Constituent Structure - Part 15

X WP rule.11 Consider the two prepositional phrases that are subconstituents of the following NP: 30 the bag [PPof groceries] [PPwith the plastic handle] Using the X-bar schema, we can g

We’ll conclude this section with a little extra terminology that goes along with the notion of headedness and projection Consider the NP

in (29)

D

the

N⬘

N

bag

PP with the plastic handle

of grocers

Each of the N’s and the NP in (28) are called the projections of the N The NP is the maximal projection and the N’s are intermediate pro-jections ModiWcation relations are no longer expressed in terms of sisterhood to the head; instead, modiWers of a head are sisters to any projection of that head

7.2.3 Binarity

The constituency tests we’ve seen in this chapter and the rules given in (26) reveal another important property that X-bar theory might ac-count for It appears as if the layers of structure operate in a binary manner.10 That is, as we add layers of structure, new material is added one element at a time to the existing structure, thus creating a binary branching tree structure The three X-bar statements mentioned above can be modiWed to capture this:

(29) (a) XP! (YP) X’

(b) X’! (ZP) X’

(c) X’ ! X’ (ZP)

(d) X’! X (WP)

Instead of ellipses ( ), we use the variable categories YP, WP, and ZP

to stand in for the modiWers These are listed as optional as the phrase can consist of a head without any modiWers at all They are also all

10 See Chametzky (2000) for a discussion of how this insight is retained in the minimalist non-X-bar-theoretic Bare Phrase Structure system.

listed as phrasal, including the one in (29a), which is typically occupied

by a bare determiner We will return to this contradiction below Binarity is a common—but by no means universal—part of X-bar theory

7.2.4 Distinctions among modifier types

Given our three types of rule, which introduce three distinct layers of structure, we predict that we should have at least three distinct types of head-modiWers This appears to be true We Wnd good evidence that we need to distinguish among speciWers (the YP in the XP! (YP) X’ rule), adjuncts (the ZP in the X’ ! (ZP) X’ and X’ ! X’ (ZP) rules) and complements (the WP in the X’! X (WP) rule).11

Consider the two prepositional phrases that are subconstituents of the following NP:

(30) the bag [PPof groceries] [PPwith the plastic handle]

Using the X-bar schema, we can generate the following tree for this NP:

D

the

N⬘

N⬘ PP2 sister to a bar level

of groceries

You will note that the two PPs in this tree are at diVerent levels in the tree The lower PP1is a sister to the head N (bag), whereas the higher

PP2is a sister to the N’ dominating the head N and PP1 Notice also that these two PPs were introduced by diVerent rule types PP1 is

11 Napoli (1989) argues against this distinction referring to the reverse ordering of adjuncts and complements in Italian NPs such as:

(i) la distruzione brutale de Troia

the distruction brutal of Troy

spec head adjunct complement

‘‘the brutal destruction of Troy’’

See Longobardi (1994) for an alternative analysis that involves movement of the head around the adjunct to its surface position.

introduced by the rule meeting the X’ ! X (WP) schema and PP2

is introduced by the higher-level rule type (X’ ! X’ (ZP))

An XP that is a sister to a head is a complement PP1 is a comple-ment XPs that are sisters to single-bar levels and are daughters of another bar level are adjuncts PP2 in (31) is an adjunct The third type of modiWer is a speciWer These are sisters to the bar level and daughter of a maximal category The determiner in (31) is a speciWer

If we abstract away from speciWc categories we can distinguish among modiWers as seen in (32)

complement

We predict these diVerent kinds of modiWer to exhibit diVerent behav-iors We’ll concentrate Wrst on the distinction between complements and adjuncts then turn to speciWers

Take NPs as a prototypical example Consider the diVerence in meaning between the two NPs below:

(33) (a) the bag of groceries

(b) the bag with a plastic handle

Although both these examples seem to have, on the surface, parallel structures (a determiner followed by a noun followed by a prepos-itional phrase), in reality they have quite diVerent structures The PP

in (33a) is a complement and has the following tree:

D

the

N⬘

N bag

PP

of groceries

You will note that the circled PP is a sister to N, so it is a complement

By contrast, the structure of (33b) is:

N bag

with a plastic handle

Here the PP with a plastic handle is a sister to N’, so it is an adjunct Observe that rules that introduce complements also introduce the head (X) This means that the complement will be both adjacent

to the head and more importantly closer to the head than an adjunct (36) the bag [of groceries] [with a plastic handle]

(37) ??the bag [with a plastic handle] [of groceries]

Since the adjunct rules take an X’ level category rewrite it as an X’ category, adjuncts will always be higher in the tree than the output of the complement rule (which takes an X’ and rewrites an X) Since lines can not cross, this means that complements will always be lower in the tree than adjuncts, and will always be closer to the head than adjuncts The adjunct rules are iterative This means that the rule can generate inWnite strings of X’ nodes, since the rule can apply over and over again

to its own output:

X⬘

etc

YP

…

Complement rules do not have this property On the left side of such rules there is an X’, but on the right there is only X So the rule cannot apply iteratively—that is, it can only apply once within an XP What this means for complements and adjuncts is that you can

have any number of adjuncts (39), but you can only ever have one complement (40):

(39) the book [of poems] [with a red cover] [from Oxford]

head complement adjunct adjunct

[by Robert Burns]

adjunct

(40) *the book [of poems] [of Wction] [with a red cover]

head complement complement adjunct

The tree for (39) is given below; note that since there is only one N, there can only be one complement, but since there are multiple N’s, there can be as many adjuncts as desired

()

D

NP

N⬘

N

book

PP with a red cover

of poems

It also follows from the iterative nature of adjunct rules that adjuncts can be reordered with respect to one another, but one can never reorder a complement with the adjuncts:

(42) (a) the book of poems with a red cover from Oxford by Robert

Burns

(b) the book of poems from Oxford with a red cover by Robert Burns

(c) the book of poems from Oxford by Robert Burns with a red cover

(d) the book of poems by Robert Burns from Oxford with a red cover

(e) the book of poems by Robert Burns with a red cover from Oxford

(f) the book of poems with a red cover by Robert Burns from Oxford

(g) *the book with a red cover of poems from Oxford by Robert Burns

(h) *the book with a red cover from Oxford of poems by Robert Burns

(i) *the book with a red cover from Oxford by Robert Burns of poems

etc

Conjunction also distinguishes these types of modiWer Conjunction

is typically restricted to constituents of the same general kind and result

in a complex constituent of the same type as its conjuncts Imagine one were to conjoin a complement with an adjunct, resulting in a contra-dictory situation: something can not be both a sister to X’ and X at the same time Adjuncts can conjoin with other adjuncts (other sisters to X’), and complements can conjoin with other complements (other sisters to X), but complements cannot conjoin with adjuncts:

(43) (a) the book of poems with a red cover and with a blue spine12 (b) the book of poems and of Wction from Oxford

(c) *the book of poems and from Oxford

Finally, recall the test of one-replacement This operation replaces an N’ node with the word one Look at the tree in (44):

N

book

PP with a red cover

of poems

cannot be replaced by one

Two possibilities for one-replacement exist It can target the highest N’, and produce (45):

(45) the one

It can target the lower N’ and produce (46):

If this NP sounds odd to you, try putting emphasis on and.

(46) the one with a red cover

For many speakers—but not all—the N head may not be targeted This means that one followed by a complement is ill-formed:

(47) *the one of poems with a red cover13

Since complements are sisters to X and not X’, they cannot stand next

to the word one Adjuncts, by deWnition, can

The distinction between complements and adjuncts is not limited to NPs; we Wnd it holds in all the major syntactic categories The best example is seen in VPs: the direct object of a verb is a complement of the verb, while prepositional and adverbial modiWers are adjuncts: (48) I loved [the policeman] [intensely] [with all my heart]

complement adjunct adjunct

V⬘

V

loved

the policeman

Direct objects must be adjacent to the verb, and there can only be one

of them

(50) (a) *I loved intensely the policeman with all my heart

(b) *I loved the policeman the baker intensely with all my heart Did-so (did-too) replacement targets V’ Like one-replacement, this means that it can only apply before an adjunct and not before a complement:

(51) Mika loved the policemen intensely and

(a) Susan did so half-heartedly

(b) *Susan did so the baker

13 Not everyone Wnds this NP ill-formed There is at least one major US dialect where sentence (47) is entirely acceptable.

The evidence for the adjunct–complement distinction in adjective phrases and prepositional phrases is considerably weaker than that of nouns and verbs Adverbs that modify adjectives have an adjunct

Xair—they can be stacked and reordered Other than this, however, the evidence for the distinction between PPs and AdjPs comes mainly

as a parallel to the NPs and VPs This may be less than satisfying, but is balanced by the formal simplicity of having the same system apply to all categories

SpeciWers are the third type of modiWer Thus far we’ve only seen one, the determiner in the NP:

(52) [the] [book] [of poems] [with a red cover]

speciWer head complement adjunct

D the

N⬘

specifier

N book

PP with a red cover

The speciWer is deWned as the daughter of XP and sister to X’:

(54) SpeciWer : An element that is a sister to an X’ level, and a daughter

of an XP

SpeciWers are diVerent from adjuncts and complements Since the speciWer rule is not recursive, there can only be one speciWer:14 (55) *the these red books

The speciWer rule has to apply at the top of the structure, which means that the speciWer will always be the left-most element (in English): (56) *boring the book

This example also shows that speciWers cannot be reordered with respect to other adjuncts or complements As the Wnal diVerence between speciWers and other types of modiWer, speciWers can only be conjoined with other speciWers:

14 It is not hard to Wnd exceptions to this claim, as in all the books If determiners are heads (Abney 1987), then this problem disappears.

(57) (a) two or three books

(b) *two or boring books

In the late 1980s, with the advent of X-bar theoretic functional categories (IP, TP, etc.) instead of S (see ch 11), determiners and other categories that had been assumed to be speciWers shifted in their phrase structure position Abney (1987) proposed that deter-miners headed their own phrase, which dominated the NP What then became of the speciWer? Around the same time, it was suggested that speciWers have a special role, serving as the identiWers of subjects of various kinds of phrase (Stowell 1981; for a critique see Borsley 1996) For example, Koopman and Sportiche (1991) propose that subject arguments start as the speciWer of the VP (the VP internal subject hypothesis), and then move to the speciWer of some higher functional projection (e.g IP) See also Fukui and Speas (1986) and Fukui (1995) This kind of approach is widely adopted in Chomskyan P&P theory and in the Minimalist Program, but not elsewhere

7.2.5 Cross-linguistic variation

Consider the position of direct objects (complements) in Turkish In Turkish, the complement precedes the head:

(58) Hasan kitab-i oku-du

Hasan-subj book-obj read-past

‘‘Hasan read the book.’’

Interestingly, X-bar theory provides an avenue for exploring the diVer-ences and similarities among languages Travis (1989) proposed that a certain amount of cross-linguistic variation in word order could be explained by allowing languages to parameterize the direction of head-edness in the X-bar schema Take, for example, the complement rule

In English, complements of verbs follow the verbal head In Turkish, they precede it There are two options in the rule:

(59) (a) X’! X (WP)

(b) X’! (WP) X

The child learning English will adopt option (a), the child learning Turkish will adopt option (b) I am obscuring some of the details here, but this provides a relatively elegant account of cross-linguistic variation X-bar theory allows individual languages to select among a

Wnite set of phrase structure options:

(60) (a) XP! (YP) X’ or XP ! X’ (YP)

(b) X’! X’ (ZP) or X’ ! (ZP) X’

(c) X’! X (WP) or X’ ! (WP) X

For a contrasting analysis in the GPSG framework, see Fodor and Crain (1990)

7.2.6 Summary

In this section, we have surveyed some of the motivations for X-bar theory as well as one particular formulation of the X-bar schema itself Phrase structure rules can be overly powerful, thus motivating an endocentricity requirement Evidence for intermediate structure (X’), takes us to the point where there are similarities across categories in terms of the kinds of phrase structure rule are allowed Cross-categor-ial generalizations about structure tie up the knot, showing that a variable-based notation is motivated Next, we saw that the distinct modiWer types of complement, speciWer and adjunct, predicted

by the X-bar schema, seem to be well motivated Finally, we saw how the X-bar schema at least partly allows for a straightforward and constrained theory of cross-linguistic variation

In the next section, we survey the history of X-bar theory, including

an ontological discussion of what the X-bar formalism represents

7.3 A short history of X-bar theory15

7.3.1 The origins: Harris (1946) and Chomsky (1970)

The bar notation (actually the numerical N1, N2, etc equivalents) is

Wrst found in a work on the substitution task for identifying constitu-ency within the word in Harris (1946) This work emphasizes the diVerences among types of hierarchical modiWer, but it does not focus on the syntax, nor does it use the variable notation prevalent in modern X-bar theory The point of Harris’s notation was to limit overgeneration of recursive structures within words

Chomsky (1970) adapted this part of the notation but developed it into the beginnings of X-bar theory At the time, one of the driving issues in the theory was to explain the relations between constructions that appeared to have similar semantics but diVered in the categorial

15 For excellent histories of the X-bar theory, see Stuurman (1985), LeVel and Bouchard (1991), and Fukui (2001).