The Structure of Genitive Constructions and Their Derivation
Keywords:genitive constructions, genitive, internal structure, semantic interpretation, syntactic derivation
The present study is mainly concerned with the internal structure of syntactic derivation of genitive constructions. It is argued that structurally the two basic forms of genitive constructions are [DP GenP [D` D XP]] and [DP XP [D` D GenP]] (XP=NumP or NP), with prenominal genitive constructions occupying the [Spec DP] position and post-nominal genitive constructions in [Comp D`]. Between the genitive constructions and the functional head D, there is a feature checking relation, aiming to check some uninterpretable agreement features of the functional head. This relation is realized by different means in different languages. In languages such as English, German, Italian, Norwegian, Icelandic and Hebrew, it is realized via the overt movement of the genitive construction to the specifier position of the functional head, while in Chinese genitive construction, it is realized simply by feature matching. Thus, the syntactic derivation of the English genitive constructions is only one step further than that of Chinese genitive constructions. Based on this argument, the author proposes an analysis for the derivation of natural language genitive constructions, and uses it to account for the derivation of genitive constructions in relevant languages prior to the movement of the head nouns.
Abney, S. (1987). The English Noun Phrase in Its Sentential Aspects[D], pp. 193-200, PhD Dissertation., MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Bernstein, J. B. (2000). The DP Hypothesis: Identifying Clausal Properties in the Nominal Domain[A]. In Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds.). The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory [C], pp. 536-561. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Chomsky, N. (2004). Beyond Explanatory Adequacy[A]. In A.Belletti(ed.). Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures[C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, N. (2006). Approaching UG from Below[P]. MIT.
Fodor, J., & Sag, I. (1982). Referential and Quantificational Indefinites[J]. Linguistics and Philosophy, 5, pp. 355-398.
Hornstein, N., Nunes, J., & Grohmann, K. K. (2005). Understanding Minimalism[M], pp. 305-307. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Longobardi, G. (1994). Reference and Proper Names: A Theory of N-Movement in Syntax and Logical Form[J]. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, pp. 609-665.
Longobardi, G. (2000). The Structure of DPs: Some Principles, Parameters, and Problems [A]. In Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds.). The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory [C], pp. 562-603. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Ouhalla, J. (2001). Introducing Transformational Grammar: From Principles and Parameters to Minimalism[M], pp. 201-206. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, Edward Arnold (Publishers) Limited.
Ritter, E. (1991). Two Functional Categories in Noun Phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew[A]. In S. Rothstein (ed.). Syntax and Semantics [C], pp. 37-62. San Diego: Academic Press.
Szabolcsi, A. (1994). The Noun Phrase[A]. In F. Kiefer and K. É. Kiss (eds.). Syntax and Semantics Vol. 27: The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian [C], pp. 179-274. San Diego: Academic Press.
Yang, Y. (2008). The Syntactic Status of De and Some Relevant Issues[J]. Chinese Linguistics, 3, pp. 51-63.
How to Cite
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.