Li9 Lecture Three October 27th 2010
SYNTAX (LI/LT 9)
X’-Theory (II), The Lexicon and Theta Theory
1.

Modules and the architecture of the GB Language Faculty
The architecture of the GB language faculty:
o independent/autonomous, domain-specific modules – i.e. separate modules for
phrase structure, thematic considerations, case, movement, binding, etc.
o on its own, each module would both overgenerate and undergenerate; in
combination, they (are supposed to) generate all and only the grammatical
structures in Language/specific languages
o this compartmentalisation is aimed at eliminating redundancies and at
achieving an account of specific features of languages which relies only on
very general principles (cf. principles and parameters, rather than
construction-specific rules, etc.).
For example, the X-bar module specifies the X-bar schema in (1):
(1)
XP
ru
Spec(ifier)
X’ (where X’ reads “X-bar”)
ru
Comp(lement)
X
o structurally, therefore, a complement = the sister of a head, while a specifier =
the sister of the head + complement structure (X’) → different levels of
syntactic “closeness” are structurally represented
So far: 3-level structure
(a) head (X)
(b) head (X) + its complement = X’
(c) [X’ head (X) + its complement] + specifier = XP

some non-subcategorized categories are only loosely and very clearly optionally
connected with the head(-complement) unit
I carefully put Paul’s buttery card into his pigeonhole two hours before lunch
on that rainy day
(3)
He cleverly only partially solved the problem
(4)
A tall, dark, handsome, Guardian-clutching stranger
(5)
He was severely directly personally critical of the President (Radford 1988:
245)
 the fact that these optional constituents can be “stacked” suggests that they aren’t
specifiers which, by definition, aren’t “stackable” – cf. *Jonathan’s the solution to
the problem, but Jonathan’s solution to the problem and the solution to the
problem (cf. a tall stranger; a tall, dark stranger; a tall, dark, handsome stranger;
etc.)
 X-Bar theory allows for a single specifier position
(2)
1
Li9 Lecture Three October 27th 2010
 there seem to be many positions available for optional elements (which
commonly feature in recursion structures)
 optional elements = adjuncts in X-Bar terms because they are adjoined to a
given projection without altering its nature (regardless of the number of
adjectives that are strung between a and stranger in (36), this constituent will
remain an NP; and we know APs are recursive – cf. the PS-rule associated with
(24))
 representing adjuncts in X-Bar Theory: adjuncts adjoin to X’ to form a larger X’,
i.e. adjuncts are sisters of X’ and daughters of X’
(6)
NP
ei
Spec
(=NP)
N’
ep
AP
N’
N’
ei
N
A’
PP
N
A
Jonathan’s brilliant
solution
to the problem
where triangles are used as shorthand in place of the full articulated X-Bar structure
In X-Bar terms:
X’ → X’ YP
So this is another recursive rule.
X’ rules:
(7)
XP → Spec (=YP) X’
X’ → Adjunct (WP) X’ (recursive)
X’ → X Comp (=ZP)
And represented in tree form in (8):
(8)
XP
ru
Spec (YP)
X’
ru
Adjunct (WP)
X’
ru
X
Comp (ZP)
Central X-bar claim: all syntactic constituents have this general format (and you
can “read off” structural relations like Specifier, Adjunct and Complement as
these are encoded in invariant X-bar configurations)
2
Li9 Lecture Three October 27th 2010
What about clauses?
 Recall PS-rule for sentences: S → NP Aux VP → exocentric
 Can S be brought in line with the endocentric X-bar pattern?
 various considerations suggesting Aux, or the finite element, should be analysed
as the head of S
 Aux plays an important role in determining the nature of the sentence in that it
establishes the TENSE of the sentence. In at least one sense, a sentence is a tensed
proposition. In that sense, Aux can be regarded as a head in the same way that N,
V, A and P can – i.e. S can be regarded as fundamentally an AuxP headed by Aux
Therefore:
S → NP Aux VP becomes AuxP → NP Aux VP
 In GB literature (following Chomsky 1986), AuxP is referred to as IP
(Inflectional Phrase) with head I(nfl) (=Aux).
Therefore (alternative notation):
AuxP → NP Aux VP becomes IP → NP I VP
IP (=S) → NP I (=Aux) VP (Take III - final)
 3 non-optional constituent parts; but the X-Bar Schema generate binary
structures
 Subject as Specifier:
(9)
James regularly walks the dog
 the subject determines (i.e. specifies) what verb-form is appropriate (3ps)
 this is even more clearly seen in languages with regular verbal morphology (e.g.
German)
 the agreement between the subject and the verb is actually agreement between
the subject and I; therefore it is referred to as Spec-Head Agreement. SpecHead Agreement is mandatory – cf. *We smiles and *They sings and *Nicola
run
A complication: specifiers are generally optional, but, for English at least, it looks
very much as if the pre-I position always has to be filled:
(10) a.
A unicorn sleeps in the garden
b.
*sleeps a unicorn in the garden
c.
There sleeps a unicorn in the garden
 Spec-IP must be filled, even if only with a “semantically empty” element
like the expletive there, i.e. the filling requirement is a purely formal one.
The principle expressing this fact is (11):
(11)
Extended Projection Principle (EPP)
Every clause must have a subject
(Therefore subjects are non-optional specifiers.)
3
Li9 Lecture Three October 27th 2010
 Important distinction:
o The Projection Principle (PrPr) ensures that all c-selected categories are
present in the syntax (see below)
o The EXTENDED Projection Principle (EPP) ensures that a subject (i.e. an
element which heads don’t c-select) is present at all times. So the EPP
extends the PrPr in the sense that it ensures the presence of an additional
constituent which is not specified as necessary by the PrPr.
 IP adjuncts = APs and PPs (i.e. sentence adverbials)
(12) The candidates clearly/undoubtedly/certainly annoy each other
 IP complement = VP
(13) Angela has [VPwatered the garden diligently]
Subordinate clauses and S’
 Recall PS-rule for S’: S’ → Comp S → exocentric
 Can S’ be brought in line with the endocentric X-bar pattern?
 S is clearly a phrase; therefore Comp is the only possible head – Does it determine
the nature of S’ in any way?
Yes: the nature of S’ as a whole is determined by the complementizer (COMP) that
introduces it.
cf. that → [+declarative; +finite] S’ and S/IP
if and whether → [+interrogative; +finite] S’ and S/IP
for → [+declarative; -finite] S’ and S/IP
Therefore:
CP → C(omp) S/IP
Regarding the X-Bar structure of CP:
 Cs take IP complements
(14) I know that André is working hard
(15) I wonder if André is working hard
 CP Specifiers? In English, mainly “fronted” wh-phrases in wh-interrogatives@
4
Li9 Lecture Three October 27th 2010
(16)
What are you singing?
CP
ru
C’
ru
Spec
What
C
IP
ru
I’
ru
are
Spec
you
I
(are)
VP
ru
V’
ru
Spec
V
singing
NP
(what)
o Wh-interrogatives: What are you singing? → Spec-CP slot available for
(phrasal) wh-expressions like what (piece of music)
o NB the auxiliary “inverts” from I to C (we’ll come back to this in later
lectures)
Therefore: wh-expressions are one type of CP-specifier (they specify that the CP in
question is a wh-interrogative
2.

The Lexicon
The X-bar module generates the structures, but on its own it overgenerates, i.e.
generates structures that are not in fact grammatical – cf. (3 – 10) [complements in
bold]:
(17)
a.
b.
Sam read Chomsky
Sam read
(18)
a.
b.
c.
Paul broke the window
*Paul broke
The window broke
(19)
a.
b.
Andrew ran (every day)
Andrew ran a race/marathon
(20)
a.
b.
The oar disintegrated in seconds
*The oar distintegrated the boat
(21)
a.
b.
c.
Julia bought [her brother] [a ticket]
Julia bought a ticket
*Julia bought her brother (on the non-slave-trading reading)
(22)
a.
b.
c.
Jamie put [the CD] [in its cover]
*Jamie put the CD
*Jamie put in its cover
5
Li9 Lecture Three October 27th 2010
(23)
a.
b.
c.
Gavin knew the word
Gavin knew that Ernie Els was the winner
Gavin knew who the winner was
(24)
a.
b.
c.
Sue spoke the word
*Sue spoke that Ernie Els was the winner
*Sue spoke who the winner was


Lexicon: locus of idiosyncractic information (‘mental dictionary’)
types of information specified in the lexicon:
(a) phonetic information
(b) semantic information (cf. selectional restrictions)
(c) syntactic information (cf. subcategorization frames
(25)

cat: /kæt/ (phonology)
“4-legged, miaowing fur-covered mammal/f. felix” (semantics/encyclopaedic
knowledge)
λ(x)[cat(x)] – logical representation
Noun, [count], [animate], [__]
How does this lexical information “feed through” to the Syntax?
Lexical items are inserted into the positions created by X’-theory, subject to a
“match” between the local structure and the subcategorisation of the lexical item.
(26)
Given the subcategorisation frame:
break [V] __ NP
break can only be inserted under a V slot, where there’s an NP in the local
context.
Local context: V’ (in general terms, X’)
(27)
The Projection Principle (PP)
Lexical information must be syntactically represented
 What does “syntactically represented” mean?
(28)
The Structure of the Language Faculty (a.k.a. the “T”-model)
6
Li9 Lecture Three October 27th 2010
LEXICON
Projection Principle
D-STRUCTURE
(X-BAR THEORY)
(MOVE ALPHA)
S-STRUCTURE
PF
LF

different levels of representation:
(a) Lexicon: idiosyncratic information which is fed through to the Syntax via the
Projection Principle to generate D-Structure.
(b)D(eep)-Structure: created on the basis of the interaction between the PP and Xbar theory. It is thus the level of “pure” X-bar theory and “pure” lexical
structure (in fact, thematic structure – see below).
(c) S(urface)-Structure: created on the basis of Movement operations which
operate on D-Structure, and regulated by conditions on representation of the
kind we’ll start looking at next week
(d)P(honetic) F(orm): an interface level between the language faculty and other
cognitive systems. It transmits information (presumably to the
articulators/auditory system which are part of the so-called ArticulatoryPerceptual System) that will ultimately yield a direct representation of sound.
(e) L(ogical) F(orm): an interface level between the language faculty and other
cognitive systems. It transmits information (to the so-called ConceptualIntentional System) that will ultimately yield a representation of meaning.
Chomsky (1979: 165) emphasises that LF is not concerned with Semantics per
se; but just with “that partial representation of meaning that is determined by
grammatical structure”, i.e. with structurally determined aspects of meaning.
3.
Information contained in the Lexicon: C-Selection/Subcategorization and
S-Selection/Argument Structure

c(ategorial)-selection = subcategorisation in terms of syntactic categories
Compare the following (simplified) subcategorisation frames:
(28)
break [V] __ NP
read [V] __ (NP)
put [V] __ NP PP
know [V] __ NP
CP [+/- wh]
speak [V] __ (NP)
tall [A] __
7
Li9 Lecture Three October 27th 2010
proud [A] __ (PP)
student [N] __
end [N] __ (PP)
with [P] __ NP
in [P] __ (NP)
 the distinction between obligatorily and optionally transitive and intransitive
lexical items is registered in the lexicon
 note that the __ YP part (the actual subcategorisation frame) is supposed to
determine the structure of X’ (in accordance with the Projection Principle): __
marks the position of the head (X), while XP denotes the type of complement that X
takes

s(emantic)-selection = semantic counterpart of syntactic subcategorisation;
roughly determined by inherent meaning of lexical item (i.e. its conceptual
structure)

Each lexical item, particularly verbs, introduce a little scenario:
(29)
a.
b.
c.
d.
The students ate their lunch
The rust ate the metal
The shark ate the surfer
One should eat regularly
e.g. eat [V] : the ‘eating’ scenario necessarily entails 2 participant/entities/
arguments: an ‘eater’ and an ‘eatee’
so: logicians call eat a two-place relation, i.e. a particular relation between
2 arguments. In syntax, we usually say transitive verbs like eat are twoplace predicates; verbs which s(emantically)-selects two arguments.
e.g. fall [V]: the concept of ‘falling’ entails just 1 participant/argument:
so: fall can be described as a one-place predicate (not a relation, note), i.e. a
predicate which selects 1 argument

But there are various types of 1- and 2-place predicates:
(30) a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
The students ate their lunch
The students enjoyed their lunch
Their lunch really satisfied the students
The very large box contained the students’ lunch
The students lunched
The students slept.
The various participants here (the students, lunch) stand in different types of semantic
relations (notice that they don’t look all that different syntactically). These semantic
categories are called thematic roles/theta roles/-roles, labels intended to specify the
semantic relationship between the selecting category and the selected category.
8
Li9 Lecture Three October 27th 2010
Thus:
o eat s-selects 2 thematic roles, an Agent (the eater) and a
Patient/Theme (the eatee)
o fall s-selects a single thematic role, a Theme or Patient
o enjoy s-selects 2 thematic roles, an Experiencer (the possessor of the
mental experience of enjoyment) and a Cause or Theme (the thing that
causes this mental state in the Experiencer)
o what about the other verbs in (17)?

defining individual theta roles and identifying a universal inventory of theta
roles is very hard
Even harder: determining the relation between c- and s-selection

subcategorisation is obviously related to meaning, but is c-selection reducible to
s-selection? (What are the chances of reductionism here?)
Canonical Structural Realisation (CSR) view: a correspondence relation can
be established between thematic roles and syntactic categories such that each
thematic role is prototypically realised as a specific syntactic category

e.g. the CSR of Agent = NP
the CSR of Location = PP
the CSR of Proposition = CP/IP
Among the problems for this view are concealed questions:
(31)
a.
John asked what time it was
b.
John asked the time
CSR(Question): CP or NP
(32)
a.
b.
John wondered what time it was
*John wondered the time
o German: cf. the distinction between the two “know” words in this language
and English know:
(33)
(34)
a.
Ich weiss, dass der Jenson Button Sieger war
I know that the Jenson Button victor was
“I know that Jenson Button was the victor”
b.
*Ich weiss das Wort
I know the word
c.
Ich weiss wer Sieger war
I know who victor was
“I know who the victor was”
a.
*Ich kenn, dass der Jenson Button Sieger war
I know that the Jenson Button victor was
9
Li9 Lecture Three October 27th 2010
b.
Ich kenn das Wort
I know the word
c.
*Ich kenn wer Sieger war
I know who victor was
o a further problem: what about cases where we appear to have arguments, but
there doesn’t appear to be a selecting predicate with clear-cut s-selection
requirements? What determines the nature of the argument? Compare copulacontaining structures:
(35)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Jim is [NP a syntactician]
Jim is [AdjP patient]
Jim is [AdvP late]
Jim is [CP what I want to be]
*Jim is (except in the cogito ergo sum sense!)
Conclusion: c-selection can’t be reduced to s-selection as the mapping between these
two selectional requirements isn’t one-to-one.
4. The Projection Principle and the Theta Criterion
 PrPr feeds c-selection/subcategorisation information into the syntax, mediating
between the Lexicon and the Syntax
 PrPr holds at all levels of structure, i.e. lexical information must be correctly
represented not only at D-Structure, but also at S-Structure (after various
movements have taken place – cf. the Transformations we discussed last week)
and at LF
 The Trace Convention reflects the PrPr’s satisfaction at S-Structure:
Movement transformations leave a trace
(36)
What have you read?
CP
ru
Spec
C’
whati
ru
C
IP
havej
ru
Spec
you
I
tj
← discourse domain
← inflectional/temporal domain
I’
ru
VP
V
read

← thematic domain
ru
NP
ti
From a PP perspective: ti indicates what’s base position and ensures that read’s
subcategorisation information is accurately represented even after what has
undergone movement
10
Li9 Lecture Three October 27th 2010

The Theta Criterion was envisaged as a constraint/filter on structures generated
by X-bar theory:
(37)

The Theta Criterion:
(a) Each argument must be assigned a thematic role
(b) Each thematic role must be assigned to an argument
Consider the lexical entry for eat:
(38) eat [V]: __ (NP) (subcategorization information – only specifies details of
|
internal arguments)
Agent Patient (thematic information – specifies details of all arguments,
including that the complement NP bears the Patient θ-role)
This signifies that:
(a) eat is a verb which (at least optionally) takes an NP complement (i.e. V’ →
V NP)
(b) eat is a 2-place predicate which takes 1 external and 1 internal argument (see
below) – this is eat’s argument structure
(c) the external argument is assigned the Agent theta-role and the internal
argument is assigned the Patient one.
 the Theta Criterion regulates the mapping between arguments and theta-roles:
o the number of arguments associated with a given lexical item (its argument
structure) determines the number of theta roles that lexical item can assign
o lexical items assign theta roles to the arguments that they select, i.e. there
is a mapping between a lexical item’s argument structure and its thematic
structure.
o the PrPr forces the structural context (very local for internal arguments) to
be retained at S-Structure and LF.
5.
Reading thematic information off syntactic structure: the structural
configurations in which theta-roles are assigned
(39)


Uniform Theta-Assignment Hypothesis (UTAH): specific theta-roles are
associated with specific structural positions
the internal argument is base-generated (originates) in the complement-of-V
position, i.e. the internal theta role is assigned in the complement-of-V
position
the external argument is base-generated external to V’.

(40)
Agents are always external arguments:
??The table moaked John.
(Marantz 1984)
(Moak means “be hit on the surface by the internal argument’s elbow”)
References
1. Lecture 3-related reading
Baker, M. (1996). On the structural position of Themes and Goals. In: Rooryck, J. &
L. Zaring (eds.). Phrase structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 7 – 34.
11
Li9 Lecture Three October 27th 2010
Baker, M. (1998). Thematic Roles and Syntactic Relations. In: Haegeman, L. (ed.).
Elements of Grammar. Handbook of Generative Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Carnie, A. (2002). Syntax. A Generative Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. (chapter 7)
Chametzky, R. (2000). Phrase Structure. From GB to Minimalism. London:
Blackwell. (first pages of chapter 1)
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. (1982). Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government
and Binding. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Cook, V. and M. Newson. (1996). Chomsky’s Universal Grammar. An Introduction.
London: Blackwell. (chapter 5)
Culicover, P. (1997). Principles and Parameters. An Introduction to Syntactic
Theory. Oxford: OUP. (chapter 2)
Fukui, N. & M. Speas (1986). Specifiers and Projections. In: Fukui, N. , T. Rapoport
& E. Sagey (eds.). MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 128 - 172
Grimshaw, J. (1992). Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Haegeman, L. (1995). An Introduction to Government and Binding. London:
Blackwell. (chapter 1)
Haegeman, L. (2006). Thinking Syntactically. A Guide to Argumentation and
Analysis. Oxford: Blacwell. [consult the Index for thematic roles, VISH, etc. and
chapter 4 on the various “subject” positions]
Hawkins, R. (2001). Second Language Syntax. London: Blackwell (chapter 5)
Koopman, H. & D. Sportiche (1988). The position of Subjects. Lingua 85: 211 – 258.
[this is the most easily obtainable primary source on VISH]
Larson, R. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 103 139.
Larson, R. (1990). Double objects revisited: a reply to Jackendoff. Linguistics
Inquiry 21: 589 - 632.
Marantz, A. (1984). On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, Mass: MIT
Press.
Ouhalla, J. (1994/1999). Introducing Transformational Grammar. London: Arnold.
(chapter 5 of the 1994 edition; chapter 7 of Part II of the 1999 edition)
Poole, G. (2002). Syntactic Theory. London: Palgrave. (chapter 4, until section 4.2)
Radford, A. (1988). Transformational Grammar. Cambridge: CUP. (chapter 7)
Radford, A. (1997). Syntactic theory and the structure of English. A Minimalist
approach. Cambridge: CUP. (but strictly only chapter 9!!)
Roberts, I. (1997). Comparative Syntax. London: Arnold. (the relevant bits of
chapter 2)
Sportiche, D. (1988). A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for
constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 425 – 449.
Van Valin, R. and R. LaPolla. (1997). Syntax. Structure, Meaning and Function.
Cambridge: CUP (chapter 3)
Webelhuth, G. (1995). Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist
Program. Oxford: Blackwell. (chapters 2 and 3)
2. Useful Preparation for Lecture 4
(any of)
 Haegeman chapter 3
 Carnie (2002) chapter 7
 Poole (2002) chapter 4
 Radford (1988) chapter 7
12