1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
|
---
layout: linguistics
title: linguistics/syntax
---
# morphology and syntax
Morphology is the study of **word formation**.<br>
Syntax is the study of **sentence formation**.<br>
Specifically, both morphology and syntax focus on **structure**.
The distinction between syntax and morphology varies across languages. They can be considered to form an overarching **morphosyntactic** theory.
## Summary
> Be warned! These notes are incomplete and almost certainly somewhat inaccurate. Proceed at your own risk.
- History of Syntax
- A wrong approach: Phrase Structure Rules
- Morphology [SKS 2]
- Syntactic Categories [SKS 2.1]
- Compositionality [SKS 2.3]
- Headedness [SKS 2.4]
- Features
- Basic Ideas
- Constituency [SKS 3]
- Heads, Specifiers and Complements
- Minimalism [n/a]
- Notation
- X'-theory [SKS 6]
- Bare Phrase Structure [n/a]
- Lexical Entries [SKS 6.8]
- Merge
- Projection [SKS 5]
- Selection
- Small Clauses
- Silent Heads
- Move [SKS 8]
- Head Movement (affix hopping) [SKS 8.3]
- Questions
- vP Shells [SKS 12.4]
- Agree
- Theta Roles (assigned by verbs)
- Locality (c-command)
- Binding (Principles A, B, C) [SKS 7]
- Small Clauses [SKS 7.4]
- Raising & Control [SKS 9]
- References
## Morphology
...
## Notation
So far, we've been discussing syntax and giving examples using somewhat informal notation. We now formalize this notation.
It cannot be emphasized enough that notational conventions are *just that*: notational conventions. There's nothing stopping us from exclusively using X'-notation or exclusively using bare phrase structure, and syntactic concepts are *not* tied to any specific notation. I will pretty much exclusively bare phrase structure going forth as I like it a whole lot more.
### X'-theory
**X'-theory** (x-bar theory) is a notation originally put forth by Chomsky...
```forest
[XP
[X [(head)]]
[Y [(complement)]]]
```
```forest
[XP
[Y [(complement)]]
[X [(head)]]]
```
```forest
[X
[Y_X [(left adjunct)]]
[X [(head)]]]
```
```forest
[X
[X [(head)]]
[Y_X [(right adjunct)]]]
```
...
### Bare Phrase Structure
**Bare Phrase Structure** (BPS) is a more modern notation that does away with much of the notational cruft of X'-theory. Instead of bar levels and distinctions between bar levels and "phrases", we simply put the *formal features* of our lexicon in the chart itself and only indicate the *types* of phrases. Whether a phrase has yet to close yet or not (previously indicated by a 'bar) is now indicated by whether there are any unsatisfied selectional requirements on the phrase label.
As such, we may represent phrases with the
**Head-Initial Phrases**
![`[X [X_Y (head)] [Y (complement)]]`](head-initial.png)
<details markdown="block">
<summary>LaTeX</summary>
```latex
\begin{forest}
[$X$
[$X_Y$ [(head)]]
[$Y$ [(complement)]]]
\end{forest}
```
</details>
**Head-Final Phrases**
![`[X [Y (complement)] [X_Y (head)]]`](head-final.png)
<details markdown="block">
<summary>LaTeX</summary>
```latex
\begin{forest}
[$X$
[$Y$ [(complement)]]
[$X_Y$ [(head)]]]
\end{forest}
```
</details>
Recall that adjuncts are able to appear on either side of their head. Also recall that adjuncts *select* for their head. We indicate this in our labeling: adjuncts, like heads, have their selectional requirements marked, but do not propagate their type. While certain constructions may lead to notational ambiguity - an adjunct and a head of the same type, specifically - this is rare enough (only really occurring with adverbs) that we take the convenience of BPS notation regardless.
**Left Adjuncts**
![`[X [Y_X (left adjunct)] [X (head)]]`](left-adjunct.png)
<details markdown="block">
<summary>LaTeX</summary>
```latex
\begin{forest}
[$X$
[$Y_X$ [(left adjunct)]]
[$X$ [(head)]]]
\end{forest}
```
</details>
**Right Adjuncts**
![`[X [X (head)] [Y_X (right adjunct)]]`](right-adjunct.png)
<details markdown="block">
<summary>LaTeX</summary>
```latex
\begin{forest}
[$X$
[$X$ [(head)]]
[$Y_X$ [(right adjunct)]]]
\end{forest}
```
</details>
As a reminder, English is not consistently head-initial. Subjects ("specifiers") in English appear before the verb, breaking this convention. This common structure is represented as the following:
![`[X [Y (specifier)] [X_Y [X_{Y,Z} (head)] [Z (complement)]]]`](english-specifier.png)
<details markdown="block">
<summary>LaTeX</summary>
```latex
\begin{forest}
[$X$
[$Y$ [(specifier)]]
[$X_Y$
[$X_{Y,Z}$ [(head)]]
[$Z$ [(complement)]]]]
\end{forest}
```
</details>
The lexicon and structure are blended in bare phrase structure. This is useful, and allows us to indicate more specific selectional requirements on the tree itself.
...
### Lexical Entries
...
## References
- ✨ [An Introduction to Syntactic Analysis and Theory](https://annas-archive.org/md5/11bbf70ff9259025bc6985ba3fa4083b)
- MIT 24.902: [2017](https://web.mit.edu/norvin/www/24.902/24902.html), [2015](https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/24-902-language-and-its-structure-ii-syntax-fall-2015/), [2003](https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/24-902-language-and-its-structure-ii-syntax-fall-2003/)
|
