X-bar theory - Revision history

imported>Dgaiv at 12:32, 23 February 2014

2014-02-23T12:32:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:32, 23 February 2014
Line 142:		Line 142:
	\|-		\|-
	!DP		!DP
	!AP		!DP
	!D		!D
	!		! -
	!AP		!AP
	\|-		\|-

imported>Martins at 18:24, 30 October 2013

2013-10-30T18:24:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:24, 30 October 2013
Line 127:		Line 127:
	!J		!J
	!PP		!PP
	!AP,PP		!AP,JP,PP
	\|-		\|-
	!AP		!AP

imported>Martins at 02:11, 14 August 2013

2013-08-14T02:11:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:11, 14 August 2013
Line 6:		Line 6:
	[[file:syntax4.png]]		[[file:syntax4.png]]

	This tree illustrates the manner in which the entire sentence is divided first into two constituents (NP and VP), which are further divided into immediate constituents (V, NP, A), and so on, until the smallest constituents (N, V, D, A) are reached.		This tree illustrates the manner in which the entire sentence is divided first into two constituents (NP and VP, i.e., subject and predicate), which are further divided into immediate constituents (V, NP, A), and so on, until the smallest constituents (N, V, D, A) are reached.

	== X-bar ==		== X-bar ==

imported>Martins at 01:13, 14 August 2013

2013-08-14T01:13:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:13, 14 August 2013
Line 243:		Line 243:
	*'''Projection-driven''', where all relations are represented in terms of intermediate and maximal projections (i.e., XB's and XP's)		*'''Projection-driven''', where all relations are represented in terms of intermediate and maximal projections (i.e., XB's and XP's)
	*'''Head-driven''', where all relations are represented by reference to the head (i.e., specifiers, complements and adjuncts)		*'''Head-driven''', where all relations are represented by reference to the head (i.e., specifiers, complements and adjuncts)
	The projection-driven representation is used when the tree structure is important; the head-driven representation, when the network representation is required.<br /?		The projection-driven representation is used when the tree structure is important; the head-driven representation, when the network representation is required.<br />
	XP(XB(HEAD;COMP);ADJT);SPEC) = XS(HEAD;SPEC)XC(HEAD;COMP)XA(HEAD;ADJT)<br />		XP(XB(HEAD;COMP);ADJT);SPEC) = XS(HEAD;SPEC)XC(HEAD;COMP)XA(HEAD;ADJT)<br />
	<br style="clear: both" />		<br style="clear: both" />

imported>Martins at 01:13, 14 August 2013

2013-08-14T01:13:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:13, 14 August 2013
Line 243:		Line 243:
	*'''Projection-driven''', where all relations are represented in terms of intermediate and maximal projections (i.e., XB's and XP's)		*'''Projection-driven''', where all relations are represented in terms of intermediate and maximal projections (i.e., XB's and XP's)
	*'''Head-driven''', where all relations are represented by reference to the head (i.e., specifiers, complements and adjuncts)		*'''Head-driven''', where all relations are represented by reference to the head (i.e., specifiers, complements and adjuncts)
			The projection-driven representation is used when the tree structure is important; the head-driven representation, when the network representation is required.<br /?
	XP(XB(HEAD;COMP);ADJT);SPEC) = XS(HEAD;SPEC)XC(HEAD;COMP)XA(HEAD;ADJT)<br />		XP(XB(HEAD;COMP);ADJT);SPEC) = XS(HEAD;SPEC)XC(HEAD;COMP)XA(HEAD;ADJT)<br />
	~~The projection-driven representation is used when the tree structure is important; the head-driven representation, when the network representation is required.~~
	<br style="clear: both" />		<br style="clear: both" />

	== Further reading ==		== Further reading ==
	*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-bar_theory Wikipedia]		*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-bar_theory Wikipedia]

imported>Martins at 01:09, 14 August 2013

2013-08-14T01:09:50Z

imported>Martins at 01:02, 14 August 2013

2013-08-14T01:02:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:02, 14 August 2013
Line 10:		Line 10:
	== X-bar ==		== X-bar ==
	The X-bar is a specific implementation of constituency grammars: it is a method of sentence analysis that divides the sentence into constituents, but it states some very specific rules for doing that:		The X-bar is a specific implementation of constituency grammars: it is a method of sentence analysis that divides the sentence into constituents, but it states some very specific rules for doing that:
	*the topmost node (S, in the diagram above) is called '''XP''' (~~from~~ X-~~phrase~~) and is considered to be the '''maximal projection''' of a head X. This means that the whole process must be understood bottom-up (from a head to its projections) instead of top-down.		*the topmost node (S, in the diagram above) is called '''XP''' (X-Phrase) and is considered to be the '''maximal projection''' of a head X. This means that the whole process must be understood bottom-up (from a head to its projections) instead of top-down.
	*the "X" is actually a variable that must be replaced by any of the possible heads: noun (N), verb (V), adjective (J), adverb (A), etc. In that sense, there is no real XP, but NP's, VP's, JP's, etc. A VP (verbal phrase) is the maximal projection of a verb (V); a NP (noun phrase) is the maximal projection of a noun (N); and so on. The sentence above, for instance, can be considered to be the maximal projection of a V (''killed'') and, therefore, would constitute a VP (verbal phrase), instead of "S". The use of the "X" (and therefore "XP") comes from the fact that one of the claims of the theory is that all these phrases (NP, VP, JP, etc.) share the same structure, i.e., a NP is a specific implementation of a general XP.		*the "X" is actually a variable that must be replaced by any of the possible heads: noun (N), verb (V), adjective (J), adverb (A), etc. In that sense, there is no real XP, but NP's, VP's, JP's, etc. A VP (verbal phrase) is the maximal projection of a verb (V); a NP (noun phrase) is the maximal projection of a noun (N); and so on. The sentence above, for instance, can be considered to be the maximal projection of a V (''killed'') and, therefore, would constitute a VP (verbal phrase), instead of "S". The use of the "X" (and therefore "XP") comes from the fact that one of the claims of the theory is that all these phrases (NP, VP, JP, etc.) share the same structure, i.e., a NP is a specific implementation of a general XP.
	*projections are always binary, i.e., the tree cannot bring more than two branches at a time. In the example above, for instance, there is a VP (''killed the man yesterday'') with three branches. This is not possible in X-bar. In order to avoid this, the head may have '''intermediate projections''' before the maximal projection. These intermediate projections are called '''XB''' (from X-bar), and again must be replaced by the specific categories of the head (NB is the intermediate projection of N, VB is the intermediate projection of V, etc.).		*projections are always binary, i.e., the tree cannot bring more than two branches at a time. In the example above, for instance, there is a VP (''killed the man yesterday'') with three branches. This is not possible in X-bar. In order to avoid this, the head may have '''intermediate projections''' before the maximal projection. These intermediate projections are called '''XB''' (from X-bar), and again must be replaced by the specific categories of the head (NB is the intermediate projection of N, VB is the intermediate projection of V, etc.).

imported>Martins at 01:00, 14 August 2013

2013-08-14T01:00:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:00, 14 August 2013
Line 6:		Line 6:
	[[file:syntax4.png]]		[[file:syntax4.png]]

	This tree illustrates the manner in which the entire sentence is divided first into two constituents (NP and VP), which are further divided into immediate constituents (V ~~and~~ NP), and so on, until the smallest constituents (N, V, D, J) are reached.		This tree illustrates the manner in which the entire sentence is divided first into two constituents (NP and VP), which are further divided into immediate constituents (V, NP, A), and so on, until the smallest constituents (N, V, D, A) are reached.

	== X-bar ==		== X-bar ==

imported>Martins at 00:59, 14 August 2013

2013-08-14T00:59:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:59, 14 August 2013
Line 6:		Line 6:
	[[file:syntax4.png]]		[[file:syntax4.png]]

	This tree illustrates the manner in which the entire sentence is divided first into ~~the~~ two ~~immediate~~ constituents (NP and VP), which are further divided into immediate constituents (V and NP), and so on, until the smallest constituents (N, V, D, J) are reached.		This tree illustrates the manner in which the entire sentence is divided first into two constituents (NP and VP), which are further divided into immediate constituents (V and NP), and so on, until the smallest constituents (N, V, D, J) are reached.

	== X-bar ==		== X-bar ==

imported>Martins at 00:59, 14 August 2013

2013-08-14T00:59:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:59, 14 August 2013
Line 2:		Line 2:

	== Constituency grammars ==		== Constituency grammars ==
	[[syntax\|Constituency grammars]] are a method of sentence analysis that divides up a sentence into major parts ~~or immediate constituents~~, ~~and these constituents~~ are in turn divided into ~~further immediate constituents. The~~ process continues until irreducible constituents are reached, i.e., until each constituent consists of only a word or a meaningful part of a word. The end result is presented in a visual diagrammatic form that reveals the hierarchical immediate constituent structure of the sentence at hand. For example:		[[syntax\|Constituency grammars]] are a method of sentence analysis that divides a sentence into major parts, which are in turn further divided into smaller parts in a process that continues until irreducible constituents are reached, i.e., until each constituent consists of only a word or a meaningful part of a word. The end result is presented in a visual diagrammatic form that reveals the hierarchical immediate constituent structure of the sentence at hand. For example:

	[[file:syntax4.png]]		[[file:syntax4.png]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:09, 14 August 2013
Line 10:		Line 10:
	== X-bar ==		== X-bar ==
	The X-bar is a specific implementation of constituency grammars: it is a method of sentence analysis that divides the sentence into constituents, but it states some very specific rules for doing that:		The X-bar is a specific implementation of constituency grammars: it is a method of sentence analysis that divides the sentence into constituents, but it states some very specific rules for doing that:
	*the topmost node (S, in the diagram above) is called '''XP''' (X-~~Phrase~~) and is considered to be the '''maximal projection''' of a head X. This means that the whole process must be understood bottom-up (from a head to its projections) instead of top-down.		*the topmost node (S, in the diagram above) is called '''XP''' (X-phrase) and is considered to be the '''maximal projection''' of a head X. This means that the whole process must be understood bottom-up (from a head to its projections) instead of top-down.
	*the "X" is actually a variable that must be replaced by any of the possible heads: noun (N), verb (V), adjective (J), adverb (A), etc. In that sense, there is no real XP, but NP's, VP's, JP's, etc. A VP (verbal phrase) is the maximal projection of a verb (V); a NP (noun phrase) is the maximal projection of a noun (N); and so on. The sentence above, for instance, can be considered to be the maximal projection of a V (''killed'') and, therefore, ~~would constitute~~ a VP (verbal phrase), instead of "S". The use of the "X" (and therefore "XP") comes from the fact that one of the claims of the theory is that all these phrases (NP, VP, JP, etc.) share the same structure, i.e., a NP is a specific implementation of a general XP.		*the "X" is actually a variable that must be replaced by any of the possible heads: noun (N), verb (V), adjective (J), adverb (A), etc. In that sense, there is no real XP, but NP's, VP's, JP's, etc. A VP (verbal phrase) is the maximal projection of a verb (V); a NP (noun phrase) is the maximal projection of a noun (N); and so on. The sentence above, for instance, can be considered to be the maximal projection of a V (''killed'') and, therefore, constitutes a VP (verbal phrase), instead of "S". The use of the "X" (and therefore "XP") comes from the fact that one of the claims of the theory is that all these phrases (NP, VP, JP, etc.) share the same underlying structure, i.e., a NP is a specific implementation of a general XP.
	*projections are always binary, i.e., the tree cannot bring more than two branches at a time. In the example above, for instance, there is a VP (''killed the man yesterday'') with three branches. This is not possible in X-bar. In order to avoid this, the head may have '''intermediate projections''' before the maximal projection. These intermediate projections are called '''XB''' (from X-bar), and again must be replaced by the specific categories of the head (NB is the intermediate projection of N, VB is the intermediate projection of V, etc.).		*projections are always binary, i.e., the tree cannot bring more than two branches at a time. In the example above, for instance, there is a VP (''killed the man yesterday'') with three branches. This is not possible in X-bar. In order to avoid this, the head may have '''intermediate projections''' before the maximal projection. These intermediate projections are called '''XB''' (from X-bar), and again must be replaced by the specific categories of the head (NB is the intermediate projection of N, VB is the intermediate projection of V, etc.).
	*the maximal projection is "maximal", i.e., there can be one single maximal projection of the same head. If we simply replace "S" by "VP" in the example above, the VP would project a VP, which is not possible according to the X-bar. We have then to proliferate the intermediate projections (VB's in our case). One head can have as many intermediate projections as necessary, but it can have one single maximal projection.		*the maximal projection is "maximal", i.e., there can be one single maximal projection of the same head. If we simply replace "S" by "VP" in the example above, the VP would project a VP, which is not possible according to the X-bar. We have then to proliferate the intermediate projections (VB's in our case). One head can have as many intermediate projections as necessary, but it can have one single maximal projection.
	*there can be four different types of arguments inside the X-bar structure: the head, which projects the whole structure ("killed", in the example above); the complement (or comp), that complements the head ("the man"); the adjunct (or adjt), that modifies the head ("yesterday"); and the specifier (or spec), that determines the head ("they"). The head can have as many complements and adjuncts as necessary, but ~~there~~ can be one single specifier.		*there can be four different types of arguments inside the X-bar structure: the head, which projects the whole structure ("killed", in the example above); the complement (or comp), that complements the head ("the man"); the adjunct (or adjt), that modifies the head ("yesterday"); and the specifier (or spec), that determines the head ("they"). The head can have as many complements and adjuncts as necessary, but it can have one single specifier.
	*The intermediate projections are actually combinations of the head with its complements and adjuncts, if any, where as the maximal projection is the combination of the head with its specifier, if any.		*The intermediate projections (NB's, VB's, JB's, etc.) are actually combinations of the head with its complements and adjuncts, if any, where as the maximal projection (NP, VP, JP, etc.) is the combination of the head with its specifier, if any.
	*the complements, adjuncts and specifiers are themselves maximal projections (of different categories other than the head). For instance, the complement of "killed" is not simply a noun but a ~~noun phrase~~ ("the man"), which is the maximal projection of the noun head ("man"). Likewise, the adjunct of "killed" ~~should have been~~ not the word "yesterday" but the ~~adverbial phrase~~ ("yesterday"), which is the maximal projection of the adverbial head "yesterday".		*the complements, adjuncts and specifiers are themselves maximal projections (of different categories other than the head). For instance, the complement of "killed" is not simply a noun but a NP ("the man"), which is the maximal projection of the noun head ("man"). Likewise, the adjunct of "killed" is not the word "yesterday" but the AP ("yesterday"), which is the maximal projection of the adverbial head "yesterday".
	If we provide all the changes indicated above to our previous tree, we ~~would~~ get the X-bar representation of the sentence, which is the following:		If we provide all the changes indicated above to our previous tree, we get the X-bar representation of the sentence, which is the following:

	[[file:syntax5.png]]		[[file:syntax5.png]]

	In the above:		In the above:
	*"they" is a ~~noun phrase~~, i.e., a maximal projection of nominal head (the personal pronoun "they"). It plays the role of the specifier of the VP.		*"they" is a NP, i.e., a maximal projection of nominal head (the personal pronoun "they"). It plays the role of the specifier of the VP.
	*"killed" is the head of the VP, which is actually a projection of it.		*"killed" is the head of the VP, which is actually a projection of it.
	*"the man" is a ~~noun phrase~~, i.e., a maximal projection of a nominal head (the noun "man"). It plays the role of the complement of the VP (and, therefore, constitutes a VB).		*"the man" is a NP, i.e., a maximal projection of a nominal head (the noun "man"). It plays the role of the complement of the VP (and, therefore, constitutes a VB).
	*"the" is a ~~determiner phrase~~, i.e., a maximal projection of a determiner head (the article "the"). It plays the role of the specifier of the NP, which is inside the VB.		*"the" is a DP, i.e., a maximal projection of a determiner head (the article "the"). It plays the role of the specifier of the NP, which is inside the VB.
	*"yesterday" is an ~~adverbial phrase~~, i.e., a maximal projection of an adverbial head (the adverb "yesterday"). It plays the role of the adjunct of the VP (and, therefore, constitutes a VB).		*"yesterday" is an AP, i.e., a maximal projection of an adverbial head (the adverb "yesterday"). It plays the role of the adjunct of the VP (and, therefore, constitutes a VB).
	*VP, NP, DP, AP are maximal projections		*VP, NP, DP, AP are maximal projections
	*VB and NB are intermediate projections		*VB and NB are intermediate projections