6/29/2023 0 Comments Xbar word![]() This version of the tree correctly captures our empirical result: we have two distinct VP constituents. So based on this evidence, it looks like our tree should actually have the following representation. How do I know? It passes all the same constituency tests, and we can detect its category through substitution and coordination. But here’s the thing: the string sing a song in the park is also a VP. Recall that substitution and coordination allow us to diagnose the category of the constituent. So our constituency tests are telling us that sing a song is a constituent-and that it’s a VP. Below I’m applying the other constituency tests. Is our constituency test just giving us a false positive? Let’s confirm. The string sing a song isn’t a constituent according to this tree because there is no node that contains the words sing a song and nothing else. ![]() What’s the problem here? The test demonstrates that sing a song is a constituent, because I am able to replace that string with do so. However, it still is getting the constituency wrong. It also correctly represents that sing a song in the park is a constituent. This tree correctly represents that in the park is a constituent. For instance, using this VP rule, here’s the structure for The doctor will sing a song in the park. This rule allows us to minimally distinguish between transitive and intransitive verbs, each of which could have a modifying prepositional phrase. Simplified VP rule for English (to be revised) Assume the (very simplistic) rule for VPs below. Let’s start by looking again at English VPs. The hypothesis makes a number of testable predictions, which we’ll explore in terms of the complement/adjunct distinction. This is “X-bar syntax.” It’s the hypothesis that all phrases share a structure, i.e., every phrase looks identical. As a hypothesis about syntax, we’ll adopt a uniform structural representation for all phrases. Just like when we discussed functional categories we learned to infer the presence of structure, even when we can’t directly see it, we’ll use the same tools to infer the presence of “bar-levels.”įrom this, we’ll make a theoretical leap. The reason that our trees will look more complicated is that we’re going to discover in this chapter that there are lot of “hidden” layers. Our trees are just going to look more complicated. The same principles, formalizations, and theoretical tools will be used in X-bar syntax that we’ve already been using. ![]() But the trick is to recognize that, even though we’re going to be using the term “X-bar syntax,” we aren’t actually changing theories at all. ![]() We’re going from Phrase Structure Grammars to X-bar Syntax. diagnose the difference between adjuncts and complementsīy the end of this chapter, we will have technically changed theories.identify the distinct positions within the X-bar schema,.understand the motivation for the X-bar schema.identify intermediate levels (“bar levels”) using constituency tests.By the end of this chapter, you should be able to, ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |