Determiner phrase
A determiner phrase (DP) is a syntactic unit in generative linguistics headed by a functional category D, the determiner (such as the, a, this, or every), which takes a noun phrase (NP) or related projection as its complement, forming a maximal projection that parallels the structure of clauses headed by inflection or complementizers.[1][2] The DP hypothesis, first systematically proposed by Steven Abney in his 1987 MIT dissertation, revolutionized the analysis of nominal expressions by treating determiners not as specifiers or adjuncts within an NP, but as heads of their own phrasal category, thereby resolving longstanding issues in X-bar theory such as the exocentric nature of possessives and the dual properties of gerunds.[1] Under this framework, the basic structure of a DP follows X-bar principles: it consists of a head D, an intermediate D' (combining D with its complement, often an NP), and a specifier position (potentially occupied by possessors or quantifiers), as in the tree representation [DP [Spec] [D' D NP]], exemplified by John's book where John's is in Spec-DP, 's realizes D, and book is the NP complement.[1][2] More extended variants incorporate additional functional layers, such as a Number Phrase (NumP) between D and NP to encode plurality (e.g., -s in these books), allowing determiners to select NumP as complement: [DP D [NumP Num NP]].[2] Key arguments for the DP analysis include cross-linguistic evidence of agreement between determiners and nouns or possessors in languages like Hungarian, Turkish, and Yupik, where D hosts agreement features (AGR) analogous to those in inflectional heads; the possibility of PRO subjects in nominals (e.g., the destruction of the city was regrettable, with PRO as subject of destruction); and the behavior of Poss-ing gerunds (e.g., John's destroying the city), which exhibit sentential internal structure (VP complement to D) but nominal external distribution.[1] Determiner elision (e.g., underlying definite in a hundred nights) and scope interactions (e.g., an alleged 500-lb canary, where alleged scopes over the quantifier) further support D as head, eliminating ad hoc specifiers of N and unifying nominal syntax with clausal syntax.[1] This approach has become standard in minimalist syntax, influencing analyses of quantification, binding, and case assignment, though extensions like multiple functional projections (e.g., QP for quantifiers) continue to refine the model.[2]Overview
Definition
In linguistics, a determiner phrase (DP) is a syntactic constituent that functions as the maximal projection of a determiner, which serves as its head. The determiner, often a functional element such as an article (e.g., "the" or "a"), a demonstrative (e.g., "this" or "that"), or a quantifier (e.g., "every" or "some"), combines with a nominal complement to form referential expressions that denote entities or sets. This structure allows determiners to license the noun phrase and its modifiers, enabling the DP to occupy argument positions in sentences, such as subjects or objects.[1] The core components of a DP include the determiner (D) as the head, which selects a noun phrase (NP) as its complement, typically consisting of the noun and its immediate modifiers like adjectives. Specifiers, such as possessors (e.g., "John's" in "John's book"), may occupy the specifier position of DP, while adjuncts like attributive adjectives (e.g., "red" in "the red book") attach within the NP. In possessive constructions, the D head may be phonologically null or realized as genitive marking ('s), assigning case to the possessor in specifier position. This organization reflects X-bar theory principles, where the D head projects the DP structure with specifier, head, and complement positions.[1] A basic representation of DP structure can be depicted as follows, using bracketed notation for a simple definite DP:In this tree, "the" heads the DP, taking the NP "book" as its complement; more complex DPs might include a specifier like [DP [Spec John's] [D'] [D Ø] [NP book]], where Ø is a null determiner.[1] This DP analysis contrasts with the traditional noun phrase (NP) approach, in which the determiner is treated as a specifier of the noun head rather than the phrase's primary head, thereby lacking the functional projection that parallels clausal structures like IP (Inflectional Phrase).[1][DP [D the] [NP [N book]]][DP [D the] [NP [N book]]]
Historical Development
The concept of the determiner phrase (DP) emerged in the 1980s as an extension of X-bar theory, which had previously treated noun phrases (NPs) as endocentric projections headed by the noun in generative grammar frameworks developed in the 1970s.[3] Early ideas building on this foundation explored functional categories within nominal structures, with researchers like Paul Postal noting parallels between pronouns and determiners, suggesting determiners could function as heads rather than mere specifiers. These developments shifted focus from the noun-centric NP views dominant in the 1970s, as seen in Chomsky's (1970) and Jackendoff's (1977) formulations, toward recognizing determiners' central role.[1][3] A pivotal advancement came with Steven Abney's 1987 dissertation, which systematically proposed the DP hypothesis, arguing that determiners head a functional projection parallel to inflectional phrases (IPs) and complementizer phrases (CPs) in clausal structure.[1] Abney's analysis unified various nominal constructions, such as possessives and gerunds, by positing DP as the maximal projection containing an NP complement, thereby resolving issues like the licensing of PRO subjects in nominals. This work built directly on cross-linguistic evidence, particularly from Hungarian, where Anna Szabolcsi (1987) demonstrated functional categories akin to inflection and complementizers within noun phrases, with determiners enabling argumenthood.[4] Szabolcsi's observations of possessor agreement and determiner positioning provided empirical support for treating D as a head parallel to clausal Infl.[4] Further refinements in the early 1990s strengthened the DP framework, notably through Giuseppe Longobardi's (1994) analysis of proper names, which argued that nouns must raise to the D position for referential interpretation, distinguishing argumental from predicative uses.[5] This movement-based account integrated DP with semantic requirements, influencing subsequent generative research. By the mid-1990s, the DP hypothesis had gained widespread acceptance, appearing as standard in generative syntax textbooks and analyses. In the evolution toward the Minimalist Program, introduced by Noam Chomsky in 1995, the DP integrated with core operations like feature checking and Merge, treating functional heads such as D as essential for case and phi-feature valuation. This framework further embedded DP within phase theory from the early 2000s, where nominal phases align with clausal ones for economy-driven derivations. The shift from 1970s NP-centric models to DP adoption marked a major theoretical realignment, solidifying by the late 1990s in mainstream generative linguistics.Theoretical Foundations
Determiner Phrase Hypothesis
The Determiner Phrase Hypothesis proposes that determiners, such as articles, demonstratives, and possessives, project their own phrasal category known as the Determiner Phrase (DP), thereby treating the determiner as the head of the nominal structure with the noun phrase (NP) functioning as its complement.[1] This approach ensures endocentricity in nominal phrases, meaning every phrase is headed by an element of the same category, and establishes parallelism with other functional projections like the Tense Phrase (TP, formerly IP) and Complementizer Phrase (CP), where functional heads similarly dominate lexical projections.[1] The primary motivations for this hypothesis lie in achieving uniformity across phrase structures in generative syntax, aligning with X-bar theory's principles that all major categories head maximal projections.[1] Under the traditional view, determiners occupied the specifier position of an NP, creating an exocentric relation that deviated from the head-complement asymmetry seen in verbal or adjectival phrases; the DP hypothesis reframes the determiner-noun relation as a canonical head-complement configuration, where the determiner selects the NP as its sister, promoting consistency in syntactic architecture.[1] Formally, the DP adheres to X-bar theory's template for phrasal expansion:\text{DP} = \left[_{\text{DP}} \left[_{\text{Spec}} \dots \right] \left[_{\text{D'}} \left[_{\text{D}} \text{D} \right] \left[_{\text{NP}} \text{complement} \right] \right] \right]
Here, D (the determiner head) projects to D' and then DP, with the NP serving as the complement of D, mirroring structures like VP where V heads and selects a complement.[1] This framework integrates with theta-theory by positing that determiners introduce referentiality or quantificational force at the functional layer of the nominal domain, akin to how tense in TP contributes temporal interpretation.[1] The hypothesis was first systematically developed in Abney's 1987 dissertation.[1]
Noun Phrase Analysis
In the traditional analysis of the noun phrase within generative grammar prior to the 1980s, the noun phrase (NP) is conceptualized as an endocentric construction headed by the noun (N), with determiners functioning as specifiers or adjuncts internal to the NP rather than as heads of a distinct projection.[6] This view, foundational to early X-bar theory, posits that the NP serves as the maximal projection encompassing all nominal elements, including articles, demonstratives, possessives, and quantifiers, which modify the head noun without introducing an additional layer of structure. The approach emphasizes uniformity across phrasal categories, treating NPs alongside verb phrases and other projections under a generalized schema.[6] The structural representation of the NP in this framework follows X-bar principles, typically formalized as [{NP} [{Spec} Det] [{N'} N [{PP/AP} complements]]], where the specifier position hosts the determiner, and the N' intermediate projection includes the head noun along with its complements (e.g., prepositional phrases) or adjuncts (e.g., adjectives). Jackendoff (1977) extends this to a multi-level bar structure, allowing multiple specifiers at levels such as N'', N''', with determiners occupying higher specifier slots to accommodate elements like genitives or quantifiers in complementary distribution.[6] For instance, in "the cat," "the" appears in the specifier of NP, sister to N' dominated by the head "cat," while adjuncts like adjectives adjoin to N' or higher bars. This lacks any separate determiner projection, maintaining a flat or layered organization centered on the lexical noun.[6] Central assumptions of this NP analysis hold that nouns inherently bear the predicative content and primary referential load, denoting classes or properties that determiners then modify to specify reference, definiteness, or quantity without altering the head's categorial status. Determiners are thus viewed as optional modifiers that restrict the noun's denotation, such as linking it to discourse context or numerical scope, rather than projecting their own phrase to encode referentiality.[6] Proper nouns, for example, achieve direct reference independently, underscoring the noun's core role in argumenthood. Early generative models illustrate these principles through uniform treatment of determiners. In Jackendoff (1977), possessives like "John's" and quantifiers like "many" occupy specifier positions equivalently, as in [{NP} John's [{N'} book]] or [{N'''} many [{N''} [_{N'} books]]], ensuring parallel handling across nominal constructions without distinguishing possessive from definite determiners structurally. Adjective phrases, such as "very proud" in "very proud woman," may derive via movement to a specifier or adjunction, reinforcing the NP's internal hierarchy.[6] This perspective began shifting in the 1980s toward functional projections like the determiner phrase.[6]Arguments Supporting DP Hypothesis
Structural Parallels with Other Phrases
The determiner phrase (DP) hypothesis posits that noun phrases are embedded within a functional projection headed by a determiner (D), creating structural parallels with other major phrasal categories in the X-bar schema of generative syntax. This mirroring is evident in how DP aligns with the complementizer phrase (CP), where the functional head C selects an infinitival or tensed clause (IP/TP); the inflectional phrase (IP/TP), where the functional head T introduces tense and selects a verb phrase (VP); and the adjective phrase (AP), where the lexical head A projects functional layers for degree modification or comparison. These parallels arise because functional heads like D, C, and T introduce abstract features such as case, definiteness, or agreement, unifying the architecture across categories and supporting a consistent hierarchical organization in universal grammar.[1] Evidence for this symmetry comes from the capacity for recursion and embedding within DPs, akin to the layered functional structure in CPs and TPs. Determiners enable recursive embedding of possessors or modifiers, as in recursive constructions like "John's friend's book," where multiple specifier positions allow successive functional projections similar to how complementizers embed clauses (e.g., "that she thinks that he left"). Gerunds further illustrate this, embedding VP complements under DP (e.g., "John's [discovering [a thesis-writing algorithm]]"), behaving internally like clausal structures while externally patterning as nominals, a parallelism reinforced cross-linguistically in languages like Turkish with genitive-marked gerunds. This recursive potential of determiners mirrors the embedding of TPs under CPs, facilitating complex subordination without violating X-bar principles.[1][1] The uniform X-bar schema is exemplified by comparing a simple DP like "the big dog" to a clausal structure like "that she runs." In tree form:This contrasts with:DP ├── Spec: (empty or possessor) └── D': ├── D: the └── [NP](/page/NP): ├── Spec: big ([AP](/page/AP)) └── N': └── N: dogDP ├── Spec: (empty or possessor) └── D': ├── D: the └── [NP](/page/NP): ├── Spec: big ([AP](/page/AP)) └── N': └── N: dog
Both adhere to the endocentric X-bar template, with functional heads (D, C, T) projecting specifiers for subjects or modifiers and complements for lexical content (NP, TP, VP), eliminating ad hoc exocentric rules and accommodating multiple specifiers in APs (e.g., degree phrases like "too big"). Such consistency extends to APs, where functional projections above A (e.g., for comparatives) parallel D's role in nominals.[1][1] Theoretically, this parallelism simplifies movement operations by treating DP as the maximal projection for nominal arguments, analogous to CP for clauses. For instance, wh-movement targets Spec-CP in questions, while possessor raising or quantifier movement (e.g., "every one" as head-to-head adjunction under D) lands in Spec-DP, providing a unified landing site for case assignment and feature checking without category-specific stipulations. This symmetry enhances binding and control theories, as PRO subjects in nominals (e.g., gerunds) occupy Spec-DP like subjects in Spec-TP, streamlining derivations across the grammar.[1][1][CP](/page/CP) ├── Spec: (empty) └── C': ├── C: that └── TP: ├── Spec: she └── T': ├── T: (tense) └── VP: runs[CP](/page/CP) ├── Spec: (empty) └── C': ├── C: that └── TP: ├── Spec: she └── T': ├── T: (tense) └── VP: runs