6

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Page 410) defines "Fused-head NPs" as follows:

Fused-head NPs (noun phrases) are those where the head is combined with a dependent function that in ordinary NPs is adjacent to the head, usually determiner or internal modifier:

[1] i Where are the sausages? Did you buy [some] yesterday? [determiner-head]

[ii] The first candidate performed well, but [the second] did not. [modifier-head]

The fused-head NP is an important syntactic theory proposed in CGEL that draws a different line between the category of pronoun and determinative than in traditional grammar.

CGEL has been around for almost two decades but I doubt that the syntactic theory has been accepted as standard among grammarians. But ditching CGEL's theory and going back to traditional grammar is not an option.

Is there an alternative modern approach to the fused-head NP?

David
  • 12,625
JK2
  • 6,553
  • To avoid choosing a complex route, ideally one has to go by the function of the words - SOME and The Second. The lay audience may not easily understand Fused-head NPs. – Ram Pillai Mar 06 '20 at 06:25
  • 1
    @RamPillai This question is not directed to laymen. – JK2 Mar 06 '20 at 06:28
  • 1
    One doesn't have to resort to "traditional grammar" if one doesn't like everything about CGEL. I do think they were not wise to accept the non-terminal designation of 'head', since it can't be distinguished at precisely these junctures, among others, and retaining this epicycle is more trouble than it justifies. – John Lawler Mar 11 '20 at 17:28
  • 1
    Whenever I see a (to me) new technical term I cannot help asking whether it is really necessary. A touch of Occam's Razor might be called for. The 'head', according to the Cambridge dictionary, the 'head' appears to be what can be called the 'topic' of the sentence (what it is about): in (i) It is about sausages, apparently sausages the addressee was supposed to have bought the previous day. So any lone modifier in the second sentence modifies the noun 'sausages'. In fact, the irate partner would surely have said "Didn't you buy Any yesterday?". Why do be need the word 'fused'? – Tuffy Jul 29 '23 at 22:06
  • @Tuffy In your own analysis, "any lone modifier" would also be a "head", which begs the question "how can a modifier also be a head?" – JK2 Jul 30 '23 at 03:08
  • Might help to explicitly state what the "traditional" approach is, if you're not interested in that. – Stuart F Aug 04 '23 at 11:28
  • @JohnLawler Can you explain the "non-terminal designation of head" issue or provide a source about it? That would help answer the question. – alphabet Aug 04 '23 at 15:27
  • 2
    @alphabet Tree nodes can be either terminal (at the end of a branch, with a lexical item below them) or non-terminal, with other non-terminal nodes under them. Only lexical items are in speech, so non-terminal nodes are entirely theoretical, like apostrophe's. The concept of "head", under which (say) nouns can be generalized to NPs and verbs to VPs, has been overgeneralized (in my opinion) to the point where every constituent has to have a head node, even if it isn't terminal. This is why some people call NPs "DPs"; they're convinced the determiner is the head. For instance. – John Lawler Aug 04 '23 at 20:34

0 Answers0