STRIPPING (see p. 174).
As was demonstrated, rules like MP-TAIL SHORTENING, QUANTITY
DELETION, and MP SHIFT, with some revisions, may serve during the
derivation not only of various constructions in which MP's mayor may not
appear, but also of measure phrases themselves. The rule of RELATIVE
CLAUSE REDUCTION, as it has been stated in the preceding chapter,
can be regarded as supported by much more evidence than has already been
30 Lakoff (I 970b) argues that there must be global derivational constraints in order to solve
the problem of avoiding unwanted sequences of phrase markers during application of rules
in the transformational component. If it proves possible to formulate well-formedness condi-
tions on configurations in non-adjacent trees in the derivational sequence of MP sentences
there will thus be a third and rather more attractive possibility.
EPILOGUE 239
put forward in the literature, if our analysis of 'have', semicopulas, and a

large class of adjectives is correct.
It may very well turn out that rules like SIMPLE MP SENTENCE
REDUCTION, SPACE DELETION, QUANTITY DELETION, MP
SHIFT, and MP-TAIL SHORTENING should all be dispensed with in
favour of lexical arrangements, for it is not clear whether they are general
enough to warrant extending the transformational component. A choice
between these options depends upon whether or not independent justifica-
tion can be found for the transformational rules in question. (As was remark-
edonp. 142, the same may be the case with respecttoPAR-MPCONTRAC-
TION.) The first of the above five rules might be replaced by entries in which
the PP's are not manifested in any way (reduction would then no longer be
a single rule, though still dealt with in a uniform way). The second and last
rules could be replaced by zero entries, while the third might in fact be a
matter of incorporation. The MP shifting phenomenon could be handled by
incomplete entries causing order reversal in strings of categories underlying
expressions like 2 meter (Lengte). Thus we could have an entry like the one
roughly represented in the following diagram (where the blank corresponds
to the italicized label):
Nip
~RELr
NP
~
DETPAR
I
MP
I
LENGTH
Such entries would solve the problem of the elimination of DET in a simple
way. Many rules, then, may be merely lexical regularities.
The base rules discussed in Chapter III are, as has been stressed,
tentative, and can certainly be improved upon. Some of them generate
structures matching proposed lexical entries without any intervening trans-
formations. This may prove incorrect in at least a number of cases. Thus
it is possible with these rules to generate strings directly underlying semi-
copulas and copula + adjective constructions (albeit in trees not matching
the stipulated peripheral environments) while it may turn out that the
element labelled 'BE' should not be generated as part of a VP containing
a prepositional phrase but as a higher verb ('TENSE') never followed by
PP in base structures. (The possibility of regarding 'be' as a tense carrier
has been considered in Chapter IV.)
Possible shortcomings of this kind, however, do not, from a general point
of view, weaken the case made out for base rules generating semantic
representations of measure phrase sentences whose relationships to phono-
logical representations are expressed in terms of transformational and
(directly or indirectly) of polycategorial lexical attachment rules. It seems
probable that a full-fledged grammar should contain a base component
generating structures which are even more abstract (i.e., farther removed
from surface structure) than the ones considered in the present work. At
least part of the unclarity as to the criteria by which to distinguish between
syntactic and semantic categories (see p. 86) may be attributed to this.
McCawley (1971), in his discussion with Katz (1970), calls attention
to the fact that more recent papers by Lakoff and himself have made ex-
plicit the claim that three non-terminal node labels ('S', 'NP', and 'V')
will suffice and that "these categories match in slightly broadened form
categories used by logicians: S corresponds to the use of 'sentence'
(= 'propositional function'), V to 'predicate' (taken as including 'operator'),
and NP to 'argument'." (op. cit., p. 292; what McCawley is thinking of
when he uses the phrase "in slightly broadened form" is what is referred to
in Lakoff(1970a) as 'natural logic'.) In the sense that conditions of semantic
well-formedness can be stated in terms of S, V and NP, the distinction be-
tween 'syntactic' and 'semantic', as these terms are used by McCawley and
others (but not, for example, by Seuren), is invalid. It is obvious that a
matter of terminology is involved, for clearly it is justifiable to apply the
term 'syntactic' to rules determining the correct surface ordering of various
constituents, as opposed to 'semantic' in the case of rules generating se-
mantic representations. 31 Part of the reasons for assuming the validity
31 As another instance of different uses of the terms let me cite the following examples (italics
are mine):
(a) "The meaning of a word must be formalized in terms of the same sort of structures as we
have in syntactic construction, i.e., in terms of a tree of elemental semantic categories."
(Gruber (I 967a), p. 50.)
(b) '" believe that these considerations indicate that syntactic and semantic representations
are objects of the same formal nature, namely, ordered trees, whose non-terminal nodes are
labeled by syntactic category symbols, and that in each language there is a single system of
transformations which convert semantic representations of sentences into their superficial
form: these transformations include 'lexical transformations', i.e., transformations which
replace a portion of a tree by a lexical item." (McCawley (I967a), p. 55.)
EPILOGUE 241
of a syntax/semantics dichotomy in Chomsky (1965) has to do with this.

To my mind it would appear (despite Chomsky's skeptic attitude as re-
gards generative semantics) that the "theoretical constructs of a highly
abstract nature" (Chomsky (1965), p. 151) involved in the explication of
"the intuitive notion of grammatical well-formedness" (ibid.), are at present
in a stage of development that may ultimately lead to a satisfactory ex-
plication of this notion insofar as the concept of 'natural logic' can be
successfully worked out.
At any rate, it will probably be possible to replace the tentative base rules
of Chapter III by rules making use of only the preterminal nodes S, V, and
NP (with V also dominating categories like WITH and AT) although clearly
many additional problems will then have to be solved.
A direct consequence of revising the base rules will not only be the
necessity of restating the transformational rules proposed but also that of
revising lexical entries. But again, as far as the latter are concerned, the main
point will not be affected, namely, that it is feasible in principle to describe
meanings and selectional restrictions in terms of polycategorial lexical
entries accounting for an entire range of phenomena (for a large part
language-specific and irregular) exhibited in measure phrase sentences and
other constructions, while preserving the underlying regularities.
What should not be overlooked with respect to the entries discussed in
this study is the fact that many of them contain provisional categories that
should eventually be replaced by more illuminating analyses. As we have
seen it is possible to distinguish in terms of configurations of positively
specifying categories between neutral and non-neutral parameter adjectives
and at the same time to account for the fact that their meanings are the same
except in one respect. However the respect in which they differ has not been
part of the subject matter of this study. It would seem that in order to ac-
count adequately for non-neutral adjectives it will be necessary to analyze
the elements present in the "extent word" groot 2 when used in the non-
neutral sense~ Tllere is reason to believe that the elements which make up
its meaning are also present in the entries of all non-neutrally used
gradables, whether 'objective' (such as tall) or 'subjective' (such as beauti-
ful). Ifit is true that an element AMOUNT (which may prove to be the same
Note, incidentally, the difference between McCawley's view and Gruber's with respect to tree-
restructuring preceding lexical attachment.
As De Rijk (1968) notes, McCawley's using the phrase 'syntactic category symbols' while
Gruber refers to the same objects as 'semantic categories' must be "merely a matter of
terminology, not necessarily reflecting any substantive difference between their views."
(p. 8). The fact that the terms 'syntactic' and 'semantic' could be interchanged in the above
quotes illustrates what McCawley means when claiming that the syntax/semantics dichotomy
is invalid.
as what has been labelled 'QUANTITY') is present in these words, the

elementthat has been tentatively called 'MODIFIER' (see pp. 214--5) should
dominate an element corresponding to what has been provisionally called
'GREAT'. But this element will have to be analyzed further, since it, in
tum, represents the non-neutrally used term groot 2 • As has been pointed out
by more than one author (see, for example, Dik (1969b», adjectives like
these (i.e., non-neutrally used grad ables, called 'relative terms' (Hrelatieve
termen") in Dik, op. cit., p. 5) all include an element in their meanings which
can be characterized, loosely, as 'relative to x'. In the case of subjective
gradables, x presumably should stand for something like 'the standard or
norm employed by the speaker'. An adequate formal analysis of the elements
responsible for the subjective aspect of words like beautiful will probably
also be the key to an explanation of the fact that subjective gradables may
occur in the context Ik vind x -er dan y ('I find/think x -er' (more -)
than y') whereas objective gradables cannot (see p. 34, and Katz (1967),
p.184f.).
Although many aspects, mainly of a technical nature, await further
elaboration, it seems clear that the system of polycategorial lexical at-
tachment, initiated by Gruber, provides a much more powerful descriptive
and explanatory tool than the system of monocategorial pre-transforma-
tional lexicalization employed in interpretative semantics. There are a
number of points that emerged in the course of this study which lead to
this conclusion. A few of them seem especially worth mentioning here.
In the first place, the relationships between the widely varying types of
measure phrase constructions can be expressed in terms of similar or identi-
cal underlying structures only if transformations are allowed to operate
upon pre lexical phrase markers that, in tum, would be inconceivable with-
out the possibility of polycategoriallexical attachment. Secondly, reduction
in simple measure phrase sentences can be accounted for in a uniform way
by a single rule operating upon a structure that can be assigned to them if this
structure is assumed to be a polycategorially lexicalizable tree. In the third
place, a transformational rule such as RELATIVE CLAUSE REDUCTION
will gain in generality to a considerable extent if it is allowed to operate
pre lexically upon trees of a nature as indicated above.
To this we may add that there is some evidence (for instance, the relation
between languages as regards 'be' and 'have', but also other relations) that
the grammar of measure phrase sentences, as it has been envisaged in this
study, constitutes a point in favour of the notion of a universal base com-
ponent.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(FoL. = Foundations of Language; Lang. = Language; MLAT = Mathematical Linguistics

and Automatic Translation (The Computation Laboratory of
Harvard University); i.p. = in press; t.a. = to appear.)
Bach, Emmon, 1967, 'Have and be in English syntax', Lang. 43, 462-85.
Bech, Gunnar, 1952, Ober das niederliindische Adverbialpronomen 'er', Travaux du Cercle
Linguistique de Copenhague, Vol. VIII, Amsterdam.
Bendix, Edward Herman, 1966, Componential Analysis of General Vocabulary: The Semantic
Structure of a Set of Verbs in English, Hindi and Japanese, The Hague.
Bierwisch, Manfred, 1967, 'Some Semantic Universals of German Adjectivals', FoL. 3,1-36.
Bloomfield, Leonard, 1957, Language, London (revised edition).
Carden, Guy, 1968, 'English Quantifiers', Report No. NSF-20, MLAT, Cambridge, Mass.
Chomsky, Noam, 1965, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge, Mass.
Chomsky, Noam, 1968, 'Deep Structure, Surface Structure and Semantic Interpretation', un-
published paper, in L. Jakobovits and D. Steinberg (eds.) t.a.
Dik, Simon c., 1968, Coordination; Its Implications for the Theory of General Linguistics,
University of Amsterdam Doctoral Dissertation, Amsterdam.
Dik, Simon c., 1969a, 'Seuren over Coordination', De Gids 132, 243-62.
Dik, Simon C., 1969b, Relatieve Termen, Amsterdam.
Dougherty, Ray c., 1968a, A Transformational Grammar of Coordinate Conjoined Structures,
unpublished M.LT. Doctoral Dissertation.
Dougherty, Ray C., 1968b, 'Coordinate Conjunction', unpublished M.LT. paper.
Dougherty, Ray c., 1969, Review of Simon C. Dik, Coordination, Lang. 45, 624-36.
Fillmore, Charles J., 1968a, 'The Case for Case', in Emmon Bach and T. Harms (eds.),
Universals in Linguistic Theory, New York.
Fillmore, Charles J., 1968b, 'Lexical Entries for Verbs', FoL. 4, 373-93.
Gleitman, Lila R., 1965, 'Coordinating Conjunctions in English', Lang. 41, 260-93.
Groot, A. W. de, 1959, 'Een nieuwe Nederlandse grammatica', De Nieuwe Taalgids 52,141-44.
Gruber, Jeffrey S., 1965, Studies in Lexical Relations, unpublished M.LT. Doctoral Dis-
sertation.
Gruber, Jeffrey S., 1967a, Functions of the Lexicon in Formal Descriptive Grammars, Technical
Memorandum 3770/000/00, Santa Monica, Cal. (System Development Corporation).
Gruber, Jeffrey S., 1967b, 'Disjunctive Ordering among Lexical Insertion Rules', unpublished
M.I.T. paper.
Hertog, C. H. den, 1903-1904, Nederlandsche spraakkunst; Handleiding ten dienste van aan-
staande (taal)onderwijzers, Amsterdam (2nd. edition).
lackendoff, Ray S., 1968, 'Quantifiers in English', FoL. 4, 422-42.
Jakobovits, L. and Steinberg, D. (eds.), t.a., Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philos-
ophy, Linguistics, Anthropology, and Psychology, London.
Katz, Jerrold J., 1967, 'Recent Issues in Semantic Theory', FoL. 3, 124-94.
Katz, Jerrold J., 1970, 'Interpretative Semantics vs. Generative Semantics', FoL. 6, 220-59.
Klooster, W. G. and Verkuyl, H. J., 1972, 'Measuring Duration in Dutch', FoL. 8, 62-96.
Klooster, W. G., Verkuyl, H. J., and Luif, J. H.l., 1969, Inleiding tot de syntaxis, Culemborg/
Keulen.
Kraak, A., 1966, Negatieve zinnen; Een methodologische en grammatische analyse, University
of Amsterdam Doctoral Dissertation, Hilversum.
Kraak, A. and Klooster, W. G., 1968, Syntaxis, CulemborgjKeulen.

Lakoff, George, 1965, On the Nature of Syntactic Irregularity, Report No. NSF-I6, MLAT,
Cambridge, Mass. (reprinted in 1970 under the title Irregularity in Syntax, New York).
Lakoff, George, 1966, 'Stative Adjectives and Verbs in English', in Report No. NSF-J7, MLAT,
Cambridge, Mass.
Lakoff, George, 1969, 'On Derivational Constraints' in Papers from the Fifth Regional
Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, III.
Lakoff, George, 1970a, Linguistics and Natural Logic, Ann Arbor (Phonetics Laboratory,
The University of Michigan).
Lakoff, George, 1970b, 'Global Rules', Lang. 46, 627-39.
Lakoff, George, I 970c, 'Repartee, or a Reply to Negation, Conjunction and Quantifiers',
FoL. 6, 389-422.
Lakoff, George and Peters, Stanley, 1966, 'Phrasal Conjunction and Symmetric Predicates',
in Report No. NSF-J7, MLAT, Cambridge, Mass.
Lakoff, George and Ross, John Robert, 1966, 'A Criterion for Verb Phrase Constituency',
in Report No. NSF-J7, MLAT, Cambridge, Mass.
Lees, Robert 8., 1960, The Grammar of English Nominalizations, The Hague.
Lehiste, lise, 1969, "Being' and 'Having' in Estonian', FoL. 5, 324-41.
McCawley, James D., 1967a, 'The Respective Downfalls of Deep Structure and Autonomous
Syntax', 42nd Annual Meeting, LSA, Chicago, Ill.
McCawley, James D., 1967b, 'Meaning and the Description of Languages', Kotoba No Uchu 2,
nos. 9 (10-8), 10 (38-48), and 11 (51-6).
McCawley, James D., 1968, 'Lexical Insertion in a Grammar without Deep Structure', in
Papers from the Fourth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago Ill.
McCawley, James D., 1970, 'Where Do Noun Phrases Come From?' in Roderick A. Jacobs
and Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Waltham,
Mass.
McCawley, James D., 1971, 'Interpretative Semantics Meets Frankenstein', FoL. 7, 285-95.
McCawley, James D., (i.p.), 'Tense and Time Reference', in J. Fillmore and D. Terence
Langendoen (eds.) New York (no title given in the bibliography of McCawley (1971).
Parsons, Terence, 1970, 'An Analysis of Mass Terms and Amount Terms', FoL. 6, 362-88.
Partee, Barbara Hall, 1970, 'Negation, Conjunction and Quantifiers: Syntax vs. Semantics',
FoL. 6, 153-{i5,
Quine, Willard Van Orman, 1960, Word and Object, Cambridge, Mass.
Rijk, Rudolf P. G. de, 1968, 'A Note on Prelexical Predicate Raising', unpublished M.LT.
paper.
Ross, John Robert, 1964, 'The Grammar of Measure Phrases in English', unpublished M.LT.
paper, read at the December Meeting of the LSA.
Ross, John Robert, 1966a, 'Adjectives as Noun Phrases', M.I.T. paper (published in 1969 in
David A. Reibel and Sanford A. Schane (eds.), Modern Studies in English, Englewood
Cliffs).
Ross, John Robert, 1966b, 'A Proposed Rule of Tree-Pruning', in Report No. NSF-J7, MLAT,
Cambridge, Mass.
Seuren, Pieter A. M., 1969a, 'Echte en onechte taalkunde', De Gids 132, p. 225-42.
Seuren, Pieter A. M., 1969b, Operators and Nucleus: A Contribution to the Theory of Grammar,
University of Utrecht Doctoral Dissertation, Cambridge, England.
Seuren, Pieter, A. M., 1972, 'Autonomous versus Semantic Syntax', FoL. 8, 237-{i5.
Verkuyl, H. J., 1970, 'Kwantificering, conjunctie en pluralisvormig in zinnen met frekwentie',
unpublished paper (University of Amsterdam, Instituut voor Neerlandistiek).
Verkuyl, H. J., 1972a, 'Temporal Prepositions as Quantifiers', to appear in F. Kiefer and N.
Ruwet (eds.), Generative Grammar in Europe, FoL. Supplementary Series, Dordrecht.
Verkuyl, H. J., I 972b, On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects, University of Utrecht
Doctoral Dissertation, FoL. Supplementary Series, Dordrecht.
Wunderlich, Dieter, 1970, Tempus und Zeitreferenz im Deutschen, Linguistische Reihe, Vol. 5,
Miinchen.
INDEX
Adjectives duration dating adverbials (DDA's), 208

colour, 75 If. duration measuring adverbials (DMA's),
duration, 33 208 If.
material, 75 If.
measure, 29 If., 99-100 Economy principle, 100-1, 205, 217
parameter, 29 If., 34, 39, 49 EMBEDDING, 171,172,173,177,179,223,
neutralizable, 39 238
syncategorematic, 15, 17 environment, 98 If., 202
temperature, 2, 31, 361f., 1221f. EQUI-OBJECT REL STRIPPING, 174,
weight, 33 177,238
ADVERBIALIZATION, 210, 220, 222 EQUI-SUBJECT REL STRIPPING, 153,
adverbials, 1,5,62 157--8,165,170,173-5,177,183,231,232,
affixation, 126 If., 211 If. 238
amount terms, 165 If. Estonian, 90
anywhere rules, 238 events, 119
aspect, 218, 219
(non)-durative, 218 Fillmore, C. J., 90
momentaneous, 218 filters, 140-3
terminative, 218
Generative semantics, 3, 237, 241
Bach, Emmon, 91 Gleitman, L., 61
base rules, 3-4, 1321f., 1401f., 237, 239-40 global derivational constraints, 238
Bech, G., 20 gradables, 34 If.
Bendix, E. H., 90 neutral vs. non-neutral, 34 If.
Bierwisch, M., 391f., 112 If. objective vs. subjective, 34 If.
Bloomfield, L., 124 Groot, A. W. de, 130
BOUNDARY UNTANGLING,176 Gruber, J. S., 3-4, 98 If., 1031f., 107-9, 1261f.,
I 30 If., I 34 If., 150-1, 155, 168, 190, 221,
Calculus, 4, 237 237,240,241
Carden, G., 181, 189, 190, 191, 196
Chomsky, N., I, 3 If., 62, 86, 90, 98,141,173, Hertog, C. H. den, 5
241 'hoe'-questions, 37 If.
Chomsky adjunction, 101 If.
comparative, 34 Incomplete entry, 107-8, 128, 130-1,212
competence vs. performance, 142-3 indirect object, 49, 79
cyclical application of lexical rules, 100, individualization, 18 If.
1281f., 164 interpretative semantics, 237, 242
irregularities, 124
Dative, 91
defective set of MP sentences, 1241f. Japanese, 131, 173
definiteness vs. indefiniteness, 19 If. Jackendolf, Ray S., 180-1, 184, 189, 196
demonstratives, 25
determiner, 134-5,205-7 Katz, J. J., 240, 242
dilferentiation, 10, 181f., 209 Kraak, A., 20, 63, 69, 76
Dik, S. C., 61,242
disjunctive ordering, 99-100, 221 Lakolf, G., 61, 63, 64, 69, 73, 181, 189, 190,
Dougherty, R. C., 19,60,65 238,240
246 INDEX
Lees, R. B., I PSR Hypothesis vs. Transformational

Lehiste, I., 90 Hypothesis, 60 If., 65, 69
lexical definitory rules, 138
lexical gap, 1221f. Quantificatory phrases, 37
Luif, J. H. J., 44, 69 QUANTIFIER SHIFT (cf. also MP
SHIFT), 166,239
Manner adverbials, I, 45 If., 62 quantity adverbia1s, 5
McCawley, J. D., 3, 86, 91,123,134,220,238, QUANTITY DELETION, 166,170,177,
240,241
184,238
measure phrases Quine, W. V. 0., 17-8
abstract, 8 If., 14 If.
concrete, 8 If., 14 If.
Reciprocal constructions, 601f.
vs. adverbials, 5
reduction in MP sentences, 2, 56 If., 90-1,
vs. direct objects, 61 If., 781f.
1081f., 1151f., 122-3, 150, 1931f.
as noun phrases, 6 If.
RELATIVE CLAUSE FORMATION,
and prenominal adjectives, 7, 81f., 141f.
146, 150, 165, 170, 177
and relative clauses, 7, 15 If.
RELATIVE CLAUSE REDUCTION
derivation of, 180 If.
87 If. , 147, 152-4, 157, 165, 170, 177: 184,
middle verbs, 1,32,43 If.
238
morpheme omission, 206-7
relative clauses
MP SHIFT, 161, 163--6, 168, 169, 170, 177, restrictive vs. non-restrictive, 172
184, 232, 236, 238-9
MP-TAIL SHORTENING, 155, 159, 160, relative terms, 242
REL REORDERING, 175, 177
165, 170, 177, 185,232,238
restructuring, 101 If., 129,237,240--1
order reversal in -, 107-8, 1261f., 217, 237
Natural logic, 240
Rijk, R. P. G. de, 3, 220, 241
NE, cf. Numerical Elements
Ross, J. R. 61f., 14, 16,27,28,63-4,73,81 If.,
NE INCORPORATING, 186-7, 190, 196
NOMINALIZATION, 210, 217, 220 85,96,148
'non-particular' units, 15 If., 134
non-stative vs. stative, 45, 69-70, 73 If. Semicopulas, 43 If.
numbers, 23 If., 1871f. measure -, 46 If.
~uren, P. A. M., 141 If., 173,237,240
numerical elements, 231f., I 80 If., 187, 193,
196 SIMPLE MP SENTENCE REDUCTION,
149,150, 153, 165, 170, 177, 194, 196,223,
Observer-related parameters, 1121f., 1351f. 239
of-deletion transformation, 180 If. simplicity criterion of the lexicon, 190
one (two, three)-space parameters, 12, 118, simultaneous environment, 98 If., 202
122, 1351f., 161 If. SPACE DELETION, 161,165,170,177,239
order reversal principle, cf. restructuring specifying complements, 44
orientation of adjectives, 39 If. specifying conjunctions, 63
standard theory, 3, 88
PAR-MP CONTRACTION, 149, 152-3, stative, cf. non-stative
165,170,177,239 stress patterning, 130
Parsons, T., 165 subjective statements, 34
Partee, B. Hall, 181 superlative, 27, 34
PARTICLE MOVEMENT, 126, 176
passive, I, 45 If., 62-3, 69 If. Tense, 220, 221
peripheral environment, 98 If., 202 time, 119 If., 198 If.
Peters, S., 61 tree-pruning, 148, 162-3, 188
polarity of adjectives, 39 If. type I nouns vs. type II nouns, II If.
possessive pronouns, 27
polycategorial lexical attachment, 98 If., 240, Unit nouns
242 abstract vs. concrete, 8 If., 141f.
predicate raising, 220 continuous vs. discontinuous, 8 If., 11-2
THE STRUCTURE UNDERLYING MP SENTENCES 247
integer-dependent vs. integer-independent, Wunderlich, D., 157

8ff.,19Iff.
unrecoverable deletion, 150-1 Zero entry, 123ff., 196,239
Verkuyl, H. J., 10, 11,33,44,69,207-9,218,

219,220
FOUNDATIONS OF LANGUAGE
SUPPLEMENTARY SERIES
Edited by Morris Halle, Peter Hartmann,

K. Kunjunni Raja, Benson Mates, J. F. Staal,
Pieter A. Verburg, and John W. M. Verhaar
I. John W. M. Verhaar (ed.), The Verb 'Be' and its Synonyms. Philosophical and Grammat-
ical Studies. Part I: Classical Chinese. Athapaskan. Mundari. 1967, VIII + 100 pp.
Dfl.23,-
2. Nicholas Rescher, Temporal Modalities in Arabic Logic. 1967, IX+50 pp. Dfl. 16,-
3. Tullio de Mauro, Ludwig Wittgenstein. His Place in the Development of Semantics. 1967,
VIII+62pp. Dfl.19,-
4. Karl-Otto Apel, Analytic Philosophy of Language and the Geisteswissenschajien. 1967,
X + 63 pp. Dfl. 16,-
5. J. F. Staal, Word Order in Sanskrit and Universal Grammar. 1967, XI + 98 pp.

Paper Dfl. 32,-
6. John W. M. Verhaar (ed.), The Verb 'Be' and its Synonyms. Philosophical and Grammat-
ical Studies. Part II: Eskimo. Hindi. Zuni. Modern Greek. Malayalam. Kurukh. 1968,
IX + 148 pp. Dfl. 30,-
7. Hugo Brandt Corstius (ed.), Grammarsfor Number Names. 1968, VII + 123 pp. Dfl. 32,-
ical Studies. Part III: Japanese. Kashmiri. Armenian. Hungarian. Sumerian. Shona. 1968,
VIII + 125 pp. Dfl. 28,-
ical Studies. Part IV: Twi. Modern Chinese. Arabic. 1969, VIII + 125 pp. Dfl.28,-
10. F. Kiefer (ed.), Studies in Syntax and Semantics, 1969, IX + 242 pp. Dfl.50,-
II. A. C. Senape McDermott, An Eleventh-Century Buddhist Logic of 'Exists '. 1969, X + 88 pp.
Dfl.25,-
12. Karl Aschenbrenner, The Concepts of Value, Foundations of Value Theory, 1971, XVII +
462 pp. Dfl. 100,-
15. H. J. Verkuyl, On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects, 1972, XIII + 185 pp. Dfl. 53,-
In Preparatioll:
13. F. Kiefer and N. Ruwet (eds.), Generative Grammar in Europe.
14. John W. M. Verhaar (ed.), The Verb 'Be' and its Synonyms. Philosophical and Grammatical
Studies. Part V: Urdu/Turkish/ Bengali/ Amharic/Indonesian/Telugu/ Estonian.
16. Charles H. Kahn, The Verb 'Be'in Ancient Greek.
SOLE DISTRIBUTORS IN THE U.S.A. AND CANADA:
Volumes 1-12: Humanities Press / New York

The Structure Underlying Measure Phrase Sentences

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Structure Underlying Measure Phrase Sentences

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE STRUCTURE UNDERLYING MEASURE

MORRIS HALLE, MIT

D. REIDEL PUBLISHING COMPANY I DORDRECHT-HOLLAND

ISBN-13: 978-94-0lO-2892-9 e-ISBN-13: 978-94-010-2890-5

All Rights Reserved

I should like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Professor

Amsterdam, August 1971 W. G. KLOOSTER

I. MEASURE PHRASE SENTENCES; SOME OBSER V A nONS

II. THE STRUCTURE UNDERL YING SIMPLE MP SENTENCES 56

1. Reduction in Simple MP Sentences 56

3.3. Disadvantages of Underlying 'Hebben' and of Underlying

III. THE DERIVA nON OF MP SENTENCES 98

IV. DURATION SENTENCES 198

1.2.1. Simple Duration MP Sentences 223

MEASURE PHRASE SENTENCES;

The subject of this study consists of certain phenomena exhibited in sen-

(I) Jan weegt 80 kilo.

In (1)-(7) the measure phrases occur either as the complement of socalled

(8) Jan is 80 kilo.

It seems appropriate to use the term 'reduction' in connection with sentences

There are no simple temperature MP sentences in which an adjective occurs.

(14) *Het water is 30 graden warm/koud.

(17) Jan en ik wegen evenveel.

The set of phrases to which such expressions as 80 kilo, 12 gulden, 1 vadem,

(23) *Het is 80 kilo zo dat hij woog/weegt.

(24c) *Die deur weegt van 2 ton.

2.1. Are MP's Noun Phrases?

(25a) *This box is of the two feet long.

(30) That'll only cost you 10 crisp new dollars.

In the following subsections Ross's examples will be dealt with. As we shall

2.1.1. Prenominal Adjectives in MP's

2.1.1.1. Unit nouns: integer-dependent and integer-independent, continuous

the integer preceding it. We do not have, for instance:

As Verkuyl (1972a) has observed, there is a difference between a word

Apart from a number of other denominations, Dutch currency comes in ten

(53) Die sigaar kost 50 cent.

(57b) *Dat gaat je alleen maar 10 spiksplinternieuwe dollar kosten.

(59) 3 kubieke centimeter

2.1.2. M P's, Relative Clauses, and Prenominal Adjectives; 'Non-Particular'

points on a scale that represents a difference of two temperature units called

(61) We hebben zes mijlen gemareheerd, die waren.

Certainly we cannot regard (62) as a paraphrase of Dat gaat je 10 spik-

(64a) Dat kostte me 10 klinkende guldens.

I believe that it can be maintained that klinkende in (64a) is what we may

genuine predication 5 would be rather 'The thing is a dubious honour', 'The

2.1.3. 'Each/Either/Some of the' + M P; Differentiation and Individualization

2.1.3.1. Definiteness and indefiniteness .. ;ncorporation of the definite element

(S5a) Hij had I :;;~~e 1kleinkinderen.

(85c) Hij had niet

(88a) Het duurde Ir enkele

'It lasted a 1fair number J of minutes.'

'It lasted no a If fair

(88c) Het duurde niet 1:;t;~~~e Iminuten.

'It lasted not a 1 ;:;~:;:,er of minutes.' (did not last etc.)

2.1.3.2. Numerical elements and numbers

(9la) enige meters

I INDEF + X + NUMBER + Y + OF + N + PLURAL

(96a) een paar voeten

2.1.4. Demonstratives, Possessive Pronouns, 'Principal', 'Chief', 'Utter'

(101) *H··IJ sc h oor van ZIJn

Meanwhile, in the discussion of (25a) and (26)-{30) a few important facts

3. PARAMETER ADJECTIVES AND MEASURE ADJECTIVES

3.1. Parameter Adjectives