『地域政策研究』（高崎経済大学地域政策学会） 第７巻

第１号

2004 年７月

35 頁〜 46 頁

A Study of Alternation of Word Order in Noun Phrases
Eisaku TAKAHASHI
名詞句内の語順交替の研究

高橋栄作

Abstract
There are differences in constituent ordering within the determiner phrase (DP) between
English and Romance language though they are head-initial languages. The noun (N) is in theright edge within the DP projection in English, while it is unmarkedly followed by the adjectivethat modifies it in Romance languages. Longobardi (1994) and Cinque (1995) argue that thedifference of the surface ordering comes from the possibility of overt N-raising. The raising ispermitted in Romance languages, while it is not available in English. This article proposes,
within the framework of Chomsky (1995), the Minimalist Program (MP), and the DP-analysis
of Abney (1987), that English also has overt N-raising and indicates the motivation of it. In
the MP, movement is required only for checking strong features. The DP-analysis suggeststhat the head of noun phrases (NP) is a determiner and that it takes an NP as its complement.
Further, I argue for Scott (2002) who claims that attributive adjectives occur in the specifierof some functional projection (FP). It is common knowledge that adjectives which can be in
both prenominal and postnominal position have different meaning. Postnominal adjectives
are temporarily affected, while prenominal adjectives carry the inherent feature. The word
orders with prenominal/postnominal adjectives have different syntactical structures because
they yield different meanings. There seem to be a great possibility of N-raising in English
Noun Phrase. I propose that an interpretable feature plays an important role in movements.
A semantic-functional head, which is between a determiner and a noun, causes N-raising in
English.
Key words
DP, overt N-raising, semantic-functional feature, prenominal, postnominal− 35 −

Eisaku TAKAHASHI

Ⅰ . Introduction
There are differences in constituent ordering within the NP between English and Romance
languages. The noun is in the right edge within the NP projection in English, while it isunmarkedly followed by the adjective that modifies it in Spanish. See (1) and (2).
(1)

[NP the microscopic analysis ]

A-N

(2)

[NP una [flor ] hermosa ]N-A

a flower beautiful
Both English and Spanish (and other Romance languages) are head-initial languages. Some
serious problems arise if we assume that the noun takes the adjective as its complement.
Apparently, the linear order in (1) does not conform to the head-complement parameter. This
problem can be evaded by Abney (1987), who proposes that a noun phrase is a projectionof Determiner, DP, with a projection of a noun, NP, as its complement. In his analysis, theadjective is not located in the complement position of N, but in the specifier of N.
Another question related to constituent ordering within the NP is about stacked adjectives.
For example, two or three adjectives can appear prenominally in English. See (3).
(3)

a. a tall dark handsome manb. *a dark tall handsome manc. *a handsome dark tall man

To all appearances, the word order of adjectives does not indicate free order. Scott (2002)
provides a solution to this problem. He argues that X-bar theory, in which adjectives areadjoined iteratively to the head noun, is unable to account for the fact that adjectives display
clear ordering restrictions. He assumes that stacked adjectives are in the specifier of distinct
functional projections.
One question remains unsolved: what yields the different order of an adjective (A)and an N between English and Spanish? Longobardi (1994) and Cinque (1995) argue thatthe difference of the surface ordering comes from the possibility of overt N-raising over anadjective phrase (AP) to a higher functional head (D or another head). The raising is permittedin Romance languages, so that an N precedes an A(P). On the other hand, an N follows an AP− 36 −

A Study of Alternation of Word Order in Noun Phrases

since the operation is not available in English. Nevertheless, there is an alternation of word
order within NP in English as in (4). I propose that English also permits overt N-raising.
(4)a. the visible stars
b. the stars visible

The aim of this paper is to analyze alternation of the word order in an NP. I will propose thefollowing points in this paper: (1) the head of NP is a determiner, (2) attributive adjectives
occur in the specifier of distinct functional projections, (3) English also has overt N-raising,and (4) a semantic-functional head is in the position between a determiner and a noun. It also
causes N-raising in English. (5) an interpretable feature plays an important role in movements.

Ⅱ . The Structure of Noun Phrases
The traditional X-bar theory has stated that the head of NP is an N, a determiner occupies
the specifier of NP and the complement of NP is for a prepositional phrase or a clause, as in (5).
(5)

a. [NP the [N' [AP microscopic] analysis]]b. [NP [D the] [N' [N destruction] [PP of the city]]]In the following section I will examine the DP-analysis of Abney (1987).

Ⅱ . 1. The DP-analysis of Abney
In Abney (1987), a noun phrase is a projection of determiner with a projection of a noun
as its complement and consists of two layers whose head is occupied by a functional category
called D.
(6)a. [DP [D the] [NP book]]b. [DP Mike's [D' [D Agr][NP book]]]

According to his analysis, the D0 node hosts articles (e.g., the , a), demonstratives (e.g., that ,those), quantifiers (e.g., many, some, every ), as in (6a) and agreement property (Agr1)), as in(6b).2) The Agr is almost identical to the one in IP. As the Agr in the DP assigns genitive Caseto Mike in the specifier position, so the Agr in an IP assigns nominative Case to an NP in the− 37 −

Eisaku TAKAHASHI

specifier position of an IP. The definite article represented in (6a) cannot assign Case to its
specifier position. So genitive NPs cannot occur in the specifier position in the DP. According to
the X-bar theory of Chomsky (1981, 1986a), the specifier position is allocated only for maximal
projections. For reasons mentioned above, the following traditional structure in (7) cannot meetthe requirement that the specifier of an XP has a maximal projection.
(7)[NP the [N' [N book]]]Ⅱ .2. The parallelism of a CP and a DP
So far, a considerable number of studies have been made on the parallelism of acomplementizer phrase (CP) and a DP. First of all, it has been suggested that an NP contains
an INFL-like node (Szabolcsi (1983), (1987), (1990), Ritter (1988), (1991), Abney (1987)).
Comparative studies on the structure of NPs reveal that an NP contains a functional head of
Agr in many languages. Consider the following Hungarian data.

(8) aztheenkalap-om

I- NOM

hat-1 sg

"my hat"(Abney 1987: 16)

en, in the specifier position of the DP ([Spec, DP]), agrees with Agr, which assigns a nominative
Case to it. There is en in the specifier position of the DP. The Agr is adjoined to a noun andkalap - becomes kalap-om .
Next, there is a complement-like position in NPs (Szabolcsi (op.cit.), Tellier(1988), andStowell (1989)). The head-complement relationship in an NP bears a close parallel to one in a
verb phrase (VP).
(9)

a. the terror group destroys the city.
b. the terror group's destruction of the city

In (9a), destroy and the city are linked to a verb and its object, respectively. In (9b), destruction
and of the city are in a head-complement relationship.
Furthermore, the conjunction that belongs to a complementizer and the demonstrative
adjective that is a determiner. They have a similar spelling and sound. There is historical− 38 −

A Study of Alternation of Word Order in Noun Phrases

evidence to show that they are derived from the determiner of Old English, (se (masculine), seo(feminine), pW t (neuter)).

Ⅱ .3. The Extended DP-analysis
Taking into account the parallelism between a CP and a DP, I propose that NPs should have amulti layered structure because sentences have three-layers like [CP [IP [VP ] ] ].
I call this configuration "the extended DP-analysis". In (10), I provide a tentative structureof the DP.3) [Spec, DP] is for even and [Spec, FP] for the genitive subject. It is the common
property that the subject of a sentence and an NP is in the specifier of a functional category.
(10)

The Extended DP-analysis[DP even [D' D [FP [F' F [NP N ]]]]]

Ⅲ . Attributive Adjective
Adjectives describe a quality of a noun. In this chapter I would like to focus on attributive
adjectives.

Ⅲ .1. The Relative Order of Nouns and Adjectives
It is common to put a simple adjective before a noun.
(11)

a. a [proud] manb. *a man [proud]

Adjectives follow nouns in the case where they form a word group with other items, or two or
more adjectives appear.
(12)

a. She is a woman, [sweet, simple and home-loving].
b. She had a large basket [full of flowers].

Ⅲ .2. Adjunction or Substitution
It has been assumed in X-bar theory that attributive adjectives are adjoined to an NP. They
are a typical example of modifiers, and then the adjectives are optional and iterable. X-bar
theory takes modifiers to be a maximal projection adjoined to another maximal projection.
− 39 −

Eisaku TAKAHASHI

Given the DP-analysis, the reasonable idea is that attributive adjectives are adjoined to anNP4). In this paper, however, I argue for Scott (2002) who claims that attributive adjectives
occur in the specifier of some functional projection. Both prenominal and postnominal
adjectives are iteratively adjoined to an NP in traditional analyses.
(13)a [tall] [dark] [handsome] stranger(14)

We must choose the best person [available][suitable for the post]
The analysis in which adjectives are iteratively adjoined to the head noun is unable

to account for the fact that adjectives demonstrate clear ordering restrictions. Prenominal
adjectives, however, obey strict ordering restrictions which are universal. The adjectival
sequence can be summarized as in (15).
(15)

Evaluating

Size

Color

a. English

beautifulbig

red ballb. Germanschoenergrosseroter Ballc. French

joli

gros

(ballon) rouge

d. Italianbella

grande(palla)rossa(Cinque (1994))

Examples (15) show the strict order of adjectives in cross-linguistic circumstances. It is hard
to realize how an adjunction analysis can regulate the order of adjectives. Judging from theabove, I propose that APs occupy [Spec, FP]. I make use of the following Scott's universal
hierarchy of adjectival ordering restrictions.
(16)

A universal hierarchy of adjectival ordering restrictions5)
DETERMINER > ORDINAL NUMBER > CARDINAL NUMBER > SUBJECTIVE
COMMENT > ? EVIDENTIAL > SIZE > LENGTH > HEIGHT > SPEED>?DEPTH > WIDTH > WEIGHT > TEMPERATURE > ? WETNESS > AGE >SHAPE > COLOR > NATIONALITY/ORIGIN > MATERIAL >COMPOUND ELEMENT > NP
(Scott (2002: 114))− 40 −

A Study of Alternation of Word Order in Noun Phrases

The grammaticality of (17) and (18) can be accounted for with his universal hierarchy ofadjectival ordering restriction.
(17)

a. a beautiful long hot summer
b. *a beautiful hot long summer(18)

a. ein schnelles altes Pferd(ibid.)(German)a fast old horseb. *ein altes schnelles Pferan old fast horse(ibid.)For example, long belongs to WIDTH which is ranked higher than TEMPERATURE. (17b) isungrammatical because hot , which belongs to TEMPERATURE, dominates WIDTH. In (18),schnelles belongs to the category of SPEED, while altes belongs to be category of AGE. (18b) isungrammatical in that Scott's hierarchy expect to be SPEED > AGE.
Therefore, I propose an extended DP-analysis, which has richer functional projections
between a determiner and a noun, as shown in (19).
(19)[DP [D' D [FP [F' F [FP...[FP... [NP [N' N ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]Ⅳ . N-raising
In this chapter, I will make it clear that the diversity of linear order within the NPwith attributive adjectives is reduced to the raising of N to a functional head intermediately
between an N and a D.

Ⅳ .1. Overt N-raising
Adjective phrases (APs) are base-generated in the same position within an NP in both
Germanic and Romance languages. The difference in their surface position is associated withwhether a given language permits an overt N-raising to a functional head.

− 41 −

Eisaku TAKAHASHI(20)

a. [DP [D' [D the ][FP first [F' [F ][NP Italian [ N' [N invasion] of Albania]]]]]]
b. [DP [D' [D la ][FP prima [FAgrP [ FAgr' [ FAgr invasione i ][NP italiana[N'[N ti ]dell'Albania ]]]]]]](Italian)"the first invasion Italian of Albania"
The presence or absence of overt N-raising in English can be examined by the surface
position of simple attributive adjectives such as proud and cold, which is allowed to appear only
to the left of the N.
(21)a. *a man [proud]b. *rooms [cold]

These examples show that overt N-raising is absent in English. However, it would bewrong to assume that nouns cannot precede the attributive adjective. We ha8ve seen adjectives
which can be in both a prenominal and postnominal position.
(22)a. the visible [stars]
b. the [stars] visible(23)(Quirk et al.(1985))

a. the present [members]b. the [members] present(24)(Swan (1980))

a. the stolen [jewels]b. the [jewels] stolen(Celce-Murcia (1983))

Note that they have different meanings. While prenominal adjectives show the inherent
feature, postnominal adjectives are temporarily affected. It is reasonable to assume that theexamples (22)-(24) have a different syntactical structure because they yield different meanings.
This alternation of word order leads us to claim that English permits overt N-raising in somecase. In (22b) stars moves from the base N position to the head F. I do not make clear here
the label of the functional projection to which nouns move. DPs such as (22) are replaced bystructures such as (25) with the extended DP-analysis.
(25)

a. [DP the [FP2 F [FP1 visible [NP stars]]]]− 42 −

A Study of Alternation of Word Order in Noun Phrasesb. [DP the [FP2 starsi [FP1 visible [NP ti ]]]]

Ⅴ . Discussion
In this section, I discuss the motivation of N-raising. The DPs with the prenominal
adjective reflect constant states, while the DPs with the postnominal adjective express
temporary states. For example, in (23), the present members refers to those who are members
now, on the other hand the members present mentions to those who are/were at the meeting.
Consequently, I propose that some (weak) semantic features have an influence on the syntactic
structure and they occur in FAgr. Semantic features are interpretable features because they areassociated with semantic interpretation. They pose a question, however. Within the Minimalist
Program supported by Chomsky (1995), uninterpretable features must be eliminated by featurechecking, while interpretable features cannot. Presence of uninterpretable features at the endof a derivation yields an illegitimate logical form (LF) representation, causing the derivation to
crash. Interpretable features, on the other hand, must not be eliminated, since they contributeto interpretation. Since movement operations are driven by the need to check morphologicalfeatures, economy considerations lead us to expect that interpretable features never undergo
movement. One proposal is that some semantic features are also relevant to movement. They
must be checked off before Spell-Out even though semantic features are interpretable features.
I attribute the motivation of English N-raising to a semantic feature. In DPs, English nouns
obligatorily move from the base-position to FAgr, although traditional grammar explains thatthe alternation of word order such as (22)-(24) is optional.
There are other examples to show that semantic features are relevant to syntactic
movement. In Nakamura et al . (2001), there is a piece of evidence to show that sentences
contain semantic features. Their view is closely identical with my idea. They discuss thequestion of a topicalization.
(26)

a. I believe that you should read this book.
b. This booki, I believe that you should read ti.
(Nakamura et al . (2001))

The element moved to the beginning of a sentence expresses a general topic and the rest ofsentence represents comment on the topic. The operation adjoins the topical factor to tense− 43 −

Eisaku TAKAHASHI

phrase (TP). The structure on (26b) is given in (27).
(27)[TP this booki [TP I think [you should read ti]]].

(ibid.)

The additional movement in (27) is not motivated by any feature checking. The positionadjoined to a maximal projection is not checked by the head. This movement lacks motivationof feature checking and violates the Last Resort. However, they propose a functional feature
attracting the topical factor to evade the Last Resort violation. A functional projection occurs
between a CP and a TP. Both the topicalized this book and F have the semantic feature, andthey need to be checked off before Spell-Out. The functional projection with the feature attracts
the topicalized element in [Spec, FP]. This derives the representation (28).
(28)

I believe [CP that [FP this booki F [TP you should read ti]]](ibid.)

Traditional linguists have regarded the operation like a topicalization as optional movement.
I deny the optional movement and think that their syntactic constituents must be moved fromthe base-position to [Spec, FP] for feature checking. Moreover, I propose that an interpretablefeature is relevant to movement, although the MP only accepts uninterpretable features as a
trigger for movement.

Conclusion
This paper has dealt with the alternation of word order in NPs. The English noun phrases (A-N)
do not obey the head-complement parameter because the head of NP is a noun. I provided asolution with the DP-analysis of Abney (1987) that the head of NP is a D, and that it takes an
NP as its complement. I proposed the extended DP-analysis from the parallelism between a CP
and a DP. The extended DP-analysis contains several functional projections. Then, adopting
Scott (2002), I submitted that the adjectives occur in the specifier of a distinct functional
projection. I pointed out that English also has an overt N-raising and the operation is brought
about by an interpretable feature of a functional projection. I concluded that an interpretablefeature is related to movement, although the MP accepts only an uninterpretable feature
as motivation for movement. Semantic features are available to any instance, if they affectsyntactic constructions. Topicalization is an example of existence of semantic features. The
constituent is obligatorily moved from the base- position to [Spec, FP] for feature checking.
− 44 −

A Study of Alternation of Word Order in Noun Phrases

Notes1) Agr in D does not co-occur with lexical determiners.
2) I go on the assumption that nouns are not base-generated with their inﬂectional ending in this section.
3) In this paper, I adopt this structure concerning the DP structure.
4) Post modiﬁers like PPs and relative clauses are assumed to be right-adjoined.
5) Scott7s hierarchy is based on Kingsbury and Wellman7s cline (1986) of categories.
Kingsbury and Wellman7s hierarchy:
DETERMINER > SUBJECTIVE COMMENT > SIZE > AGE > SHAPE > COLOR >NATIONALITY / ORIGIN > MATERIAL > COMPOUND ELEMENT > NOUNREFERENCES
Abney, Steven Paul (1987) The English noun phrases and its sentential aspect. PhD. Dissertation, MIT, cambridge, Mass.
Alfredo R. Arnaiz (1998) The main word order characteristics of Romance. Constituent Order in the Languages of Europe.
Ed. Anna Siewierska 47-73 Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Celce-Murcia, Marianne and Dian Larsen-Freeman (1983) The Grammar Book: An ESK.EFL Teacher s Course. Boston:Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
Chomsky, Noam (1970) Remarks on nominalization. Readings in English transformational grammar. Eds. R. Jacobs and P.
Rosenbaum. Waltham, Mass: Ginn.
Chomsky, Noam (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam (1986a) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. New York: Praeger.
Chomsky, Noam (1986b) Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam (1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT press.
Cinque, Guglielmo (1994) On the evidence for partial N-movement in the Romance DP. Italian Syntax and Universal
Grammar. 287-309 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo (1999) Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
Giusti, Giuliana (1995) A uniﬁed structural representation of (abstract) Case and article. Studies in comparative Germanic
syntax. Eds. Hubert Haider, Susan Olsen and Sten Vikner. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers
Haegeman, Liliane (1991) Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Kingsbury, R. and G. Wellman (1986) Longman Advanced English. Harlow, Essex: Longman.
Longobardi, Giuseppe (1994) Reference and Proper Names: A Theory of N-movement in Syntax and Logical Form.
Linguistic Inquiry 25. 609-665.
Longobardi, Giusepp (2001) The Structure of DPs: Some Principles, Parameters, and Problems. The Handbook ofContemporary Syntactic Theory. Eds. Mark Baltin and Chris Collins 562-603 Oxford: Blackwell.
Nakamura, Masaru ( 中 村 捷 ), Yoshiaki Kaneko ( 金 子 義 明 )& Akira Kikuchi ( 菊 池 朗 ) (2001) Seiseibunpou-no
sinntennkai-Minimalist Program (『生成文法の新展開―ミニマリスト・プログラム』). Tokyo: Kenkyusha
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech Geoffrey, and John Svartvik (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the
English Language. 418-428 London: Longman.
Ritter, Elisabeth (1988) A head-movement approach to construct-state Noun Phrases. Linguistics 26. 909-929
Ritter, Elisabeth (1991) Two functional categories in Noun Phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. Syntax and Semantics
25. 37-62
Richard, Sproat and Chilin Shin (1990) The cross-linguistic distribution of Adjective Ordering Restrictions.
Interdisciplinary approaches to language: essays in honor of S. -Y. Kuroda. Eds. Carol, G. and Roberta, I. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Scott, Gary-John (2002) Stacked Adjectival Modiﬁcation and the Structuer of Nominal Phrases. Functional Structure in DP
and IP Ed. Cinque Guglielmo. 91-120 New York: Oxford University Press.
Stowell, Tim (1989) Subject, speciﬁers, and X-bar theory. Alternative conceptions of Phrase structure. Eds. M.Baltin & A.
Kroch. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Swan, Michale (1980) Practical English Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Szabolcsi, Anna (1983) The possessor that ran away from home. The Linguistic Review 1. 89-102
Szabolcsi, Anna (1987) Functional categories in the noun phrase. Approaches to Hungarian, vol.2 Ed. I. Kenesei. 167-189
Szabolcsi, Anna (1990) Noun Phrases and Clauses: Is DP Analogous to IP or CP?. Proceedings of the Colloquium on
Noun Phrase Structure, Ed. J. Payne. Manchester: England.
Szabolcsi, Anna (1994) The Noun Phrase. Syntax and Semantics 27. Eds. Kiefer, F. and K. Kiss. 179-274 United Kingdom:
Academic Press, Inc.

− 45 −

Eisaku TAKAHASHI
Tellier, Christine (1988) Universal Licensing : Implications for Parasitic Gaps Constructions, Ph. D dissertation, McGill
University.
Valois, Daniel (1991) The internal syntax of DP and adjective placement in French and English. NELS 21. 352-367
Zamparelli, Roberto (1995) Layers in the Determiner Phrase, Ph. D dissertation, University of Rochester.

− 46 −