Nouns and Noun Phrases - University of Macau Library

Binominal constructions 619
Whatever one wants to conclude about the structure of the examples in (119a&b), it
seems that the analysis suggested in the doubly-primed examples is not available
when N1 is referential. This can be made clear by the examples in (120). Despite its
complexity, example (120a) seems acceptable: the PP zonder pitten must be
interpreted as a modifier of N2, and met een deksel as a modifier of N1. Changing
the order of the two PPs, as in (120a′), makes the construction completely
unacceptable, which would immediately follow if we assume that the PP modifying
N2 is embedded in the noun phrase headed by N2, as indicated in (120b), but not if
we assume that it is external to a phrase containing both N1 and N2.
(120) a. een kist sinaasappelen zonder pitten met een deksel
a box [of] oranges without pips with a lid
a′. *een kistje sinaasappelen met een deksel zonder pitten
b. [een [[kist [sinaasappelen zonder pitten] met een deksel]]]
III. Relative clauses
Just like PP-modifiers, relative clauses never intervene between N1 and N2,
regardless of whether it is N1 or N2 that is modified. Some examples are given in
(121): the relative clauses in these examples can only be construed with the
container nouns doos and krat, which is clear from the fact that N1 triggers singular
agreement on the finite verb of the relative clause, and from the fact that N2 can be
dropped. Nevertheless, the relative clauses must follow N2. The fact that the relative
clause cannot be placed between N1 and N2 suggests that it modifies a phrase
containing both N1 and N2, not just N1. If this is correct, the structure of these noun
phrases is as indicated in the primed examples.
(121) a. een doos (sigaren) die kapot is
a box [of] cigars that broken is
a′. [een [[doos sigaren] die kapot is]]
b. een krat (bier) waarop statiegeld zit
a crate [of] beer where-on deposit.money sits
‘a crate of beer on which deposit money must be paid’
b′. [een [[krat bier] waarop statiegeld zit]]
In (121), the referential meaning of the N1s is highlighted at the expense of their
quantificational force. This accounts for the fact that examples like (122), where the
verb forces a reading in which N2 acts as the semantic head, are semantically
anomalous when the relative clause is present.
(122) a. Jan heeft gisteren een doos sigaren ( $ die kapot is) gerookt.
Jan has yesterday a box [of] cigars that broken is smoked
b. Jan heeft net een krat bier ( $ waarop statiegeld zit) opgedronken.
Jan has just a crate [of] beer where-on deposit.money sits prt.-drunk
Since modification of N1 by a relative clause suppresses the quantificational
meaning of N1, it is expected that purely quantificational nouns cannot be modified:
that this is indeed correct is shown by the fact that the examples in (123) only allow
an interpretation in which the relative clause modifies N2. This is clear not only
from the semantic interpretation, but also from the fact illustrated in (123a) that it is