In:The Noun Phrase in English: Past and present
Edited by Alex Ho-Cheong Leung and Wim van der Wurff
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 246] 2018
► pp. 11–46
Chapter 2Complex NPs with third-order entity clauses
Towards a grammatical description and semantic typology
Published online: 18 June 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.246.02div
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.246.02div
Abstract
This article focuses on complex NP constructions of the form ‘determiner (+ adjective) + noun (+ complementiser) + clause’, which refer to third-order entities, defined by Lyons (1977: 443) as “such abstract entities as propositions, which are outside time and space”. Their functional structure has so far tended to be analysed in terms of one syntagmatic model, either as an appositive structure defined by the criterion that NP and clause have identical reference (e.g. Quirk et al. 1985) or as a complementation structure in which the noun is viewed as licensing the complement clause (e.g. Huddleston & Pullum 2002). I argue that, as unified descriptions, neither of these analyses can be maintained. I propose instead that these NPs divide into two distinct subtypes on the basis of different grammatical behaviour: one in which the third order entity clause is premodified by the noun and one in which it complements the head noun. Starting from this basic functional-structural division, I propose a typology that distinguishes the main semantic classes of nouns patterning with third-order entity clauses. The typology aims to capture the most important semantic distinctions between the subtypes of these complex NPs.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Main analyses in the literature
- 2.1Complex NPs with appositive clauses
- 2.2Complex NPs with noun complement clauses
- 3.Basic outline of a grammatical description
- 3.1Complex NPs with a complementation relation between noun and clause
- 3.2Complex NPs with a modification relation between noun and clause
- 3.3The main feature shared: nominalised third order entity clauses
- 4.A semantic typology of NPs with third-order entity clauses
- 4.1A semantic typology of NPs with a complementation relation between noun and clause
- 4.1.1Nouns taking presupposed complement clauses
- 4.1.2Nouns taking non-presupposed complement clauses
- 4.2A semantic typology of NPs with a modification relation between noun and clause
- 4.1A semantic typology of NPs with a complementation relation between noun and clause
- 5.Conclusion
Acknowledgements Notes References
References (42)
Acuña-Fariña, Juan Carlos. 1996. The Puzzle of Apposition. Santiago: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.
Acuña-Fariña, Juan Carlos. 2009. Aspects of the grammar of close apposition and the structure of the noun phrase. English Language and Linguistics 13: 453–481. doi:
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
Breban, Tine, Davidse, Kristin & Ghesquière, Lobke. 2011. Types of phoric relations expressed by complex determiners in English. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 2689–2703. doi:
Butler, Chris. 2003. Structure and Function: A Guide to Three Major Structural-Functional Theories [Studies in Language Companion Series 63–64]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Davidse, Kristin. 1994. Fact projection. In Perspectives on English: Studies in Honour of Professor Emma Vorlat, Keith Carlon, Kristin Davidse & Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (eds), 259–286. Leuven: Peeters.
Davidse, Kristin. 2003. A corpus check of the factive presupposition. In Configurations of Culture: Essays in Honour of Michael Windross, Aline Remael & Katja Pelsmaekers (eds), 115–126. Apeldoorn: Garant.
Davies, Eirian. 2001. Propositional attitudes. Functions of Language 8: 217–251. doi:
Declerck, Renaat. 1988. Studies on Copular Sentences, Clefts and Pseudo-Clefts. Leuven & Dordrecht: Leuven University Press & Foris. doi:
Delacruz, Enrique. 1976. Factives and proposition level constructions in Montague Grammar. In Montague Grammar, Barbara Partee (ed.), 177–199. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Francis, Gill. 1993. A corpus-driven approach to grammar. In Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair, Mona Baker, Gill Francis & Elena Tognini-Bonelli (eds), 138–156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:
Gentens, Caroline. 2016. The Factive-Reported Distinction in English: Representational and InterpersonalSemantics. PhD dissertation, University of Leuven.
Huddleston, Rodney. 1988. Constituency, multi-functionality and grammaticalisation in Halliday’s Functional Grammar. Journal of Linguistics 24: 137–174. doi:
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP.
Kallulli, Dalina. 2010. Belief will create fact: On the relation between givenness and presupposition, and other remarks. Theoretical Linguistics 36: 199–208. doi:
Kiparsky, Paul & Kiparsky, Carol. 1971. Fact. In Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology, Danny Steinberg & Leon Jakobovits (eds), 345–369. Cambridge: CUP.
Kuno, Susumo. 1970. Some properties of non-referential noun phrases. In Studies in General and Oriental Linguistics, Presented to Shiro Hattori on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, Roman Jakobson & Shigeo Kawamoto (eds), 348–373. Tokyo: TEC Corporation for Language and Educational Research.
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.
Martin, James. 1992. English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:
McGregor, William. 1992 The place of circumstantials in systemic-functional grammar. In Advances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent Theory and Practice, Martin Davies & Louise Ravelli (eds), 136–149. London: Pinter.
Nuyts, Jan. 2005. The modal confusion: On terminology and the concepts behind it. In Modality: Studies in Form and Function, Alex Klinge & Henrik Høeg-Müller (eds), 5–38. London: Equinox.
Prince, Ellen. 1992. The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness and information-status. In Discourse Description: Diverse Analyses of a Fund-raising Text [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 16], Sandra Thompson & William Mann (eds), 295–325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: CUP. doi:
Vandelanotte, Lieven & Davidse, Kristin. 2009. The emergence and structure of be like and related quotatives: A constructional account. Cognitive Linguistics 20: 777–807. doi:
Van Langendonck, Willy. 1999. Neurolinguistic and syntactic evidence for basic level meaning in proper names. Functions of Language 6: 95–138. doi:
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2007. Rethinking the Coordinate-Subordinate Dichotomy: Interpersonal Grammar and the Analysis of Adverbial Clauses in English. Berlin: Mouton. doi:
WB: Collins WordBanks Online. <[URL]>
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The Semantics of Grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series 18]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
