LIN5317 A, Fall 2015
Dennis Ott
Week 3
X-bar Theory
I. The X-bar schema
A problem of restrictiveness:
• If we merge a verb and an NP, why is the result necessarily a VP?
• Why are there rules like VP à V NP but not rules like PP à V NP?
An empirical observation: cross-linguistically, we often find rather similar configurations across
phrasal types in the way elements group around the head of the phrase.
(1) a. the enemy’s destruction of the city
b. the city’s destruction by the enemy
(3) a. Peter relied on his parents
b. Peter’s reliance on his parents
c. Peter is reliant on his parents
(2) a. the enemy destroyed the city
b. the city was destroyed by the enemy
X-bar Theory
All phrases in natural language are built according to the following schema:
1. A head X and its complement YP form X’ if X projects further, otherwise form XP.
[X’ X YP ] or [XP X YP]
2. X’ and X’s specifier ZP form XP (= X’s maximal projection).
[XP ZP [X’ X YP ]]
Axioms
• Every phrase XP has exactly one head X (endocentricity).
• Projection never decreases bar-level (e.g., XP is never dominated by X’).
• Specifiers, complements, and adjuncts are maximal projections (phrases).
• All branching is binary.
Unlike Carnie, we’ll assume a streamlined version of X-bar Theory, where everything other than
X (the head) and XP (its maximal projection) are structurally optional.
(4) a. [VP see John] ß no Spec, but still an XP!
b. [VP run]
ß doesn’t dominate anything and doesn’t project further
(5) a. [NP books [PP of poems]]
b. [NP books]
(6) a. [AdvP very often]
b. [AdvP often]
(7) a. [AdjP proud [PP of her son]]
b. [AdjP proud]
1
Relational definition of projection
• α is a phrase (maximal projection) iff α does not project.
• α is a head (minimal projection) iff α does not dominate anything.
• α is an intermediate projection iff α is neither a phrase nor a head.
Principle of Modification [somewhat different from Carnie again]
If YP modifies X, then YP adjoins to XP or X’ (iterable ad infinitum).
Merge(XP,YP) = {XP,YP} = XP
Merge(X’,YP) = {X’,YP} = X’
}where YP modifies X
(8) a. [DP the [NP [NP book] [PP with a red cover]]]
b. [DP the [NP strange [NP book [PP of poems]]]
c. [DP the [NP strange [NP [NP book [PP of poems]] [PP with a red cover]]]]
d. [DP [DP the [NP strange [NP [NP book [PP of poems]] [PP with a red cover]]]] [CP that Mary read]]
(9) a.
b.
c.
d.
*the book of poems with a red cover
*the book with a red cover of poems
*the book with a red cover that Mary read
*the book that Mary read with a red cover
Summary: how to build a phrase
• Every phrase XP is a projection of its head X.
• Complements are unique selected sisters of a head.
• Specifiers are unique sisters of a head’s intermediate projection.
• Adjuncts iterably reduplicate the label of the phrase they modify.
II. X-bar projections
X-bar Theory provides a schema for phrases headed by lexical and functional categories alike.
Noun phrases are DPs
If determiners are heads, X’-Theory dictates that noun phrases are in fact DPs (not NPs).
(10) a. [DP the [NP book [PP of poems]]]
b. [DP all [D’ the [NP strange [NP books]]]]
c. [DP a [NP strange book]]
the: [D:+def, __ NP]
a: [D:-def, __ NP]
(11) a. [DP Mary [D’ -’s [NP book [PP of poems]]]]
’s: [D:+def, DP __ NP]
(but: *Mary’s all books of poems, *Mary’s the book)
b. [DP the enemy [D’ -’s [NP destruction [PP of the city]]]]
c. [DP Marinak
[D’ a [NP kalapja]]] (Hungarian)
Mary
the
hat
“Mary’s hat”
2
We assume null Ds where this is required for uniformity and supported cross-linguistically:
(12) a. There are [DP ∅ [NP books]]
b. [DP ∅ [NP Peter]] loves books
c. [DP they [NP ∅ ]] love books
(cf. French des livres)
(cf. German (der) Peter, Italian (il) Gianni)
(cf. you scientists, we linguists)
Finite clauses: TP and CP
A finite clause is (basically) a VP plus a tense specification (T), realized either by an
auxiliary/modal or by a verbal suffix. That is, clauses are “tense phrases.”
(13) a.
b.
c.
d.
[TP John
[TP John
[TP John
[TP John
has [VP read [NP books about Canada]]]
has: [T:perf, __ VP]
must [VP read [NP books about Canada]]]
–s [VP read [NP books about Canada]]] (/ɹiːdz/) –s: [T:pres, __ VP]
–∅ [VP read [NP books about Canada]]] (/ɹɛd/)
(14) a. John will break the glass.
b. Jean briser-a le verre.
(15) [TP John [T’ has [VP previosly [VP read [NP books about the U.S.]]]]
and [T’ –s [VP now [VP read [NP books about Canada]]]
An embedded clause is a TP merged with a (potentially null) complementizer (C). By X-bar
Theory, that means the resulting structure is a “complementizer phrase” CP.
(16) a. I said
[CP that/∅/*if [TP John has [VP read [NP books about Canada]]]]
b. I deny
[CP that/*∅/*if [TP John has [VP read [NP books about Canada]]]]
c. I wonder [CP if/*that/*∅ [TP John has [VP read [NP books about Canada]]]]
CPs can appear as subjects, complements and adjuncts:
(17) a. [CP That John is still not home] worries Mary.
worry: [V, {DP/CP} __ DP]
b. Mary thinks [CP that John is still not home].
think: [V, DP __ CP]
c. Mary will be worried [CP if John isn’t home by 9].
What about root clauses? Two options:
1. Only finite clauses with an audible complementizer are CPs.
2. All finite clauses are CPs.
In most current work, it is assumed that finite clauses are generally CPs (whether or not C is
phonetically realized), with C specifying the clause type (declarative, interrogative, etc.).
(18) a. [CP that [TP John loves books]]
b. [CP if
[TP John loves books]]
c. [CP ∅
[TP John loves books]]
that: [C:-Q, __ TP]
if: [C+Q, __ TP]
∅: [C:-Q, __ TP]
(19) a. [CP C[+Q]
[TP John does love books]]
b. [CP C[+Q]+does [TP John ti
love books]] Subject-Aux Inversion
3
(20) a. Ar thit Seán?
Q fall John
“Did John fall?”
b. Ob er wohl kommen wird?
if he PRTCL come
will
“Is he going to come?”
c. Ca giai
bengio grascia.
that already I.come tomorrow
“I already come tomorrow.”
(Irish)
(German)
(Sardinian)
Non-finite clauses
In many languages, non-finite clauses do not permit nominative subjects. (More on this later.)
(21) a. Johni decided [{*hei/*himi/∅i} to leave].
b. I saw [him/*he leave].
d. John is likely [{*hei/*himi/∅i} to leave].
Control
Exceptional case-marking
Raising
What are these? Just TPs? Or CPs with an empty C?
[CP? ∅ [TP ? [T’ to [VP leave]]]
III. X-bar Theory and word order
X-bar Theory allows us to elegantly state a point of parametric variation between languages: the
order of heads and their complements (head-directionality).
(22) a. [TP John has [VP given that book to Mary]].
b. [TP John-ga
[VP Mary-ni
kono hon-o
age] ta].
John-NOM
Mary-DAT that book-ACC given PST
(23) a. John went [PP from Paris] [PP to New York].
b. John-ga
[PP Paris kara] [PP New York e] it ta.
John-NOM
Paris from
New York to go PST
(24) a. The temperature rose [PP almost to 70 degrees].
b. Ondo-ga
[PP hotondo nandayuu do
made] agat ta.
temperature-NOM
almost seventy degrees to
rise PST
(25) a. Mary thinks [CP that John read the book].
b. Mary-ga [CP [TP John-ga
[VP hon-o
yonda] to ] omottei ru.
Mary-NOM
John-NOM
book-ACC read
that think PRS
(HP) Head Parameter
In the course of acquisition, the learner sets the parameter [±head-initial].
• Specs are initial: linearize {ZP,X’} as ZP < X’.
• If [+head-initial], then linearize {X,YP} as X < YP.
• If [-head-initial], then linearize {X,YP} as YP < X.
4
Appendix: Kayne 1994 (the CliffsNotes version)
How does order relate to structure?
• classical approach: structure underdetermines order (X-bar + Head Parameter)
• Kayne 1994: structure fully determines order (no Head Parameter)
(A)Axiom of antisymmetry
Syntax is antisymmetric: if UG permits a structure S, its ‘mirror image’ S’ is not permitted.
(26)
a. *[A [B C]]
b. *[[C B] A]
(S)
(S’)
•
•
•
wh-phrases in questions move to the left, never to the right
there are verb-second but no verb-penultimate languages
etc.
(LCA) Linear Correspondence Axiom (massively simplified!)
For any two non-terminals X, Y and the terminals x, y they dominate: if X asymmetrically
c-commands Y, x precedes y.
Result: structures that are ‘too symmetric’ yield contradictory ordering statements.
• This is the case for {XP,YP} and {X,Y}; but {X,YP} à X < YP is permitted.
• Necessary auxiliary assumption: specifiers are in fact adjuncts, and adjuncts asymmetrically
c-command the head they modify.
(UB) Universal-base Theorem
The base order is uniformly Spec < head < Compl (in the phrase), and SVO (in the clause).
• possibly the typologically most common order; observed in Creole languages
Consequence: SOV languages like German, Japanese, Turkish, etc. are underlyingly SVO. SOV
orders are derived by reordering (movement) of the object to the left of the verb.
(27) English
[VP read [DP the book]]
(28) German
a. [VP liest [DP das Buch]]
b. [?P [DP das Buch]i … [VP liest ti]]
(29) French
a. Jean a mangé le chocolat. [VP mangé [DP le chocolat]]
b. Jean a tout mangé.
[?P [DP tout]i [VP mangé ti]]
(30) English
[PP from Paris]
(31) Japanese
a. [P’ kara Paris]
b. [PP Parisi [P’ kara ti]]
…and why buy any of this?!
While Kayne’s proposal gets a little wild at various points,
• it derives some aspects which X-bar Theory simply stipulates,
• and provides an attractively restrictive framework for syntactic analysis.
5