The NP vs. DP debate. Why previous arguments are inconclusive and what a good argument could look like. Evidence from agreement with hybrid nouns

Abstract

The DP-hypothesis as proposed in Abney (1987) is nowadays generally taken for granted in formal syntactic work. In this paper I will show that a surprising number of arguments that have been provided in the literature are not conclusive. Many rest on purely theory-internal premises and thus lose their force given the developments within syntactic theory over the last decades. Others are largely based on presumed parallelisms between the noun phrase and the clause. In practically all cases a reasonable reanalysis within the NP-hypothesis is possible. Similarly, I will show that the few arguments in favor of the NP-hypothesis that there can be found are also inconclusive. Instead I will establish solid criteria for headedness and explore their implications for the NP vs. DP debate. I will show that the fact that the features of the head are present on the maximal projection makes testable predictions when the noun interacts with noun phrase external heads. I will first show that data from selection favor the DP-hypothesis (contrary to previous claims) since one needs to be able to syntactically select both DPs and bare nouns/NPs. Second, I will present a new argument in favor of the DP-hypothesis based on data from hybrid agreement in Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian. The phenomenon crucially requires D-elements to be closer to agreement targets outside the noun phrase than the noun itself. This follows if DP dominates NP but not vice versa.