Talk:X-bar theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Though this is an excellent explanation for x-bar syntax, I believe it does not encompass all of x-bar theory. I think there needs to be a seperate section for x-bar theory, x-bar syntax, and x-bar morphosyntax, as well as the different syntactic theories (i.e. minimalism, LFG, and so on).
I must disagree with the example sentence tree. It states that the "He studies linguistics at the university" is a verb phrase. This is incorrect - it is a complete sentence (or inflectional phrase, if you prefer). The noun phrase is not the specifier of the verb phrase, it is the specifier of the entire sentence. There is no specifier for the verb phrase in this case. However, it's always possible that I was simply raised with a different philosophy of X-bar Theory, and that saying a sentence is equivalent to a verb phrase is perfectly fine in other schools of thought. If someone wants to defend the usage here, I'm willing to discuss it. 129.2.211.72 04:54, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree with User:129.2.211.72. Though I think that the NP is initially generated in the VP (as it is shown in the picture), but the NP raises to the SpecIP position. So, i think that we would need another graphic to show both the Deep and the Surface structure. --Javier Carro 11:07, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
By the way, I just began a stub in Wikibooks in order to write a module about Transformational grammar (wikibooks:User:Javier_Carro/Transformational_Grammar). Everybody is welcome there :) --Javier Carro 11:07, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The tree can't be incorrect, because X-bar theory is just a phrase structure schemata, not a theory of syntax in general. Most theories in transformational grammar either have the subject base-generated in Spec,IP, or base-generated in Spec,VP and then raised to Spec,IP (or the specifier of a functional projection in a split INFL). However, in Head-driven phrase structure grammar and probably some other theories, the subject remains in Spec,VP. I think the diagram is perfectly OK as it is, since we're not trying to describe any particular theory of syntax on this page. Cadr 09:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
- To clarify, I'm not saying that the current diagram is any more or less correct than the alternatives which have been proposed above. I just see no reason to change it given that it's already there. Cadr 09:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh...I guess all this really needs is a good clarification...I'll try to do that now. -- Beland 06:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] NP → ?
NP
/ \
DetP N'
| |
Det' N
| |
Det cat
|
the
What evidence is postulated to demonstrate that there is a constituent Det' and DetP if you posit DetP as a specifier of NP?
I suggest:
DP
/ \
D'
/ \
the NP
/ \
N'
/ \
cat
where the is the head of DP and the NP is the complement of D; the specifier of DP is used for constructions such as
DP
/ \
DP D'
/ \ / \
D' 's NP
/\ / \
0 NP N'
/ \ / \
N' dad
/ \
John
Although this has the weakness of an unused NP Spec, this is at least prefered to having two vacuously branching nodes (or five, if you consider the way that this NP is drawn, with (superfluous) category labels branching to their heads).
(See: Abney, Steven (1987) The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.)
I strongly concur. While it is true that it's a moot point as many syntactitions feel X' is wrong, we can at least give the most advanced version (and the version the few who still follow it believe). Clay 07:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Add reference to Jackendoff
I haven't learned to edit wikipedia entries yet, but for this one I think it should definitely be mentioned that X-bar theory was invented by Ray Jackendoff. The principal reference is: Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X-bar-Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure: Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 2. Cambridge: MIT Press. Barbara Partee 15:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Taken care of. Thanks for the reference, and feel free to contribute more to Wikipedia as you see fit. –jonsafari 21:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] DetP as a specifier of N??
Which framework or theory do you use in the article? I have never seen DetP as a specifier of N.Russky1802 22:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Analysing determiners as specifiers of NP was standard in transformational grammar up to the late 1980s. If the determiner is a specifier, it has to be included in a maximal projection, otherwise X' theory is violated.
- Anyway, I've been opposed to changing the NPs in this article to DPs because I think it makes things unnecessarily complex for an introductory article, but the DP hypothesis seems to be so widely assumed these days that maybe it's a bad idea to use NPs. Cadr 22:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Actually, looking at some GB theory textbooks, it seems that back in the day people just put the determiner directly under "Spec", and didn't have a DetP or any equivalent. I'll change the article back to your version. Cadr 00:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NP vs. DP
Well, I use both NP and DP. If there is a null determiner I see no reason why I should make it more complicated by having something like
DP
D'
D NP
N'
N
for [John].
On the other hand, if we have NPs with genetives we'd better use the DP hypothesis, [DP John's criticism of the theory]
The question was why should we use DetP for a simple NP theory? I usually have Det as a specifier, though there is no consistency with the X-bar theory. But it is a traditional analysis.
I think we should have a separate section on DP hypothesis (only for complicated cases). In simple ones we may still use the olde NP.Russky1802 01:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- In "John's criticism of the theory", "John's" was originally assumed to be in [Spec,NP], so these sentences don't require a separate DP projection. Anyway, I'm not sure whether it would be better to stick to 70s/80s X-bar theory and not use DPs at all, or always use DPs, but I think we should be consistent and do one or the other. Cadr 02:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok. But many people have contracted structures, something like
DP / \ ___ the book
because it is so obvious. Moreover, Chomsky claims that X-bar theory should be eliminated at all. Russky1802 18:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. It's true that Chomsky doesn't believe in X' theory these days (although phases serve a similar purpose to the original X' theory), but that doesn't have anything to do with the DP/NP question.
-
- As I said, I think we should used either DPs or NPs, but choose one or the other and be consistent. Cadr 18:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you. What I meant is something like (a la Chris Collins):
/ \ / \ the book
Russky1802 19:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- OK, but we can't use that in the article because it's not an X' structure. Cadr 20:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] This article is as clear as mud
I read the article on X bar and couldn't make head or tail of it. This is the closest that we find to a definition:
- The letter X is used to signify an arbitrary lexical category; when analyzing a specific utterance, specific categories are assigned. Thus, the X may become an N for noun, a V for verb, an A for adjective, or a P for preposition.
Huh?
It's fine for linguists who know what an X-bar is, but for ordinary people, this makes zero sense. Can't some linguist put this article into a form that people who haven't been through the linguistics mill can understand?
In fact, I went back and had a look at the very first incarnation of the article, and it actually made sense! Who said that collaboration among many people makes a better Wikipedia article?
