The “N after N” Construction and Its Theoretical Implications
Kazuya Kudo (Kwansei Gakuin University)
Issue: The English NPN construction, exemplified by time after time, has been analyzed as somekind of idioms due to its peculiar grammatical properties (Jackendoff 2008, Matsuyama 2004,Williams 1994). Considering its high productivity, however, the “N after N” construction must betreated differently from other less productive NPN constructions. In this paper, we demonstrate thatthe phrase “N after N” can be generated syntactically (i.e., obeying general syntactic principles),while other forms of NPN constructions may still be examples of lexical or constructional idioms.
Proposal: We propose that “N after N” is a QP headed by a null Q (semantically corresponding toeach), which takes a PP of the form [PP after NP] as its complement. We assume that this null Q has
a strong N-feature that needs to be checked-off in syntax (cf. Chomsky 1995). Then, the NP in Q’s
complement domain will be moved up (i.e., copied and merged) into [Spec, QP] in order to satisfy
the requirement (due to “last resort”). We will argue that the phonological sequence of “N after N”
and all the peculiar properties of the construction result from this movement analysis.
Analysis: As is obvious, the productivity of NPN constructions varies according to the choice ofprepositions (Jackendoff 2008). Productive NPN constructions have the latitude in the choice ofhead nouns and appear to have an internal syntactic structure, (1). This observation leads us topostulate that productive NPN constructions should be generated in syntax in compliance withgeneral syntactic principles.
We claim that “N after N” is a QP, which has a null Q as its head and a PP as its complement,(2). The null Q in question assumably corresponds to each, since “N after N” behaves mostsimilarly to “each N” in syntax, (3). Semantically, the null Q in “N after N” does not quantify overan NP but a PP including an NP, so that the phrase yields the sense of “succession”. Viewed in thislight, it follows naturally that “N after N” is not compatible with determiners, mass nouns andplurals, (4), since these elements cannot bear appropriate relations with quantifiers like each.
Here, we assume that the null Q in “N after N” has a strong N-feature, since quantifiers, ingeneral, require an NP to be quantified over. In usual cases (e.g., each student), the N-feature of Q
can be checked-off within its minimal domain (via the head-comp relation), since Q usually takes
an NP in its complement. However, in the case of “N after N”, the complement of Q is not an NP
but a PP, which lacks an N-feature. Then, the NP in the complement domain of Q needs to bemoved up (i.e., copied and merged) into [Spec, QP] in order to check-off Q’s strong N-feature
within its minimal domain (via the spec-head relation), (5). This is how the phonological sequenceof “N after N” results.
Nontrivial consequences of this analysis come from a corollary that the first N in “N after N”
is a moved constituent. That is, our approach adequately explains the reasons why the first N in “Nafter N” can have prenominal adjectives only if the second N does, (6b, c), why those adjectives
must be identical between the first N and the second N, (6d), and why the adjective miserable
modifies not only the second N but also the first N (or, more precisely, the whole QP) in (6a). Also,
the movement analysis provides a simple mechanism to the triplication of the construction (see(1d)), by allowing that syntactic operation may apply recursively. Furthermore, our approach has asyntactic solution to the fact that the first N in a triplicated version has to agree with the second Nwith respect to the presence or absence of prenominal adjectives, (8), from the viewpoint ofCED-like constraint on movement phenomena, which is roughly sketched as (10).
Conclusion: We have demonstrated that “N after N” is a syntactic unit that is formed as a result ofcanonical syntactic operations. This is a desirable result in the generative study as far as we canmaintain the general idea that productive expressions are created in syntax with systematic rules andprinciples, whereas less-productive ones have something to do with idiosyncrasies of lexical items.
In this sense, this research conforms to the direction that any generative research should follow.

Examples:(1) a. Free choice of N: day after day, dog after dog, page after page, picture after picture, ...
(cf. hand over hand/*finger over finger)b. Prenominal adjectives: day after miserable day(cf. *side by firm side)c. Postnominal complements: day after day of rain(cf. *day to day of rain)d. Triplication: week after week after week
(cf. *page for page for page)(2)[QP(3)

a. Page after page {is/*are} sprinkled with errors.
b. [Student after student]i talked about hisi attitudes.
c. Dog after dog bit {the others/*each other}.
d. *Almost student after student flunked.

(4)a. No determiners: *the man after the man, *a day after a day
b. No mass nouns: *water after water, *dust after dust
c. No plurals: *men after men, *books after books(5)[QP NPi [Q´(6)a. day after miserable day
b. miserable day after miserable dayc. *miserable day after day
d. *awful day after miserable daya. [QP NPi [Q´[PP P [NP AP NPi]]]b. [QP [NP AP NP]i [Q´[PP P [NP AP NP]i]]c. *[QP [NP AP NP]i [Q´[PP P NPi]]d. *[QP [NP APb NP]i [Q´[PP P [NP APa NP]i]]

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

[PP P NP]][PP P NPi]][syntactic singularity][distributivity][the others in reciprocal][modification by almost](with Copy theory)

a. week after week after miserable weekb. miserable week after miserable week after miserable weekc. *week after miserable week after miserable week
d. *miserable week after week after week
[PP P [QP NPi [Q´[PP P [NP AP NPi]]]]]]]
a. [QP NPi [Q´
b. [QP [NP AP NP]i [Q´[PP P [QP [NP AP NP]i [Q´[PP P [NP AP NP]i]]]]]]
c. *[QP NPj [Q´[PP P [QP [NP AP NPj]i [Q´[PP P [NP AP NP]i]]]]]]
d. *[QP [NP AP NP]i [Q´[PP P [QP NPi [Q´[PP P NPi]]]]]]The ban on “Subextraction”
Extraction of an item from the domain that has undergone a movement is prohibited.

References:
Chomsky, N. (1995) The minimalist program, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. / Jackendoff, R. (2008)“Construction after construction and its theoretical challenges,” Language 84, 8-28. / Matsuyama, T.
(2004) “The N after N construction: A constructional idiom,” English Linguistics 21, 55-84. /Williams, E. (1994) “Remarks on lexical knowledge,” The acquisition of the lexicon, ed. by L.
Gleitman and B. Landau, 7-34. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.