3.

6 Syntactic Relations
•Phrases and sentences are formed by a series of binary
merger operations. The resulting structures can be
represented in the form of tree diagrams.

•Because these tree diagrams mark the way words are

combined, they are called phrase markers or P-markers.

•They show how phrase or sentence is built up out of

constituents of various types.
•A tree diagram provides a visual representation of
the
constituent structure of the corresponding expression.
• Each node in the tree carries a category label
like N, V, T, PP, CP etc.) represents a different
constituent of the sentence.
• Many different constituents in any P-Marker
equals many nodes carrying category labels.
• Nodes at the very bottom of the tree are
called terminal nodes, and other nodes are
non-terminal nodes.
• The D, N, T, V and P nodes in (26) are terminal
nodes, and all the DP, PP, VP, T TP nodes are
non-terminal nodes.
• The topmost node in any tree structure( TP in
26) is called root.
• Each terminal node in the tree carries a single
lexical item
• Because the syntactic relations are central to
syntactic description, it is useful to develop a
terminology to describe the syntactic relations
between constituents.
• a P-marker is a graph comprising a set of points (=
labelled nodes), connected by branches representing
containment relations.
•Containment Relations tell us which
constituents contain or are contained within
which other constituents.
• In (39), G immediately contains H and J (and
conversely H and J are the two constituents
immediately contained within G, and hence
are the two immediate constituents of G).
• A particularly important syntactic relation is that of c-
command (a conventional abbreviation of
constituent-command)
• A useful way of determining the relative position of
two different constituents within the same tree.
• We can define this relation informally:
C-command :
• A constituent X c-commands its sister constituent Y
and any constituent Z which is contained within Y

• In the light of the definition of c-command given

above, let’s consider which constituents each of the
nodes in (39) c-commands.
• We can illustrate the importance of the c-
command relation in syntactic description
by looking at anaphors
• These include reflexives (i.e. self/selves forms like
myself/yourself/themselves etc.),
• and reciprocals like each other and one another.
• Such anaphors have the property that they
cannot be used to refer directly to an entity in the
outside world, but rather must be bound by an
antecedent elsewhere in the same phrase or
sentence.
• Where an anaphor has no (suitable) antecedent to
bind it, the resulting structure is ungrammatical

(a) He must feel proud of himself

(b) ∗She must feel proud of himself
(c) ∗Himself must feel proud of you
• There are structural restrictions on the binding
of anaphors by their antecedents, as we see
from:
• (42) (a) The president may blame himself
• (b) ∗Supporters of the president may blame himself
• (43) (a) They may implicate each other
• (b) ∗The evidence against them may implicate each
other
• The question of what is the right position for the
antecedent can be defined in terms of the following
structural condition:
• C-command condition on binding
A bound constituent must be c-commanded by an
appropriate antecedent
•The relevant bound constituent is the reflexive
anaphor himself in (45), and its antecedent is the
president. So, the sentence below is grammatical:
•But now consider why a structure like (46) below is
ungrammatical:

∗Supporters of the president may blame himself

3.7 Bare phrase structure

• We have used a system of category labels based on

the bar notation which has been widely adopted
since the 1970s.
• Within this framework, a sentence like I will survive
has the structure:
•The system of category labels which posits three different
types of category label for projections of a given head H (viz. H,
H-bar and HP) violates a UG principle which he terms the
Inclusiveness Condition:
No new information can be introduced in the course of the
syntactic derivation
•One way of avoiding violation of inclusiveness is to
remove all information about projection levels from
trees, and hence replace a tree like (47) above by one
like (49) below:
• The category labels in (49) can be entirely
replaced by sets of features which to develop
theory of bare phrase structure a theory in
which there are no category labels in syntactic
trees.
• This would be for the structure of I will survive
to be represented in terms of an unlabelled
tree diagram.
• An unlabelled tree diagram like (50) tells us
that the constituents of (50) are I, will, survive,
will survive and I will survive.
• The lexical entries for the items I, will and
survive comprise sets of features which include
information about their grammatical and
selectional properties
• The fact that will selects an infinitive
complement means that survive must be the
complement of will and hence that will
survive is a projection of will
• The overall conclusion we arrive at is that the
information about category labels and
projection levels in a conventional labelled
tree diagram like (47) above may well be
redundant.
A concluding statement concerning the description of
“I will survive”.

If Radford had been aware that “No one will survive”, he

would never have spent so much “Ink and space” on
“ I will survive”.

THANK YOU