CAS LX 522 Syntax I. X-bar Theory: NP. X-bar Theory: NP. X-bar Theory: NP. X-bar Theory: NP. Week 3. X-bar Theory

Transcription

1 CAS L 522 Syntax I Week 3. -bar Theory Back to trees: -bar Theory Consider our current rule: : (D) (+) (+) This yields a flat structure where all components D c-command each or. D this book -bar Theory: I bought this book with. You bought this small one. -bar Theory: We can substitute one for book with, which should mean book with is a constituent, but it isn t in our structure. D D this book this book -bar Theory: I bought this small one with red. We can also substitute one in for book alone, which should thus also be a constituent. -bar Theory: This suggests a more deeply embedded structure:?? D D this book this book 1

2 -bar Theory: We ll call se intermediate nodes (-bar). otice that you can also say I bought this one. D this book -bar Theory: So, our final looks like this: D this book -bar Theory: We need to break up our rule; instead : (D) (+) (+) We have: : (D) : : : () otice that se yield same results on surface (note recursion and optionality) but produce different structures (in terms constituency). otice also that under se rules, any node has no more than two daughters (binary branching). -bar Theory: V The same kind thing holds V as well as. Instead using one (which stands for ) we can try doing replacements using do so, and we ll get a very similar result. Our old rule generated a flat structure for V as well (all s, s, Cs, etc. in a V c-command each or). V: (Adv+) V ({/C}) (+) (Adv+) -bar Theory: V V: (Adv+) V ({/C}) (+) (Adv+) I quickly left after Mary did so. I left quickly after Mary did so. I ate pizza with gusto and Mary did so with quiet reserve. I ate pizza with gusto immediately and Mary did so later. -bar Theory: V Again, it looks like we need to break our rule into parts using V! (for which do so can substitute). V: (Adv+) V ({/C}) (+) (Adv+) To: V: V! V! : Adv V! V! : V! V! : V! Adv V! : V ({/C}) Again, this is (almost) same on surface, but yields a different structure. And again, binary. 2

3 -bar Theory: V Our new rules do not quite make same predictions about surface strings Vs, however. The old rules had (+) before (Adv+), new rules allow m to intermingle. But that s actually better: John grabbed book quickly from table triumphantly. John grabbed book f table quickly with a devilish grin -bar Theory: We should now be growing suspicious our or rules, now that we have had to split up and V and introduce and V! nodes. The governor was [ very concerned about housing costs ]; tenants were [ even more so ]. The studio was [ unusually pleased with its actors and confident success ]. The first statement was true; second was less so. This gives us evidence : (Adv)!! : () -bar Theory: The frisbee landed on ro. It landed right on edge. John knocked it right f ro and into trashcan. Mark was at odds with his supervisor. Mark was in love and at odds with his supervisor. So, this gives us (assuming right is an ): : ()!! :! ()! : D -bar ory The main idea behind -bar ory is to explain similarity between rules for each category. It is an attempt to generalize over rules we have. : ()!! :! ()! : D : (Adv)!! : () : (D) : : : () V: V! V! : Adv V! V! : V! V! : V! Adv V! : V ({/C}) -bar ory -bar ory The in -bar ory is a variable over categories. When we talk, we mean to be describing any kind phrase (V,,, Adv,, T, C, ). : ()!! :! ()! : D : (Adv)!! : () : (D) : : : () V: V! V! : Adv V! V! : V! V! : V! Adv V! : V ({/C}) The rules all have following form: : Z : (Y) : (Y) : (W) : ()!! :! ()! : D : (Adv)!! : () : (D) : : : () V: V! V! : Adv V! V! : V! V! : V! Adv V! : V ({/C}) 3

4 -bar ory -bar ory -bar ory elevates this to a principle phrase structure; it hyposizes that all phrases in a syntactic tree conform to this template. : (Z) A phrase () consists optionally anor phrase and a barlevel projection (). : Y or : Y A bar-level projection () can consist anor and anor phrase (recursive). : (W) A bar-level projection () consists a head same category () and optionally anor phrase. Structurally, this looks like this ( course, re can be any number nodes, here we see three). Different parts this structure are given different names (and y act different from one anor, as we ll see). Z Y Y W -bar ory -bar ory The phrase which is immediately dominated by (designated Z here) is specifier. A phrase dominated by and sister is an adjunct. The phrase which is sister to is complement. Z Y Y W We have posited a structural difference between complements (W here, which re is only one) and adjuncts (Y here, which re can be any number), and so we should expect to find that y behave differently. Consider Z Y Y W -bar Theory: The head this is book. -bar Theory: The head this is book. The complement is. D D book book 4

5 -bar Theory: The head this is book. The complement is. With and are D book adjuncts. -bar Theory: The head this is book. The complement is. With and are D book adjuncts. The is in specifier position. ote: D here is not a phrase; it does not conform to -bar ory. We will fix this soon. -bar ory: The complement a head (e.g., in a book ) tends to feel more intimately related to head. Compare a book on table. The complement in English is almost always introduced by preposition. -bar ory allows for only one complement, and indeed in we cannot have two -s this sort: *The book fiction Cf. The book and fiction -bar ory: An adjunct, on or hand, feels more optional A book on table -bar ory allows for any number adjuncts (not just one, like with complements). The book with on third shelf about C++ uncts can generally be re-ordered freely. The book with about C++ on third shelf The book about C++ with on third shelf The book about C++ on third shelf with The book on third shelf with about C++ The book on third shelf about C++ with -bar ory: -bar ory: -bar structure also predicts that complement an must be first; it cannot be re-ordered with respect to Z adjunct s. The book with on third shelf *The book with on third shelf *The book on third shelf with *The book with on third shelf Y Y W Or tests differentiate adjuncts and complements too. Conjoining two elements a given category yields an element same category; if conjunction is possible two conjuncts are same category. You cannot conjoin a complement and an adjunct (where could it go in structure?), although you can conjoin complements and you can conjoin adjuncts: The book and essays The book with and with red spine *The book and with red spine 5