In the following years, several proposals that we followed were based on two questions.. a) how many rods are needed?. In the original paper it was not entirely clear what the status of X-bar rules should be. NPs must occupy Case positions (Case Filter) c. the subject position of a non-finite clause is not a Case .. position and thus no NP can occupy it.
AA. these assumptions are allowed by Jackendoff's universal three-bar system since the subject is in the highest VP specifier. BB. the element occupying this position can move out of the NP, just as a wh-phrase can move out of S'. Drawing on Szabolcsi, Abney argued that there is reason to believe that noun phrase structure is more similar to sentence structure in that there is a functional structure built upon the noun phrase.
There are two phrase positions before the noun: possessors and post-determiners - in that order .. a) The post-determiner appears in spec. to be NP: .. xi) it precedes other N modifiers .. xii) unlike other modifiers it is limited to one. He then argued that the determiner is the head of this functional phrase A. the main obstacle to this is the complementary distribution between .. determiner and possessor - if they are in different positions, they should be able to occur together. a) they can occur together in many languages s) they can even occur in English .. t) it is possible that the possessive markers can be analyzed as a determiner, which will explain why other determiners are not easy pas xli. However, the main argument in favor of the DP is that it extends the X-measure theory.
But perhaps there is enough similarity between time and number to justify the analysis of a functional projection above NP but below DP, in the same way that IP is above VP but below CP.
Problematic analyses: the gerund and coordination 28. Intro
In BESE, this problem is addressed with the help of a more articulated VP structure, which contains more heads with which the morpheme can be related. But the problem still remains of the uniqueness of the morpheme - nobody acts like that: we don't get adjectival morphemes that can affect different levels of the VP or NP etc. So the gerund must still be considered an exception, which is the real problem for X-bar theory since it predicts uniformity.
Most of these assumed that the coordinating particle was the head and that the conjuncts surrounding it specified a complement position. If the head determines the category of the sentence, all coordinate structures must have the same category and this should not be affected by the specification and complement II. His claim is that verbs in French infinitives disappear from VP as the verb precedes the adverb.
But they don't go as far as I do, so the verb doesn't get past the negative. LL.Polock had tense as the higher node and Agr as the lower node to which the French verb moves in infinitive contexts. But there was disagreement because the standard view was that agreement, not tense, is responsible for assigning nominative to the subject (Portuguese infinitives have nominative subjects) and so Agr should be higher otherwise the verb would precede the subject if it would go according to time.
Chomsky claimed that both Pollock and Belletti are correct in that there is an agreement morpheme above and below tense—a subject agreement and an object agreement—hence I split into three, not two. Mod – possibly splitting into epistemic and root (perhaps root splitting into deontic and dynamic). At the top is where the complementizers distinguish between sentence force (interrogative or imperative), below that is a subject phrase, and below that a focus phrase.
Larson suggested that there are actually two VPs, one above the other, to account for the double subject and multiple complement verbs. TT. He proposed two VPs, the highest of which does not contain a head but a subject in its specifier (following Koopman and Sportiche, who argued that subjects originate from VPs). The lower VP has the first complement in the specifier and the second complement in complement position.
Critical Evaluation
YYY.but after the functional explosion we now have to say that it needs NegP, PerfP, ProgP, ModP, vP, etc. But some time after the introduction of IP (which only had a word specification) it started to become popular to think of specifications as word positions. But Larson's VP-shell hypothesis screwed this up, because certain objects were in spec positions in this situation.
Other proposals also put non-subjects in specifier position: Abney argued that postdeterminers were in specifier of NP and objective clauses in specifier of AP. Overall, although there were some positive developments, the concept of specifier became less well defined – it seems to be a position for subjects, a position to move to, a position for arguments, a position for certain modifiers – this is not a coherent set . One claim that had been made quite early on was that the specification is a . single position.
However, the VP shell hypothesis also took its toll on the original meaning of the term (in the same way it affected the concept of specifier). Another change, practically the opposite of specifiers, was that the complement position started as possibly multiple (double object verbs and complex transitive verbs seemed to have more than one complement). Overall, the complement position has become more limited, which from a theoretical position is a good thing.
The most important thing that the development of the theory did for assistant professors was to create uncertainty about where they come up. It was always uncertain whether VP adjuncts are adjacent to V' or VP (some are adjacent to S - but with IP analysis are they adjacent to IP or I'?). Larson's VP shell hypothesis attempted to get rid of adjuncts as an X-bar category, placing all modifiers in complement positions of inner VPs.
There was very little empirical support for many of these new heads and their projected sentences. The only motivation for these structures was that there was direct or indirect evidence that they exist in other languages. The assumption that the X-bar theory is universal, and therefore what applies to one language must apply to all of them, is the only evidence given for a particular assumed structure.
Bare Phrase Structure
Optimality Theory and X-bar 51. OT basics
Hordos argued that the notion of projection obeys OT principles – a gerund has a verbal head but projects a noun phrase. Gaspar argued that concerted structures were not organized according to X-bar principles, but on a similar basis to the organization of clauses. Abney came to a similar conclusion in the analysis of DP a) why adjectival modifiers of nouns cannot have a complement?.
Thus, if IP and CP are actually projected by V and AP and DP are projected by N, it seems that two aspects of 'head' are separated a) the functional phrase category is projected by thematic.
Problems with the notion of structure
Coordination therefore does not provide any arguments that there must be sentences. cvii. structure dependence of syntactic processes: processes depend on structure to work as they do. For example, auxiliary inversion involves the finite auxiliary clause of the main clause, which is not necessarily the closest auxiliary clause: .. the one who can run the fastest will win a) the one who can run the fastest will win. That's why there is something else that ensures that a wh-phrase and a conjunction do not appear together: the double-filled comp filter.
Alignment Syntax
If x must precede y and there is no x, then the condition is vacuously satisfied, but if x must precede y and there is no y, then the condition is necessarily violated. XXX.. b) note that ordering relations do not entail adjacency and that adjacency does not entail ordering. i) if x must precede y, this can happen at any distance from y ii) if x must be adjacent to y, it can be so on either side of y cxiv. some phenomena... a) this happens when two or more elements compete for a position directly on one side of a host and it is more important to keep the side than the adjacent side. But if there is an indirect object, it wins the post-verbal position and the object is pushed to second place: = gave Bill money - * gave money Bill .. a) this happens when two or more elements compete for a certain position and it is more important for the loser to be next to the host than to maintain the order of preference. ii) the complement of a head wants to follow the head and an adjective wants to border the noun it modifies and is preferably placed to the left of the noun: tall man. In this case, the adjective switches sides to be next to the noun, but on the right: a man who loves beer.
Review
