Structural descriptions are obtained by means of Context-Free phrase structure rules or via recursive combinatorics and structure is assumed to be uniform : binary branching trees all the way down. That recursive enumeration is carried out by a procedure which strongly generates a set of structural descriptions Σ and weakly generates a set of strings S a grammar is thus a function that pairs an element of Σ with elements of S. Proof-theoretic models of grammar are based on the view that an explicit characterization of a language comes in the form of the recursive enumeration of strings in that language. e., they occur both as alternate heads instead of ang and ng and as their complements. It is proposed that demonstratives may in fact occur in two different phrase-structural positions, i. This problem is taken up in the second main part of the article. Analyzing ang and ng as determiners raises the issue of how they relate to other elements which are usually considered determiners, in particular demonstratives. ![]() Because of these differences, their status as determiners may be open to questions, but there can be little doubt that ang and ng provide examples par excellence for functional elements displaying (syntactic) head characteristics. These phrases may be considered DPs, although they differ in a number of regards from DPs in European languages. ![]() ![]() phrases where PPs occur as complements or adjuncts). Consequently, it will be argued that sa heads prepositional phrases, while ang and ng head higher-level phrases (i. While there is some evidence for the widely held view that the phrase marking particles form a kind of paradigm in that they are at least in partial complementary distribution, they differ significantly in their distributional characteristics. This paper presents some observations on the syntax and semantics of the Tagalog phrase marking particles ang, ng, and sa. Finally, we reconstruct X-bar theory in a way that makes no reference to the notion of bar-level but instead makes the notion 'head of the central one. We show that, as constraints on phrase-structure rule systems, the X-bar conditions have hardly any effect on the descriptive power of grammars, and that the principles with the most chance of making some descriptive difference are the least adhered to in practice. We then consider recent proposals to 'eliminate' base components from transformational grammars and to reinterpret X-bar theory as a set of universal constraints holding for all languages at D-structure, arguing that this strategy fails. We state and discuss six conditions that encapsulate the claims of X-bar theory: LEXICALITY-each nonterminal is a projection of a preterminal SUCCESSION-each Xn + 1 dominates an Xn for all n ≥ 0 UNIFORMITY-all maximal projections have the same bar-level MAXIMALITY-all nonheads are maximal projections CENTRALITY-the start symbol is a maximal projection and OPTIONALITY-all and only nonheads are optional. In this paper we will demonstrate that a formalization of its content reveals very little substance in its claims. The notation XP stands for X Phrase, and is equivalent to X-bar-bar (X with a double overbar), written X″, usually read aloud as X double bar.X-bar theory is widely regarded as a substantive theory of phrase structure properties in natural languages. In English, however, this is still read as "X bar". Because this is difficult to typeset, this is often written as X′, using the prime symbol. Certain structures are represented by X (an X with a bar over it). The term X-bar is derived from the notation representing this structure. Thus, the X may become an N for noun, a V for verb, an A for adjective, or a P for preposition. The letter X is used to signify an arbitrary lexical category (part of speech) when analyzing a specific utterance, specific categories are assigned. An X-bar theoretic understanding of sentence structure is possible in a constituency-based grammar only it is not possible in a dependency-based grammar. ![]() X-bar theory was first proposed by Noam Chomsky (1970) and further developed by Ray Jackendoff (1977). It claims that among their phrasal categories, all those languages share certain structural similarities, including one known as the "X-bar", which does not appear in traditional phrase structure rules for English or other natural languages. X-bar theory is a component of linguistic theory which attempts to identify syntactic features presumably common to all those human languages that fit in a presupposed (1965) framework.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |