lecture four: x’-theory
DESCRIPTION
Lecture Four: X’-theory. Ian Roberts. The story so far:. Syntactic theory provides structural descriptions of sentences (labelled bracketings, tree diagrams) in terms of categories and constituents - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Ian Roberts
04/21/23 1Roberts, Structure, Mich 2010, Lecture 4
The story so far:
Syntactic theory provides structural descriptions of
sentences (labelled bracketings, tree diagrams) in terms of categories and constituents
PS-rules specify all and only the grammatical structures (well-formed structural descriptions) of a language
PS-rules can be recursive, and thereby specify an infinite set of well-formed structural descriptions
Constituency tests can be used to show which structural descriptions are correct
Today we will make a significant refinement to the
system of PS-rules.
04/21/23 2Roberts, Structure, Mich 2010, Lecture 4
Some PS-rules of English:a. NP (D) N (PP)
[NP [D the ] [N picture ] [PP [P of ] [NP [N John ]]]]
b. AP (Mod) A (PP) [AP [Mod very ] [A angry ] [PP [P with ] [NP [N John ]]]]
c. PP (Mod) P NP [PP [Mod just ] [P beyond ] [NP [D the ] [N frontier ]]]
d. VP (AdvP) V NP [VP [AdvP really] [V enjoy ] [NP [D the ] [N movie ]]]
04/21/23 3Roberts, Structure, Mich 2010, Lecture 4
Some impossible PS-rules:
a. NP V AP b. PP N V c. AP V NP
04/21/23 4Roberts, Structure, Mich 2010, Lecture 4
A generalisation over attested PS-rules
XP (highly optional stuff) X (fairly optional stuff)
In fact, the stuff following X depends on the lexical entry of X.
04/21/23 5Roberts, Structure, Mich 2010, Lecture 4
Some sample lexical entriesbuy(V) ___ NP So: VP V NPrely(V) ___ PP So: VP V PPput(V) ___ NP PP So: VP V NP PPsay(V) ___ CP So: VP V CP The material following X is known as the
complement of X; that preceding it as the Specifier of X (the Determiner “specifies” something about the Noun; the modifier “specifies” something about the A/P, etc.).
04/21/23 6Roberts, Structure, Mich 2010, Lecture 4
Collapsing the PS-rules into the X’ schemaa. XP Spec X’b. X’ X complement
-- here X is a categorial variable whose possible values are one of N, V, A, P.
04/21/23 7Roberts, Structure, Mich 2010, Lecture 4
In tree format XPruYP X’
ruX ZP
structurally, therefore, a complement = the sister
of a head, while a specifier = the sister of the head + complement structure (X’) → different levels of syntactic “closeness” are structurally represented
04/21/23 8Roberts, Structure, Mich 2010, Lecture 4
Evidence for X’ from coordination a. the [ pictures of John ] and [ books
about Mary ]b. very [ angry with John ] and [ worried
about Mary ]c. just [ beyond the frontier ] and [ down
the road ]d. really [ enjoy the movie ] and [ dislike
the book ]
04/21/23 9Roberts, Structure, Mich 2010, Lecture 4
3-level structure:head (X) head (X) + its complement = X’[X’ head (X) + its complement] + specifier =
XP
04/21/23 10Roberts, Structure, Mich 2010, Lecture 4
Some terminology:
X’ is an intermediate projection between the head (X) and its maximal projection (XP)
depending on the information in the lexical entry, the complement may, like the Specifier, not be generated: smile(V) ___ (so V’ V)
X-Bar Theory is nevertheless meant to operate in a “blind” fashion as far as its hierarchical structure is concerned: although complements and specifiers are generated depending on lexical considerations, it is always essential that X be dominated by X’ and that X’ be dominated by XP – cf. the X-Bar representation of Liz (strictly speaking; textbooks generally don’t bother to fill in all the redundant structure, but this is theoretically important)
04/21/23 11Roberts, Structure, Mich 2010, Lecture 4
NP|N’
|N
Liz
04/21/23 12Roberts, Structure, Mich 2010, Lecture 4
Extension to functional categoriesa. John
will/can/should/would/won’t/doesn’t talk to Mary.
b. John has/hasn’t left.c. John is/isn’t leaving.-- evidence for an Aux position in English
sentences, which is distinct from VP.
04/21/23 13Roberts, Structure, Mich 2010, Lecture 4
VP-fronting a. We expected John (not) to talk to Mary,
and [VP talk to Mary ], John will/can/should/would/won’t/doesn’t t.
b. We thought John leave, and [VP left ] he has t /[VP leaving ] he is t.
04/21/23 14Roberts, Structure, Mich 2010, Lecture 4
VP-proform (do so)Angela will [VP finish the race in under an
hour] and Michael will do so too.
04/21/23 15Roberts, Structure, Mich 2010, Lecture 4
ElisionRichard has [VP entered the competition] → I
know he has [ ]
04/21/23 16Roberts, Structure, Mich 2010, Lecture 4
S → NP (Aux) VP Is Aux really optional? What (grammatical)
information does it contain?
04/21/23 17Roberts, Structure, Mich 2010, Lecture 4
a. Michelle has finished her paper → I know she has [ ]
b. Richard has entered the competition → I know he has [ ]
04/21/23 18Roberts, Structure, Mich 2010, Lecture 4
Tag questionsAux and subject of the main clause,
confirming it’s true:
a. So her work is finished, is it?b. So he has entered the competition, has
he?
04/21/23 19Roberts, Structure, Mich 2010, Lecture 4
DoIf no auxiliary is present in the main clause,
do appears:a. Michelle finished her paper. I know
she did [ ].b. Richard entered the competition. I
know he did [ ].c. So she finished her work, did she?d. So he entered the competition, did he?
04/21/23 20Roberts, Structure, Mich 2010, Lecture 4
Aux always expresses at least tense and
agreement with the subjectThe appearance of do where the verb is
deleted implies that tense and agreement (i.e. Aux) must always be expressed. If there is no verb or auxiliary independently available, do shows up.
04/21/23 21Roberts, Structure, Mich 2010, Lecture 4
S NP Aux VPdoesn’t fit the X’-schema, but there is
evidence from coordination for an intermediate-level category:
John [ should talk to this man ] and [ will then act on the consequences ].
04/21/23 22Roberts, Structure, Mich 2010, Lecture 4
S NP ???? Aux VP-- What category is this?
04/21/23 23Roberts, Structure, Mich 2010, Lecture 4
AuxP AuxP
ru
NP Aux’ he ru Aux VP should ru V PP talk ru P NP to ru D N this man
04/21/23 24Roberts, Structure, Mich 2010, Lecture 4
What about when there is no auxiliary?There is still a tense. So we rechristen AuxP
as TP (better for other languages, as nearly all languages have tense but not all languages have auxiliaries).
04/21/23 25Roberts, Structure, Mich 2010, Lecture 4
TPTP
ru NP T’ he ru T VP should r u V PP talk r u P NP to ru D N this man
04/21/23 26Roberts, Structure, Mich 2010, Lecture 4
What about CP?We can treat complementisers as heads, so
we have: C’ C TP
04/21/23 27Roberts, Structure, Mich 2010, Lecture 4
CP(John said) CP
|C’
ruC TPthat ru
NP T’ he ru
T VPshould ru
V PPtalk ru P NP to Mary
04/21/23 28Roberts, Structure, Mich 2010, Lecture 4
“Sluicing” and the Specifier of CP
John knew he had to talk to one of the students, but he couldn’t remember
[CP which one ([TP he should talk to])
04/21/23 29Roberts, Structure, Mich 2010, Lecture 4
(He couldn’t remember) CPruNP C’
which oneru ru C TP
ruNP T’he ru
T VPshould ru V PP
talk ru P NP
to t
- note the wh-movement here
04/21/23 30Roberts, Structure, Mich 2010, Lecture 4