 |
The boxed area is not a syntactic unit.in the current theory of phrase structure grammar. |
|
|
|
|
| INTRODUCTION |
LEXICAL CATEGORIES
V = Verb
AUX = Auxiliary Verb
A = Adjective
ADV = Adverb
DET = Determiner
DEG = Degree of Expression
CONJ = Coordinating Conjunction
PRO = Pro Constituent or Pro Form
Q = Quantifier
PHRASAL CATEGORIES S = Sentence or Clause
NP = Noun Phrase
VP = Verb Phrase
AP = Adjectival Phrase
PP = Prepositional Phrase
ADVP = Adverbial Phrase
QP = Quantifier Phrase
| THE PROBLEM WITH PHRASE STRUCTURE CATEGORIES |
Linguists began to notice that there were problems with the aforementioned lexical and phrasal categories. The problem was that they needed another kind of category between lexical and phrasal categories. For the present, this new level will be called the X-Bar category.
Phrasal Categories X-Bar Categories Lexical Categories
The reason that they needed these new "phrase structure nodes"
had to do with the process of pronominalization. This occurs when
a Noun or a Noun Phrase is substituted by a pro-form.
The man saw Harry (Noun)
The man saw him (Pronoun)I like fast cars (Noun Phrase)
I like them (Pro Noun Phrase)
Linguists discovered that other kinds of constituents are pronominalized. These constituents are neither full noun phrases nor mere lexical phrases, but phrases that are intermediate to these, viz., X-Bar Categories. Consider the example of "very tall" in the following phrase marker:
The boxed area is not a syntactic unit.in the current theory of phrase structure grammar.
This phrase marker demonstrates that NP and AP are phrasal categories and DET, DEG, A, and N are lexical categories. One can argue that "very tall" is an adjectival phrase and that "this very tall girl" is a nominal phrase. The problem is that in natural language, one needs to refer to "very tall girl" as a phrasal unit. Consider the following sentences:
This very tall girl will be on the team and not that very tall girl.
This very tall girl will be on the team and not that one
The problem was that model of Transformational grammar that linguists were using did not have intermediate categories which are larger than a word but smaller than a phrase. Such a category is needed because the unit "very tall girl" was pronominalized into "one." What this means, in essence, is that phrase structural grammars must be written in such a way as to treat "very tall girl" as a category. These new rules will be discussed later on in this section, but for the present one needs to visualize how this new category should appear in the revised phrase marker.
The boxed area is now a unit which is smaller than a noun phrase and larger than a noun.
Only one constituent can serve as the antecedent for a pro form. In the examples discussed earlier, NP served as the antecedent for the Pro-NP, N served as the antecedent for the Pro-N, and now N-Bar serves as the antecedent for the Pro-N-Bar. Each of these pronominal forms were based on different categories: phrasal, X-Bar, and Lexical.
PHRASAL CATEGORY
I like fast cars (Noun Phrase)
I like them (Pro Noun Phrase)X-BAR CATEGORY
This very tall girl will be on the team and not that oneLEXICAL CATEGORY
The man saw Harry (Noun)
The man saw him (Pronoun)
| X-BAR NODES |
The deficiency in the earlier model of transformational grammar was remedied by the creation of X-Bar Syntax or X-Bar Theory. It takes into consideration that many other kinds of lexical and phrasal units in language need to have an X-Bar category added to their phrase markers. In order to more adequately describe the process, linguists noted that each kind of phrase has a head constituent upon which a phrase is constructed.
HEAD PHRASE COMMENT N NP The Noun is the functional head of a Noun Phrase V VP The Verb is the functional head of a Verb Phrase A AP The Adjective is the functional head of an Adjectival Phrase P PP The Preposition is the functional head of a Prepositional Phrase ADV ADVP The Adverb is the functional head of the Adverbial Phrase Q QP The Quantifier is the functional head of a Quantifier Phrase
From this pattern of head constructions, linguists were able to generalize that X is the head of XP.
HEAD PHRASE COMMENT X XP X is the functional head of the X Phrase
This new way of categorizing phrase markers allows linguists to create three levels of categories: X, X-bar, and X-Double Bar.
PHRASE X-BAR UNIT HEAD X-Double Bar X-Bar X NP N-bar N VP V-bar V AP A-Bar A PP P-Bar P ADVP ADV-Bar ADV QP Q-Bar Q
Under this new way of writing phrase structure rules (X-Bar Theory),
the phrase marker discussed earlier appears as follows;
Further evidence for X-bar Theory comes from the following sentence in which "very tall girl" must be treated as a unit and pronominalized and not "this very tall girl." Hence, "very tall girl has to be treated as a unit, viz., N-Bar.
Acceptable Sentence Very tall girl though she is, everyone admires her. Unacceptable Sentence *This very tall girl though she is, every admires her.
| X-BAR SYNTAX |
In X-Bar Theory, every phrase is endocentric. This means that
every phrase has an element in its construction that acts as the
head of the construction. Hence, X is the head of construction,
XP. The head of the construction is X, the category immediately
above it is X-Bar and the category above X-Bar is X-Double Bar.
Hence, the rules for X-Bar Syntax can be stated as follows:
Xm-1 ..….. Xn
This description as stated is not adequate because it does not mention the fact that in English Specifiers (SPEC) occur before X and Complements (COMPL) occur after X. Hence, the following rule revision is of X-Bar Syntax is necessary:
PS Rule 1 X-Double Bar PS Rule 2 X-Bar PS Rule 3 X-Bar
When these rules are applied, it produces the following phrase marker:
This pattern illustrates an X-Bar Template for English. In this languages the Head of an endocentric construction comes after the Specifier. In other languages, the Head may come before a Specifier. Similarly, in English the Complement follows the Head of an endocentric construction. In other languages, the reverse order of constituents may occur. What this variation in the order of constituents means is that each language must have its order specified by general rules known as Licensing Conditions.
LICENSING CONDITIONS FOR ENGLISH
1. Heads are initial with respect to Complements and Adjuncts (N+COMPL)
2. Heads are final with respect to Specifiers. (SPEC + N)
3. Heads are final with respect to Modifiers. (MOD + N)
Consider the following examples of the placement of Complements with respect to the functional Head of X-Bar phrases in English.
Now, consider the following examples of the placement of Specifiers with respect to the functional Head in X-Double Bar phrases in English .
Modifiers and Specifiers have been treated as the same constituent in most of the literature in Government and Binding Theory. However, some linguists who work with X-Bar Theory on the lexical level want to make a distinction between Specifiers and Modifiers. By the latter, Modifiers, they have in mind a restricted clause that modifies the Head of the phrase, i. e, it limits the reference. This means that Modifiers function as restrictive complements.
The last rule in X-Bar Syntax is the recursive rule that allows X-Bar to duplicate itself. The recursiveness of constituents within a phrase marker is a fact about natural language and the theory must account for this generative capacity within the grammar. Notice the following example in which products of the recursive rule can be found.
| SPECIFIERS, COMPLEMENTS AND ADJUNCTS |
One of the reasons for this arrangement will become more obvious when the topic of case assignment is discussed. A sentence (IP) without tense will appear as infinitives whereas a sentence with tense will contain an inflected verb.
I want him to read the book ( infinitives do not have tense, i.e., not finite in time)
I think that he will read the book (the modal is in the present tense)
When case assignment is discussed in another section of this book, one will learn that the subject NP of an inflected sentence is assigned the nominative case, i.e. [he]. In the case of infinitive clauses, the initial NP is not assigned case. This allows it to be assigned the accusative case [him] by the V in the higher matrix sentence. Nevertheless, tense (INFL) acts as the head of the sentence. Hence, sentences are now called inflectional phrases, IP.
Now consider the structures that occur above the sentence. There are other constituents above the sentence (IP). This is obvious from examples where an interrogated item is shifted to the beginning of a sentence. It cannot be shifted to an unannounced landing site, it must have an empty category (e) to which it fills when it is moved from its point of origin.
If the sentence (IP) is S-Bar, then the higher constituents of the sentence must be X-Double Bar. However, this is not what one finds in the literature of government and binding theory. The matrix sentence is now designated as a Complement Phrase and it has the following hierarchical structure.
Hence, IP and CP form an intrinsic part of X-Bar theory. These categories are summarized below:
PHRASE X-BAR UNIT HEAD X-Double Bar X-Bar X NP N-bar N VP V-bar V AP A-Bar A PP P-Bar P ADVP ADV-Bar ADV QP Q-Bar Q IP I-Bar INFL CP C-Bar COMPL
| THE HEAD OF COMPLEMENT PHRASES |
The most obvious examples of complement phrases (CP) can be seen in embedded sentences.
Matrix Sentence Complementizer Embedded Sentence I will ask if John saw Mary I expect for John to abandon the case I wonder whether John saw Mary I think t that John saw Mary
The type of embedded sentence is determined by the nature of the Complementizer. The complementizers {that} and {if} select embedded finite clauses;. the Complementizer {for} selects infinitival clauses; and the Complementizer {whether} selects either finite or infinitival clauses. A Complementizer that has the feature [+WH] characterizes interrogative clauses and the feature [-WH] characterizes declarative clauses.
With the creation of empty categories, transformations consisted of the movement of lexical heads (N, V) to empty category positions. When these lexical heads were moved, they left behind a trace. The deep structure under this new system was called D-structure and it represented the underlying form of a sentence before it was subjected to movement rules and rules of semantic interpretation. The final product of these rules was called the S-Structure.
D-Structure John saw whom S-Structure whom John saw t
It is important to note that that there are two kinds of movements. One involves the movement of a lexical head (N, V) into an empty category (SPEC) and the other is concerned with the movement of functional head (INFL) into an empty category (C, SPEC).
Lexical Category:
This is what structuralists called lexical words. They are the open class of words that one finds in the dictionary. These are essentially nouns, verbs, and adjectives. Under GB theory, these lexical words function as the heads of phrases and are called lexical heads.Functional Category
These are what structuralists called function words. They are a closed class of grammatical words such as prepositions, inflectional markers, declension markers, case markers, determiners, affixes, tense, deictics, and particles. Under GB theory, these functional words form the heads of phrases and are called functional heads.
The need for this distinction can be ascertained when dealing with the treatment of HAVE and BE as main verbs under the revision of the base structure in GB theory.
| REVISION OF THE AUXILIARY |
The Auxiliary rule creates a syntactic string consisting of a a tense marker, an optional modal, and two optional aspect markers, duration (have+en) and iteration (be+ing). It has always been assumed that the features of MODAL, HAVE, and BE all form a common grammatical unit. They function as a common element in the interrogative transformation where MODAL, HAVE, or BE are transposed with the Subject NP; and they function as a common element in negation where NOT is placed after MODAL, HAVE, or BE. In an unpublished memorandum at MIT, Edward Klima (1966) suggested that the auxiliary rule should be revised to include only the tense marker and an optional modal.
AUX
He placed the verbs HAVE and BE under the VP because they function more like verbs than auxiliaries.
VP (have+en) (be+ing) V NP
HAVE and BE can occur with infinitives and gerunds, but MODALS may not.
John believed Mary to have left (infinitive)
John believed Mary to be leaving (gerund)
John expected that Mary may leave (may functions as an auxiliary)
*John expected Mary to might leave. (may cannot occur as an infinitive).
Under this reconstruction, the old Affix Hopping rule no longer
operates on these elements in the same way. Klima proposed new
rules which he called HAVE Raising and BE Raising.
According to this analysis, the tense marker (INFL) plays a major role in the structure of the sentence. It functions as the head of the sentence, a functional head. INFL is the Head of the Inflectional Phrase (IP). Under the new analysis, the VP is a complement of I-Bar, i.e., it is a sister of the I-Bar node.
Now it is time to return to the [WH] feature under the COMPL in CP. Head to Head Movement will take place if the feature [+WH] marks the complement, otherwise no movement will take place.
Now consider what happens when both kinds of movement occurs.
| REVISION OF THE DO SUPPORT RULE |
The verb DO has always been a problem in English grammar. From a historical point of view, the verb did not appear until Middle English. Some linguists wanted to represent this even in terms of a rule that inserted DO under certain conditions such as when the tense marker is separated from other verbal elements in the VP. An interesting alternative to DO INSERTION has been the proposal of Jackendoff. He argued for the generation of the verb DO in the Auxiliary rule.
AUXILIARY
Since DO never occurs before modals, HAVE, BE, and MAIN VERBS, it would be deleted by means of a rule known as DO DROP. What is interesting about this hypothesis is the fact that DO operates like other Auxiliaries when subjected to the question transformation.
John did see Mary
John did not see Mary
| SMALL CLAUSES (Verbless Clauses) |
There has been a recurring problem in English syntax that resurfaced under GB theory. The problem involves the following embedded sentences:
John believes that Mary is very intelligent (finite verb)
John considers Mary to be very intelligent (infinitive)
John considers Mary very intelligent ( Small Clause, no verb)
The problem can be found in the last sentence. It has no verb. If it has no verb, then it has no tense and INFL is the head of the sentence (IP). Surely "Mary very intelligent" is a constituent, but what kind of phrase is it?
What is the head of the phrase (XP)? The answer may not be evident from the English example, but if one were to look at similar structures in French, the solution of what XP represents will become more obvious.
FRENCH
Je considère le garçon très intelligent
[I consider the boy very intelligent]Je considère les garçons très intelligents
[I consider the boys very intelligent]Je considère la fille très intelligente
[I consider the girl very intelligent]Je considère les filles très intelligentes
[I consider the girls very intelligent]
The adjective "intelligent" has to agree with its
subject in number and in gender. This suggests that the X in XP
has to do with agreement. In other words, AGR is the head of the
AGR Phrase.
The feminine marker {-e} forms the head of the AGR-P. It is movement
from its Head position to the adjectival form {intelligent} to
form the feminine adjective {intelligente}. Note that Adjectival
Agreement differs from verb agreement.
Adjectival Agreement: (NP ADJ)
la fille très intelligente
les filles très intelligentesVerb Agreement: (NP INFL or Specifier Head Agreement)
| EXERCISES ON X-BAR THEORY |
Transform the following surface structure sentences into traditional phrase markers. Next convert these into the constituents of X-Bar Syntax. In the gratis example of analysis, notice that a Noun must belong to a higher constituent, viz., N-Bar and N-Double Bar.
SAMPLE CONVERSION: a student of Physics with long hair.
Example before the Conversion into X-Bar Categories
Example after Conversion into X-Bar Categories
Apply PS grammar and X-Bar Theory to the following sentences::
1. The house of Asher
2. Mary's house
3. Harold wrote a letter
4. The letter that Harold wrote
5. the English king
6. the king who is English
7. the boy loves the girl
8. He loves her
9. I think that he is late
10. I wonder whether she is late
11. many new books
12. these three rare books
13. a big black dog
14. the king destroyed the city
15. the king's destruction of the city
16. Whom did John see?
17. When did Mary leave?
18. Where did Bill go?
19. What did Harry say?
20. How did it happen?
| PRACTICE ANALYSIS USING X-BAR THEORY |
Use both Phrase Structure Theory and X-Bar Theory in analyzing the following structures. Begin with Phrase structure theory and then convert the grammatical unit into X-bar theory. Represent the phrase structures in terms of their deep structures with accompanying transformational changes and represent the a-bar structures in terms of their d-structures (cf. chapter on GB Theory for d-structures). Include DO DROP Rule based on the new reanalysis of the Auxiliary PS rule.
1. He lives right up the street
2. very fond of ice cream
3. the proof of the theorem
4. John's proof of the theorem
5. John proved the theorem
6. John is really very happy.
7. He is a very happy student
8. Might John have seen Mary?
9. Did they see the big book?
10. John saw Mary
