Articles and Adjectives in the German Noun Phrase

論 文

Articles and Adjectives in the German Noun Phrase

Thomas Gross

要

旨

冠詞・修飾形容詞・名詞から成り立っているドイツ語の名詞句を統語論的に分析する学説は，伝統的説・冠詞句説・二重頭説・埋め込み冠詞
句説がある。夫々の説を紹介してから，ドイツ語の名詞句内の形態統語論的なメカニズムを述べる。それを踏まえ，紹介した説の適切さを論じる。
Keywords:

German, adjective, article, noun, determiner phrase, noun phrase,morphology, syntax

1. Introduction
The German noun phrase (henceforth: gNP) constitutes one of the bulwarks forGerman language learners. The diﬃculties arise due to the intricate system ofarticles and to the adjectival inﬂection. Remnants of adjectival inﬂection can be
encountered in other Germanic languages such as Danish, Icelandic, Norwegian,and Swedish, but besides German no other Germanic language has retained suchan intricate system interconnecting nouns, articles and adjectives. Contemporary
English has neither inﬂection of articles nor of adjectives.
This complex system of article and adjectival inﬂection has led to majordiﬃculties in establishing the proper syntactic structure of the German noun

― 117 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 10phrase. At least four diﬀerent proposals have been provided: 1. the Traditional
proposal, 2. the Determiner Phrase proposal (henceforth: DP) by Bhatt (1990) and
Olson (1991ab), 3. the Dual-head proposal by Eroms (1988, 2000), and 4. the Nested
DP proposal by Gross (1993).
The traditional proposal utilizes a “common sense appeal” . In a gNP such in (1)(1)

der alte Mannthe traditional proposal assumes that both the article
inside the NP headed by the noun
(2)[[der] [alte] Mann]and the adjectiveare. Its structure would be one as shown in (2):Traditional proposal

The DP proposal favored by late stage Government & Binding (Chomsky: 1981;
henceforth: GB) and Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995; henceforth: MP) linguists
assumes that the article must be heading the entire structure. According to GB/MP,(1) should be structured like (3):(3)[der [[alte] Mann]]

DP proposal

The dual-head proposal has been put forward by Eroms (1988, 2000). There, one
assumes that the gNP contains two heads: the article and the noun. Eroms would
structure (1) as follows:(4)[der [alte] Mann]

Dual-head proposal

The nested DP proposal by Gross (1993) assumes that the entire structure is a
NP which contains a DP in which the adjective is also contained. Thus, under
this view, adjectives are not headed by nouns. Gross structures expression (1) as
follows:(5)[[der [alte]] Mann]

Nested DP proposal― 118 ―

Articles and Adjectives in the German Noun Phrase

The pros and cons of these four proposals need to be discussed brieﬂy. The
Traditional proposal utilizes a major intuitive insight: expressions such as (1)are about things̶in this case a man. The article and the adjective only serve
to constrict the area in which to look for a man: he must be someone alreadyknown to the listener (the topical function expressed by the article), and he must
be old (as expressed by the adjective). Since (1) is about a man, one expects
the corresponding German element, namely, to be the head of the entire

structure. Semantically, the article and the adjective serve in an equal fashion tocloser determine which man is meant. Thus, both elements should appear in asyntactic structure in an equal manner.
On closer consideration, however, things become complicated. Nouns arewithout much doubt capable of heading adjectives, since semantic features ofadjectives must be in concord with those of nouns.

is a syntacticallywell-formed expression, but semantically nonsensical because

cannot contract

the semantic feature [color]. On the other hand, no such implicit connection canbe assumed to hold between articles and nouns. Further evidence comes fromstudies of non-European languages: there are many languages that lack a category
for articles altogether. One famous example is Japanese.
What is conventionally done in this case, is to point out that German articles
have to correspond with co-occurring nouns in the categories case, genus, andpossibly number. Thus, the form of the article in (1),features of the noun
consists of a stem

. Assuming that, is prescribed by internal

is morphologically complex andand a ﬂexeme + , one can argue that the ﬂexeme is assignedby the noun. Concludingly, the noun must also head the article.
The DP proposal was developed within the framework of Generative Grammar.
Since this theory is the leading paradigm in world linguistics today, it requires alengthier discussion.
Generative Grammarʼs main purpose is to establish the principles and parametersof a Universal Grammar (henceforth: UG) assumed to be the cognitive mechanismthat generates upon speciﬁed input the syntaxes of all natural languages. As of
1995 there are two major theories in the ﬁeld: GB and MP. The DP proposal
was ﬁrst made within GB. In UG, theimportance. Languages such as English count as― 119 ―

is of major
languages, languages

愛知大学

such as Japanese as

言語と文化

No. 10languages. Thus, the head directionality parameter

instructs the phrase structure to have its head in either the ﬁrst or the last position,in any way at the phrasal periphery. The workings of this parameter had ﬁrst
been established for verb phrases (henceforth: VP). Accordingly, English, German,
French and others were to be regarded as languages that positioned their heads at
the left periphery of phrases.
The problem was that NPs did not correspond neatly to this parameter. Since
nouns were located at the right periphery of phrases, NPs of many Indo-European
languages seem to violate the head directionality parameter. The proposals by
Bhatt (1990) and Olson (1991ab) that NPs were in fact headed by the articles and notby the nouns brought the structure of NPs in line with those of VPs.
The major theoretical obstacle to this proposal was that nouns in languages withan explicit article system such as German possesses, conﬁgure the form of articles
via assignment of article ﬂexemes. In response, proponents of the DP proposal
argued that the required features involved in the assignment process percolate
upwards to the determiner head. It is indeed known that there are languages inwhich percolation processes can produce diﬀerent structures. In French, verb
stems move to combine with their ﬂexemes, while in English ﬂexemes move to
combine with their verbs. This is the reason why an adverb is positioned after theverb in French but before a verb in English:(6.1)

Jean embrasse

(6.2)

John

Marie.

kisses Mary.

Since one of the more prominent motives for the DP proposal was to align NPs
with VPs, one should assume that other features pertaining to VPs would also be
mirrored by NPs. Thus, article ﬂexemes should move to combine with articles
in French, but articles should move to combine with article ﬂexemes in English.
Since Contemporary English lacks article ﬂexemes, this hypothesis is hard to prove,
but historical English might oﬀer some evidence one way or the other. It should be
mentioned, though, that the head directionality parameter is still violated inside the
NP because adjectives precede their nouns.
Whether nominal expressions are DPs or NPs is still being discussed. The major― 120 ―

Articles and Adjectives in the German Noun Phrase

problem seems to be that there are many languages without articles, for which thepoint of a DP cannot be convincingly made. However, even for those languages
that possess articles, one shortcoming of the DP proposal is a counter-intuitive
assumption: an expression such as (1) is about a man, not a determiner.
The Dual-head proposal by Eroms (1988, 2000) applies solely to German. Due tothe diﬃculties of determining the internal structure of the gNP, Eroms considers
both articles and nouns as heads. The evident drawback is that unlike other
German phrase structures gNPs have two heads. Eroms poses a
relation holding between the dual heads, but clariﬁcation is also required how
articles and nouns interact to form this kind of structure. However, the Dual-headproposal acknowledges the problem that nouns cannot semantically head articles
the way they head adjectives. On the other hand, it does not explain how article
ﬂexemes are assigned.
The Nested DP proposal by Gross (1993) also applies solely to German. Morethan any of the proposals above this proposal works from the morpho-syntactic
processes that are evidently involved in constructing a gNP. Rather than regarding
semantic relationships between the elements of a gNP as primary, Gross gives
morphological properties priority. Thus, nouns head articles because internal
nominal features such as genus and number instantiate the assignment of arespective article ﬂexeme regardless of the truism that nouns cannot semanticallyhead articles. While nouns may not positively incur such a semantic relationshipas a head, some nouns do prohibit the occurrence of articles. These nouns belong
to the nominal subclass ofnouns.

Since semantic considerations are given less weight than morphological ones,
Gross also assumes that the article̶not the noun̶must head the adjective.
Adjectival ﬂexemes depend in form on whether the article co-occurring is deﬁnite
or not. Thus, Gross assumes a DP nested within the overall NP. This DP contains
both the article and the adjective.
In summary, the Traditional proposal works from intuitive assumptions but
fails to be consistent in its arguments for giving article and adjective equal statusbelow the noun. The DP proposal may intend to streamline phrase structuring in
UG, but nevertheless has serious problems to contend with. The most prominent
two problems are ﬂexeme assignment to articles and adjectives. The Dual-head― 121 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 10

proposal is insuﬃcient to explicate how the gNP should look like. The Nested DP
proposal lacks a clear semantic base since morphological properties take priority.
Figures 1.1‒4 show simpliﬁed graphic representations of the structuring proposed
for the gNP (D=article, A=adjective, N=noun):

Figure 1.1

Figure 1.2

Figure 1.3

Figure 1.4

Closer examination of the virtual structures in ﬁgures 1.1‒4 shows that all but the
Nested DP proposal have a serious problem with noun ellipsis. Expressions suchas(7)

the quick and the dead (movie title)

not only leave gaping holes in the structures proposed by the Traditional, the DP,
and the Dual-head proposals, but also have this hole at the most crucial position in
the structure: articles and adjectives are unconnected, and it is not clear how these
two elements interact to produce their respective and required forms. This must
count as a major pro in favor of the Nested DP proposal.

2. The system of German article and adjective ﬂexemes
In the previous section four proposals concerning the gNP were introduced
and brieﬂy discussed. Every proposal had points in favor and against it. Before
returning to this topic, the system of German articles and adjectives, in particular
their ﬂexemes shall be explicated in this section.

2.1. Deﬁnite articles
There is one German article that plays a prominent role in the gNP. This article― 122 ―

Articles and Adjectives in the German Noun Phrase

is calledin German, i.e. deﬁnite article. I shall conform to thenotation of distinguishing between article

and their ﬂexemes. The deﬁnite

articleʼs stem is . There are six ﬂexemes assignable to : + , + , +

,+

,+

,

and + . Combinations of the articles and these articles perform to deﬁnein German where̶in a non-traditional manner̶I shall regard
genus, and thus shall dispense with the notion of
A noun is of

as a German.

genus if it can occur with the articles

,

,

, and

, and

.

.
A noun is ofgenus if it can occur with the articles

A noun is ofgenus if it can occur with the articles

A noun is of,,genus if it can occur with the articles

, and
and

.
.

A ﬁrst look at the number of combinations per genus reveals that diﬀerent genus
require a diﬀerent number of cases. Masculine genus requires four cases, neuterand plural genus requires three cases, and feminine genus requires only two cases.
If these articles co-occur with adjectives and nouns, a look at the adjective ﬂexemes
will provide an argument for a sharp distinction between German cases. See table 1.
Table 1: Deﬁnite articles and adjectival ﬂexemes
Masculine

NeuterFeminine

NOMd.er alt.e Mannd.as jung.e Kindd.ie klug.e FrauGENd.es alt.

Mann.es d.es jung.

Kind.es d.er klug.

DATd.em alt.

Mannd.em jung.

Kind

ACC

d.en alt.

Mannd.as jung.e Kindd.er klug.

Plurald.ie neu.

Autos

Frau

d.er neu.

Autos

Frau

d.en neu.

Autosd.ie neu.

Autosd.ie klug.e Frau

Disregarding the adjectival ﬂexemes in the plural gNP for the moment, it isevident that nominative and accusative collapse into one single case in the neuter,the feminine, and the plural genus. This means that without further evidence̶
for instance from a sentential context̶one cannot distinguish German nominativefrom accusative in the above-mentioned genus. This, however, is again diﬀerent
from the masculine nominative. What masculine nominative, and feminine andneuter nominative and accusative share is that the adjectival ﬂexeme is + , not+. The adjectival ﬂexeme +in the plural genus is caused by a diﬀerent― 123 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 10process that I shall return to later.
I shall proceed to assume a case feature [STR(ONG)] applying to this phenomenon.

Thus, masculine nominative, feminine and neuter nominative and accusative areconsidered as [‒ STR]. Conversely, the remaining masculine cases, and feminine andneuter genitive and dative are considered as [+STR]. The [‒ STR]/[+STR]-distinction inGerman cases is expressed through diﬀering adjectival ﬂexemes, and furthermore isa strong indication that the more features are expressed at the articleʼs position theless are expressed at the adjectiveʼs position. Thus, there is a continuum of feature
expression to which I shall return later and discuss it more thoroughly.
Other German articles belonging to a sub-paradigm of the, erotetic, and quantifying

and-article are,. The only diﬀerences are thatthe ending for neuter nominative and accusative is + , not +, and the ending

for feminine and plural nominative and accusative is + , not + . The quantiﬁercannot generate the plural genus which is supplemented by the quantifying
adjective. Compare table 1 and table 2.
Table 2:

Masculine

,

,

,

,

NeuterFeminine

dies.er alt.e Mannjed.es jung.e Kindjen.es alt.

dies.es jung.

Mann.es

and adjectival ﬂexemes

manch.e klug.e Frau

Pluralwelch.e neu.

Autos

Kind.es jed.er klug.

Fraudies.er neu.

Autos

Kind

Frau

jen.en neu.

Autoswelch.em alt.

Mann jen.em jung.

manch.en alt.

Mann welch.es jung.e Kind

dies.er klug.

jen.e klug.e Fraumanch.e neu.

Autos

The [ ‒ STR]/[+STR]-distinction for adjectival ﬂexemes is still valid, and articles
receive diﬀerent ﬂexemes only in [‒ STR] cases.
In the deﬁnite articleʼs paradigm and its sub-paradigm the following ﬂexemes arenecessary to form full articles:
1. + :a) masculine nominativeb) feminine [+STR]-casesc) plural genitive

2. + :a) masculine genitive― 124 ―

Articles and Adjectives in the German Noun Phraseb) neuter genitive
3. +: a) masculine dativeb) neuter dative

4. +: a) masculine accusativeb) plural dative

5. + :a) feminine [‒ STR] cases as +afterb) feminine [‒ STR] cases as + after other articlesc) plural [‒ STR] cases as +afterd) plural [‒ STR] cases as + after other articles
6. +: a) neuter [‒ STR] cases as +b) neuter [‒ STR] cases as +after
after other articles

All deﬁnite articles share the same distribution of ﬂexemes with co-occurring
adjectives which are + in [ ‒ STR] cases, +genus. The last issue̶+in [+STR] cases and the entire pluralwith adjectives in plural genus̶has to be elaborated aspromised above. Plural genus occurs in two instances: a noun occurs together withplural morphemes, or a noun with inherent plural features occurs. The plural nounin table 2 was. Its singular form is, and + serves as the plural marker.

Plural markers obligatorily shift any genus to plural. This is such a strong featurethat it may be expected to be transmitted all the way through to the co-occurring
adjectives. In this respect, plural has indeed a prominent stature among the all
genus.
Some masculine and neuter nouns have an inherent double genus-feature:
examples are all masculine nouns ending innouns ending in[N(euter)],such assuch as. Whereas

etc. and neuter

contains the genus feature

contains [M(asculine)/P(lural)] andcontains [N/P]. Oncethe feature [P] is activated, the ﬂexemes of co-occurring adjectives must change to+regardless of case̶given that a deﬁnite article also co-occurs.

2.2. The numeral article
The numeral article

which is also called

article, instantiates a somewhat diﬀerent paradigm.
tradition̶proceed to callthe

, i.e. indeﬁnite
I shall̶in deﬁance ofarticle and not the― 125 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 10for two reasons: First, there is a noticeable division among German nouns which
can and cannot co-occur with

. Uncountable nouns (in particular for ﬂuids

and powdery substances) cannot usually do so, and if they occur with, thenouns are not understood as substances but as a certain quantity of a respective
substance. For example,

must always mean

. It cannot

mean coﬀee in general, and thereof one unit.
Second, the distinction deﬁniteness-indeﬁniteness does not strike me asparticularly illuminating. The article

is by no logical means an expressionthat declares a deﬁnite object. Still it conforms to the paradigm established by
the deﬁnite article
in a-. It is true, though, thatandinvolve diﬀerent positions-continuum. Expressions with deﬁnite articles are certainly higher

marked in terms of topic than those with
The property that.

always marks an object as being of one unit, furthermore

serves to contrast the paradigm ofwith those of plural numerals such as(2),(3) etc.
Table 3: Numeral articles and adjectival ﬂexemes
Masculine
Mann

Neuterein jung.

Feminine

KindN

ein alt.

G

ein.es alt.

Mann.es ein.es jung.

Kind.es ein.er klug.

Frauzwei neu.

Autos

D

ein.em alt.

Mannein.em jung.

Kind

Frau

zwei neu.

Autos

A

ein.en alt.

Mannein jung.

Kindein.e klug.e Frau

Pluralein.er klug.

ein.e klug.e Frauzwei neu.e Autos

zwei neu.e Autos

What can be observed from table 3 is that not only the article ﬂexemes but
also the adjectival ﬂexemes are retained in all [+STR] cases̶disregarding plural.
In feminine and plural [ ‒ STR] cases, article ﬂexemes correspond to 5.b) and 5.d)respectively.
Diﬀering instances are masculine and neuter [‒ STR] cases, and plural [+STR] cases.
Since in masculine and neuter [‒ STR] cases, the article does not receive a ﬂexeme
the required features must be expressed at the adjectiveʼs position. In masculine
nominative we ﬁnd ﬂexeme expression 1.a), and in neuter [ ‒ STR] cases we ﬁnd
expression 6.b). The equivalent is true for the plural [+STR] cases. Plural genitive― 126 ―

Articles and Adjectives in the German Noun Phrase

expresses as 1.c) and plural dative as 4.b).
The corollary from these observations is that in the numeral articleʼs paradigm
there are only two adjectival ﬂexemes, + and +. Whenever article ﬂexemes are

not expressed they wander to the adjective and are expressed there. This explains
why the adjectival ﬂexemes in masculine and neuter [‒STR] cases are not +, and italso explains why the plural adjectival ﬂexemes correspond to those of the deﬁnite
article paradigm.
Further members of this paradigm are negating
,

,

,

,

, and

and the possessive articles. In masculine, neuter, and feminine genus

forms produced by these further articles are indistinguishable fromplural forms diﬀer because other than

. However,̶which for logical reasons has no plural,since there is no plural of 1̶the above-mentioned articles can produce pluralforms. Compare table 4 to table 3.
Table 4: Negative and possessive articles and adjectival ﬂexemes
Masculine
kein alt.

Mann

Neuterihr jung.

Feminine

Kind

Pluralmein.e klug.e Frau

unser.e neu.

Autos
Autos

mein.es alt.

Mann.es unser.es jung.

Kind.es dein.er klug.

Frau

eur.er neu.

dein.em alt.

Manneur.em jung.

Kind

Frau

kein.en neu.

Autossein.en alt.

Mannkein jung.

mein.e neu.

Autos

Kind

sein.er klug.

ihr.e klug.e Frau

Observing table 4 and comparing it to table 3 reveals no diﬀerence in the
masculine, neuter, and feminine genus. Plural genus, however, has reverted tothe paradigm presented in table 2. Since the negating and possessive article canreceive ﬂexemes, article ﬂexemes stop in the articleʼs position and do not wander
to the adjectiveʼs position.
Further notice should be taken thatand other numerals can also occur in theadjectiveʼs position. It is possible to say:
(8.1)

d.er ein.e Mann(masculine nominative)(8.2)

d.en zwei Kinder.n(plural dative)― 127 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 10The negator cannot occur in adjective position, and only the singular possessive
articles

,

,

(9.1)

d.ie mein.e(9.2)

d.er ihr.e, and

can occur in rather ﬁxed expressions such as:

The paradigm of the numeral article, thus, conforms to ﬂexeme assignments as
explicated in the previous section, unless articles do not receive ﬂexemes. Thenthe article ﬂexemes attach to the adjectives.

2.3. Expressions without articles
A further paradigm is instantiated by expressions without articles but withadjectives. This happens in the case of uncountable nouns denoting substancesand other expressions. As can be surmised from the observations and explanations
made in the previous two sections, adjectives receive article ﬂexemes since theseﬂexemes ﬁnd no article to attach to. Observe table 5.
Table 5: Adjectives without articles
Masculine

NeuterFeminine

Plural

N

süß.

Saft

kalt.

Bier

warm. Milchneu. Autos

G

süß.

Saft.skalt.

Bier.s

warm.

Milch

neu.

Autos

D

süß.

Saft

kalt.

Bier

warm.

Milch

neu.

Autos

A

süß.

Saft

kalt.

Bier

warm. Milchneu. Autos

Table 5 shows that plural forms conform to those in table 3. Besides masculine
and neuter genitive, all other adjectives receive article ﬂexemes. Masculine
nominative is expressed at the adjectiveʼs position as 1.a), masculine dative as 3.a),masculine accusative as 4.a). Neuter [‒ STR] cases are expressed as 6.b), and neuterdative as 3.b). Feminine [ ‒ STR] cases are expressed as 5.b), and feminine [+STR]
cases as 1.b). Plural [‒ STR] cases are expressed as 5.d), plural genitive as 1.c), andplural dative as 4.b).
Masculine and neuter genitive diﬀer, however. Adjectives receive their usual― 128 ―

Articles and Adjectives in the German Noun Phrase[+STR] ﬂexeme +. The reason for this is that the nouns

andalready

express genitive. Only masculine and neuter nouns have preserved genitive casemarkings. Since genitive is already expressed at the nounʼs position, this feature
stops there and does not travel to the adjectiveʼs position. The reason why genitiveis still expressed in the deﬁnite article paradigm (cf. tables 1 and 2) and in thenegative/possessive paradigm (cf. table 4) is that all deﬁnite articles

alwaysreceive a ﬂexeme, and negative and possessive articles must receive a ﬂexeme lest
they not be mistaken for masculine and neuter [‒ STR] cases.
What could well observed in the sections 2.1 ‒ 3 is that there is indeed an
expression hierarchy in which articles, adjectives and nouns partake. The lessexpression one ﬁnds at the top of the structure, the more expression can be foundat the bottom. Nouns can only express plural and genitive̶the latter in case ofmasculine and neuter nouns. In the remaining instances expression takes placeat the articleʼs position, and if that is̶for reasons speciﬁed̶impossible thenexpression takes place at the adjectiveʼs position.
Thus, we ﬁnd that there is an expression hierarchy running from the noun as
the top via the article to the adjective as the bottom. This corresponds exactly to
the Nested DP proposal. In the next section, I shall ﬁrst readdress the syntactic
structuring, and in the fourth section I shall try to throw some light on otherinteresting phenomena concerning the gNP.

3. The interconnections within the gNP
Section 2 has put some ﬂesh on the bone of contention. While section 1 detailed
the four proposals for structuring the gNP, section 2 detailed how many and which
ﬂexemes are necessary to form an acceptable gNP.
What is clear from section 1 seems almost trivial: articles introduce the gNP
at the left periphery, and nouns close the gNP at the right periphery. I shall notconsider relative clauses and prepositional phrases determining the noun which are
positioned to the nounʼs right side because this issue does not bear on the subject
at hand. Finally, adjectives are positioned between articles and nouns. Thus,
serialization is trivial. Under discussion, however, is how articles, adjectives, andnouns are to be ranked in terms of hierarchy.

― 129 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 10Concerning the discussion in section 2 it can be considered as a given thatgenus features originate within the noun. The opposite assumption would have toclaim that genus features originate directly̶for instance̶at the articleʼs position
and then force nouns to obey to the generated feature. I doubt that the latterassumption is tenable.
Section 2 also showed that there is a diﬀerence between [ ‒ STR ] and [+ STR ]cases. As long as an article is present and the noun is not overtly case-marked,[+STR] cases cause adjectives to take ﬂexeme +. In [ ‒ STR] cases, the selectionof the adjectiveʼs ﬂexemes depend on whether the article takes ﬂexemes or not.
If the article takes a ﬂexeme, then the adjective receives + . If the article takes
no ﬂexeme, then this ﬂexeme must attach to the adjective. In the plural genus,
instead of + ﬂexeme +is triggered, because plural nouns are either marked witha plural suﬃx or contain inherent plural features, which cause the same process as
overtly case-marked nouns.
I shall now propose to think of a preliminary structure of the gNP in terms ofthree: an article slot dubbed, and adjective slot dubbed

dubbed. Serially, the slots must be aligned as [D-A-N].

, and a noun slot

I take it also as settled that genus features originate in N. Nouns have inherent
genus and thus cause certain ﬂexemes to attach to certain articles. Thus the
position where the required features originated can be diﬀerent from the position
where the features are expressed. For instance, case is a feature that is expressedin the position diﬀerent from where it has originated. Verbs in general demand
special cases to occur with NPs. In this respect, cases originate in verb slots, but
are expressed in the respective slots of the NPs. Parallel to this insight, I proposethat the ﬂexemes originate in N, but are generated in D. If an article is present inD, and if the article attaches to the ﬂexeme, then the ﬂexeme +is generated in

A if the NPʼs case is [+STR]. If case is [‒ STR] then ﬂexeme + is generated in A if noplural features override to generate +. This claim covers all scenarios but thosewhere articles take no ﬂexemes and where no articles are present.
In the ﬁrst scenario where articles are present but do not attach to the ﬂexeme,
two options may apply: ﬁrst, the ﬂexeme moves to A and attaches to the adjective,
or second, the adjective moves to D and attaches to the ﬂexeme. Since German isa language where verbs conform to the second option, i.e. they move to combine― 130 ―

Articles and Adjectives in the German Noun Phrasewith their ﬂexemes, it might seem feasible to posit that adjective behave in a similar
fashion. However, a simple test using an adjective that commands a complementshows that adjectives do not move:(10)

ein [sich seiner Sache] gewiss.

MenschIn (10) the numeral article is present in D. According to the ﬁrst scenario theﬂexeme +tomoves from D where it ﬁnds no attachable unit to A where it attaches. The second scenario would move the adjective from A to D. As a result

the adjective

should be located in front of its complement. Since this is not the case, adjectives stay.

The above-made assumption also covers the scenario where no articles arepresent in D. Then ﬂexemes move from D to A and combine with the adjective in A.
Thus, the scenario in which articles do not attach to ﬂexemes is essentially similar
to the scenario where none are present, because in both scenarios the ﬂexeme
generated in D has to move to A in order to attach to the adjective there.
The above-said means that nouns always cause the generation of article ﬂexemes
in D. Since ﬂexemes may not ﬂoat around without attaching to a lexeme, theymust move to A in order to ﬁnd an attachable unit whenever there is no element in
D that properly attaches to the generated ﬂexeme.
These assumptions suﬃce to establish a hierarchy for the slots in the gNP: since
article ﬂexemes are generated in D by order of nouns located in N, the D-slot
must be lower in the hierarchy than the N-slot Thus, D is located beneath N.
Furthermore, because pure adjectival ﬂexemes are generated in A by expressionof respective features in D, A must be located beneath D. Thus, the slot hierarchy
should be [N-D-A]. This hierarchy still leaves room for other processes notaddressed here, in particular the assignment of +ﬂexemes when plural features

occur in N, or the semantic selection of adjectives by nouns. Nouns in N stillhave̶albeit indirect̶access to A. The serial alignment [D-A-N] and the slot
hierarchy [N-D-A] lead to a conﬁguration that is equivalent to structuring as positedby the Nested DP proposal. A constituency grammatical tree structure would, thus
look like ﬁgure 2.

― 131 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 10

Fig.2: Nested DP-structure

The slots in ﬁgure 2 are rendered as boxes,
, and

,

, and

mean

,

respectively, and the arrows depict generation

caused by origination. The- and-nodes are X-bar-syntactic nodes. In X-bar-syntax the slots would also double as. The resulting units are highlighted witha slightly gray background for better recognition. In order to generate a virtual
dependency tree, all-,-, and-nodes must be pruned, and the slots must

be connected along the arrows. From now on, I shall only include the top nodeand

if they are needed in order to conserve space.

Notice has to be taken that article ﬂexemes move from D (=both types of category are) to A (=). Since-categories, I shall assume the movement as possible,

although it occurs not upwards in the tree but downwards.

4. Various phenomena inside the gNP
It is still to early to dismiss the other three proposals concerning the structureof the gNP. Some claims, though, can be made at this stage. If for instance thegeneration process of ﬂexemes is considered as taking an upward path, the DP
proposal would still be valid. However, the DP proposal must also account for― 132 ―

Articles and Adjectives in the German Noun Phrase

scenarios where an article does not attach to a ﬂexeme or where no article ispresent. Then the ﬂexeme would have been generated in D, but had to movefrom there down to N and from there to A. That is a rather long way. The sameproblems plague the Traditional proposal and the Dual-head proposal since there
A is connected to D via N. In order to shed more light on the gNP, I shall discuss
some structures involving the gNP in this section.

4.1 Empty D-slots
The scenario that no articles occur only poses a problem when a case feature
is expressed in N. Otherwise there are no empty D-slots, if adjectives are aroundbecause D-ﬂexemes move to A if no article is present in D, or if an article is present
in D but does not attach to the article ﬂexeme. Thus, employing the structure
shown in ﬁgure 2 the next expression(11)

süß.er Saftcan be rendered as shown in ﬁgure 3.

Fig.3: Structure of (11)(11) depicts an expression where no article is present. However, if an article
is present but does not attach to the ﬂexeme, then ﬂexeme must move to A. One― 133 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 10example is (12).
(12)

ein alt.er Mann

In (12)

does not attach to the ﬂexeme + . Therefore, the ﬂexeme moves to

A and attaches to the adjective. The structure is shown in ﬁgure 4

Fig.4: Structure of (12)However, empty D-slots occur whenever a case feature is expressed in N. An
example is (13).
(13)

süß.en Saft.s

In (13) the noun is marked with overt genitive case. This means that a ﬂexeme(expression 2.a) is generated in D but this ﬂexeme does not move to A, because
this movement is blocked by the occurrence of genitive case in N. The structure is
depicted in ﬁgure 5.

― 134 ―

Articles and Adjectives in the German Noun Phrase

Fig.5: Structure of (13)For the Nested DP proposal, (13) and its structure in ﬁgure 5 constitute the mostsalient counter-argument. On the other hand, the Traditional proposal, the DP
proposal and the Dual-head proposal handle (13) well. Since there, D and A are
not connected no problems arise. The Nested DP proposal can only oﬀer thatnouns in N must have access to adjectives in A anyway, due to semantic selection.
Furthermore such structures are rare compared with those in which articles arepresent in D.

4.2 Empty N-slots
The situation is reversed, however, if N is empty. At least in contemporary
German, expressions with empty N-slots are much more frequent that thosewith empty D-slots. There are two scenarios where N-slots can be empty: ﬁrst,
the ﬂexeme stays in D, and second, it has moved to A. An example for the ﬁrst
scenario is (14).
(14)

d.er ein.ee.g. from: d.er ein.e Mann

― 135 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 10Fig.6: Structure of (14)An example for the second scenario is (15).
(15)

mein ein.er

e.g. from: mein ein.er Fuß

In (15) the possessive article

cannot attach to the ﬂexeme; therefore theﬂexeme moves to A in order to attach to the article-adjective
the structure of (15).

Fig.7: Structure of (15)― 136 ―. Figure 7 showsArticles and Adjectives in the German Noun Phrase

It is evident that the Traditional proposal, the DP proposal, and the Dual-headproposal face eminent problems as soon as nouns are elided. As in all these
proposals formal features must move from N to A, it is unclear how N-ellipsis ishandled there. Worst fare the Traditional and the Dual-head proposal because
D-slots and A-slots are not connected there. The DP proposal is better oﬀ, sinceD-slots connect indirectly to A-slots via the N-slot. Thus the DP proposalʼsproblems are similar to the Nested DP-proposalʼs problems with empty D-slots.

4.3. Empty N-slots and empty A-slots
In German, it can happen that not only the N-slot is empty but also the A-slot.
Since all articles can perform pronominal functions in German, this is indeed aquite frequent scenario in German. Consider the next sentence:(16)

Petra fehlt ihr Buch, und mir fehlt mein Buch/mein.es.

Instead of repeatingin the second conjunct, the latter form

much more common. In the pronominal version of (16) whereisis used,no adjective is present to attach to the ﬂexeme. Thus, the ﬂexeme attaches to thepossessive article. Contrast (16) with (17) where an adjective is present:(17)

Petra fehlt ihr neu.es Buch, und mir fehlt mein alt.es.

Since the adjective

is present in the A-slot in (17), the ﬂexemes to theadjective rather than to the possessive article.

4.4 Stranding
In some languages, parts of a phrase can move during topicalization or
focalization while leaving other parts behind. This phenomenon is known as. In German, certain parts of the NP can move to the topic position at
the beginning of the utterance, thus causing heavy focus on the stranded parts. An
example for this phenomenon is sentence (18).
(18)

habe ichgesehen.

― 137 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 10The italicized words form one semantic unit

wherethe word marked in bold script has been topicalized. Structurally, the stranded
elements are equivalent to (15) and its structure shown in ﬁgure 7. It thus deals
an equivalently lethal blow to the Traditional proposal and the Dual-head proposal
like N-ellipsis did. The DP proposal deals with problems similar to N-ellipsis, but isbetter oﬀ because GB/MP can utilize Trace Theory. The Nested DP proposal does
best because it can posit a simple head-extraction.
But instead of having only

in topical position like in (18), a noun canbe topicalized with its adjective and still have an article in its original position. It isa problem whether this still constitutes stranding. An example would be sentence
(19).
(19)

habe ichgesehen.

There are two possibilities concerning (19). Either one faces a stranding of thearticle, or two phrases with the same theta-marking co-occur. If the former weretrue, then the Nested DP proposal would face a severe counter-argument since twoelements not forming a phrase have been moved. For the DP proposal this would
constitute no problem at all, while for the Traditional proposal, and the Dual-headproposal problems would arise because there the D-slot is part of the NP.
It seems, however, that the second possibility is what one is actually faced within (19). A possible indicator for this assumption is that the adjectival ﬂexemes are
diﬀerent in (18) and (19). In (18) the adjective is inﬂected according the deﬁnite
article paradigm (cf. table 1 and 2), while in (19) the ﬂexeme expresses 5.d) (cf.
table 5).
Thus, the ﬂexeme has already moved to the A-slot in order to attach to theadjective. This could only happen if no article is present, or if no article attaches
to the ﬂexeme. However, deﬁnite articles always attach to ﬂexemes which is why
there is no need for the ﬂexeme to move to the A-slot. Thus, it is highly unlikelythat (19) is a form of stranding of the article. The topicalized NP in (19) would
then have the same structure as the expression (11), cf. ﬁgure 3.

― 138 ―

Articles and Adjectives in the German Noun Phrase

4.5 Co-occurring pronouns
In colloquial German, the pronouns

,

, and

can introduce NPs. Third

person and plural pronouns cannot be used in this way. In this scenario, articles
do not occur, which is why it is thought that the pronouns are located within the
NP they introduce.
(20)

Ich arm.er Kerl!

(21)

Du dumm.es Huhn!

(22)

Sie blöd.e Kuh!

The DP-proposal deals with the pronouns in (20 ‒ 22) as determiners and thus
positions them on the D-slot. This analysis is acceptable since the DP proposal
nests the NP within the DP. The Traditional proposal and the Dual-head proposal
are very likely to treat this phenomenon as a nominal apposition to a pronominal
node. The Nested DP proposal does likewise, because the positioning of the
pronoun in acannot cause the necessary agreement with a verb ﬂexeme.

Figure 8 shows the structure of (20).

Fig.8: Structure of (20)

― 139 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 104.6 Initial possessives
The DP proposalʼs propensity of treating pronouns like articles stems from thetreatment of possessives. Possessives such as

as in (23) cannot co-occur

with articles:(23)

Peters rot.em Wagen(masculine dative)

Again a look at the adjectival ending reveals that it is an article ﬂexeme to which
no article has attached. The article expresses 3.b). Therefore, the ﬂexeme has
moved to the A-slot. It is however, unproblematic to positionon the D-slot.

With this option neither the Traditional proposal, nor the Dual-head proposal or
the Nested DP proposal have any problems. The DP proposal, however, which
puts

at the head position must explain why (23) is not about Peter but about

his red car.

4.7 Phrases with initialandIn German, NPs can be initialized by the adverb
English this corresponds to NPs initialized with
with the numeral article

and the deﬁnite article

and the adjective. In. The adverb can co-occur, the adjective only with

. Examples are expressions (24‒26).
(24)

so ein teur.es Buch(25)

so manch.er jung.e Mann

(26)

solch ein klug.es Kind

A look at the adjectives again is revealing: in (24) and (26), the ﬂexeme has
moved to the A-slot because

does not attach to the ﬂexeme. In (25) the article

attaches properly to the ﬂexeme which is why the adjective in A receives ﬂexeme+ . The question is of course whereandare located. I am unsure how

the Traditional proposal, the DP proposal, and the Dual-head proposal would treat
these cases, but the Nested DP proposal could well treat these cases as adverb
movements into the-slot. This would be justiﬁed because (24 ‒ 26) can be― 140 ―

Articles and Adjectives in the German Noun Phrase

rearranged to have the adverb inside the AP.
(24ʼ)

ein so teur.es Buch

(25ʼ)

manch.er so jung.e Mann(26ʼ)

ein solch klug.es Kind

Expressions (24) and (25) should then be structured as is shown in ﬁgures 9 and
10.

Fig.9: Structure of (24)Fig.10: Structure of (25)

Notice that the ﬂexeme has moved to A in ﬁgure 9, but stayed in D in ﬁgure 10.

4.8 Fused articles
In German, some prepositions can form compounds with article ﬂexemes. These
prepositions are

,

,

,

, and

. The ﬁrst four prepositions combine withmasculine and neuter article ﬂexemes, while

can take all genus besides plural.

(27)

am Markta[n+d.e]m Markt(masculine dative)(28)

am Autoa[n+d.e]m Auto(neuter dative)(29)

ans Autoa[n+d.a]s Auto(neuter accusative)(30)

beim Baumbei[+d.e]m Baum(masculine dative)― 141 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 10(31)

beim Autobei[+d.e]m Auto(neuter dative)(32)

im Schranki[n+d.e]m Schrank(masculine dative)(33)

im Autoi[n+d.e]m Auto(neuter dative)(34)

vom Marktvo[n+d.e]m Markt(masculine dative)(35)

vom Autovo[n+d.e]m Auto(neuter dative)(36)

zum Marktzu[+d.e]m Markt(masculine dative)(37)

zum Autozu[+d.e]m Auto(neuter dative)(38)

zur Bankzu[+d.e]r Bank

(feminine dative)

Since all instances but (29) are [+STR] cases, adjectives always receive +. (29) is

an instance of [‒ STR] case, and thus the adjectives receives + .
(39)

am neu.en Markt(masculine dative [+STR])(40)

am groß.en Haus

(neuter dative [+STR])(41)

zur alt.en Bank

(feminine dative [+STR])(42)

ans rot.e Auto(neuter accusative [‒ STR])

In (27‒42) the NPs are nested within a prepositional phrase. The article ﬂexemes
fuse with the prepositions which makes the assumption tenable that article ﬂexemes
move to the-position where the preposition is located. Thus, expressions (41)and (42) should look like ﬁgure 11 and 12 respectively.

― 142 ―

Articles and Adjectives in the German Noun Phrase

Fig.11: Structure of (41)Fig.12: Structure of (42)In both ﬁgure 11 and 12, the structure of the NP resembles structures with empty
D-slots (cf. ﬁgure 3). The diﬀerence, however, is that in the structure in ﬁgure 3
no article was present. In the structures above, however, a deﬁnite article waspresent in the D-slot which has moved to the-position. If it were otherwise,

the adjective in (42) would have attached to an article ﬂexeme which had to move
there from the D-slot. In this respect, the structures in ﬁgure 11 and 12 are not
identical to the one shown in ﬁgure 3.
Of minor import̶but still of import̶is the question whether only the ﬂexeme
has moved from the D-slot to the-position, or whether the deﬁnite article has

moved there after attaching to the ﬂexeme. In the latter scenario, a morphophonological analysis could explain the fusion process at the-position. In

the former scenario, however, further explanation is required. One possible
explanation could be that due to the movement of the ﬂexeme to the-position,

a deﬁnite article is left stranded before successful attachment to the ﬂexeme.
Unattached deﬁnite articles are not viable and are deleted. Since attachment to theﬂexeme is not always unsuccessful, again further explanations are required when

― 143 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 10attachment takes place and when it does not. For instance, if the PP introduces arelative clause the ﬂexeme must not move to the-position. If a relative clauselinks to a NP in the main clause that itself is nested within a PP headed by apreposition which can incur fusion, then fusion may not take place. Sentence (43)shows that fusion may not take place in relative clauses.
(43)

Die Bank,, wurde geschlossen.

In (43) the italicized part is the relative clause linking to the noun

. Hereonly the non-fused version is correct. Sentence (44) is an example for non-fusion
in a main clause PP to which a relative clause links.
(44)

Ich gehe zu der/*zur Bank,

gehst.

The italicized relative clause links to. Since Bank is nested within a PP

headed by a preposition that can fuse with article ﬂexemes, fusion could occur but
is disallowed because a relative clause links to it.

5. Summary
Section 2 outlined the morpho-syntactic workings inside a gNP. Based on the
distinction between [‒ STR] and [+STR] cases, it was shown that as long as an article
is present and the noun is not overtly case-marked, [+STR] cases cause adjectives totake ﬂexeme +. In [‒ STR] cases, the selection of the adjectiveʼs ﬂexemes depend

on whether the article takes ﬂexemes or not. If the article takes a ﬂexeme, thenthe adjective receives + . If the article takes no ﬂexeme, then this ﬂexeme must
attach to the adjective. In the plural genus, instead of + ﬂexeme +is triggered,because plural nouns are either marked with a plural suﬃx or contain inherent
plural features. Figure 13 simpliﬁes these insights into two principles.

― 144 ―

Articles and Adjectives in the German Noun Phrase

Fig.13: Morpho-syntactic principles for the gNP

Section 3 found that based on the principles shown in ﬁgure 13, it could beassumed that the hierarchy of D-, A- and N-slots should be thus, that the N-slot
dominates the D-slot which in turn dominates the A-slot. Figure 2 expressed thishierarchy in terms of a constituency grammatical phrase marker of a type currently
used in modern linguistics.
Section 4 discussed eight issues incurring problems to diﬀering degrees for thefour proposals concerning the structure of the gNP. These were empty D-slots,
empty N-slots, empty D-slots and N-slots, stranding, co-occurring pronouns, initialpossessives, phrases with initialand, and fused articles. The discussion

found that most issues involve signiﬁcant problems for the Traditional and theDual-head proposal. In particular empty N-slots pose problems for these proposals
and for the DP-proposal. Stranding, initial possessives and fused articles alsopose problems for the Traditional and the Dual-head proposal. However, they
do not undermine the DP-proposal nor the Nested DP-proposal. The Nested
DP-proposalʼs foremost problem is the handling of empty D-slots, in particularin scenarios without articles and overtly case-marked nouns such as masculine
genitive(cf. ﬁgure 5). However, the Nested DP-proposal did well inall other problem areas, and also accounts to the most insightful degree of themorpho-syntactic processes involved in structuring a gNP. The Nested DP-proposal
can do so by assuming that the ﬂexeme originating in the N-slot is generated in
the D-slot, and that ﬂexemes can move to other-slots. In this respect, it is evenmore theoretically consistent than the DP-proposal which has to involve
categories.

― 145 ―

-

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 10

Literature:
Bhatt, Christa (1990): Die syntaktische Struktur der Nominalphrase im Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr
Chomsky, Noam (1981): Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶ (1995): The Minimalist Program. Cambridge & London: MIT Press.
Eroms, Hans-Werner (1988): Der Artikel im Deutschen und seine dependenzgrammatische
Darstellung. In:

13, 2. 257‒308.

̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶ (2000): Syntax der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Groß, Thomas Michael (1993): NP vs DP. In:

48. 3‒28.

Olsen, Susan (1991a): Die deutsche Nominalphrase als „Determinansphrase . In:.

Susan Olsen & Gisbert Fanselow (eds.). Tübingen: Niemeyer. 35‒56.
̶̶̶̶̶̶ (1991b): AGR(eement) und Flexion in der deutschen Nominalphrase. In:. Gisbert Fanselow & Sascha Felix (eds.). Tübingen:
Niemeyer. 50‒69.

― 146 ―