guía didáctica sintaxis

Summaries

ndice

| Siguiente | SUMMARIES PART I: PRELIMINARIES Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: Parts of Speech Chapter 3: Constituency Chapter 4: Structural Relation Chapter 5: Binding theory Summary Supplementary references PART II: THE BASE Chapter 6: X-bar Theory Chapter 7: Extending X-bar Theory to Functional Categories Chapter 8: Constraining X-bar Theory: The Lexicon Summary Supplementary readings PART III: Movement Chapter 9: Head-to-Head Movement Chapter 10: DP Movement Chapter 11: Wh-movement Chapter 12: A Unified Theory of Movement Summary Supplementary readings PART IV: Advanced Topics Chapter 13: Expanded VPs Chapter 14: Rasing, Control, and Empty Categories Summary Supplementary ReadingsSummaries

| Siguiente |

HYPERLINK "javascript:top.my_webct.update_breadcrumb('%C3%8Dndice','/SCRIPT/4650511/scripts/student/serve_page.pl/4650511/materiales/contenidos/contenidos_html/indicetemas.htm?2927200942+2927213931+++','/SCRIPT/4650511/scripts/student/serve_page.pl/4650511/materiales/contenidos/contenidos_html/indicetemas.htm?2927200942+2927213931+DESIGN',%20-1,%201,%201)" \o "ndice" | ndice |

HYPERLINK "javascript:top.my_webct.update_breadcrumb('%C3%8Dndice','/SCRIPT/4650511/scripts/student/serve_page.pl/4650511/materiales/contenidos/contenidos_html/indicetemas.htm?2927200942+2927213931+++','/SCRIPT/4650511/scripts/student/serve_page.pl/4650511/materiales/contenidos/contenidos_html/indicetemas.htm?2927200942+2927213931+DESIGN',%20-1,%201,%201)" \o "Anterior" | Anterior |This course is an introduction to syntax within the framework of generative grammar. The emphasis is on description, with some analysis and argumentation. The goal is twofold: to become familiar with core facts of English syntax, as well as with issues and techniques central to syntactic theory, and to understand typological adequacy as an important tool for linguistic research.

In what follows, you will find a review of each chapter of the textbook so that you can have a summary of the major points as well as an illustration and exemplification of some of the basic theoretical assumptions behind each chapter. Then, the main linguistic phenomena discussed in the textbook for the English language are re-examined and illustrated with new examples that may help you understand the syntactic analysis proposed in the textbook. Some of the crucial terms employed in the text are also further explained.

Main course objectives

To develop an understanding of the basic theoretical constructs underlying generative syntax.

To learn basic structures and principles used in generative approaches to syntax.

To learn to use syntactic analysis and argumentation to examine and compare a variety of structures.

To apply syntactic structures and argumentation to novel structures and/or new languages.

At the end of the course you are expected to:

Describe how syntax is a part of Cognitive Science.

Define the difference between prescriptive and descriptive rules of grammar.

Describe how to apply the scientific method to syntactic data.

Define the three levels of linguistic adequacy: observational, descriptive and explanatory.

Identify the notion of constituent and provide tree diagrams for syntactic structures.

Define parameter and its role in accounting for syntactic variation.

Use morphological, semantic and syntactic information to identify word classes and phrase types.

Determine the relationships within and between phrases and phrase markers.

Use several different diagnostic tests to determine phrases and constituents.

Summarize and apply arguments for constituent and phrasal structures for phrases, clauses and sentences.

Summarize the arguments for X' (X-bar) structures.

Apply X-bar structures to all types of phrases (lexical and functional).

Define thematic relations and theta roles.

Explain how theta roles can be used to constrain syntactic structures.

Analyse verb movement as an instance of head-movement.

Identfy the properties of passives as NP-movement.

Distinguish Raising from Control.

Identify a second instance of transformation:Wh-movement and each of their idiosyncratic properties.

Analyse VP-shells as an intention to combine syntax with semantics.

PART I: Preliminaries

| Siguiente |


HYPERLINK "javascript:top.my_webct.update_breadcrumb('Summaries','/SCRIPT/4650511/scripts/student/serve_page.pl/4650511/materiales/contenidos/contenidos_html/summaries.htm?2927200942+2927213944+++','/SCRIPT/4650511/scripts/student/serve_page.pl/4650511/materiales/contenidos/contenidos_html/summaries.htm?2927200942+2927213944+DESIGN',%20-1,%201,%201)" \o "Anterior" | Anterior |This part constitutes an introduction to the fundamentals of syntactic theory and more particularly to generative grammar, which is the theoretical paradigm we will be using in this course. Then, the textbook firstly addresses the methodological underpinnings of the model in Chapter 1. Next, a preliminary introduction to syntactic representation in terms of tree diagrams and bracketing is given in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 explores fundamental relations that hold between syntactic units such as dominance, precedence, c-command etc. Finally, Chapter 5 gives an account of Binding Theory, a theoretical construct extremely useful to account for a wide range of syntactic phenomena.

Chapter 1: Generative Grammar

| Siguiente|


HYPERLINK "javascript:top.my_webct.update_breadcrumb('PART%20I:%20Preliminaries','/SCRIPT/4650511/scripts/student/serve_page.pl/4650511/materiales/contenidos/contenidos_html/part1.htm?2927200942+2927213932+++','/SCRIPT/4650511/scripts/student/serve_page.pl/4650511/materiales/contenidos/contenidos_html/part1.htm?2927200942+2927213932+DESIGN',%20-1,%201,%201)" \o "Anterior" | Anterior |Objectives

Distinguish between Language and language (or else between I-language and E-language)

Explain the scientific method: native speakers intuitions.

Distinguish between prescriptive and descriptive rules.

Discuss the sources of data: corpus vs. native speakers intuitions.

Distinguish Learning from Acquisition.

Explain the notion of Universals Grammar by drawing on related arguments such as Innateness, underdetermination of the data, universals and language variation.

Distinguish Observational, Descriptive and Explanatory adequacies.

CommentThis first chapter explores some basic theoretical concepts which are fundamental to understand Generative Grammar (hereafter, GG), the theoretical paradigm that will be used for the description of the syntactic structures in this course. Before getting into the exact details of the theory, let us just give you some historical background about this model.

The more recent history of linguistics has been permeated by a debate between what has been called the formal and the functional paradigms2. GG is a formal model which has often been contrasted to the functional models. Generativist and functional models are based on radically different conceptions of the nature of language. Generalizing a bit, GG maintains that language is an abstract object, and grammar is thought to be an attempt at defining this object in terms of a set of abstract rules and principles, which are postulated without making any reference to the uses and meanings of the constructions described. Consider the following passage:

The study of generative grammar has been guided by several fundamental problems, each with a traditional flavor. The basic concern is to determine and characterize the linguistic capacities of particular individuals. We are concerned, then, with states of the language, which we understand to be some array of cognitive traits and capacities, a particular component of the human mind/brain. The language faculty has an initial state, genetically determined; in the normal course of development it passes through a series of states in early childhood, reaching a relatively stable steady state that undergoes little subsequent change, apart from the lexicon. To a good first approximation, the initial state appears to be uniform for the species. Adapting traditional terms to a special usage, we call the theory of the state attained itsgrammarand the theory of the initial state Universal Grammar (UG). (Chomsky, 1996: 14).

In this passage, Chomsky discusses grammar as a separate mental system (concept ofAutonomy) which is not, however, isolated from other mental systems (concept ofModularity). Rather we see language in its everyday usage as the result of the interaction of grammar with other mental systems. In this view,grammaris not a set of rules that you may memorize, i.e. how to punctuate a sentence or how to split up words in writing. It actually makes reference to a subconscious number of procedures which are part of our minds. Carnie (2002, page 5) points out that the goal of syntactic theory is to model these procedures and definesgenerative grammaras the set offormal ruleswhich generate the sentences of a language.

In contrast, functional approaches share the assumption that language - and more in particular its morphosyntactic structures - should be explained with reference to its semantic and communicative functions. Suffice the following passage which exemplifies this view:

RRG (Role and Reference Grammar, RM) takes language to be a system of communicative social action, and accordingly, analyzing the communicative functions of grammatical structures plays a vital role in grammatical description and theory from this perspective ... Language is a system, and grammar is a system in the traditional structuralist sense; what distinguishes the RRG conception is the conviction that grammatical structure can only be understood with reference to its semantic and communicative functions. (Van Valin, 1993:2)

Accordingly, a functional moderate theory emphasises the role of language as a means of communication and social interaction. From this it follows that structures should be explained and understood within the wider communicative context in which these occur. Thus, pragmatics is then the all-encompassing framework against which syntax and semantic must be studied.

As a concluding remark to this brief historical preamble, GG, as the major exponent of the formal paradigm, was firstly proposed and developed in Chomsky (1957 and 1965). It is interesting to note that GG has undergone different revisions over the years. Following Brucart (2002) and Jackendoff (2002), there are five major versions of the model; Chomsky (1957); theAspectsmodel, which provides the major foundations of the theory, some of which remain intact;The Extended Standard Version, which came out as a response to the hot debate between generative and interpretative semantics;Principles and Parameters, which constitutes one of the most solid proposals (cf. Chomsky, 1981); the Minimalist Program (cf. Chomsky, 1996). Then, this course uses Principles and Parameters (hereafter, PP) as the theoretical framework for the analysis and explanation of the whole set of syntactic structures.

A second issue that merits at least a cursory reference is the notion of typological adequacy, which defines the crosslinguistic approach taken in this course. Certainly, some of you might be a bit perplexed when you are given examples or asked to provide syntactic representations for languages other than English. Why am I given examples in Tagalog, Amele, Sioux, Russian etc.? Isnt this a course on English syntax? Let us briefly comment why linguistic models should meet the requirement of being typologically adequate.

As discussed in Mairal and Gil (2003, 2006), the 20th Century witnessed a renewed impetus in the search for properties common to all languages by linguists within the functional tradition as well as by generative linguists. This in fact gave rise in the eighties to numerous descriptive and comparative studies of a broad range of languages. Linguistic models are now revised or formulated with the aim of providing grammars for typologically divergent languages. In this regard, as Van Valin and La Polla affirm (1997:14) Role and Reference Grammargrew out as an attempt to answer the question what would linguistic theory look like if it were based on the analysis of Lakhota. Tagalog and Dyirbal, rather than on the analysis of English? This signifies that a theory of grammar should be able to provide descriptions for a wide number of different languages. This is in fact a very challenging and ambitious enterprise which is taking a lot of effort given that a lot of the languages in the world are becoming extinct without any steps being taken to remedy this loss. Thus, from now on you must bear in mind that your syntactic theory should not only be valid to describe and explain the inventory of syntactic structures that define English but also the inventory of syntactic structures of typologically divergent languages.

Now, let us move on to the exact details of the theory as expounded in the textbook. Chapter 1 concentrates on a number of theoretically related notions that the student should be able to handle and explain since these are then fundamental to understand the machinery behind GG. So, in what follows we shall explain a bit the following:

a. Language and language, which has also been referred to as I-language and E-language.

b. The scientific method, which mainly concerns the methodology that the linguist should adopt in his / her analyses.

c. The cardinal notion of Universal Grammar and the arguments associated to explain and justify its existence.

d. The levels of adequacy that a linguistic theory should meet.

First, a fundamental distinction is that of Language and language, which has also been referred to as I-language and E-language in the generative literature3. Chomsky believes that GG must render explicit the implicit knowledge of the speaker. His model of GG begins with an axiom and a set of well-defined rules to generate the desired word sentences. One of his goals with linguistics is to create an explanatory theory ofLanguage, or else,Internal language(I-language), which has been contrasted withlanguage, or elseExternal Language(or E-language). Generativists consider language (Spanish, English, or any language) to be a specific state of the language faculty. This state is known asI-language(i.e.Language) and represents the grammatical knowledge of competent speakers, who activate it as an objective and empirical phenomenon inE-language(i.e.language). I-language (orLanguage) thus represents a speakers linguistic competence or knowledge of language, whereas E-language (language) is the activation of that knowledge (e.g. French, German, Spanish, English etc.). Hence, for GG only the study of I-language (or Language) falls within the scope of linguistic inquiry.4Secondly, the study of syntax is contextualized within the larger setting of cognitive science. The main goal of GG is to offer one scientific method to describe linguistic phenomena by developing hypothesis about the data obtained through observation and by consulting native-speaker intuitions about meaning, form and grammaticality. In this respect, it mainly differs from other linguistic approaches to the study of language which are rather based on particulars, either as sets of prescriptive rules which tell the speaker how to speak in each case (prescriptive grammars), or as sets of functions as the basis for communication (functional or cognitive grammars). In contrast, in the study of linguistic data, GG proposes description and rejects prescription since generative linguists are concerned with language as it is naturally acquired not as it is explicitly taught.

This means that the linguist follows the scientific method as part of his /her methodology, which namely consists of gathering data, formulating generalizations and positing hypothesis. The author exemplifies this methodology by analyzing the distribution of anaphors (cf. section 3). In close connection with this, section 3.2. deals with the sources of data, which amount to corpus and the native speakers intuitions. Although corpus unquestionably provide a large amount of linguistic evidence, these are silent about negative information, that is, the set of ill-formed sentences in a language. It is claimed that in order to study Language not only should we have access to grammatical sentences but also to ungrammatical ones, something which corpus linguistics does not provide. Then, generative linguists resort to the native speakers intuitions to account for the type of ill-formedness involved in a sentence. In this regard, Carnie (p. 14) introduces a distinction between semantic and syntactic ill-formedness, which is of special interest (see exercise 2, Chapter 1). Next, hypotheses are developed and formulated in terms of rules. Here again, a very important distinction between prescriptive and descriptive rules is introduced. This course will deal with descriptive rules, that is, those rules that are part of the native speakers competence, or are an integral part of Language.

A further issue is to discuss the origin of the native speakers subconscious knowledge of syntactic or grammatical rules (cf. Section 4). In connection with this, two important notions are explained; learning and acquisition. GG is able to face the language acquisition problem which could be glossed as follows: how is it possible to explain the fact that a child at one point generates new grammatical sentences, which he / she has not heard before? One of the central concerns of GG has been to seek a theory of the language faculty known as Universal Grammar (UG). In this regard, Haegeman (1994: 16) argues:

Human beings are born equipped with some internal unconscious knowledge of grammar: Universal Grammar (UG). UG is a set of universal principles of language, some of which are rigidly fixed, some of which parametrized. Via the input of the experience of one particular language this knowledge can be implemented. The acquisition process is triggered by the exposure, the childs linguistic experience. Exposure will also enable the child to learn the vocabulary of the language

As argued in Mairal and Gil (2003, 2006), Chomsky (1965) reasons that children are born with a certain knowledge about their native language and this knowledge, which they cannot have acquired through experience, must, therefore, be attributable toinnatenessand what is innate must be universal, in the sense that it cannot vary drastically from one person to another. So, UG would be the initial state of the language faculty and it will develop towards a final stage which is the grammar of a certain language, obtained thanks to the interaction with experience around the individual, making possible the learning of one language or another. Consider the two schematic representations of the generative view of language acquisition extracted from Van Valin and LaPolla (1997:chapter 1) and Haegeman (1994: 16-17):

Final knowledge state (= adult grammatical competence)- Input from experience= Initial knowledge state (=language acquisition device [LAD])(Van Valin and LaPolla, 1997:10)

(Haegeman, 1994:16)

As the first representation illustrates, language acquisition can be explained in terms of a logical operation; the initial knowledge state of the acquirer or language acquisition device (LAD) can be obtained by factoring out what is provided by experience from the final state or adult grammar. It is claimed that if there is an element which is not attributable to experience, then it must be part of the initial state this assumption has been know as the argument from the poverty of the stimulus (Carnie in Section 4.4. refers to this fact as the undertermination of the data). Then, it is assumed that this initial state is very rich and it contains great part of the final content of the final stage. In much the same line, Haegemans representation exemplifies the fact that language acquisition is based on the interaction of two components: firstly the set of principles and parameters contained in UG and secondly the data supplied by experience. The combination of these two components allows the generation of the core grammar of a specific language(s).

Current work in the generative tradition puts forward the view of language acquisition in terms of parameter setting. Recall that out of the successive version that GG has undergone we advanced that Principles and Parameters (hereafter, PP) would constitute the theoretical framework of this course. According to the PP model, the child only has to learn those grammatical properties which are subject to parametric variation across languages. As Radford (1997:21) argues:

The simplified parameter-setting conception of the childs acquisition task has given rise to a metaphorical acquisition model in which the child is visualized as having to set a series of switches in one of two positions(up/down)each such switch representing a different structural parameter.

In a similar fashion, Jackendoff (2002: 75) uses the following metaphor to explain the way UG shapes acquisition:

I prefer to think of it [Universal Grammar, RM/JG], as a toolkit for constructing language, out of which the child (or better, the childs brain) f-selects tools appropriate to the job at hand. If the language in the environment happens to have a case system (like German), UG will help shape the childs acquisition of case; it it has a tone system (like Mandarin), UG will help shape the childs acquisition of tone. But if the language in the environment happens to be English, which lacks case and tone, these parts of UG will simply be silent.

Hence, Chomsky reacts against Skinners conductism and rejects the idea that a child is born with a white blackboard. Rather, children are born with a genetic predisposition to structure their acquisition of linguistic knowledge in a very specific manner. UG, in that sense, provides speakers with a series ofprinciplesthat can be applied to all languages. In contrast, we know that linguistic variation is very wide ranging, and in order to explain it, generativists postulate that the universal principles of UG undergo parametric variation. .In this sense, interlinked sets of principles and parameters constitute an authentically universal core grammar in which options for variation are reflected in the model by means of parameters. For example, thewh-parameteraccounts for the difference between languages which permit the fronting of awh-constituent (interrogative pronouns and adverbs) in questions, and those languages, such as Chinese, which do not. There is also thepro-drop parameter, which regulates variation in languages which allow the omission of the subject (e.g. Spanish, Italian) and those which do not (e.g. English)5:

Finally, Section 5 deals with the three levels of adequacy that a theory of grammar must meet6: These are: (1)observational adequacy,a grammar should be able to predict which sentences are grammatical and those which are not; (2)descriptive adequacy, the grammar must be observationally adequate and develop the general principles and processes that capture the native speakers intuitions about the structure of the sentences and that allow his /her to decide on the grammaticality of sentences; (3)explanatory adequacy, the grammar is descriptively adequate and is an integral component of a larger theory which provides an account of how these facts arise in the mind of the speaker-hearer (Chomsky, 1994: 368). Let us exemplify these notions with the following examples taken from Haegeman (1994:6):

(2) Detective stories, I dont like.

(3) Which stories do you like?

(4) *Detective stories, I wonder if he likes.

(5) *Where do you wonder if he lives?

If we want to account for the ungrammatical nature of (4) we could stipulate a principle that constraints direct object movement such that this cannot move acrossif. Seemingly, in order to account for (5) we could formulate a principle that regulates question formation such that thewhelement cannot move acrossif. Then, at this state what we are doing is to provide a description of facts without any attempt at capturing any generalizations or the like. Thus, we have attained observational adequacy. However, if we want to take a step forward and find out if there is a principle that accounts for the ill-formedness of both (4) and (5), i.e. no element in English must be moved acrossif, then we are trying to capture the set of principles that allow the native speaker to decide on the grammatical nature of sentences like the following:

(6) *To Bill, I wonderifhe will give any money.

(7) *Which detective do you wonderifEmsworth will invite for Sunday lunch?7At this state we have reached descriptive adequacy. Finally, according to Chomsky the fundamental object of inquiry in linguistics is to find out how a person can acquire knowledge of language, that is, explanatory adequacy.

In essence, this chapter introduces the fundamental underpinnings of the generative enterprise. We are now ready to begin doing a bit of syntactic analysis, which is precisely the aim of the following chapters.

subir

2A number of different linguistic paradigms emerged under the cover term functional: S.C. Diks Functional Grammar, Van Valins Role and Reference Grammar, Hallidays Systemic Functional Grammar, Givns Typological Grammar, Hoppers Emergent Grammar etc Following Nichols (1984), functional models could be classified in conservative, moderate and extreme depending on how they hold with respect to the issues of the autonomy of syntax and the autonomy of grammar. We refer the reader to the subject Modelos tericos descriptivos de la lengua inglesa, where a detailed description of these two major traditions is given. In this regard, Butler (2003) and Gonzlvez-Garca and Butler (2006) offer an impressive account of both functional and cognitive models.volver3Note that while we use the notions I-language and E-language, the textbook refers to these two notions as capital L and l.volver4See Mairal and Gil (2003) for an extensive discussion of this issue.volver5For an exhaustive treatment of the topic of linguistic universals we refer the reader to Mairal and Gil (2003, 2006), and the works contained therein.volver6This section namely follows Van Valin and LaPolla (1997: section 1.2.) and Haegeman (1994:2.1.).volver7Recall that all these examples as well as the line of argumentation behind these two notions are based on Haegeman (1994: 6).volverChapter 2: Parts of Speech

| Siguiente|


HYPERLINK "javascript:top.my_webct.update_breadcrumb('Chapter%201:%20Generative%20Grammar','/SCRIPT/4650511/scripts/student/serve_page.pl/4650511/materiales/contenidos/contenidos_html/chapter1.htm?2927200942+2927213917+++','/SCRIPT/4650511/scripts/student/serve_page.pl/4650511/materiales/contenidos/contenidos_html/chapter1.htm?2927200942+2927213917+DESIGN',%20-1,%201,%201)" \o "Anterior" | Anterior |Objectives

Parts of speech: semantic and distributional criteria.

Distinguish between open vs. close;: lexical vs. functional class parts of speech.

Identify subcategories and their corresponding features.

CommentBefore we actually begin drawing a syntactic tree, we need to identify the chapters that we will be using as well as the metalanguage involved in the theory. One basic claim is that the sentences of a language consist of words and some words go together to create larger units. For example, consider a sentence like (1):

(1) The man on the stage bought a newspaper at the bookstore yesterday

We know that certain words here belong to the same part of speech; for example, man, stage, newspaper, bookstore are all nouns; on and at are prepositions; a and the are determiners, etc. In this regard, the textbook (section 1) firstly addresses the issues of parts of speech and argues that semantic criteria are not sufficient to identify, say, a noun, a verb etc. That is, we cannot simply accept classical definitions that a noun is a person, place, or thing or that a verb is an action; there are in fact many counterexamples that question the validity of this assumption. Instead, the author maintains that the combination of semantic and distributional criteria provides a more coherent picture.

Not only do we know that each of the words in (1) belong to a syntactic category or part of speech, but also we know that certain words go together to create larger units of analysis called phrases. For example, the words the and man combine to form a noun phrase. Moreover, phrases can also be part of larger phrases, i.e. the noun phrase the stage combines with the preposition on to form the prepositional phrase on the stage. Thus, word-level categories are grouped into phraselevel categories. Moreover, within a phrase there is a central element called head or nucleus. Using the example above, a newspaper is a noun phrase since the nucleus is the head noun newspaper. This combination of words into a larger unit is called constituent.

In the remainder of this chapter, a number of relevant theoretical issues are introduced: Section 2 is concerned with the identification of the most relevant distributional criteria to identify a word class. Parts of speech can be classified in terms of lexical and functional categories, which is the major focus of Section 3. Finally, Section 4 discusses the major features that define each subcategory. We would like to draw your attention to the notion of argument structure (page 51) since this aspect of the theory is fundamental in chapter 8, where we will discuss the format of lexical entries in the lexicon.

Chapter 3: Constituency, Trees and Rules

| Siguiente|


HYPERLINK "javascript:top.my_webct.update_breadcrumb('Chapter%202:%20Parts%20of%20Speech','/SCRIPT/4650511/scripts/student/serve_page.pl/4650511/materiales/contenidos/contenidos_html/chapter2.htm?2927200942+2927213923+++','/SCRIPT/4650511/scripts/student/serve_page.pl/4650511/materiales/contenidos/contenidos_html/chapter2.htm?2927200942+2927213923+DESIGN',%20-1,%201,%201)" \o "Anterior" | Anterior |Objectives

The notion of constituency and the hierarchical structure of the clause.

Know the inventory of English phrase structure rules.

Know how to draw a syntactic tree.

Identify ambiguous structures and provide paraphrases and their corresponding syntactic representations.

Identify what a constituent is.

Apply the tests for constituency.

CommentThis chapter is an introductory chapter to the basic tools of syntactic analysis. Thus, one of the central notions that the student should be able to handle is that of constituency, which will be of paramount importance for the rest of the chapters. Besides, the procedures as well as the techniques and rules associated to tree drawing are explained. In this sense, the student is expected to work out structural ambiguity in terms of phrase structure. At the end of this chapter, the student is now ready to draw syntactic representations in terms of constituency. As shall be seen, this initial representation will be further developed by adding more complexity and refinement (cf. Chapters 6 and 7).

In order to determine whether or not a given string of words forms a constituent, GG exploits the geometrical properties of trees. In this line, GG offers an adequate and explicit description of the linguistic phenomena by making use of theoretical constructs which have definable formal properties. As Radford (1997:99) puts it:

The use of formal apparatus (involving a certain amount of technical terminology) may seem confusing at first to the beginner, but as in any other serious field of enquiry (e.g. molecular biology) no real progress can be made unless we try to construct formal models of the phenomena we are studying. It would clearly be irrational to accept the use of formalism in one field of enquiry (e.g. molecular biology) while rejecting it in another (e.g. linguistics): hence our excursus on the formal properties of phrase-markers.

Thus, as any other branch of science linguistic models develop their own formal mechanisms for the representation of linguistic phenomena. In this course, we will study the GG proposal for the hierarchical representation of the clause in terms of a universal system.

In connection with this, the notion of constituency serves as the fundamental methodological pillar to arrange words into larger units (cf. Section 2). A further issue will consist of developing a number of tools that allow one to identify what a constituent is, a topic that is explained in section 4 of the textbook (cf. below). The relevant hypothesis to be tested is that sentences are composed of higher-level groupings called constituents and constituents are represented in tree structures and are generated by rules.

In order to generate a syntactic representation, we need to have a set of rules that dictate the way words combine together. These rules are calledphrase structure rules, a description of which is given in section 1. According to phrase structure rules, major lexical categories such as N, V, A, or P are introduced as constituents (specifically, the head constituent) of phrasal categories specific for them such as NP, VP, AP, PP or N, V, A, P - in notation of the X-bar theory to be discussed in chapter six-, where bars designate intermediate phrasal categories. In a nutshell, a phrase structure rule is an explicit compilation of all the grammatical information relevant to the syntactic interpretation of syntactic categories such as NPs, PPs, VPs, etc. Some examples of NP, VP or PP trees derived from the phrase structure rules in (1) are provided in (2) (3), (4) and (5) below:

(1) Phrase structure rules8a. NP-->Nb. VP--> V NP (Adv)b. NP--> (D) Nc. PP--> P NP

In the examples above the syntactic distribution of nouns and prepositions forming parts of NPs or PPs is marked by lines from top to down or the other way round. Recall that the textbook discusses the two ways to draw a tree, i.e. from top-to-bottom and from bottom-to-top. In a similar fashion, phrase structure rules also account for the combination of subject and predicate in both simple clauses (TP) and embedded clauses (CP) as illustrated by the following examples:

Once you have learnt to identify phrase structure rules you will also be allowed to account for a number of issues such asstructural ambiguity(cf. Section 3). Let us explain this with a couple of examples. In (9a) there is a double interpretation as shown by the two readings in (9b) and (9c):

These two interpretations are captured in terms of two different syntactic trees which have the following format:

In much the same way, the ambiguity of the nominal phrase in (12) is captured by proposing a different analysis forwomen: i) as part of one constituent together withmenas represented by the tree in (13a), or ii) as part of one constituent together withyoung, as represented by (13b):

Looking at both trees in (13), we can conclude that we have two different structures. The nominal phrase represented by the tree (13a) has a structural similarity with nominal phrases like blonde hair and eyebrows where the adjective blonde modifies both hair and eyebrows. On the other hand, the nominal phrase represented by the tree in (13b) has a structural similarity with the conjoined nominal phrases short arms and big shoulders where we have two different modifiers, one for each noun.

In addition to trees and rules, Section 4 briefly discusses a number of tests that allow us to identify what a constituent is, that is, which groups of words do or do not form constituents. These are: movement, coordination, stand alone, and replacement. Let us enrich this part by drawing on the detailed description that Radford (1988: chapter 2) provides9. This linguist groups the tests into whether they concern the distribution of syntactic units or alternatively whether they involve a syntactic process.a) Distributional testsPreposing:Onlyphrasalconstituents may undergo preposing

In (14b)your old boatcan be preposed because it is a constituent, an NP constituent. However, the ill-formedness of (15) is due to the fact that none of the string of words there are constituents; in (15a) this sequence of words is not a phrasal constituent, the determiner and the modifier do not form a linguistic unit; the sequence of words in (15b) is not a phrasal constituent, although according to our hierarchical phrase structure they form a unit: they are an intermediate constituent. However, the ungrammaticality of the sentence allows us to conclude that intermediate constituents cannot be preposed. Finally (15c) is a minimal level constituent in our representation below. Suffice the following tree diagram to illustrate this point:

Sentence fragments:Onlyphrasal constituentsmay be used as sentence fragments in the right context (Radford, 1988: 72):

In (17B)up the hillforms a constituent, a prepositional phrase constituent (PP). This contrasts with the ungrammatical nature of (18B),up my elder sister, which is not a constituent sincering upis a phrasal verb and thusringandupform a single constituent, whilemy elder sisteris another constituent, an NP constituent. This is graphically represented in the following trees:

b) Syntactic processesOrdinary coordination:Only constituents of the same category can be conjoined.

The first group of examples illustrate three cases of coordination; two constituents are coordinated. This contrasts with (21) whereup his motherandup his sisterare not constituents given thatupforms a constituent withring. Besides, this test goes even further and stipulates that only constituents of the same syntactic category can be coordinated, something which explains the oddity of (22c) and (22d) below:

In the first two examples two PPs and two NPs are coordinated, while the last two examples coordinate constituents of a different syntactic caegory, an NP and a PP, and a PP and an NP, thus violating the constraint.

Shared Constituent Coordination:Shared Constituent Coordination is only possible when the shared sequence of words is a constituent of each of the conjuncts.

In these examples, the square-bracketed sequences are shared between two conjuncts. Thus, for example, the prepositional phraseup the hillis a constituent of both conjunctsJohn walkedandMary ran. Let us draw the syntactic representation (or p-marker) for the following two sequences:

What is important here is that there are restrictions on this type of coordination, as illustrated by the ungrammaticality of (25).

The reason why this example is ungrammatical has to do with the fact that the sequenceup Marys sisteris not a constituent of either the clauses containing it (John ran up Marys sisterandHarry picked up Marys sister). In this case the two VPs are formed by a V + a particle given that both are phrasal verbs. Then, the prepositionupdoes not form a constituent with the NPMarys sister. The following tree in (26) illustrates why share coordination of the type in (25) is not possible.

Finally, note that we can have more than one constituent as the shared part:Mary bought, and Jane rented, [a car] [in Paris]. What we cant do is treat as a constituent something that is not a constituent or to break apart a single constituent: *John talked to my (and John wrote to his) mother[N], intermediate constituents cannot be shared.

Ellipsis:Only VPs may undergo ellipsis (under appropriate discourse conditions)

All these examples show that only VPs are elided. Let us represent one of these structures to see whether this is really true or not. Consider sentences (28a) and its tree representation in (28b) below:

As this tree shows, the string of wordshelp me with the dishesforms a VP constituent, thus they can be elided. The same type of argumentation can be applied to the rest of the examples. As shall be seen in the following chapters, this test shows us thatwill, to, can, andmayare not part of the VP, because if they were, they should have been elided necessarily (at least, it should have been possible).

Cleft-sentences:Only phrasal constituents can receive mid-focus (clefting) or end-focus (wh-clefting)

In the first example,a bookis fronted because it is an NP constituent. This contrasts with (c) whereup the bookis not a constituent given thatupforms a constituent withgive. Consider the following two representations:

In sum, in order to identify what a constituent is we have a number of tests that tell us whether a given string of words does form a constituent or not. What we recommend is to draw a syntactic tree (or phrase marker) to back up your claims. Note that the syntactic representations used in these representations will be later revised and refined within the framework of the X-bar theory (cf. Chapter 6 and 7).

subir

8Note that these rules are incomplete since more syntactic categories form part of both an NP and a PP, as shown in the textbook (page 79). However, they suffice for the purposes that concern us here.volver9This section is a summary of Radford (1988: Section 2.6.) although we have left out some of the tests this linguist proposes, i.e. adverb insertion, gapping. For a more detailed description, we refer the reader to this source which contains a brilliant explanation of the notion of constituency as well as the tests for constituency.volverChapter 4: Structural Relation

| Siguiente|


HYPERLINK "javascript:top.my_webct.update_breadcrumb('Chapter%203:%20Constituency,%20Trees%20and%20Rules','/SCRIPT/4650511/scripts/student/serve_page.pl/4650511/materiales/contenidos/contenidos_html/chapter3.htm?2927200942+2927213924+++','/SCRIPT/4650511/scripts/student/serve_page.pl/4650511/materiales/contenidos/contenidos_html/chapter3.htm?2927200942+2927213924+DESIGN',%20-1,%201,%201)" \o "Anterior" | Anterior |Objectives

Study the internal configuration of a syntactic tree.

Identify the structural parts of a tree.

The hierarchical structure of constituents.

The linear order of constituents.

Redefine the notion of constituent.

Explain and apply the notion of c-command.

Distinguish between symmetric and asymmetric c-command.

Identify grammatical relations in structural terms.

CommentThis chapter deals with the formal properties of a syntactic tree. In this regard, three major questions are addressed: (i) the internal configuration of a tree; (ii) the hierarchical structure of a tree; (iii) the linear order of the constituents in a tree. Since we understand that these notions are very clearly explained and illustrated in the textbook and are not really complex, we would just list them here without any further comment, otherwise this would sound a bit redudant. Besides, these notions are also exemplified in the exercises proposed at the end of this chapter so the student has access to a lot of material to practice these theoretical issues.

First, as for the parts of a tree, the student should be able to identify the following (cf. Section 1):

Branch

Node

Label

Root node

Terminal node

Non-terminal node.

Constituents are hierarchically ordered in a syntactic tree. Then, hierarchical relations are expressed through the following notions (Cf. section 2):

Dominance.

Mother.

Daughter.

Immediate dominance

Exhaustive domination.

In much the same way, syntactic trees also capture the linear order of constituents (cf. Section 3). The following notions are brought to the fore:

Precedence.

Sister precedence.

An important constraint is mentioned in this section, i.e.the no crossing branches constraint, which explains why we could not generate structures like the following:

Next, Section 4 addresses one of the fundamental notions that the student should have a clear idea of how it functions, i.e. the notion of c-command, which is retaken in the following chapter to explain the distribution of anaphora, pronouns and R-expressions (cf. chapter 5). At this stage, the student is expected to identify the set of nodes that a specific node c-commands. Let us consider the following representation:

Now, if we are asked to identify the nodes that, say, the subject NP1c-commands we will propose the following list:

VP, V, NP2, N2, PP2, P2, NP3, AP2, A2, N3.

For further practice, we refer the student to exercises 1-8 of the textbook.

Finally, section 5 claims that grammatical functions can be defined in purely structural terms, that is, depending on the position these occupy within a syntactic tree. This signifies that structural criteria are more reliable than, for example, semantic criteria. In this regard, the notion of subject, object and object of a preposition and obliques are addressed. Then, from a structural point of view, the subject precedes the auxiliary or the VP node, while the object is a daughter of a VP. In addition, we provide a number of different tests to identify each type of relation using our own examples below:

SubjectsThe subject of a sentence is not always an Agent, or even the topic of the sentence:

In order to act as a subject, some requirements need to be fulfilled:

1. Agreement

The verb usually agrees with the subject.

2. Case

If replaced with a pronoun, the subject usually has nominative case.

3. Inversion

The subject inverts with an auxiliary in questions.

4. Tag questions

The subject is questioned in a tag question.

Objects

Objects also cannot be identified semantically.

The subject of a passive clause corresponds to the object of the active.

Chapter 5: Binding Theory

| Siguiente|


HYPERLINK "javascript:top.my_webct.update_breadcrumb('Chapter%204.%20Structural%20Relation','/SCRIPT/4650511/scripts/student/serve_page.pl/4650511/materiales/contenidos/contenidos_html/chapter4.htm?2927200942+2927213925+++','/SCRIPT/4650511/scripts/student/serve_page.pl/4650511/materiales/contenidos/contenidos_html/chapter4.htm?2927200942+2927213925+DESIGN',%20-1,%201,%201)" \o "Anterior" | Anterior |Objectives

Identify what R-expressions are.

Explain what an anaphor is.

Distinguish the different types of anaphora.

Explain the notions of antecedent and coindexation.

Understand Binding Theory.

Explain locality conditions and binding domain.

Give an account of the distribution of pronouns and R-expressions.

CommentIn the previous chapter you have seen that sentences have a hierarchical categorial constituent structure and that constituents form part of a number of configurational relations in terms of dominance and c-command. This chapter provides further data that confirm that our formal syntax approach can explain a wide arrange of linguistic phenomena. In particular, this chapter examines the distribution of anaphors, R-expressions and pronouns within the larger framework of the Binding Theory. In doing so, the notion of c-command is brought to the foreground.

Firstly, anaphors are shown to have the property that they cannot be used to refer directly to an entity in the outside world, but rather must beboundby (i.e. take their reference from) anantecedentelsewhere in the same phrase or sentence. The structure under study is ungrammatical when i) an anaphor has no suitable antecedent to bind it, which explains the contrast of grammaticality of the examples in (1):

or ii) when the antecedent is not part of the subject of the same clause of the anaphor:

The question of what is the right position for the antecedent is defined in terms of a structural restriction: a bound constituent must be c-commanded by an appropriate antecedent. The relevant bound constituent is the reflexive anaphorhimselfin (2b), and its antecedent isthe professor. Then, can we formulate a theory which can explain the distribution of anaphors? Chomsky (1981) developed a number of principles called binding principles that explain these restrictions. However, before dealing with these principles and the theory behind them, Binding Theory, you need to understand the notions of coindex and antecedent (cf. Section 1). As for coindexation, note that referential indices are exclusively borne by NPs not by N:

All coindexed NPs are coreferential, whereas contra-indexed NPs have disjoint reference.

Notice that in order to be coindexed two NPs must agree in number, gender, and person, which explains the minimal pair in (5):

Then, it seems that an explanation of the interaction of an anaphora and its antecedent requires a more specific notion such as that of binding formulated in the textbook as follows (cf. Section 2, page 140):

So, binding requires both coindexation and c-command (cf. chapter 4). From this it follows that it is possible to provide principles that explain the distribution of anaphors and their corresponding antecedents (cf. section 3), pronouns (cf. section 4) and R-expressions (cf. section 5). These principles are stated as follows:Principle A:An anaphor must be bound within its binding domain.Principle B:A pronoun must be free within its binding domain.Principle C:An R-expression must be free.

Although the textbook provides a very clear explanation of how these principles work, let us briefly give a comment by looking at the following examples:

In sentence (6a), the anaphor himself must be bound within the same clause, and not by the subject of the main clause. In other words, anaphors must find an antecedent within the clause that immediately contains it, or else, as Principle A states, within its binding domain (cf. the notion of locality constraint introduced in Section 3, pp. 141-142). In sentence (6b) the pronoun him may appear in a non c-commanding distribution with respect to the antecedent. In this sense the pronoun needs to be free as any other referential expression. Finally sentence (6c) contains a Rexpression, which, according to Principle C, must be free, something which is not the case in this example. For further practice, we refer you to exercises 1-4 of the textbook.

Summary

| Siguiente|


HYPERLINK "javascript:top.my_webct.update_breadcrumb('Chapter%205:%20%20Binding%20Theory','/SCRIPT/4650511/scripts/student/serve_page.pl/4650511/materiales/contenidos/contenidos_html/chapter5.htm?2927200942+2927213926+++','/SCRIPT/4650511/scripts/student/serve_page.pl/4650511/materiales/contenidos/contenidos_html/chapter5.htm?2927200942+2927213926+DESIGN',%20-1,%201,%201)" \o "Anterior" | Anterior |At the end of this first part, you should be able to have a clear understanding of the following theoretical notions that we have grouped in four major thematic blocks, each corresponding to the four chapters of the textbook:

1. METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES Linguistics as cognitive science: functional and formal paradigms.

Typologicl adequacy.

Data sources: corpora and the speakers intuitions.

Grammaticality judgements: semantic and syntactic deviousness.

Universal Grammar and arguments for the innate faculty of language.

The three levels of adequacy: observational, descriptive and explanatory.2. PRELIMINARIES OF STRUCTURE Sentences are organized hierarchically into constituents.

We can determine what a constituent is by the application of a number of empirical tests.

Parts of speech: constituents are named according to the syntactic category they perform. A number of criteria are posited to distinguish syntactic categories: distributional, morphological and semantic.

A number of rules called phrase structure rules are used to describe a constituent.

Constituents are represented by syntactic trees (also called phrase markers or p-markers).

You are expected to draw a tree and furthermore to work out structural ambiguity.3. STRUCTURAL RELATIONS Parts of a tree: mother, daughter, sister, terminal and root nodes.

Principles that regulate the hierarchical order of constituents within a tree: dominance, immediate dominance and exhaustive dominance.

Principles that account for the linear order of constituents within a tree: precedence, immediate precedence.

C-command: a fundamental notion as shall be seen in the ensuing chapters.4. BINDING THEORY Types of NPs: R-expressions, pronouns and anaphors.

Antecedent, indexing, coindexing and coreference.

Binding: C-command and coindexing.

Binding domain.

Free: not bound.

Principles:

A. An anaphora must be bound in its binding domain.

B. A pronoun must be fee in its binding domain.

C. An R-expression must be free.

Now, then you are ready to begin Part II, which introduces the framework of the X-bar theory as well as the internal configuration of the lexicon. In this regard, note that all the phrase structure rules that we have been using so far will be revised and further refined.

Supplementary references

| Siguiente |


HYPERLINK "javascript:top.my_webct.update_breadcrumb('Summary','/SCRIPT/4650511/scripts/student/serve_page.pl/4650511/materiales/contenidos/contenidos_html/part1_summary.htm?2927200942+2927213933+++','/SCRIPT/4650511/scripts/student/serve_page.pl/4650511/materiales/contenidos/contenidos_html/part1_summary.htm?2927200942+2927213933+DESIGN',%20-1,%201,%201)" \o "Anterior" | Anterior |Here are a few references which serve as complementary readings to those suggested at the end of each chapter in the textbook:

Brucart, J.M. 2002. Los estudios de sintaxis en el generativismo: balance y perspectivas enPresente y futuro de la lingstica en Espaa. La Sociedad de Lingstica 30 aos despus, Actas del II Congreso de la Sociedad Espaola de Lingstica (Madrid, 2000), pp. 21-51.

Butler, Ch. 2003.Structure and Function A Guide to Three Major Structural-Functional Theories, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Castillo, C. 2003.English Syntax for Spanish Speakers: A Comparative Introduction. Bern: Peter Lang.

Chomsky, N.1957.Syntactic Structures.The Hague: Janua Linguarum 4.

Chomsky, N.1965Aspects of the Theory of Syntax.Cambridge: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N.1981.Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris, Dordrecht.

Chomsky, N.1996 (2nd edition)The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Culicovber, P.W. and R. Jackendoff2005. Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gonzlvez-Garca, F. and Ch. S. Butler2006. Mapping functional-cognitive space Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 4: 39-96.

Haegeman, L.1994.Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. London: Blackwell. 2nd edition.

Jackendoff, R.2002.Foundations of Language. Oxford University Press.

Mairal, R. and J. Gil(eds.) 2003.En torno a los universales lingsticos. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mairal, R. and J. Gil(eds.) (2006).Linguistic Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nichols, J.1984. Functional theories of grammar,Annual Review of Anthropology, 13, pgs. 97-117.

Poole, G.2002.Syntactic Theory. New York: Palgrave.

Radford, A.1988.Transformational Grammar, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Radford, A.1997.Syntax. A Minimalist Introduction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Van Valin, R. D. Jr.(ed.) 1993. A synopsis of Role and Reference Grammar In R.D. Van Valin (ed.) Advances in Role and Reference Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Van Valin, R. D. Jr.2001. An Introduction to Syntax, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Van Valin, R. D. Jr.2005. Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Van Valin, R. D. Jr. and R. LaPolla1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

PART II: The Base

| Siguiente |


HYPERLINK "javascript:top.my_webct.update_breadcrumb('Supplementary%20references','/SCRIPT/4650511/scripts/student/serve_page.pl/4650511/materiales/contenidos/contenidos_html/part1_sup_ref.htm?2927200942+2927213934+++','/SCRIPT/4650511/scripts/student/serve_page.pl/4650511/materiales/contenidos/contenidos_html/part1_sup_ref.htm?2927200942+2927213934+DESIGN',%20-1,%201,%201)" \o "Anterior" | Anterior |This part of the textbook explores the mechanisms used to encode the structure of the clause as well as the internal configuration of the lexicon (or dictionary of the model). In connection with this, you will then see a universal representation for clause structure called X-bar theory, which was initially proposed in the seventies. This framework constitutes a universal model of constituent structure, and was said to represent to a certain extent the nuclear syntax of all languages (Jackendoff, 1977, 30ff.; Chomsky, 1981, 127ff; Radford, 1988, 167ff; Haegeman, 1994, 110ff). The description of the rules and the basic machinery behind this theory is the major concern of Chapters 6 and 7. Finally, the textbook deals with the structure of the lexicon component, that is, the format of a lexical entry, and furthermore how the information in a lexical entry determines its morphosyntactic configuration, a topic of great interest in linguistics today. In essence, this part explores in detail the internal architecture of the theory.

Chapter 6: X-bar Theory

| Siguiente|


HYPERLINK "javascript:top.my_webct.update_breadcrumb('PART%20II:%20The%20Base','/SCRIPT/4650511/scripts/student/serve_page.pl/4650511/materiales/contenidos/contenidos_html/part2.htm?2927200942+2927213935+++','/SCRIPT/4650511/scripts/student/serve_page.pl/4650511/materiales/contenidos/contenidos_html/part2.htm?2927200942+2927213935+DESIGN',%20-1,%201,%201)" \o "Anterior" | Anterior |Objectives

Identify a third level category X across the different syntactic categories.

Reformulation of the phrase structure rules in terms of the new intermediate category.

Reducing the number of rules. Seeking generalizations across the different rules.

The notion of head and the Endocentricity Principle.

The notion of recursivity.

Define the notions of complement, adjunct and specifier in configurational terms.

Provide tests to distinguish complements and adjuncts both as premodifiers as well as postmodifiers.

To be able to account for ambiguous cases in terms of X-bar rules.

Complements and adjunct across different syntactic categories: VPs, APs, PPs, etc.

The notion of specifier: structural features.

X-bar theory and parametric variation.

The new inventory of phrase structure rules in terms of X-bar Theory.

Drawing trees in X-bar notation.

Comment

This is perhaps one of the most important chapters in the textbook since the author introduces the basic tools that define the overall syntactic framework that we will be using in the rest of the book. This chapter then deals with X-bar theory and the methodological motivations behind it. Recall that thus far we have been dealing with a number of phrase structure rules with the following format:

Then, if we want to account for the structure of a sentence like (2a), we would propose the following syntactic tree in (2b):

However, this representation, called a flat structure, does not capture the hierarchical organization of constituents within a tree: they seem to be on the same level. So, a more elaborate and articulated theory is required if we want to account for the hierarchical structure of the clause and the phrases involved. With this in mind, it is shown that this type of representation, which deals with two major categories N and NP, is insufficient to account for the contrast between the following structures10:

Given these two sentences, why is (3a) grammatical while (3b) is ungrammatical? Both examples involve the use ofoneas a proform. The question would go as follows: why can we useoneto substitute for the N (student) in the first example while this is not possible in the second example? As things stand, there are two possible thingsonecould substitute for: N or NP. Then, if we claim thatonesubstitutes a syntactic category N, then there is no way to explain why (3b) is ungrammatical. In contrast, if we claim thatonesubstitutes an NP category then (3a), like (3b), would be ill-formed. So, it seems as if our two categories were not enough to account for cases like these. In this regard, if we postulate a third level category such thatoneis a substitute for this intermediate category, then we will be able to explain the difference between the two structures above. All this seems to suggest that apart from heads (nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc.) and phrases (noun phrases, verb phrases, adjectival phrases, prepositional phrases etc.) there is an intermediate category called N (pronounced N-bar), which falls halfway between words and phrases.

Returning to the examples above, let us see how we can explain the contrast by firstly providing a syntactic representation within the new three level context.Consider the tree in (4) below:

In the first example (3a),onesubstitutes for a constituent that is both an N and an N. If we compare its corresponding tree structure in (4) with the representation of the (3b) example below in (5), we notice that this timeonecannot substitute forstudentgiven thatstudentis not both an N and an N.

Then, all seems to indicate that the proformonecan substitute for an intermediate level category, N, but not an N level category. This is the reason why (b) is ungrammatical;studentis an N category, whilestudent of philosophyis an N category. In this sense, note thatone could substitute for the entire phrase as shown in (6)11.

In sum, theonereplacement test shows the existence of an intermediate level category. Following this line of thought, the textbook provides argumentation and data that confirm the existence of this intermediate category across the different phrases: VPs (section 1.1.), APs and ADVs (section 1.2.), PPs (section 1.3.). This means that all phrases consist of three projections, i.e. XP or X, X and X or X0. Suffice the following chart:

So, this new three level context leads us to the reformulation of our initial phrase structure rules. Section 2 of the textbook examines the new format of these rules. Two important notions are in order: the notion of head and the Principle of Endocentricity. Let us consider the general format of one of these rules, that for NPs:

If we look back at the tree in (7), X is called theheadof the phrase. X' and X'' are calledprojectionsof X. Typographically, these projections are marked by one or more primes (X' and X''), called bars. Thus, X' is pronounced X-bar; X'', X-double-bar etc.. The head is called the zero projection (also written as X0). The topnode X'' (or XP) is called the maximal projection of X. All other projections between the head and the maximal projection are called intermediate projections. Then, one of the central theses is that all phrases have heads, i.e. every NP has a head N, every AP has a head A, and every VP has a head V. There are no cases attested where a VP has a N head, or an NP has an A head. In other words, the theory does not generate rules of the type V ? A (XP) or NP ? A (XP). This is due to what is called theprinciple of endocentricity, according to which phrases inherit their category properties from the head.

Moreover, it seems as if we were missing some generalizations in the sense that the pattern of the different rules proposed for each of the categories seems to be the same, that is, an NP dominates an N, an N dominates an N and finally an N spells out an N. The same can be applied to the rest of the syntactic categories. Then, this led Chomsky (1970) to propose a general format for phrase structure rules which was to be applied ndependently of the category involved. The phrase structure rules could be condensed as follows:

Within this new framework, Section 3 introduces the notions of complement, adjunct and specifier and defines them in configurational terms: an adjunct XP is a sister to an X category and a daughter of an X category, while a complement is a sister to an X category and a daughter of an X category. This is diagrammatically represented as follows:

All phrases consist of a complement, an adjunct or a specifier. For example, let us consider the NP in (11):

The head of this NP isdirectorwhich is in turn postmodified by two prepositional phrases. However, these do not have the same status;of filmis a complement whilefrom New Yorkis an adjunct:

Next, a number of criteria are given to distinguish a complement from an adjunct. Very briefly put, these are the following12:

Word order

The X-bar analysis predicts that complements will always occur closer to their heads than Adjuncts. Thus, in the examples that follow if the complement phrase and the adjunct phrase co-occur within the same XP, the complement will precede the Adjunct, otherwise this will result in an ungrammatical structure:

Recursivity

The adjunct rule is said to be recursive, which means that an infinite number of Xs can be generated:

This does not occur with the complement rule, which is not recursive.

Conjunction

Recall that only constituents of the same syntactic category can be coordinated. This signifies that only an adjunct plus another adjunct or alternatively a complement plus another complement can be coordinated, thus blocking out the generation of a structure with two coordinated sequences of complement plus adjunct. Consider the following examples:

Passivization:

An interesting correlate of the complement/adjunct distinction is that an NP in a complement PP can generally bepassivized, whereas an NP in an Adjunct PP cannot. In this connection, it is interesting to note that in passive sentences like the following:

Notice that the NPs can only correspond to an active Complement, not to an active Adjunct. Some illustrative examples follow:

The distinction complement and adjunct also applies in premodifier positions (cf. pp. 123-126). For example, let us consider the following example:

Germanis an adjunct whilecomputeris a complement. This is graphically represented as in the tree (24) below:

In much the same way as in postmodifier position, complements are closer to their head than adjuncts in premodifier positions, thus the oddity of the following example:

Recursivity also holds in adjuncts acting as premodifiers. Consider the following examples:

This general framework can also be extended to other categories, VPs, APs, PPs, ADVPs etc. Let us analyze the following examples and the trees that appear after each of them:

This structure reveals an AP which is postmodified by a prepositional phrase and an adverbial phrase. The PP functions as a complement of the adjectival headconsciouswhile the adverb is an adjunct. This means that the PP is a sister of A, while the AdvP is a sister of an A category.

This VP is formed by a NP complement (the house) and a PP adjunct (on Tuesday). Then, again according to the X-bar rules complements are closer to their heads while adjunct are sisters of a V.

This prepositional phrase is modified by a complement NP and a PP functioning as adjunct.

Finally, the new phrase structure rules offer us a very elegant framework to account for ambiguous cases like the following:

In (30) depending on whether the APDanishfunctions as a complement or as an adjunct we have two different interpretations:

In the first case,Danishfunctions as a complement, a sister to N, while in the second case it functions as an adjunct a sister to N. Seemingly, the VP phrase in (31) is ambiguous depending on the status of the PPwith guns. Under one interpretation, the VP consists of an NP complement (the fugitives) and a PP (with guns), while under a second interpretation both the NP and the PP can function as a complement forming a single constituent. Look at the two corresponding representations in (33a) and (33b) below:

Final section 5 discusses the typological nature of the X-bar framework. In this regard, the notion of parameter is introduced in order to account for language variation. Recall that in our comment of Chapter 1 above we discussed the distinction between principles and parameters and some examples were given (cf. Chapter 1 above).

subir

10The examples (3a) and (3b) are taken from Poole (2002:37), who includes a very nice presentation of X-bar Theory. Besides, we have also used this source for the argumentation that follows and completes this section.volver11Poole (2002:39-ff) looks at the other tests for constituency to find evidence that backs up this intermediate category, i.e. coordination and movement.volver12See Radford (1988: Section 4.4.) for a complete discussion of the criteria involved to distinguish complements from adjuncts.volverChapter 7: Extending X-bar Theory to Functional Categories

| Siguiente|


HYPERLINK "javascript:top.my_webct.update_breadcrumb('Chapter%206:%20X-bar%20Theory','/SCRIPT/4650511/scripts/student/serve_page.pl/4650511/materiales/contenidos/contenidos_html/chapter6.htm?2927200942+2927213927+++','/SCRIPT/4650511/scripts/student/serve_page.pl/4650511/materiales/contenidos/contenidos_html/chapter6.htm?2927200942+2927213927+DESIGN',%20-1,%201,%201)" \o "Anterior" | Anterior |Objectives

Distinguish between Specifiers, Adjuncts and Complements within nominal and clause structures.

Explain the arguments to assume that Determiners are phrasal categories and not heads.

Explain the notion of complementizers by applying the X-bar rules just as we did to N, V, A, and P in previous chapters.

Explain the notion of Tense and its phrasal nature.

Distinguish T-to-C movement from affix lowering. Distinguish between main and embedded or subordinate clauses.

Identify complement, adjunct and specifier clauses.

Distinguish finite from non-finite clauses by applying some tests.

CommentThis chapter deals with the main problems that the X-bar schema has with respect to the following issues: first, determiners occupying a phrasal position but having the status of heads and, second, the status of conjuncts and auxiliaries, which so far have been analysed by exceptional rules. In addition, the chapter extends the X-bar theory to the analysis of English main and embedded clauses and fully analyses the properties of the English verb by proposing the existence of the Tense node and two syntactic rules: T to C movement and affix lowering.

Section 1 of the textbook is concerned with theDP-hypothesis. Accordingly, a new reformulation of the specifier rule, which we reproduced below, is posited :

Specifier Rule: XP(YP) X or XPX (YP)

Let us firstly provide some theoretical background before getting into the exact details of the DP Hypothesis. The structure for noun phrases most commonly adopted in GG until the mid 80's assumed the noun (N) to be the head of the Noun Phrase (NP); N could take a complement and had a specifier position hosting determiners and quantifiers. Adjectives were attached between the determiner and the noun position by a recursive `adjunction' rule which `stretched' the NP to allow an unlimited number of adjectives in the representation of (1) of the NP: "The wet, red, soft, spongy ... ball".13

However, as Carnie (p. 198-ff) observes, this rule fails to capture the basic X-bar theory axiom which stipulates that all non-head material must be phrasal. Thus, determiners should be regarded as phrasal categories. According to the DP-hypothesis, the most important element in the noun phrase is not the noun, but the category of articles ("the", "a" in English, "Il/Lo/La/I", "Un/Uno/Una" in Italian, absent in Russian, Chinese and several other languages) and quantifiers ("Every", "Some", "Three", "Many", "Most", etc., present to some extent in all human languages). They can be collectively referred to asdeterminers. The maximal projection of the determiner, or Determiner Phrase (DP) is the topmost category of the noun phrase; the determiner takes the NP as its complement as in the representation of (2), below:

In this section, Carnie only examines the behaviour of genitive (possessive) NPs and, more in particular, identifies the position of the initial possessor phrases (e.g. "John('s)" in "John's books") in the specifier of DP, where they receive genitive Case from the s-genitive unit found in the D position. Suffice the following representation:

Moreover, Carnie shows that the morphemesand determiners are in complementary distribution and therefore they should be represented under the same node (D). Then, at this stage you should be aware that a new rule has been introduced, the DP rule, which, in turn, generates the following diagram:

In what follows we provide you with the most important nominal structures and their corresponding representations of the English DP using brackets (Castillo 2003: 67-69):

Next, Section 2 introduces a few basic syntactic concepts regarding clause types (main /root clauses vs. embedded / subordinate clauses), Note that within the group of embedded clauses a further distinction is introduced between complement clauses, specifier clauses and adjunct clauses as illustrated in the following instances:

Continuing with this, Carnie further subdivides complement clauses into finite and non-finite clauses. The former are also called tensed clauses while the latter tenseless clauses. Since we understand that these two concepts are clearly explained in the textbook, we are not going to discuss them here any longer.

With this terminological background in mind, Carnie (Section 3 and 4) deals with the following two rules, which, as they stand, do not fit X-bar theory:

Suppose that we extended our X-bar schema to a potential functional projection S (sentence), in this case we would obtain the following configuration in (10):

This representation has two main advantages: (i) it obeys binary-branching and has a hierarchical structure; (ii) the subject may easily be placed in the Spec position, following Chomskys intuition that all sentences have subjects:

Yet, the main problem with this configuration is that the sentence S cannot be the head of any phrase in X-bar theory because it is not a lexical item or word. Moreover, we know that some verbs select sentences like in the case ofMary said that it was raining, but so far we cannot identify the syntactic category of the complementthat it was rainingsubcategorized for by the verbsaid.

As is standard in many analysis of sentence structure found in the literature, we can assume that clauses are built up from sentences using the rule S --> COMP S. This rule allows the traditional tree for the VP as the one we provide in (12):

However, the tree diagram above does not tell us whether the complementizer (COMP) is a specifier or a head. In connection with this, Carnie introduces two new syntactic categories, CP and TP14. Let us firstly review the S rule above. If we want to adapt (8) to an X-bar format, we will simply have to stipulate C as a maximal phrase since it is the only head material which is not phrasal. Then, we will be dealing with a new syntactic category, a CP phrasal category. The new configuration would have the following format:

This new format presupposes that all main clauses have a complementizer, something which is debatable since, for example, in English main clauses are not headed by a complementizer. There are three strong arguments that support the existence of a C category to introduce clause structures: (i) the existence of lexical material representing complementizers that introduce main clauses in many different languages; (ii) the fact that in languages like English the complementizer is reserved for one particular element in embedded clauses; and (iii) the lexical restrictions of certain verbs in languages like English that subcategorize for one specific complementizer. Let us discuss each in turn.

First of all, there is extensive and compelling typological evidence that proves the occurrence of such category as introductory maker of main clauses, both interrogative, exclamative and declarative. Suffice the following examples taken from Radford (1988:296)

Secondly, in close connection with this and as Carnie (p.208-209), there is empirical evidence that suggests that while there are languages which make use of special morphemes for yes / no questions (cf. the examples above), there are other languages which use other mechanisms , i.e. subject / auxiliary inversion. In fact, he shows that the two procedures are in complementary distribution and consequently there are no languages in which complementizers and auxiliaries occur, that is, we could assert that both are mutually exclusive. A case in point is English, which lacks special morphemes for yes / no questions, and then instead it uses auxiliaries. So, the C position cannot be occupied by both an auxiliary and a complementizer. Consider the following example:

In (15), a verb likewondersubcategorizes for a complementizer (whether) which seems to block out the occurrence of an auxiliary inversion. In this case, we have to assume thatwhethermust occupy the complementizer position.

For our discussion here, it is crucial the observation that the Auxiliary occupies a C position in certain contexts. Consider the following examples:

In the yes/no question example (16a), it is easy to assume that the auxiliarywilloccupies the C position because the auxiliary is to the left of the subject. But can we also assume the same for the auxiliary in the example (16b)? In order to answer this question, we have included the example (16c). Recall that one of the constituency tests included coordination and only constituents of the same syntactic category can be conjoined. If our first assumption was correct and auxiliarywilloccupies the C position, we can only conjoin it with another C. In sum we have to conclude that both (16a) and (16b) are CP examples, as illustrated by the following configuration in (17):

Thirdly, we have argued before that the verbsaidsubcategorizes for a particular clausal complement,that it was raining, but we know that the complementizerthat, which introduces this complement, may be absent in a sentence likeMary said it was raining. This contrasts with the subcategorization restrictions of other verbs, i.e. wonder as shown in the examples in (18). In such case we may conclude that verbs like wonder not only have to take a clausal complement introduced by a complementizer as illustrated by the contrast between sentence (18a) and (18b), but they also choose which complementizer the embedded clause must have, something which explains the ungrammaticality of the examples (18c) and (18d) in contrast with the grammatical (18a).

Hence, we may conclude that the complementizer that or whether has to be a head since it is lexically selected by the verb. From this perspective, complement clauses fit within X-bar theory. In addition, as shall be seen in Chapter 11, there is a specifier position in CP, which is used by the wh-phrase in wh-questions, while an auxiliary moves to C:

So far, we have provided evidence in favour of the existence of a CP category that replaces the S rule as formulated in (8) above.

Continuing with this discussion, if we look back to the structure in (9) above, which we reproduce here as (20), we still have to deal with the node S.

If we agree that COMP is a head, what is the status of its complement S? Can we define it as a phrase in X-bar terms? As a first approximation we could agree that T is the only category that is not phrasal, so, according to X-bar theory format, all non head material must be phrasal. This signifies that a maximal projection TP could be posited to replace the S node:

Note that the subject NP sits in the specifier of TP. Then, Carnie goes on to discuss the nature of T. In the first place, it is very plausible to assume that the T node has verb morphology in the form of Tense and Agr features.

The supporting data implies that T may act:

1. as an auxiliary;

2. astoin a to-infinitival; OR

3. as inflection that appears on the verb

The following examples illustrate these three uses:

Second, T responds to all X-bar predictions according to the following coordination facts, where we observe that T+VP (T') can be coordinated. Hence, they form a constituent:

In the two grammatical cases of sentential complements of the verbs say and wonder discussed above, we have claimed that the complementizer may be either that or whether. These two complementizers similarly introduce as their sentential complements finite sentences whose verb is inflected and therefore finite. On the other hand, there are other verbs that subcategorize for other sentential complements whose verb is non-finite or tenseless. A case in point is a verb like want, as shown in the examples in (25). Example (25a) illustrates the fact that this verb subcategorizes for a sentential complement headed by the complementizer for. The contrast of grammaticality between examples (25a) and (25b) shows that the embedded verb cannot be inflected. Further the contrast of grammaticality between the examples (25a) and (25c) crucially indicates that the particle to is required when the complementizer is for:

As discussed in (18), a verb like wonder subcategorizes a type of complement introduced by a complementizer whether as shown in the following representation:

When for in the example I want for her to come acts as a complementizer as in the tree diagram (27) below, it must introduce a tenseless clause which is headed by the particle to in the T position. In other words, for in C subcategorizes for to in T. Unlike in other previous cases, here T doesnt contain any verb morphology. As a result its specifier must be represented by an accusative pronoun. Case assignment is one of the major concerns of Part III of the textbook.

Finally, by extending our X-bar schema to sentence or clausal constituents we can assume the existence of two new phrasal nodes: CP that represents the higher node SP, and TP that represents the sentence node (S). This chapter ends up with a brief discussion of affix-lowering (which is later discussed in detail in Chapter 14) by distinguishing it from T-to-C movement. Let us briefly explain this by comparing examples (16a) with (23c) repeated here in (28a) and (28b) for the sake of the discussion:

The assumption here is that the modal will in example (28a) starts out from a T position and moves into C in order to pronounce a [+Q] feature as represented by the following tree:

The endings ed/-s in the example (28b) are also initially inserted in the T position but cannot be pronounced there in isolation and need to move downwards to attach to the verb, as illustrated by the following representation:

In sum, the view that X-bar theory can be extended to clausal constituents does not entail a mere syntactic exercise but captures a number of intriguing facts such as the position of subjects, the order of auxiliaries and verbal inflection in English, among other things. We encourage you to do all the exercises and practice the set of rules that define the X-bar schema. A good summary of this very important Chapter is exemplified in the final chart provided in Section 5 of the textbook.

As a sort of corollary, following Haegeman and Guern (2001:140-ff), let us end up this review by giving you in (32) the most important syntactic structures and their corresponding representations of the English clause exemplified in (31)15:

subir

13This example has been extracted from the paper "Introduction to Layers in DP" by Roberto Zamparelli, May 3, 1996 (see website:http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~roberto/layers/dp-hyp.html). We refer you to this source to get a more in-depth account of the DP Hypothesis.volver14We refer to Radford (1988) for further evidence supporting the assumption of the existence of these two clausal nodes CP and TPvolver15Note that the examples in (31) as well as the tree diagrams in (32) have been taken from Haegeman and Guern (1999: 140-ff), with the difference that we have used the TP node instead of their IP node. We refer the reader to this source for a more exhaustive description.volverChapter

guía didáctica sintaxis

Documents