The category of the noun phrase in English has received much attention in the literature. This article discusses the main defining features of the category from different theoretical angles. Issues such as its structural status, the determination and characterisation of its (morphosyntactic, semantic, cognitive) head, the structural slots which are available in the phrase, and the different possibilities as far as word order is concerned will be approached from structural, syntactic, functional and cognitive perspectives. In the second half of the article, after a review of recent literature on the English noun phrase, we offer a summary of the research included in this issue.

Many discussions of grammatical change have focused on grammatical innovation in the discourse contexts of conversational interaction. We argue here that it is also possible for grammatical innovation to emerge out of the communicative demands of written discourse. In particular, the distinctive communicative characteristics of academic writing (informational prose) have led to the development of a discourse style that relies heavily on nominal structures, with extensive phrasal modification and a relative absence of verbs. By tracking the historical development of this discourse style, we can also observe the development of particular grammatical functions that are emerging in writing. We focus here on two grammatical features – nouns as nominal premodifiers and prepositional phrases as nominal postmodifiers – analyzing their historical development over the last four centuries in a corpus of academic research writing (compared to other registers such as fiction, newspaper reportage and conversation). Our analysis shows that these grammatical features were quite restricted in function and variability in earlier historical periods of English. However, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, they became much more frequent and productive, accompanied by major extensions in their functions, variants, and range of lexical associations. These extensions were restricted primarily to informational written discourse, illustrating ways in which new grammatical functions emerge in writing rather than speech.

This article is concerned with the sources, paths and mechanisms of change leading to noun-intensifying uses of adjectives, such as a complete mess, a whole bunch of crazy stuff, a particular threat. Such intensifying uses may develop from property-describing uses of adjectives, as discussed by Traugott (1989), Adamson (2000) and Paradis (2000, 2001, 2008). As pointed out by Bolinger (1972: 61), noun-intensifying uses may also develop from elements of the NP that have identifying functions, which can be either quantifying-identifying or identifying in the strict sense. The aim of this article is to provide a new synthesis of how these three pathways lead towards noun-intensifying meanings, focusing on the question of how the intensification scales necessary to these uses are acquired. We posit that the concepts of open and closed intensification scales (Kennedy & McNally 2005) can generalize over the intensifying uses from the three sources. The main mechanism of change is the foregrounding of the gradability mode (Paradis 2000), quantification scale or other implied scale of the immediate source uses. The initial shift takes place in collocational environments that overlap with those of the source uses. Due to later collocational extension, noun-intensifying uses may come to incorporate intensification scales unpredicted by their sources.

This article analyses adjectival modification in elliptical NPs based on a corpus analysis. It illustrates the fact that descriptive adjectives can be used without nominal heads in English. Whereas in spoken language adjectives denoting more inherent properties feature prominently when the referents are present in the text-external world, no particular types of adjectives appear in written language. In terms of the latter, two major types of linguistic contexts are identified which do not require the use of a nominal head. It is argued that a conception of ‘contrast’ as a ‘non-identity’ condition cannot account for the variation between one-replacement and noun ellipsis since it holds for both phenomena. Similarly, partitivity is argued not to be a relevant requirement for the use of adjectives without nouns.

In most theoretical and descriptive treatments of English proforms it seems to be accepted that proforms replace constituents in underlying structure (i.e. phrases or clauses). The aim of the present article is to challenge this assumption. It will be demonstrated that a great many fully acceptable uses of proforms turn out to be quite problematic for the view of proforms as corresponding either to constituents or to semantic and/or syntactic units in underlying representation; nor, it turns out, do proforms necessarily refer to or denote a single (identifiable, retrievable or inferrable) entity. After a brief summary of the relevant literature, the article presents a detailed examination of the actual function and use of English proforms, focusing on a number of frequently used proforms: (i) the indefinite pronoun one, (ii) the predicative proform do so, (iii) the demonstrative pronouns that and those and (iv) certain uses of the personal pronouns we/us and you. On the basis of attested examples, it is argued that these proforms do not necessarily express a unit at any level of underlying representation. Instead an alternative account of the use of proforms is suggested, using the theory of Functional Discourse Grammar, which, with its four different levels of analysis (representing pragmatic, semantic, morphosyntactic and phonological information), possesses the kind of flexibility needed to deal with English proforms in a consistent and unified manner. Finally, an attempt is made to explain some of the constraints on the flexible system proposed.

The so-called Big Mess Construction (BMC) (e.g. so prominent a punctuation), introduced by a limited set of degree words, places an adjectival expression in the predeterminer position. In movement approaches, such idiosyncratic properties of the BMC have been attributed to the interaction of functional projections and movement operations, whereas in surface-oriented analyses focus has been placed on the supposition of special constructions and their constructional properties. In this article, we show that neither of these two previous perspectives captures the variations and flexibility of the construction in question satisfactorily. Our approach adopts the view that degree words are functors selecting their head, and attributes the peculiarities to the interactions between the lexical properties of the degree items and the constructional constraints in question.

English genitive noun-phrase coordinations follow two patterns. The first is the single genitive, in which exponence of the genitive case occurs solely on the final coordinate, e.g. Mary and Jane's; and the second is the multiple genitive, in which exponence of the genitive case occurs on all coordinates, e.g. Mary's and Jane's. When either of the coordinates is a personal pronoun, difficult choices have to be made about the form of the pronoun. These difficulties arise especially with the single genitive, which is judged to be totally ungrammatical in coordinations like *my wife and I's or *my wife and my. On the other hand, the alternative use of the multiple genitive, my wife's and my, conflicts with a preference for the single genitive when the coordinates are felt to constitute a single unit. In this article, we first conduct a corpus-based analysis for genitive coordinations with personal pronouns, based on the British National Corpus. This, supplemented by some non-standard examples from web-based sources, gives some insight into the choices actually made by native speakers. We then provide a theoretical account of the syntactic problems that genitive coordinations with pronouns create. This account is shown to be compatible solely with an analysis of the English ’s genitive as an inflectional affix.

This article is concerned with peripheral modifiers in the English noun phrase. It is argued that this kind of modification is an Early Modern English innovation. Later, in the nineteenth century, the slot underwent a rapid extension on both the type and the token levels, as is shown by historical corpus inquiry. To account for the diachronic processes involved, a constructional, usage-based approach is used, with an onomasiological rather than a semasiological perspective on grammaticalisation.