IV. Some X-bar analvses:
1. Endocentric theory of s ( ip theory of s )
A “flat structure” analysis of : “ John should work”:
PS rule: S NP + M + VP
The structure:
S
NP M VP
should
N V
John work
Note that S differs from other types of phrases (VP,AP,NP,PP) in not having a
“head” (is not endocentric)
The IP theory of a clause
a) Head of S = Inflection i.e. S= I(infl)P
b) Infl can be realized as either:
Modal
infinitive particle to
abstract tense morphemes PRESENT or PAST
the subject of a clause is a specifier in IP (a daughter of IP and a sister
of I')
d) the VP is a complement of I(nfl)
John should work.
John to work (as in: “I expect [ John to work]” )
S
John worked.
X-bar theory PS rules: IP -> NP + I’
I’ -> I + VP
X-bar structure:
IP
N
P
I’
N
’
I VP
M
(John
should
work)
N
to
(John
to
work)
V’
John Past (John worked)
V
work
2. Complementizer Phrase ( cp ) theory
A “flat structure” analysis of : “ … that Mary is happy ”:
PS ruile : S -> Comp + NP + VP
The structure:
S
Comp NP VP
that
N
Mary
is happy
The CP theory
The PS rules: CP -> C’
The structure:
I know [ [ [that] [ Mary is happy ] ] ]
CP C' C IP
CP
C’
C IP
that
Mary is happy
3. Auxiliary verbs as heads of phrases
A “flat structure” analysis of : “ … John has been working ”:
PS rule : VP -> Vperf + Vprogr + V
The structure:
S
NP
VP
N Vperf Vprogr V
John has been working
X-bar theory analysis
PS rules: VP-> V’
V’ -> V + VP
The structure:
IP
NP
I’
N’ I VP1
N Pres V’
John V VP2
has V’
V VP3
been V’
V
working
The ‘’ auxiliary verbs as heads” theory accounts for the different deletion possibilities in examples below. In each case, what is deleted is a VP – i.e. a complete constituent. In a “flat structure analysis” we would have a deletion of a VP in i), a V in iii) and a non-constituent in ii) .
Ann may have been working but Mary may not
have been workingAnn may have been working but Mary may not have
been workingAnn may have been working but Mary may not have been
working