Talk:Determiner phrase

=Terminology= The terminology in this article is confusing. A noun phrase is a constituent of which the lexical head is a noun, so a noun phrase includes functional heads like determiners. This is correctly stated in the article on the Noun Phrase. But adopting the DP-hypothesis, the noun phrase is not an NP but a DP, and therefore the complement of the determiner, on this hypothesis is not a noun phrase but an NP. Furthermore, everyone agrees that the noun is the head of the NP, but if one adopts the DP-hypothesis, the noun is not the head of the DP. I adjust the terminology in the article. Zwart (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

=Counterarguments= This article now presents some arguments in favor of the DP-hypothesis, which is good. But it omits the arguments that argue against the DP-hypothesis and in favor of the traditional NP analysis. I may expand this article soon so that also includes these arguments in favor of the traditional NP account. The article will be more balanced after this has been done. --Tjo3ya (talk) 07:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have started some revisions and adjustments to the article. Above all, the article as it now stands presents the issue of determiner phrases in a one-sided manner. The DP-hypothesis remains a hypothesis (See Carnie 2013: 209; he calls it the "DP-hypothesis"). I support the expansion of the article in general, since some of the arguments and insights that support the DP-analysis can and should be presented in the article. But the opposite view, i.e. the traditional NP analysis, should also receive the attention that it deserves. This is not the case, though, as the revision now stands.


 * Concerning the editors who are currently conducting revisions to the article, I am concerned about their qualifications to be redoing an article that deals with such theoretically complex subject matter. These editors are not registered Wikipedia editors. Many of them have a user name, but they lack any information on a user page that might deliver a sense of their qualifications to be redoing the article.


 * My suspicion is that this is some sort of class project. Students in a syntax course have been given the task of revising the article. If this is indeed the case, then their instructor should know that it's not a good idea. Articles that are produced in such a manner contain frequent redundancies, formatting is not unified, and terminology is used inconsistently. Perhaps the instructor is in a position to revise such an article, but not the students. An examination of the article as it now stands verifies these claims.


 * I encourage the editors who are currently working on the article to explain what is going on here. I will postpone my work on the article to give them a chance to respond. If they do not respond, I will go ahead with my revising work without delay.--Tjo3ya (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Responding
I accidentally wrote on your talk page because I didn't know this existed. Yes, you are correct in everything you said. And yes, this is quite difficult to discuss and we are hoping we have the correct type of content. Our professor told us this is the first time our university has tried something like this, so it is quite experimental. We will be correcting the formatting and adding more images in the next couple of days.

A difficulty that is being encountered is describing determiner phrase in simple terms that a non-expert could understand, as that is something we have been instructed to. For myself, I know the difficulty in that lies in the fact that to put something in layman's terms you have to fully understand the subject matter, and I am getting tripped up quite often on new terms. It can be difficult to tell what is completely pertinent to the subject.

This project is due on Thursday night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jocelyndw (talk • contribs) 08:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You are also correct that we lack qualification of such a complex topic. We have not been taught much of this material as our instructor is trying a self-eduction approach, which as you can imagine lacks direction. We appreciate any insight that you have and we are more than happy to take your advice.

One thing: yes, the traditional NP analysis deserves recognition and we want our site to be unbiased. We do want to focus on the DP hypothesis though, while giving background and insight into the NP analysis...clearly we have not named our entry correctly as perhaps we should be calling it Determiner Phrase Hypothesis instead of Determiner Phrase. Comments? Thoughts?


 * And is each of the groups supposed to be editing an article on syntax in Wikipedia? If this is the case, please let your instructor know that the projects are probably often not promoting the content in Wikipedia. Some of the information you guys have added to the article on determiner phrases seems OK, but other parts of your additions are either redundant, inconsistent, or just plain wrong. To be frank, it would be difficult for me to see how much of the content you have added can be maintained in its current form.


 * Here's what I can do. I can leave the article as is, as you guys have edited it, and allow you to edit it further. I can turn a blind eye. Once your semester is over, I will then go in and redo the article entirely. It hardly seems feasible to try to help guide you guys through the process of producing a good article, since you are probably simply not yet capable of producing a coherent account of such a complex theoretical issue. I have a Ph.D. in linguistics, yet I understand the arguments in favor of the DP-hypothesis only in part.


 * But for me to agree to this plan, I need your instructor's email address. I intend to write a message stating that having students try to produce a coherent article on such a complex issue is problematic. I am interested in reducing the likelihood of seeing this happen again in the future. If this is not acceptable for you, then I think we are in for much wrangling about the content of the article.


 * Thanks for responding, and I hope you respond further. --Tjo3ya (talk) 08:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

We're not really in the mood for any wrangling about the content of the article. We trust your credentials and we appreciate that you understand our situation. In truth, if you have insight then it would be much appreciated. I understand that there may be no "saving" our page, but if we can benefit from you through any guidance then we're in favour. Can you point out which part of our article is redundant, inconsistent, or wrong?

Also, I will gladly pass on my instructor's email to you but upon doing so I must ask her for permission. I'm sure she will appreciate your feedback but out of respect I will ask her. I will not post it on wikipedia though, so please send me your email address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortnaynicole89 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC) It would be really appreciated if you at least gave us an idea of what is missing or what is really bothering you. We are aware that some of our article is redundant, today we discussed formatting, and we read through the entire article and pinpointed areas that were redundant, confusing, or lacking. A lot of what we have been adding in has been under the impression that it will not stay in that form.

No, we do not think this was the best thing for us to be doing at our level. As far as I know, Wikipedia and our university/department decided together to do this. From what we were told, this is something that Wikipedia and universities do together. We have been asked to write a reflective essay on our experience, so they will be receiving feedback from all of the students who have done this.

Please do not delete anything else without informing us why it was wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jocelyndw (talk • contribs) 09:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, we have an agreement. My email address is on my user page. I will provide some feedback about the article tomorrow. It's bedtime now. --Tjo3ya (talk) 09:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I have emailed you her email address — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortnaynicole89 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Feedback on the revision
I now provide some feedback on the revision. First, though, the current editors should click on the star at the upper right of the article. They should then be checking their watchlist often, so that if someone like me is trying to communicate with them on a talk page, they will know it. Ideally, they should also add a little information to their user pages, so that people have an idea about how to approach communication with them.

Problem 1: Above all, the article is one-sided. There are many in linguistics (like me) who do not accept the DP-hypothesis. In fact the DP-hypothesis is a minority stance in the study of syntax and grammar in general. It is prominent in GB/MP, but not really anywhere else. The reasons why most have not adopted the DP-hypothesis should be discussed. What's important is that the people who come to read the article do not get the impression that the DP-hypothesis represents some sort of truth. They need to know that there are many who do not do syntax that way. An article that argues against determiners as heads is here:


 * Langendonck, Willy van 1994. Determiners as heads? Cognitive Linguistics 5, 3: 243-260.

Problem 2: Formatting and presentation are inconsistent. At times numbers are used for examples. At other times, just a bullet is used. At times quotation marks are used for examples; at other times, italics. Examples in the running text should be in italics throughout. I suggest that the examples be indented. It's easier for the eye to see them. Bolding is used in the running text too often. Bolding works well to emphasize parts of the examples, but it doesn't look good in the running text. Many of the articles I have worked on illustrate the conventions that I think are best. The article should be a coherent whole, and formatting is a key part of this.

Problem 3: The discussion is often pedantic. For instance, at one point the article begins to explain X-bar theory. This article is not the place to discuss and explain X-bar theory. The article on X-bar theory is for that. At another point, the article starts to discuss the notions of deep and surface structure. Those notions, deep and surface structure, stem from the 1960s. Such a discussion belongs in the article on Transformational Grammar, not here in the article on determiner phrases. At another point, the article explains the difference between the definite and indefinite article. This is not the place for that. That article on the definite and indefinite articles is where such a discussion should appear. And yet at another point, the article begins to discuss how bare plural nouns are used. This article is not the place for that. The article on nouns is for that.

Problem 4: On a couple of occasions, the article gets it just plain wrong. For instance, it states: "The DP analysis accounts for this empirical evidence, as ‘s occupies a head position of D and the possessor (coat) appears as the specifier of D." The possessor is the panther, not coat. At another spot, the article states "In English, only proper nouns and pronouns, as well as plural nouns, appear as bare nouns". This statement overlooks mass nouns, which also appear without a determiner. The importance of bare nouns for the DP-hypothesis is crucial, since their very existence challenges the validity of the DP-hypothesis in general.

Problem 5: Sources are named in the running text, e.g. "Bernstein". This practice is not generally appropriate (there are exceptions) for an encyclopedia article. The article begins to sound like a scientific text, arguing for and representing a particular analysis. This practice reduces the accessibility of the article, since it seems that one is now reading complex article in a scientific journal. Sources should be mentioned, of course, but in the notes.

In sum, I see major problems with the article, and I continue to think that this subject matter is not the appropriate place for this sort of class project. There are many places where a class project can contribute well to Wikipedia, but this is not one of them.--Tjo3ya (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

These are all good observations and thank-you for bringing them to our attention. We will do our best to revise the article. Upon emailing my professor, she said that it is great that you have contacted as we are laying the foundation for other folks to contribute. With that being said, I don't think your contribution is discouraged, and in fact we should encourage it. So if you wish to contribute then I only ask that you are open to us asking questions about what you're doing. Cortnaynicole89 (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, we have equal rights in this situation. When your class is done, however, my concern is that editors in your situation will move on, but the quality of the work will remain in Wikipedia unless others step in to improve it. --Tjo3ya (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand your concerns and by all means step in. Please just be be open to us asking questions about changes so we can benefit from the situation. I will also look at the article that you suggested so that we can more fairly represent the different views of syntax. Cortnaynicole89 (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, we have added in a section about NP analysis and reiterated that DP hypothesis is minority. cortnaynicole89 found an article and did some research, but we were unable to access the paper you suggested because our university does not give access to that journal before 1997. Also, we will be changing out the name of the authors and putting in the proper referencing later. Do you have another paper you would recommend?

Something I was wondering is if DP hypothesis is only the majority view in generative grammar, then how far is too far when describing NP analysis in comparison to DP? Does that concern make sense? Because basically all the research about DP is done with generative grammar, and if we delve too deeply into NP then would it be straying too far from the topic at hand since it could be apples and oranges? I am not sure if this is even a legitimate concern, but it was something I was wondering. It's just hard to gauge the line between making the article unbiased and putting in irrelevant information.

Thank you for your input — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jocelyndw (talk • contribs) 03:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your insightful questions. The issues you raise have to do with the fact that you are addressing an issue that splits the syntax world. In very broad terms, there are the generative grammarians who are working in the Chomskyan tradition, and there is everyone else, many of whom dislike the fact that Chomskyans seem to call the shots. The DP-hypothesis is a good example of what some consider a manifestation of the overinfluence of Chomskyan syntax. Students like yourself are required to study the DP-hypothesis, the arguments for which are difficult to understand even for people who have been studying syntax for years.


 * In this respect, the point of view that I am interested in representing is that the DP-hypothesis is not the final word. Aspiring linguists who come to Wikipedia for information need to know that the traditional NP analysis is still accepted by many (by a majority, actually), and thus if the DP-hypothesis does not really make sense to them, then the traditional NP-analysis is just fine. For this reason, I feel strongly that it is appropriate to discuss both the arguments for and against the DP-hypothesis in the article.


 * The traditional NP-analysis is the default analysis of noun phrases. The observations that support it are more intuitive; they require less argumentation. For this reason, I think there has been much less effort to defend the traditional analysis. I cannot name another article that addresses the issue directly, although I'm sure they exist. But if anyone doubts that the DP-hypothesis is actually a minority stance in the bigger picture, then I suggest doing some surfing in the net. Take a look at the tree structures and other diagrams in frameworks such as HPSG, MTT, FGD, CxG, GPSG, etc. There are also some linguists working in the Chomskyan tradition who assume NPs instead of DPs. A recent paper by Benjamin Bruening appearing in Language, for instance, assumes NPs, not DPs: http://udel.edu/~bruening/Downloads/PCommand4.pdf.


 * I will ensure that the article does not overlook the observations that support the traditional NP-analysis against the DP-hypothesis. I had already begun the work in my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tjo3ya/sandbox . A week or two after you guys are done, I will come back to the article to make sure that it is indeed balanced. If any of you is still interested, we can go over the changes I intend to make. My prediction, however, is that you guys will have long since moved on. --Tjo3ya (talk) 04:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent work
The recent work on this article has left it in a state that is, in my view, not really helpful to readers who want to learn about the DP-analysis of noun phrases. Above all, the article only touches on the arguments against the DP-analysis and in favor of the traditional NP analysis. For this article to be helpful, it needs to sketch the arguments for and against the DP-analysis in a more general way that is accessible to a larger audience. The DP vs. NP debate splits the syntax world. The reader of the article needs to be aware of the fact that the DP analysis is quite controversial and why it is so controversial. There are also stylistic and organizational problems with the article. Apparently, some of the trees were taken from a source that is not open, which means they had to be removed. There is thus now a hole in the article where the trees used to appear. I have started a complete revision of the article. My work can visited in my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tjo3ya/sandbox#In_favor_of_NP_against_DP. Comments are welcome. --Tjo3ya (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have revised the article in a major way and will now replace the current article. This new revision accommodates both the DP- and NP-analyses of noun phrases. Both points of view are well represented. The article makes it clear that this is a thorny issue that splits the syntax world. While much of the content of the earlier article no longer appears, more of it could be included. An additional section could be added that considers some of the details of the DP-analysis. I think that would be fine, since it would not detract in any way from the issue that I think is most worthy of discussion, namely whether the NP- or DP-analysis is better motivated by empirical considerations. Finally, there are a couple of holes in the literature for the article. I intend to fill these holes in a week or two when I again have access to the literature. --Tjo3ya (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Good article! I feel there's a contradiction, though, between the "possessive s" section and the "idiomatic meaning" section. In the former section, it's stated that on the DP view, in the phrase "X's Y", 's is the head and X is the specifier. So in the latter section, should the DP-analysis trees not be drawn with the X on a separate left branch under the 's? And would that not then nullify the argument of that section, since the variable part (the X) does not after all interrupt the fixed part? W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. It would indeed be more accurate to draw the X as a dependent of 's. But the 's would still intervene in the hierarchy, so the argument remains mostly valid, just not quite in the way depicted. Note, though, that if the determiner is possessive, the ability to split the X and 's is not available, e.g. his house (hi+s), my bike, our idea, etc. --Tjo3ya (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with a pure "'s" intervening in the hierarchy, since that could be considered part of the idiom. But your second point is more convincing; perhaps that's the argument that ought to be presented in the article. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Determiner Phrase..... No phrase
Your determiner phrase can prove nothing. It's just a mockery of grammar. Those W ho talk of this type of rubbish material lack meditation. Surely they enjoy high posts. No one is to challange them. Stop talking about phrase if you don't know anything about a phrase. Birbal Kumawat (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

DP with noun as head
Almost all of the anti-DP arguments appear to properly be arguments against the determiner being the head of a phrase; only the "Absent determiners" section seems to be an argument against the existence of DPs per se. On the other hand, the pro-DP arguments arguing for the determiner being a DP's head seem to me the least convincing.

While a Wikipedia article is hardly the place to put forth a novel theory of grammar, the position that "the head of a DP is the noun that headed the NP" is a sufficiently straightforward response to these criticisms that I'd be astonished to find that it actually is novel. Is there truly no peer-reviewed literature describing a grammar with "DP = Det + NP", but wherein the NP's noun is still the head? —Twice Nothing (talk) 06:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * That would violate one of the fundamental tenets of Chomskyan grammar. The idea that every phrase is the same category as its head was just kind of assumed implicitly in early theory; nowadays, it's a trivial consequence of the Projection Principle. Of course some non-Chomskyan theories abandon that idea (e.g., seeing S as a projection of V or VP, rather than requiring there to be some head like C so that S can be reanalyzed as CP). But then non-Chomskyan theories pretty much universally reject DP (or never even considered the idea) in the first place. --157.131.170.189 (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, it's worth noting that, outside Chomskyan grammar, most of the arguments on both sides don't even make sense. For example, one of the pro-DP arguments is that it solves the English possessive -s problem, a problem that only exists for theory-internal reasons within MP. One of the anti-DP arguments is that "take X's time" ends up as a discontinuous idiom, but discontinuous idioms are a fundamental thing in construction grammar. And so on. --157.131.170.189 (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian
In the section on Serbo-Croatian:


 * The adjectives that appear alongside pronouns must precede the pronouns, while nouns follow adjectives uniformly.[10]

This is clearly intended to argue that pronouns and nouns are different—but it's actually saying the opposite:

* Adj Adj Pro (adjectives must precede pronouns) * Adj Adj N (nouns follow adjectives uniformly)

Surely one of those two is backward. But, since I don't know Serbo-Croatian, I don't know which. Based on the little I know about Slavic languages, my _guess_ would be that it's the first one that's backward, and in fact adjectives must follow pronouns. But that's a wild guess; someone who actually knows (or at least has access to the cited paper) needs to fix it. --157.131.170.189 (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

POV issue with catenas
The section on Determiner_phrase writes about the "catena". This section was written by User:Tjo3ya. This user is the researcher who has proposed the "catena" concept. This lead to an issue of possible WP:COI / WP:ADVOCACY / WP:OR on the Catena (linguistics) page. The same issue appears here, and probably in many other places. Kaĉjo (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The catena unit is the main focus of numerous articles in prominent linguistics journals, e.g. Lingua, Folia Linguistica, Syntax, Cognitive Linguistics. It is the central idea in the DG article on ellipsis in the Oxford Handbook of ellipsis. There are hence numerous high-level editors and reviewers who see its relevance and importance.--Tjo3ya (talk) 04:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * If it is as prominent as you suggest, there should be no need for you to promote it yourself, and others who do not have a COI will do that anyway. Whether there are published papers on this, and where they are published, is irrelevant as long as the Wiki author has a COI. Kaĉjo (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

= Can we have parse trees for the "possessive -s" example? =

I'm not clear how the DP and NP theories would analyze the sentences with possessive -s, respectively. Can we have some parse trees, just like in the section for "parallel structures"? MaigoAkisame (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)