Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Advanced School in Artificial Intelligence

EAIA 1990: Natural Language Processing pp 25–54Cite as

X-bar theory: Its role in GB theory

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

  • 311 Accesses

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 476))

Abstract

We have shown that in GB theory X-bar theory plays a crucial role.

In the first place, it constrains the format of syntactic representations in a radical way, thus allowing Grammar to do without specific phrase structure rules (except for a residue of language particular phenomena), and contributing “to account for the relative ease of language acquisition and the impossibility of certain language types”. At the same time, since some of its principles are associated with parameters, X-bar theory is a flexible enough tool to account for language variation.

In the second place, X-bar theory makes it possible to “translate” into configurational terms lexical properties on which are based distinctions between arguments and adjuncts; moreover, the translation of such properties into configurational terms makes it possible to distinguish structurally between external and internal arguments — a distinction that is well supported by empirical facts.

Finally, X-bar theory (together with c-command or some of its variants) provides the referential frame for the formulation of local relations (e.g., government, proper government, Case-assignment, ϑ-assignment) and of local domains (e.g., for movement and binding). In particular, the distinction between lexical and functional heads plays a crucial role in the definition of barriers for government and movement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. See [Lasnik and Saito, 1984].

    Google Scholar 

  2. See [Travis, 1989].

    Google Scholar 

  3. See [Chomsky, 1986b] p. 82; for a somewhat more formal definition of the Projection Principle, see [Chomsky, 1981] p. 38.

    Google Scholar 

  4. See [May, 1977], [May, 1985].

    Google Scholar 

  5. X-bar theory — or, as it was then called, ‘X-bar notation’ — was proposed in [Chomsky, 1970] as part of an attempt to establish a new division of labour between lexicon and syntax in the model of grammar (see [Chomsky, 1970]; see also a similar proposal in [Harris, 1951], chapter 16, referred to in [Chomsky, 1970] p. 54). Besides providing a way to express base structures compatible with the lexicalist hypothesis, X-bar theory worked as a powerful constraint on phrase-structure rules: in this respect, it played a role similar to the one the Tensed-S Condition, the Specified Subject Condition and the Subjacency Condition played in constraining transformational rules (see [Chomsky, 1973]).

    Google Scholar 

  6. See [Stowell, 1981] p. 70.

    Google Scholar 

  7. For a view where succession only holds of non-lexical, that is functional, projections, see [Fukui and Speas, 1986].

    Google Scholar 

  8. S-selection stands for semantic selection, that is, the semantic (= thematic) role(s) a lexical item assigns; c-selection stands for categorial selection, that is, the syntactic category occupying the position to which that lexical item assigns a specific ϑ-role. See [Chomsky, 1986b] p. 86.

    Google Scholar 

  9. But see [Abney, 1987] and [Fukui and Speas, 1986] for the view that determiners, quantifiers and degree phrases are functional heads.

    Google Scholar 

  10. For the analysis of these constructions in Portuguese see [Duarte, 1987], [Duarte, 1989].

    Google Scholar 

  11. See [Kayne, 1983].

    Google Scholar 

  12. According to [Kayne, 1983], X is S — what would now be considered a small clause, that is, a predication domain distinct from a sentence.

    Google Scholar 

  13. The D-structure corresponding to Figure 15 is, according to [Larson, 1988], [VP [NP a book [V' [V give [PP Mary]]] Crucially, in his analysis, the double object construction is a result of a process of argument demotion, where NP2 is demoted and hence occurs as a V' adjunct.

    Google Scholar 

  14. See [Koopman and Sportiche, 1988] for more details.

    Google Scholar 

  15. See, for instance, [Aoun and Sportiche, 1982].

    Google Scholar 

  16. See [Chomsky, 1986a] p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  17. See [Chomsky, 1986a] p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  18. See [Belletti and Rizzi, 1981]. An interesting piece of evidence supporting this claim is provided by the distribution of the inflected infinitive in European Portuguese — see [Raposo, 1987].

    Google Scholar 

  19. On the contrary, it has been claimed that, in English, prepositions are accusative Case assigners. See [Kayne, 1981].

    Google Scholar 

  20. In languages where I is specified for Tense and Agreement, the unmarked option seems to be the following one: if I is [-T], then it is [-AGR]; in this respect, Portuguese represents the marked option, since in [-T] contexts, I may be [+ AGR] — that is what happens in inflected infinitive contexts. See [Raposo, 1987].

    Google Scholar 

  21. See [Raposo, 1987].

    Google Scholar 

  22. See [Chomsky, 1986a] p. 4. This requirement calls to mind Emonds's Structure Preserving Condition.

    Google Scholar 

  23. See [Sportiche, 1988].

    Google Scholar 

  24. See [Fukui and Speas, 1986].

    Google Scholar 

  25. See [Fukui and Speas, 1986] p. 154–55.

    Google Scholar 

  26. [Chomsky, 1986a] has proposed to generalize X-bar theory to the COMP system. See [Chomsky, 1986a] p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  27. See [Abney, 1987].

    Google Scholar 

  28. See [Chomsky, 1986a] p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  29. See [Lasnik and Saito, 1984] p. 240. Some authors have claimed that the ECP should have a conjunctive and not a disjunctive formulation — that is, that both lexical and antecedent government should be needed for the trace licensing. We will adopt here the disjunctive version along the lines of [Lasnik and Saito, 1984].

    Google Scholar 

  30. [Pollock, 1989] derives this difference from the status of AGR in French (more generally, in Romance languages) and in English.

    Google Scholar 

  31. See [Chomsky, 1982] p. 20.

    Google Scholar 

  32. In fact, if we want Principle C to apply to variables we have to formulate it along the following lines: an R-expression is free in the domain of the operator that locally A'-binds it. It should also be noted that in equative sentences (e.g., eu sou a Maria (= I am Maria)) Principle C is cancelled — cf. [Evans, 1980]. The same is true of sentences with predicates like Portuguese chamar-se or French s'appeler (e.g., chamo-me Maria, je m'appelle Maria — literally I call myself Maria).

    Google Scholar 

  33. See [Chomsky, 1981] p. 211.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Linguística, Universidade de Lisboa, Alameda da Universidade, 1699, Lisboa Codex, Portugal

    Inês Duarte

Authors
  1. Inês Duarte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

M. Filgueiras L. Damas N. Moreira A. P. Tomás

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1991 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Duarte, I. (1991). X-bar theory: Its role in GB theory. In: Filgueiras, M., Damas, L., Moreira, N., Tomás, A.P. (eds) Natural Language Processing. EAIA 1990. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 476. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-53678-7_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-53678-7_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-53678-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-46975-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation