Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Xbar Detailed PDF
Xbar Detailed PDF
NP NP
D AdjP N PP PP D AdjP N PP PP
this Adj book P NP P NP this Adj book P NP P NP
big of N with big of N with
D AdjP N D AdjP N
poems the poems the
Adj cover Adj cover
blue blue
D AdjP N PP PP D AdjP N PP PP
this Adj book P NP P NP this Adj book P NP P NP
big of N with big of N with
D AdjP N D AdjP N
poems the poems the
Adj cover Adj cover
blue blue
1
X-bar Theory: NP X-bar Theory: NP
• We’ll call these “intermediate” nodes of NP N′ (N-bar). • So, our final NP looks like this:
• Notice that you can also say I bought this one. NP
NP N′
N′ N′
N′ N′
D AdjP N PP PP D AdjP N PP PP
this Adj book P NP P NP this Adj book P NP P NP
big of N with big of N with
D AdjP N D AdjP N
poems the poems the
Adj cover Adj cover
blue blue
2
X-bar Theory: VP X-bar Theory: AdjP
• Our new rules do not quite make the same • We should now be growing suspicious of our other
predictions about the surface strings of VPs, rules, now that we have had to split up NP and VP and
however. The old rules had (PP+) before introduce N′ and V′ nodes.
– The governor was [ AdjP very concerned about housing costs ];
(AdvP+), the new rules allow them to the tenants were [AdjP even more so ].
intermingle. – The studio was [ AdjP unusually pleased with its actors and
• But that’s actually better: confident of success ].
– The first statement was true; the second was less so.
– John grabbed the book quickly from the table
triumphantly. • This gives us evidence of
– AdjP: (AdvP) Adj′′
– John grabbed the book off the table quickly
with a devilish grin – Adj′′ : Adj (PP)
3
X-bar theory X-bar theory
• X-bar theory elevates this to a principle of phrase
structure; it hypothesizes that all phrases in a syntactic • Structurally, this looks like this XP
tree conform to this template. (of course, there can be any ZP X′
• XP : (ZP) X′′ number of X′ nodes, here we see
– A phrase (XP) consists of optionally another phrase and a bar- YP X′
level projection (X′). three).
X′
• X′′ : YP X′′ or X′′ : X′′ YP • Different parts of this structure YP
– A bar-level projection (X′) can consist of another X′ and another are given different names (and X WP
phrase (recursive).
they act different from one
• X′′ : X (WP)
– A bar-level projection (X′) consists of a head of the same
another, as we’ll see).
category (X) and optionally another phrase.
D AdjP N PP PP D AdjP N PP PP
the Adj book P NP P NP the Adj book P NP P NP
big of N with big of N with
D AdjP N D AdjP N
poems the poems the
Adj cover Adj cover
blue blue
4
X-bar Theory: NP X-bar Theory: NP
• The head of this NP is book. • The head of this NP is book.
NP • The complement is of poems. NP • The complement is of poems.
N′ • With the blue cover and big are N′ • With the blue cover and big are
adjuncts. adjuncts.
N′ N′ • The is in specifier position.
N′ N′ Note: D here is not
a phrase; it does not
D AdjP N PP PP D AdjP N PP PP conform to X-bar
theory. We will fix
the Adj book P NP P NP the Adj book P NP P NP this soon.
big of N with big of N with
D AdjP N D AdjP N
poems the poems the
Adj cover Adj cover
blue blue
5
X-bar theory: NP X-bar theory: NP
• Finally, recall our one- XP • And this prediction is met:
replacement test. One can ZP X′ – The book of poems on the third shelf
stand in for an N′, but not
YP X′ – The one on the fourth shelf
for an N.
X′
– *The one of essays on the third shelf
• This predicts that you YP
should not ever be able to • So, X-bar structures seem to accurately
X WP
get one followed by a characterize the structure of the NP.
complement PP; One
should only be able to be One would replace
an X′ node.
followed by adjunct PPs.
6
X-bar theory: NP X-bar theory: NP
• The complement has to be closest to the head. Adjuncts
can be re-ordered. • Complements cannot be conjoined with adjuncts;
– The boring linguistics book likes can only be conjoined with likes.
– *The linguistics boring book – The long and boring linguistics book
– The boring old linguistics book
– The old boring linguistics book
– The linguistics and literature book
• Note: English adjectives tend to have a preferred order, – *The boring and literature book
but putting them out of order sounds a lot better than – *The long and linguistics book
having a complement separated from the head N.
– The big red linguistics book
– ?The red big linguistics book
– *The big linguistics red book
7
Side comment X-bar theory: VP
• A quick pause to remind us of what we’re doing…
• We are characterizing what native speakers know about • X-bar theory hypothesizes that phrases of all
language (in this instance, NPs). categories have the same basic structure.
• Chances are, those of you who are native speakers of • In particular, VP has the same properties as NP:
English, didn’t know about the distinction between
– Only one complement
complements and adjuncts and the rules governing their use.
• Yet, if you agree with my assignment of grammaticality and – Adjuncts which can be of any number and are re-
ungrammaticality, you nevertheless knew the distinction and orderable
the structures. • So, let’s see how this plays out in phrases other
• That is, there really is a system here hiding beneath our than NP.
consciousness. There really is something to this stuff.
8
X-bar theory: AdjP, PP X-bar theory: Specifiers
• So-replacement can’t strand the complement (AdjP). • One position we haven’t XP
addressed yet is the specifier
– John was afraid of tigers; Mary was less so (*of lions). position (ZP here), the daughter of ZP X′
• There can be only one complement (AdjP). XP and sister of X′. YP X′
– *John was afraid of tigers of lions. • In our rules so far, we have had
almost nothing which occupies X′ YP
• There can be only one complement (PP). that position, but we will see more
X WP
– *John fell off the roof the house. shortly.
• X-bar theory allows for only one
specifier (like with the
complement).
9
X-bar theory: DP X-bar theory: DP
• Consider the genitive (possessive) ’s in English:
• This structure is in accord – John’s hat
with X-bar theory, but what DP – The student’s sandwich
other evidence can we come D′ – The man from Australia’s book
up with that it is actually – The man on the hill by the tree’s binoculars
D NP • Notice that the ’s attaches to the whole possessor phrase—in
right? the
the last two examples, it isn’t even attached to the head
N′ noun (it’s the man’s book and binoculars, not Australia’s or
N the tree’s, after all).
book • This is not a noun suffix. It seems more like a little word
that signals possession, standing between the possessor and
the possessee.
10
X-bar theory: DP X-bar theory: DP
• The student’s DP
• Another thing of interest about the mother’s
DP D′
brother’s
possessor phrase is its recursive property.
roommate DP D′ D NP
• The possessor is a DP in the specifier of DP. ’s
That means that the DP possessor could DP D′ D NP N′
’s
have a possessor too… D′ D NP N′ N
’s roommate
• The student’s father’s book D NP N′ N
the brother
• The student’s mother’s brother’s roommate
N′ N
mother
N
student
11
X-bar theory: Bare nouns and X-bar theory: Bare nouns and
proper names proper names
• How about something like students (in Students • So for the bare noun students,
poured out of the auditorium at noon) or John (in we have a structure like that DP
John went for a walk)? shown here. D′
• For students, we want to believe that it is an • As for proper names like John,
instance of the N category (in order to make sense D NP
of the students or we students or John’s students. we will for the moment assume Ø
But if this N is contained in a DP (the complement that they are more like N′
of a D head), where is the D? pronouns than like bare
• In order to maintain consistency, we’ll suppose nouns—the proper noun is an N
students
that in bare nouns D is present but null (it has no instance of the category D.
phonological representation; we write this as Ø).
12
X-bar theory: Specifiers X-bar theory: TP
• However, for the purpose of a) consistency and b)
compatibility down the road, we will assume this was not in • Now, let’s look a bit more globally. We left off
fact correct. last time with a rule for TP (which we used to call
• Instead, we will assume that, except for the possessor in DP, “S”) that looks like this:
we have not met any specifiers yet. – TP: NP T VP
• So, when you go back and look over your notes, consider • Since X-bar theory has been working so far, we
the proper interpretation to be as follows: assume that TP too must have an X-bar-compliant
structure, not the flat structure this rule provides.
– PP: P′′ – AdjP: Adj′′ • And, of course, now that we know the student is a
– P′′ : (AdjP) P′′ – Adj′′ : (AdvP) Adj′′ DP and the student is a perfectly fine subject, we
need to change the NP in the rule to a DP.
– P′′ : P′′ (PP) adjuncts – Adj′′ : Adj (PP)
– P′′ : P DP
13
TP
More complex… Where we are…
DP T′
• Slightly more complex:
– John’s dog chewed a bone. DP D′ T VP • X-bar theory says that all XP
-ed
• We see that: NP V′
phrases have the structure ZP X′
D′ D
– There is a TP. ’s here.
N′ YP X′
– There is a VP. D V DP – ZP is the specifier,
chew
– The subject is in SpecTP. John X′ YP
N D′ – The YPs are adjuncts,
– Every XP has a head and an X′. dog
NP – The WP is the complement, X WP
– The possessor is in SpecDP. D
– The direct object is the a – The X is the head,
N′
complement of V. – The XP is the phrase
N
bone
14
Finiteness Finiteness
• We refer to the infinite forms of the verb as • Matrix clauses seem never to be nonfinite;
nonfinite, and forms of the verb without to and all matrix clauses are finite.
with tense marking or subject agreement marking • Embedded clauses can be either nonfinite or
as finite. finite (depending on certain other factors).
• We’ve already discussed the idea that tense – I want John to leave.
information is something that is represented in the – I said that John left.
tree in the T node.
– I said that Mary should leave.
• T can be either finite (past, present) or nonfinite – I see that Ben exercises regularly.
(in which case it often holds to).
15
Finiteness: tense and agreement Finiteness
• In English, an overt (non-Ø) tense suffix generally “takes
priority” over subject agreement. Having a past tense • Because of all the zero morphology, it isn’t always
suffix (-ed) for nearly all verbs precludes having an overt obvious when a clause is nonfinite. Although to is
subject agreement in 3sg:
a good tip-off, it’s not always present in a
– I walk; he walks
nonfinite clause.
– I walked; he walked.
– I told you to eat broccoli.
• The only exception is the copula (to be) which shows
both tense and subject agreement: – I saw you eat broccoli.
– I am; he is; you/they/we are – I know you eat broccoli.
– I/he was; you/they/we were • The first is clearly nonfinite, but so is one of the
• Nevertheless, the assumption is that they are both there other ones. Which one?
abstractly. Finite verbs agree with the subject and have
tense morphology.
Finiteness Finiteness
– I saw you eat broccoli. – I saw him eat broccoli.
– I know you eat broccoli.
– I know he eats broccoli.
• Because the you form (2sg; 2pl) does not show
overt subject agreement, one thing to try is to – He eats broccoli.
change the subject to 3sg: – *Him eats broccoli.
– I saw him eat broccoli. • Another point to notice is the form of the
– I know he eats broccoli.
pronoun: In finite sentences the masculine
• Ah-ha! With a 3sg subject, we find agreement in
the second sentence; it must be finite. There is no 3sg pronoun is he, but in nonfinite
agreement in the first sentence, so it must be sentences it is him.
nonfinite.
16
Finiteness Some more thoughts on T
• Another way to tell whether a clause is finite is to • Let’s narrow in just a little bit on T for a moment.
look at the complementizer, if there is one. • A clause, finite or nonfinite, must have a T node,
• The complementizer that always introduces finite must have a TP. In a nonfinite clause the T often is
clauses, and the complementizer for always (in where we see to.
contemporary English) introduces nonfinite • In a finite clause, T is where we see modals like
clauses. should, would, might, shall, … Note that these
clauses do not show subject agreement, but they
– John’s parents wish for him to succeed.
are nevertheless finite (and arguably show tense
– John’s parents said that he will succeed. distinctions, e.g., should vs. shall, could vs. can)
– He should leave
– I might leave.
Auxiliary be Auxiliary be
– John is (not) happy. – John is (not) happy.
TP TP
• The verb be starts out (abstractly) • The verb be starts out (abstractly)
as shown here, the head of the DP T′ as shown here, the head of the DP T′
VP. VP.
D′ T
[+past]
VP • The verb then moves (before we D′ V+T VP
be+[past]
D V′ pronounce it) up to T. D V′
John • But not if there is a modal in T John
V AdjP – John might (not) be happy. V AdjP
be —
• This is sort of similar to (but
Adj′ Adj′
backwards from) the idea of how
Adj [past] -ed “hops” down from T to Adj
happy V to form past tense verbs. happy
17
Auxiliary have
• The same can be said of have.
TP
• In general have is a “helping verb”;
when it is an auxiliary is not the DP T′
only verb in the sentence. The other
verb is in its own VP, in the D′ V+T VP
complement of have’s VP. have+[past]
– John might (not) have written.
D V′
John
• For the moment, we’ll treat the V VP
participle written as if it were a
simple verb (not worrying about
—
V′
where the -en came from); we’ll
come to that within a couple of V
weeks. written
18