4. Structure of noun phrases

4.1. Introduction

It is the aim of this study to examine syntactic vanat1on within the noun phrase across different styles of written English, or more specifically across different styles of newspaper English. In order to be able to show where varia­tion can occur within the noun phrase, it is necessary to spell out in detail its internal structure.

In spite of the fact that the verb phrase has always enjoyed greater populari­ty with linguists, there is no dearth of studies on the English noun phrase. For generative grammarians, the noun phrase received some attention within the X -bar framework. Jackendoff ( 1977), for instance, subjects the noun phrase to a close analysis in order to show its similarity with all the other major phrasal categories. The noun phrase also received attention from generative grammari­ans in discussions about the origin of nominalisations ( cf. Chomsky 1970). The generative semanticists, on the one hand, argued that nominalisations were the result of transformations, whereas the interpretive semanticists argued for nominalisations to be given separate entries from their verbal equivalents in the lexicon (cf. Newmeyer 1986: 106-138 for a short historical account of the controversy).

However, I shall be using a more traditional approach, and for ease of refer­ence I shall take Quirk et a/.' s ( 1985) terminology as a starting point. In sever­al instances I will have occasion to point out what I perceive as weaknesses or shortcomings in their classifications, but in many other respects I cannot even attempt to give as detailed a presentation as they do. They devote four chap­ters (5, 6, 7 and 17) and over 350 pages to the noun phrase and its constitu­ents. Within the scope of the present study I must perforce be selective and concentrate on those issues that are central to the variability of the structure and complexity of noun phrases.

The italicised parts in the following sentences all constitute a noun phrase.

(I) Gustav Husak stepped down as party chief. (2) The old man stepped down as party chief. (3) He stepped down as party chief. (4) Gustav Husak, 74, who restored Czechoslovakia to Communist ortho­

doxy after the brief enlightenment of the 1968 Prague Spring, stepped down as party chief. (DT 18.12.1987, 1.4)

60 Structure of noun phrases

Noun phrases can be realised as nouns, names or pronouns. Nouns and names - but not normally pronouns - can be modified in various ways. The head of the noun phrase is preceded by two slots and followed by one slot, all of which can but need not be filled with linguistic material. It is preceded by the determiner and the premodifier slot and followed by the postmodifier slot. These slots can all be further broken down. The determiner consists of a pre­determiner, a central determiner and a postdeterminer, whereas the premodi­fier consists of a precentral, a central, a postcentral and a prehead. Again, some of these slots may be realised in individual examples while others may remain empty.

The constituent analysis of noun phrases relies to a great extent on paradig­matic relationships. There are no obvious candidates for free variation within the noun phrase. In generative terms, a transformation with a claim to be meaning preserving would be the most likely candidate for free syntactic vari­ation. Romaine ( 1982), for instance, discusses her data of Middle Scots rela­tivisers explicitly in these terms. However, other researchers have pointed out that it is unlikely that there are many transformations that operate within the boundaries of the noun phrase, as for instance Selkirk ( 1977: 286) who claims that

the investigation of noun phrase structure - the determination of the constit­uents that compose the noun phrase - is not without its difficulties, for few transformations, those invaluable tools of constituent structure analysis, ever apply within this domain.

4.2. Premodification

The heads of noun phrases can be modified by a wide range of elements that either precede or follow it. I shall tum first to the premodifying elements. Most commonly they are adjectives, participles or nouns. These elements can be very simple or very complex. As Huddleston ( 1984: 256f) points out:

Strictly speaking, the modifiers should not be analysed (immediately) as words but as phrases, for although they are most frequently single words, there is in general the potential for them to have their own dependents.

In the phrase a supersonic aircraft captain, the noun captain is modified by another noun aircraft, which is in tum modified by the adjective supersonic. This gives structure (5) rather than (6):

(5) the [[supersonic aircraft] captain] (6) the [supersonic [aircraft captain]]

Premodification 61

The structure in (6) would suggest that the referent is a captain of an aircraft and that he or she is supersonic, which is clearly nonsensical. Thus the head of the noun phrase is modified by one single phrase rather than by two individual words. The category of this phrase, however, is controversial. In spite of being a higher level category than a single word, it cannot be a fully fledged noun phrase because it does not allow its own determiner.

(7) *the [[a supersonic aircraft] captain]

I shall not postulate a new name for a category of this level. It suffices to real­ise that it must be assigned "to a distinct phrase category intermediate in the constituent hierarchy between noun and NP" (Huddleston 1984: 258).

Many attempts have been made to systematise and categorise all the possi­ble semantic relationships holding between nouns and their premodifiers (e.g. Ljung 1970; Levi 1978; Warren 1978, 1984; Aarts and Calbert 1979; and Warren (1984: 7-17), who gives a useful summary of work in this area). Aarts and Calbert ( 1979), for instance, distinguish 13 different types of relations such as experience (weary reader), cause (infuriating behaviour) or manner (jast train). However, I shall be concerned with such attempts only to the ex­tent that they shed light on the possible ordering of the elements in noun phrases with multiple modification.

There have also been many attempts to make generalisations about the per­missible or the preferred orderings of premodifiers in noun phrases with multi­ple premodification (e.g. Goyvaerts 1968 (with a review of earlier work), Fries 1970; Martin and Ferb 1973; Abberton 1977; Coates 1977; Bache 1978; Dixon 1982; Coulter 1983; and Warren 1984). Such attempts, of course, de­pend on some categorisation of the premodifying items. Huddleston ( 1984: 259), for instance, notes that "modifiers denoting 'gradable' or 'scalar' proper­ties precede those denoting 'non-gradable' or 'categorial' properties". Goy­vaerts ( 1968) categorises in a similar fashion, although his categories do not offer hard and fast criteria. He postulates (1968: 18) the principle of "the broader, more comprehensive, more general, commoner, before the more spe­cific, more particularising, more detailed, less common". Coates (1977: 15), realising how difficult any succinct categorisation turns out to be, uses syntac­tic criteria: "Whatever criteria are used, one clear generalisation emerges: nominal modifiers (i.e. nouns and denominal adjectives) occur close to the head, while adjectival modifiers occur further away." (her emphasis).

Halliday (1985: 163) calls premodifying items epithets or classifiers. Epi­thets are either experiential if they indicate some quality of a subset of possi­ble referents denoted by the head of the noun phrase more or less objectively, such as the adjectives blue, fast, Long; or else they are attitudinal if they ex-

62 Structure of noun phrases

press the speaker's subjective attitude towards the referent, such as the adjec­tives splendid, silly, fantastic. He notes that attitudinal epithets tend to precede experiential ones. Classifiers, on the other hand, indicate a particular subclass of the thing in question: electric train, passenger train, or wooden train.

This distinction correlates with some syntactic differences. Only epithets can be moved to the front of measure expressions in partitive constructions whereas classifiers cannot be moved. It is possible to say both a cup of strong tea and a strong cup of tea even though the adjective strong, which is an epi­thet, clearly modifies tea and not cup. In contrast, we can only say a slice of brown bread but not a brown slice of bread, because here the adjective is a classifier, which indicates what type of bread we are talking about (Halliday 1985: 17 4 ). The epithets that are possible in front of the measure expressions must be connected to their quantifying function, as in a large cup of tea.

Dixon (1982: 15-34) offers a very sensitive treatment of the ordering of premodifiers which is firmly based on semantic features of the different adjec­tives. He distinguishes seven types of adjectives, that is value (good, bad, ex­cellent); dimension (big, long, thick); physical property (hard, heavy, rough, hot); speed (fast, quick, slow); human propensity (jealous, happy, kind); age (new, young, old); and colour (black, white, red). If there are more than one adjectives in one noun phrase, they will, "in semantically unmarked cases" ( 1982: 25), appear in the order suggested by this list. However, Dixon restricts his list to the most typical adjectives saying very little about premodifying nouns as in oatmeal dog food. And he does not consider adjectives that can function both as a classifier (the fast lane of the Mll) or as an epithet (an ex­tremely fast bicycle race).

Quirk et al. (1985: 437, 1337-1342) distinguish four premodifier slots, which can be filled by specific types of premodifier. The four slots, or pre­modifier positions, are called precentral, central, postcentral and prehead. In contrast to the categorisations mentioned so far, this approach is based on syn­tactic tests. They claim that the four positions or zones correlate largely with semantic classes (1985: 1338), but the correlation is indirect and not always very obvious.

The central position is reserved for the central adjectives. They belong most typically to their word category because they satisfy all the relevant tests. They can occur both predicatively and attributively, they can be intensified by very and they are gradable in that they have comparative and superlative forms.

(8) a big event - the event was big - an exceptionally big event - the biggest event

Premodification 63

(9) an interesting event - the event was interesting - an exceptionally in­teresting event - the most interesting event

( 1 0) a peaceful event - the event was peaceful - an exceptionally peaceful event - the most peaceful event

These examples illustrate three subtypes of central adjectives. Adjectives can be underived such as big in (8). Others would be great, new, hard, cold. The adjective interesting in (9) is deverbal because it is based on the verb "to inter­est", and peaceful in ( 1 0) is denominal because it is based on the noun "peace". Quirk et al. (1985: 1338) claim that there is a tendency for central premodifiers to occur in the order nonderived - deverbal - denominal if two or more central premodifiers of different subtypes are used. Thus the exam­ples under ( 11) are perhaps somewhat more natural than those under ( 12)

( 11) a big interesting event - an interesting peaceful event - a big and peaceful event - a big, interesting and peaceful event

( 12) an interesting big event - a peaceful interesting event - a peaceful and big event - a peaceful, interesting and big event

The central position is preceded by the precentral, which is reserved for pe­ripheral, nongradable adjectives that are most typically intensifiers such as en­tire, certain, and complete. These are peripheral adjectives because they satis­fy only some of the relevant tests. They cannot be used predicatively but only attributively, they can usually not be intensified by very, and they do not have comparative and superlative forms.

(13) the entire event- sheer enjoyment- a mere bungalow (14) *the event was entire- *the enjoyment was sheer- *the bungalow was

mere (15) *the very entire event- *a very sheer enjoyment- *a very mere bun-

galow (16) *the entirest event- ?sheerest enjoyment- ?a merest bungalow

Again a subclassification is possible. The intensifiers can be emphasisers such as certain, definite, plain, pure, sheer; they can be amplifiers such as absolute, entire, extreme, perfect, total; or they can be downtowners such as feeble or slight (Quirk et al. 1985: 1338). However, there are several idiosyncrasies among them. Some of them are possible in predicative position (the silence was total, the heat was extreme, the damage was slight), they may allow being intensified themselves or they may take comparatives and superlatives (his very feeble attempt, under most extreme pressure, moments of purest joy, the most certain failure). Thus they defy any far-reaching generalisation, but they have in common that they always precede other premodifiers.

64 Structure of noun phrases

The postcentral position contains participles and colour adjectives, such as retired, sleeping, red, and pink. These elements are again not central adjec­tives in that they do not satisfy all the relevant tests. They can be used both predicatively and attributively. They are usually not gradable and cannot be intensified.

(17) an established fact- the fact is established- a pink bicycle- the bicy­cle is pink

(18) *a very established fact- *the most established fact- ?a very pink bi­cycle - ?the pinkest bicycle

In the right context basic colour adjectives such as red, pink, green seem to be both gradable and intensifiable but this is not the case for their hyponyms such as scarlet, mercury, zinnobar or jade. Hence (19) is possible but not (20).

(19) This is the pinkest bicycle I have ever seen. (20) *This is the most mercury car I have ever seen.

The prehead position finally is the position nearest to the head of the noun phrase itself and contains the "least adjectival and the most nominal items" (Quirk et al. 1985: 437). Among these there are denominal adjectives such as nationality adjectives like Scottish or Chinese, and "denominal adjectives with the meaning 'consisting of' , 'involving', 'relating to', e.g. experimental, statis­tical, political, statutory" (1985: 437). This comes closest to a semantic defini­tion, but again there are syntactic constraints that hold for this position or zone. The elements in this zone are not gradable, and they cannot be intensified.

(21) privatisation plans- French cheese- the annual meeting (22) *the plans are privatisation - *very privatisation plans - *very French

cheese- but the cheese is French- *a very annual meeting- but the meeting is annual

The examples in (22) show that premodifying nouns cannot be used predica­tively and that they cannot be graded or intensified. The denominal adjectives in this position also cannot be graded or intensified, but they do allow predica­tive position.

The nouns in this position may form quasi-compounds. Very often it is dif­ficult to decide whether a given combination of two nouns should be regarded as a compound or a head of the noun phrase with a premodifying noun in pre­head position. I will say more about compounds below.

The elements in this position have received particular attention from seve al linguists who use various names for them such as transpositional adjective

Premodification 65

(Marchand 1966), first element of an N + aff N compound (Ljung 1970), de­nominal adjective (Coates 1977), nonpredicating adjective (Levi 1978), or first element of a linking construction (Aarts and Calbert 1979). The terms are not always exactly coextensive, but they all refer to premodifiers that are not central adjectives and occur nearer to the head. The additional criteria depend on the point of view of the individual researcher some indication of which is given by the technical terms that are used for them.

To summarise, the four positions or zones which contain premodifiers in noun phrases can be distinguished on the basis of four simple syntactic tests and on the basis of their respective position. Those elements that can be used not only attributively but also predicatively and that can moreover be intensi­fied, e.g. by very, and that have comparative and superlative forms are central adjectives and appear in central position. Elements that function as modifiers but do not satisfy all these tests and are positioned to the left of central adjec­tives (either actually or potentially) are precentral adjectives. The remaining premodifiers have to be classified either as postcentral or as prehead. The dif­ference between the two is largely morphological and semantic. Deverbal ad­jectives and colour adjectives are in postcentral position, whereas denominal adjectives and nouns are in prehead position.

Quirk et al. generalise their observations about the ordering of premodifiers in a way that is very similar to Halliday's conclusion quoted above. They sug­gest that

modifiers relating to properties which are (relatively) inherent in the head of the noun phrase, visually observable, and objectively recognizable or assess­ible, will tend to be placed nearer to the head and be preceded by modifiers concerned with what is relatively a matter of opinion, imposed on the head by the observer, not visually observed, and only subjectively assessible. (Quirk et al. 1985: 1341)

Halliday's observation that attitudinal epithets precede experiential ones, and that classifiers follow the epithets and immediately precede the head of the noun phrase accords well with the suggestion that relatively inherent and ob­jective qualities tend to be preceded by subjective and noninherent modifica­tions. However, it is important to notice that this is not a rule or a constraint, it is merely a tendency.

On the basis of these observations it seems plausible to expect some sys­tematic variation in the way in which the various newspapers use premodifi­ers. Intuitively one might expect that up-market papers use more so-called "objective" classifiers in prehead position and possibly fewer intensifiers in precentral position.

66 Structure of noun phrases

There is some evidence in the literature that this is indeed the case. Levi ( 1978: 226), for instance, suggests that there is a positive correlation between the formality of speech and the frequency with which nouns in premodifying position are replaced by denominal adjectives:

The higher the stylistic or technical level of the discourse, and the higher the educational level of the speaker (and the addressee), the more likely that Morph Adj [i.e. Morphological Adjectivalization] will have been applied to produce a nominal adjective. For example, medical personnel would be more likely than laymen to speak among themselves of renal disease rather than kidney disease, just as engineers or geologists would be more likely than nonspecialists to use fluvial currents in place of river currents.

On the basis of this quote one might rather expect more premodifying adjec­tives than nouns in the up-market papers, whereas Quirk et al. 's and Halli­day's observations lead one to expect the contrary. On closer inspection, how­ever, this is not necessarily so because the adjectives given by Levi and ascribed by her to a more formal level than the corresponding nouns are still classifying. Thus we would have to expect more classifiers in the up-markets than in the mid-markets or down-markets, but at the same time a higher pro­portion of adjectival classifiers. This makes clear that a comparison of pre­modifying nouns versus premodifying adjectives would not be sufficient un­less the semantic function is taken into consideration.

The empirical data which supports this hypothesis for my corpus of news­paper language will be given in chapter 7 below. For the moment it suffices to illustrate the regularity of the above-mentioned ordering tendencies with some illustrations picked out of my corpus at random.

Table 4.1. Examples of multiple premodification

det pre- central postcentral pre head head post-central mod

(23) some very odd dehydrated butter (24) a hard, glossy Teflon-like surface (25) converted Soviet transport planes (26) the great modem media moguls (27) no intense personal vision of life

References: (23): DMa 18-12-87, 9.5; (24): DMa 18-12-87, 9.5; (25): I 6-10-87, 8.1; (26): FT 22-1-88, 18.1; (27): DT 18-12-87, I 0.5.

Premodification 67

The examples in table 4.1 all correspond to the ordering rules as set out above. Sentence (28), given below, contains a rather more complex, and presumably somewhat extreme example of noun modification.

(28) Sotheby's is selling off Elton's effects in a four-day, 2000-lot, you've­seen-the-catalogue, now-wear-the-T-shirt sale that kicks off the autumn saleroom season. (Sunday Times Magazine 7-8-88, 36.2)

There are four premodifiers, two of which consist of a numeral attached to a noun, while the other two are sentential in that they consist of an entire clause of their own with subject and predicate. The individual constituents of these four premodifiers are joined together by hyphens. All of them have to be as­signed to prehead position. None of them can be regarded as an intensifiers, none of them could be graded, they are certainly not colour adjectives or non­gradable participles, and therefore they must be in prehead position. They must be seen as classifiers, which do not just describe the head of the noun phrase but actually restrict its possible referents to a small subgroup.

Premodifying elements in prehead position are often used as qualifiers, which means that they restrict the reference of the head of the noun phrase to a subset of the things it denotes. In many cases the resultant expression is fairly permanent, and is used regularly. Eventually the meaning of the combined ex­pression may differ from the meaning that is derivable from the meaning of its constituents. In this case the term compound or nominal compound is often used. However, in spite of a great deal of attention devoted to this construc­tion, there is little agreement on the exact definition of nominal compounds ( cf. Bauer 1978; Dierickx 1970; Jankovic 1986; Johansson 1980; Leonard 1984; Osselton and Osselton-Bieeker 1962; Pennanen 1980; Sampson 1980; and Warren 1978).

(29) lighthouse - light music (30) software - soft option (31) hothouse - hot house (32) blackbird - black bird (33) darkroom- dark room

The first element in these examples is always the compound which is contrast­ed to the second element that is not usually regarded as a compound. Com­pounds tend to have a primary stress on the first element, whereas noun phrase combinations tend to have it on the head of the phrase. In writing this is often, but by no means invariably, reflected in the orthography. Compounds are spelled in one word or they are hyphenated, but noun phrase combinations are

68 Structure of noun phrases

written in two words. Quirk et al. (1985: 1569) note that despite the idiosyn­cratic spelling conventions, there is in general "a progression from open to sol­id as a given compound becomes established, and hence widely recognised and accepted as a 'permanent' lexical item". The criterion of primary stress is notoriously unreliable (see in particular Levi 1978; Pennanen 1980; and Sampson 1980).

In deciding whether to treat combinations such as those in (29) to (33) as single word compounds or as premodified noun phrases, I accept spelling as a guide because I want to refrain from imposing my intuition on the data under analysis.

To summarise this section on premodifiers, the most striking generalisation that can be made across all the elements that can be present in a noun phrase to the left of the head of the noun phrase, recalls Halliday' s quotation given above. The noun phrase starts with the most deictic elements, the determiner, and more specifically with the predeterminers like all and both and the cen­tral determiners, i.e. the articles as such. The most central purpose of these ele­ments is to help the addressee to pick out the correct referent either from the linguistic or the situational context.

The cardinal and ordinal numbers are also important elements to establish the correct referent, by giving the exact number or the position in a sequence of elements. The next elements are first the more evaluative and then the more descriptive adjectives. Finally, in prehead position, there are the classifiers that restrict the set of referents of the head of the noun phrase. Not surprising­ly, perhaps, it is this element that can be merged with the head of the noun phrase to form a compound, which by degrees may be regarded as a lexical­ised item in its own right.

4.3. Postmodification

It has often been noted that posthead modifiers are more explicit than prehead modifiers (e.g. Bolinger 1967; Huddleston 1984: 267; and Quirk et al. 1985: 1243f). There are basically three types of postmodifiers that vary considerably in their own rights as to their explicitness. The finite relative clause is the most explicit of all the modifiers. The infinitive clauses and the -ing or -ed parti­ciple clauses do not contain a finite tense element and are accordingly less ex­plicit. Postmodification by a prepositional phrase is still less explicit as there is no verb indicating the argument structure of the modifier.

Postmodification 69

4.3.1. Relative clauses

As mentioned above, relative clauses are the most explicit type of noun modi­fier. The head of the noun phrase is embedded within a subordinate argument structure with clear indications as to the function of the head of the noun phrase within this structure and with a clear encoding of the tense which al­lows the addressee to situate the proposition of the relative clause within the nonlinguistic context. (For detailed studies of relative clauses see in particular Hartvigson 1969; Ryden 1970, 1974; Aissen 1972; Taglicht 1972, 1977; Mi­chiels 1975, 1977; Pagnoux 1976; Bresnan and Grimshaw 1978; Downing 1978; Weisler 1980; Young 1980; Olofsson 1981; Romaine 1982, 1984; Leh­mann 1984; Andrews 1986) The distinction between restrictive and nonrestric­tive modification is particularly pertinent for relative clauses because the dif­ference is grammaticalised for this modifier.

(34) A promotions boss who fiddled a raffle in front of a 23,000 soccer crowd to win his sister a car was jailed yesterday. (DMa 18-12-87, 15.5)

(35) Teachers who go on strike will pay dearly for deserting their class­rooms. (St 19-12-87, 2.3)

(36) The ban followed the wild scenes that erupted at Wembley two weeks ago after Frankham was stopped in the first round by Billy Sims of Hackney. (St 17-12-87, 32.5)

In sentences (34) to (36), the headnouns are modified by relative clauses given in italics. The modifier offers a way of adding a complete proposition about the referent. The relative pronoun encodes the rudiments of a gender distinc­tion, in that who is restricted to human, or humanised, referents. In all these examples, the relative pronoun, referring to the same referent as the noun it modifies, functions as subject in the relative clause. In sentence (37), on the other hand, there is a zero relative pronoun, which functions as direct object of the subordinate clause.

(37) after all the criticism the Met men received after the October hurri­cane. (To 18-12-87, 5.1)

In all the examples (34) to (37) the relative clause is clearly restrictive in that the addressee would not be able to identify the intended referent without the information given therein. In (34) and (35) the noun phrase is indefinite, and the modifier restricts the set of possible referents to just one individual or to a specific subset. In (36) and (37), the noun phrase is definite. The addressee is taken to be able to pick out the correct referent on the basis of the identifica­tion given within the noun phrase itself.

70 Structure of noun phrases

In the next two examples the addressee does not depend on the relative clause in order to pick out the correct referent. The relative clause in both cas­es modifies a proper noun.

(38) The editor of The Hindu, Mr N. Ram, who had flown specially from Madras, urged the president to set Mr Jeyaraj free. (G 31-10-87, 9.1)

(39) All the honours went to Southend who peiformed with great courage and no little skill and who could possibly have won the tie by a wider margin had they chosen so to do. (T 8-10-87, 42.2)

In the excerpt given under (38), the relative clause is bracketed by commas. The name of the individual is given in apposition to his role which conferred some newsworthiness on him. The entire apposition thus identifies the intend­ed referent unambiguously. The relative clause simply adds some further in­formation which may be essential for a clear understanding of the article of which this excerpt forms a part, but it is not needed for identifying the referent of the head of the noun phrase of its superordinate phrase.

The same is true for example (39). In the context of the article, it is perfect­ly clear that the proper noun Southend refers to the football team of that name. Both relative clauses must therefore be interpreted to be nonrestrictive, even if the author or the responsible editor failed to separate them off by commas.

The distinction between restrictive and nonrestrictive is valuable, but we should be prepared to view it as a gradient rather than as a dichotomy be­tween two homogeneous categories. (Quirk et al. 1985: 1257)

Relative clauses have long proved a favourite area for researchers interested in syntactic variation because they offer the most convincing example of free variation within the noun phrase. The choice of one particular relative pro­noun in favour of another very often does not affect propositional meaning, and therefore it can be assigned to some other factors - linguistic or nonlin­guistic - that influence the choice. The most elaborate study of the variation of the relative pronoun is Romaine ( 1982).

4.3.2. Appositive clauses

Appositive clauses bear some superficial resemblances to relative clauses. They can be restrictive or nonrestrictive, but unlike relative clauses they are always introduced by the same particle, i.e. that. This particle, again unlike relative clauses, does not have the function of subject or object in the clause it introduces.

Postmodification 71

( 40) Mikhail Gorbachev' s new wave rolled on yesterday with the promise that Russia would stop pushing around her Iron Curtain neighbours. (DE 5-11-87, 4.2)

(41) the Government received warnings last week- while the siege at Peter­head Prison was going on - that Perth could be the next flash point. (I 6-10-87, 1.3)

(42) Another theory, that the fire had started in rubbish under the escalator, was also challenged when ... (T 20-11-87, 2.6)

Examples (40) and (41) are both restrictive appositive clauses. They would be not just semantically but also syntactically incomplete without the appositive clause. Example ( 42), on the other hand, shows a nonrestrictive appositive clause, which could be left out without rendering the sentence ungrammatical, even though it is semantically of vital importance. Without it, the reader would have no idea what kind of theory was meant.

Example (41) is perhaps slightly unusual because the appositive clause is postposed to the end of the superordinate clause. There are two adverbials in apposition, one phrasal, the other clausal, that intervene between the modified head and its appositive clause.

4.3.3. Nonfinite clauses

Nonfinite clauses as postmodifiers are less explicit than relative clauses be­cause they do not encode the tense directly. They may include a participle, ei­ther present or a past, or an infinitive. The tense relations have to be inferred from the context.

In the examples (43) to (47) nouns are postmodified by a -ed participle clause.

(43) Perth jail, built in /859, is Scotland's oldest prison. (I 6-10-87, 1.3) (44) He eventually received 4,800 from his six applications Lodged under

variations of his name (I 6-10-87, J .5) ( 45) Police were led to the spot by a man already charged with abducting

and threatening to kill an /8-year-old slaughterhouse worker (To 1-2-88, 1.1)

(46) Kendall had been sprung from Gartree with convicted murderer Syd­ney Draper in an airborne operation masterminded by an East London godfather (To 11-2-88, 5.5)

(47) Analysts believe that these factors, underpinned by speculation that Northern Telecom might decide to increase its stake, which now stands

72 Structure of noun phrases

at 27.8 per cent, could soon drive the price of STC's shares above 330p, and even over 350p. (T 8-10-87, 25.6)

In all these cases, the head of the modified noun phrase is understood to be the passive subject of the nonfinite clause. Examples (43) to (45) require a reading in which the time of the event reported in the modifying clause is anterior to that of the clause that contains the modified noun phrase. Thus, Perth jail was built a long time before it was the oldest prison of Scotland the applications were lodged before he received the British Telecom shares for which these ap­plications had been made and the man had been charged before he led the po­lice to that particular spot.

In the examples ( 46) and ( 47), on the other hand, the actions in the contain­ing clause and in the modifying clause are probably best understood as being simultaneous. An East London godfather was masterminding the prison es­cape at the time it actually took place, but there is presumably also a consider­able amount of preparation involved which would have taken place anterior to the actual escape. Thus, both (4a) and (4b) would be possible renderings of the modifying clause in a more explicit relative clause.

( 46) a. an airborne operation which had been masterminded by an East London godfather

b. an airborne operation which was being masterminded by an East London godfather

In example (47) above, the speculation underpins the analysts' belief at the same time that they hold these beliefs. In this instance the simultaneous inter­pretation seems to be the only one possible.

In contrast to the -ed participle clauses, in which the modified noun is un­derstood to be the passive subject, in -ing participle clauses it is understood to be the active subject.

( 48) doctors switched off the machine keeping baby Alexander Davies alive (DMa 18-12-87, 2.1)

( 49) Seven other people, including two firemen and a transport policeman, are still in hospital. (T 8-10-87, 1.2)

The temporal relation between the modifying clause and the clause containing it is again left open to contextual interpretation. In (48) the machine kept the baby alive until the moment when the doctors switched it off. Thus what is de­scribed in the modifying clause is anterior to the action described in the con­taining clause. In the example ( 49), the two clauses describe simultaneous states of affair. The people include those mentioned precisely at the time when they are in hospital.

Postmodification 73

Postmodifying infinitive clauses are less explicit than either type of partici­ple clause because they do not encode the function which the head of the noun phrase fulfils within its argument structure. There are two basic types of post­modifying infinitive clauses. One type is similar to the -ed and -ing participle clauses in that the head of the noun phrase is situationally understood to be an argument of the modifying clause. In contrast to the -ed and -ing participle clauses, the head of the noun phrase can be understood as not just one given argument, but can function as either subject, object, adverbial or even, in some cases, complement.

(50) ... which will be removed as part of the new anns deal to be signed in Washington (DT 27-1-87, 1.3)

(51) All have covers which shout of a hundred and one things to do. (DE 5-11-87, 15.1)

(52) the UK Government had a fortnight to supply an extradition warrant (DE 20-11-87, 13.3)

(53) Bush joined President Reagan in fully supporting a "risky operation" to

win the freedom of American hostages in Lebanon. (DMa 18-12-87, 10.1)

In the examples (50) to (53), the modified nouns are understood as one of the arguments of the infinitive clauses modifying them. In (50), the head of the modified noun phrase is understood to be the subject of the passive infinitive clause modifying it. This can be most clearly shown by contrasting it to the corresponding relative clause, which will be signed in Washington, in which the relative pronoun that is coreferential with the head of the noun phrase deal acts as a passive or surface subject.

In example (52), the noun, things, can only be understood as the direct ob­ject in the postmodifying infinitive clause. The subject is left unspecified and must be recovered from the context, even though it is impossible to identify unambiguously the intended referent. The article from which excerpt (52) is taken reports about new glossy women's magazines. Thus the intended subject could be women in general, the readers of those particular magazines, or just whoever wants to do the things that are displayed on the covers of these maga­zmes.

In (52), the head of the modified noun phrase must be understood as an ad­verbial within the argument structure of the postmodifying infinitive clause. In this case, the intended referent of the empty subject is plain, it is identical with the subject of the superordinate clause.

Sentence (53) is less straightforward. The head of the modified noun phrase can be understood to be the subject of the modifying clause, but it can also be

74 Structure of noun phrases

taken as an adverbial. These two interpretations can be demonstrated by the corresponding constructions with a relative clause, which makes the argument structure more explicit.

(53) a. Bush joined President Reagan in fully supporting a "risky opera­tion" which will/should/might win the freedom of American hostag­es in Lebanon

b. Bush joined President Reagan in fully supporting a "risky opera­tion" by/through which they might/hope to/intend to win the free­dom of American hostages in Lebanon

In (53a) the relative pronoun, standing for the noun, operation, is the subject of the relative clause whereas in (53b) it is governed by a preposition and is an adverbial. These two renderings of the infinitive clause in the form of a relative clause also reveal how much more explicit the latter is. Several pos­sible readings are indicated both in (53a) and in (53b) but even more read­ings may be possible. With a relative clause, the author must be explicit and indicate not only the intended argument structure but also the intended tense and modality. In the infinitive clause, these aspects can be left open to inter­pretation.

The second type of postmodifying infinitive clause is called appositive. It does not include the head of the noun phrase in its argument structure. This is equivalent to saying that it does not have a corresponding relative clause con­struction. Sentences (54) to (56) are typical examples.

(54) Mr Gorbachev's decision to call on the Prime Minister on the eve of the historic Washington summit is seen in Whitehall as ... (DT 27-11-87, 1.2)

(55) Few would take orders to buy and sell shares for less than a minimum investment of£ 50,000. (To 18-12-87, 2,6)

(56) Associated British Foods, which acquired 15 p.c. of Dee in the £686m deal which contained a provision limiting its freedom to sell before June 1988. (DT 18-12-87, 17.4)

In (54) and (55) the head of the noun phrase with the modification given in italics is a deverbal noun that takes an infinitive clause complement. The head of the noun phrase in (56) is rather deadjectival, but it also takes an infinitive clause complement. In all these cases the head of the noun phrase is clearly not part of the argument structure of the modifying clause. The relation to cor­responding verbal or adjectival constructions is not always easy to make. (54) would give the fairly uncontroversial Mr Gorbachev decided to call on the Prime Minister, but (55) is less clear. Perhaps Few would accept being or-

Postmodification 15

dered to buy and sell shares, and in (56) maybe limiting its being free to sell. However, it is not so much the entire constructions that are similar. No sug­gestion is made here that one should be derived from the other. The point is that these head nouns have got similar subcategorisation features as their ver­bal and adjectival counterparts. Such a relationship to verbs or adjectives tak­ing infinitive clause complements is entirely absent in. the first type of post­modifying infinitive clause discussed above.

4.3.4. Postmodification by prepositional phrases

Postmodification by a prepositional phrase is less explicit than any of the above-mentioned types, and it is far more frequent than any other type. It is the entire range of prepositions, including complex prepositions such as out­side of, next to or in charge of, that can be used (see Quirk et al. 1985:1274).

Some examples with multiple postmodification by prepositional phrases may suffice to show the versatility of this type of modification.

(57) Since his arrival at Anfield from Watford for a fee of£ 900,000, John Barnes has captured the imagination of supporters ... (G 31-10-87, 18.3)

(58) The kick in the teeth for Milton Keynes means that the Corporation will be forced to disband with its job only half done ... (G 17-12-87, 21.2)

(59) President Ronald Reagan is expected to scale down sharply his request to Congress this week for more aid to the Nicaraguan Contra rebels (Ff 26-1-88, 3.1)

(60) Mr Reagan rejected Mr Ortega's renewed call in the letter for direct US-Nicaraguan talks. (Ff 26-1-88, 3.1)

(61) They believe that most of the help should go to first-time buyers and there should be a phased reduction of relief for established home own­ers (DMi 8-l 0-87, 4.2)

(62) a dozen young victims in the lottery of life at Birmingham Children's Hospital. (DMi 27-11-87, 1.3)

In all the above examples, a noun is modified by two or three consecutive prepositional phrases. Occasionally there may be ambiguities as to which head of the noun phrase is modified by a particular prepositional phrase. In a phrase like his request for more aid to the Congress, there would be an ambiguity as to whether the second prepositional phrase modifies the noun, aid, in which case the requested aid would go to the Congress or whether both prepositional phrases modify the same noun request. In this latter case it is the request that goes to the Congress and not the aid. In the actually attested version, however,

76 Structure of noun phrases

there is no such ambiguity because the order of the two modifying phrases is reversed.

The phrase in ( 61) is less clear-cut. Does the phrase for established home owners modify the noun reduction or relief! The context talks about increas­ing help to first-time house buyers, which apparently necessitates a reduction of help elsewhere. This is both a "reduction of relief' and a "reduction to es­tablished home owners". It seems to be possible to leave out either of the prep­ositional phrases, and still a comprehensible and acceptable rest would re­main. On the other hand, it does not seem to be possible to reverse the order of the two prepositional phrases, ?*a phased reduction for established home owners of relief If this judgement is correct, the second prepositional phrase in (61) above, should better be seen as modifying relief rather than reduction.

Example (63) illustrates a possible type of ambiguity. The prepositional phrase following the noun activist can both be understood as a clause adverb­ial or as a postmodifier.

(63) He emerged as a leading activist in the League management commit­tee's revolt against its president Carter over the secret compromise deal with Maxwell. (DMa 22-12-87, 31.2)

The fact that the long italicised prepositional phrase is ambiguous can be made more apparent if this sentence is reformulated in such a way that the prepositional phrase is moved to positions in the sentence that can only be oc­cupied by either a postmodifying prepositional phrase, which is part of the noun phrase it modifies, or else to a position that is restricted to adverbials. As it stands, however, it is too long and would produce awkward results in all but sentence final position. For this reason it is being reduced for this test.

(63) a. In the committee's revolt, he emerged as a leading activist b. He emerged in the committee's revolt as a leading activist c. *He in the committee's revolt emerged as a leading activist d. The leading activist in the committee's revolt said after the meet-

mg ...

In (63a) and (63b), the prepositional phrase in italics can only be understood as an adverbial. As such it can occupy sentence initial position, the position immediately after the verb, or, as in the original (63) above, sentence final position. But as (63c) shows it cannot intervene between the subject and the verb. If the noun phrase a leading activist is made into the subject of a clause, as in (63d), it can be followed by the prepositional phrase because it is now understood as a postmodifier which is a constituent of the subject noun phrase.

Postmodification 77

4.3.5. Postposed adjectives

In a limited range of cases, an adjective can follow the noun which it modi­fies. (64) to (66) are typical examples.

(64) the city would surely have been packed with volunteers, art historians and fund-raisers anxious to save a cultural heritage they felt they shared. (G, 31.10.87, 14.4)

(65) the biggest UK-owned toy-maker famous for My Yellow Teapot, A Ia Carte Kitchen, and most recently Manta Force space vehicles, (DE, 23.11.87, 30.3)

(66) MPs uneasy about the great new privatisation experiment, (DMa, 19.12.87, 29.1)

In all these cases the adjective itself is modified, either by a prepositional phrase or by an infinitive clause. In prenominal position these adjective phras­es would be ungrammatical (*anxious to save a cultural heritage volunteers) while, on the other hand, the same adjectives without the modifications would only be possible in their normal prenominal but not in postposed position (anxious volunteers but *volunteers anxious).

This structure corresponds to a relative clause in which the head noun func­tions as subject of a copular clause (volunteers who are/were/would be anx­ious to save a cultural heritage).

Two other types of postposed adjectives are those modifying heads that do not take adjectives in front of them (e.g. something different) and a small num­ber of set phrases (e.g. heir apparent) (Quirk et al. 1985: 1293 f.).

4.3.6. Appositions

Only some types of appositions are clear cases of postmodification. Most typi­cally appositions consist of two coreferential noun phrases which fulfil basi­cally the same syntactic role within one single clause. Both parts of an apposi­tion are called appositives. Depending on the type of apposition, the second appositive usually modifies or defines the first appositive, and this is why I treat them under the general heading of postmodification. The other types of apposition, however, are in some instances at least equally important and therefore they must also be mentioned at this stage. The appositive clauses, which were discussed in 4.2 above, are just a special case of apposition as I will argue below.

Again using Quirk et al.'s tenninology, we can distinguish between full and partial apposition. In a full apposition either of the two appositives can be deleted, and the resultant sentence is still grammatical.

78 Structure of noun phrases

(67) Mr Simpson, the vicar of Barmston, said last night: ... (67) a. Mr Simpson said last night: ...

b. The vicar of Barmston said last night: ...

In a partial apposition, on the other hand, only one appositive can be deleted without rendering the resultant sentence ungrammatical.

(68) An unusual present was given to him for his birthday, a book on ethics.

(68) a. An unusual present was given to him for his birthday. b. *Was given to him for his birthday, a book on ethics. (Quirk et al.

1985: 1302)

The second dichotomy, which is less important for my purposes, distinguishes between strict and weak apposition. The former refers to appositions in which both appositives belong to the same general syntactic class, as was the case in the two examples above. The latter consequently refers to appositions with two appositives of different syntactic status as in (69):

(69) His only interest in life, playing football, has brought him many friends. (Quirk et al. 1985: 1303)

The apposition in (69) is again full because either of the two appositives could be omitted without affecting the grammaticality of the resultant sentence. The appositive clauses in (70) and (71) are examples of partial, weak appositions:

(70) the Government received warnings last week- while the siege at Peter-head Prison was going on - that Perth could be the next flash point. (I 6-10-87, 1.3)

(71) Another theory, thnt the fire had started in rubbish under the escalator, was also challenged when ... (T 20-11-87, 2.6)

The two appositives in both cases have a different syntactic status. The first appositives, warnings and another theory respectively, are noun phrases while the second appositives are clauses. In both cases only the second appositive but not the first could be omitted without affecting the grammaticality of the resultant sentence

The third dichotomy concerns the difference between restrictive and nonre­strictive apposition. So far all examples - with the exception of (70) - were nonrestrictive appositions, in which both appositives contribute relatively in­dependent information units. In writing this is indicated by bracketing off the second appositive with commas.

(72) a. Mr Simpson, the vicar of Barmston, said last night: .. . b. The vicar of Barmston, Mr Simpson, said last night: .. .

Postmodificarion 19

If the two appositives form one information unit in that one restricts the refer­ence of the other, the apposition is restrictive, as in (73) and (74):

(73) The vicar Mr Simpson (74) Architect Emo Goldfinger

The second appositives, Mr Simpson and Emo Goldfinger, are needed in order to establish the reference of the first appositive the vicar and architect respec­tively. The three dichotomies are summarised in (75) (Quirk et al. 1985: 1305):

(75) apposition

{ strict [same syntactic class] weak [different syntactic class]

{ full [either omissible] partial [only one omissible]

{ nonrestrictive [different information unit] restrictive [same information unit]

Full, nonrestrictive appositions share some similarities with noun phrases with postposed adjectives in that they, too, can be seen as reductions of copular rel­ative clauses. Thus:

(76) Mr Simpson, who is the vicar of Barmston, said last night: ... (77) His only interest in life, which is playing football, has brought him

many friends.

In restrictive appositions, on the other hand, this is not possible:

(78) *The vicar who is Mr Simpson (79) *Architect who is Emo Goldfinger

Sentence (78) would only be possible if the reference of the vicar were estab­lished independently. In that case, the apposition - and the corresponding rela­tive clause - would be nonrestrictive.

One of the two appositives in all types of apposition is the defined while the other is the defining. In partial appositions, in which only one appositive is omissible, the independent one is the defined and the dependent or omissible one is the defining. In (79) above, Erno Goldfinger is the defined appositive while architect is the defining one. In full appositions, on the other hand, it is generally the first appositive which is the defined, and the second is defining. Thus in (72a) above Mr Simpson is defined by the second appositive, the vicar of Barmston, and vice versa in (72b ).

Quirk et al. (1985: 1305) indicate that partial, strict, restrictive appositions of the type architect Erno Goldfinger are typical of journalistic style. How-

80 Structure of noun phrases

ever this is true only for some of the British national newspapers. In fact this type of construction is one of the most clearly stratifying features across the various papers. It is a very popular construction in the down-market papers, and it is almost completely shunned in the up-market papers. For this reason I will devote all of chapter 9 to appositions that combine a personal name and a noun phrase. In that context I will need a further terminological distinction to refer to the two appositives. I will refer to appositives such as Erno Goldfinger or Mr Simpson as name appositives, and to those like architect or the vicar of Barmston as descriptive appositives, irrespective of their positioning in the ap­position. The name appositive in most instances identifies a referent unambiguously even if this may not be sufficient for the majority of readers of a newspaper because they do not know that particular person. The descriptive appositive, on the other hand, in some sense describes the referent by indicat­ing his or her role which most probably will be directly related to his or her newsworthiness.

This distinction makes it possible to say that in (72a) above the descriptive appositive is the one that defines the name appositive, while in (72b) the name appositive defines the descriptive appositive.

4.4. Multiple modifications

As I have outlined above, noun phrases range from the very simple to the very complex. They can consist of a single unmodified pronoun, or they can con­tain one or several modifiers that may have their own complex internal struc­ture. Theoretically there is no upper boundary to the complexity that is possi­ble within noun phrases.

The complexity may be increased by modifying one single head by several independent modifiers. I shall call modifiers that apply independently to one single head concatenated modifiers, whether they are premodifiers or post­modifiers. The complexity of noun phrases may also be increased by modi­fiers that are modified themselves. In this case I will use the term embedded modifiers.

(80) Since his arrival at Anfield from Watford for a fee of£ 900,000, John Barnes has captured the imagination of supporters ... (G 31-10-87, 18.3)

(81) to maintain on our behalf collections of modern British and interna­tional art that embrace both the best and most significant examples, which are not necessarily coincidental. (Ff, 26.01.88: p. 17.1)

Multiple modifications 81

(82) She also expressed Britain's support for the treaty on the elimination of intennediate nuclear weapons which Mr Gorbachev and President Reagan will sign, (DT, 27.11.87, 1.2)

Sentence (80), quoted as (57) in 4.3.4 above and repeated here for conven­ience, shows three concatenated prepositional phrases, the last of which is modified itself by a prepositional phrase. In (81) the noun collections is modi­fied by a prepositional phrase whose head is in tum modified by a relative clause. Embedded within this relative clause is yet another relative clause. Quirk et al. (1985: 1298) call such modifying clauses that are embedded with­in other clauses pushdown elements.

In (82) the noun support is modified by a sequence of prepositional phrases that are embedded within each other. It is only the first one which modifies the head noun directly, whereas the two subsequent ones modify in tum the head noun of the preceding prepositional phrase. The last head noun in this se­quence, weapons, is followed by a relative clause which, however, does not modify this last noun, and neither does it modify the noun support it clearly modifies treaty. Thus it is not the argument noun phrase which is modified by two concatenated postmodifiers, a prepositional phrase and a relative clause, it is one of the postmodifiers which is further modified by concatenated post­modifiers, by a prepositional phrase with another prepositional phrase embed­ded within it, and by a relative clause. This interpretation is not directly en­coded in the structure of this complex noun phrase. It is only the semantics which makes it clear that the two men will sign a treaty rather than any of the other referents in this noun phrase.

In chapters 7 and 8 below, I will analyse premodifiers and postmodifiers as they are attested in my corpus of newspaper English and how they vary across the different categories of newspapers and across the different newspaper sec­tions. There I will illustrate in detail the extent to which the modifying poten­tial of noun phrases is exploited. A summary of all the categories that I distin­guish in the analysis of my corpus and some information on the practical details of the analysis are given in Appendix I, Coding Scheme.