Phrase Structure Rules 1986

Remember X’-theory?

Uniform structure

It helps us to learn

Everything is the same

“sentence” disappears

Replaced with IP

The inflectional properties of S

Tense etc.

Later on, it’s replaced with TP

IP, TP … who cares?

Don’t worry about that too much

Look at the old system again

We have NP, and VP

Aux becomes IP, later T(ense) P

What about the operator position?

Aux becomes Inf

What about Op?

We want uniformity

She did walk Did she walk

Movement to some position

We want Universal rules

So what do we do about Op?

Give it a new name

Op becomes Comp!!

Complementizer

• I think that it is a good name• That is a complementizer• It comes before the complement phrase• So it’s a complementizer!!• OK?

Complementizer

• I think that [she walked]• Think takes a complement

Complementizer

C, C’, CP

C takes IP as its complement

Hooray!

C takes IP as its complement

All neat and tidy

Did she buy something?

What did she buy?

Movement to complementizer head

What did she buy?

Movement to somewhere?

What did she buy?

New kind of movement

It’s NOT to the head C

“Did” is in the head position

So where is it?

Hanging to the left of CP

So where is it?

Like the subject position in IP

What shall we call this position?

It’s a bit like a specifier position

Also known as determiner

Determiner

Let’s call it the specifier position

Spec

Wh- movement

To Spec CP

Nice

Which books do you know where Taro bought?

Taro bought those books in Books Kato.

Which books do you know where Taro bought?

So everything is neat

But what about the spec position?

It should also follow X’-theory

How about “The tall girl”?

The three tall girls

A lot of tall girls etc

NP becomes a DP (Determiner Phrase)

D takes NP as complement

Very neat

Adjectival Phrase in Spec of NP (?)

What if it’s “The three tall girls”?

Where does “three” go?

“Three” isn’t an adjective, is it?

• One girl• The girl• Three girls• The girls• The tall girl• The tall girls• Three tall girls

• Those three tall girls• The three tall girls• Where does “three” go?

• Something for you to play with!

Like this?

“the three” is a complex Determiner?

“The” can take “three” as a complement?

“Three tall girls” is OK

“Three tall” must be a kind of Det, right?

The tall girls

The tall girls

Three tall girls

The tall girls

Three tall girls

So a bit like this?

Or this, or something?

The three tall girls

What does that mean?

These trees don’t tell us

OK

How about this?

… kicked the dog

Just “… kicked the dog”

Who kicked the dog?

I don’t know yet

“the dog” seems OK

It’s a DP

“the” is the determiner

No problem

Here’s the structure we expect

The girls kicked the dog

The three girls kicked the dog

The three tall girls kicked the dog

The three stupid tall girls kicked the dog

John kicked the dog

What if it’s just “John”?

Do we really need this uniform structure?

What’s the DP doing here?

Basically nothing

Uniformity gives us too much structure

It doesn’t always help

And we still have the problem of meaning

Questions

• In X-bar theory, aux became I (IP) and then T (TP)

• An IP is an Inflectional Phrase• A TP is a Tense Phrase

• What is the point of uniform structure?• Maybe it helps children to learn language• (If we are born with it in our heads already)

• What did the Op become in X-bar theory?• Comp • Or Complementizer• Complementizer Phrase

• Give an example of a sentence with a complementizer in it

• I think that it is strange

What did she buy?

• Where does did move to?• Head of CP

Wh- movement

What did she buy?

• Where does what move to?• Spec CP

The tall girls

Three stupid tall girls (AP in Spec NP)

Three stupid tall girls (NP comp of AP)

• What is the problem with treating John as a DP?

• Pointless (redundant structure)

Redundant structure

• How did chimpanzees become so clever with numbers?

• I have no idea• Maybe counting quickly helped them survive

(?)• Who knows?