(5) Human terminology with mothers, daughters, and sisters.
(6) The P-markers can be generated by a set of Sentence-Formation Rules compris-
ing
Phrase Structure Rules. Categories are drawn from a highly restricted finite set
including the following:
Categories are of two types: lexical and phrasal.
Lexical categories are word-categories (N, V, AUX, A, ADV, DET, DEG, CONJ, PRO,
etc);
phrasal categories are NP, VP, AP, ADVP, PP, etc.
2. X-bar Syntax
Proponents of X’(=X-bar) Syntax voice two types of objection to Phrase Struc-
ture
Syntax:
(i) It is too restricted in the number of types of categories it permits.
(ii) It is too unconstrained in the sets of possible Phrase Structure rules it permits.
=> Within Phrase Structure Syntax, only two types of category are recognized:
lexical categories like N, V, P, A, ADV, AUX etc., phrasal categories like NP, VP, PP, AP,
etc.
In particular, there are no intermediate categories larger than the word but smaller
than the phrase. For example, there is no intermediate category larger than the
Noun but smaller than the Noun Phrase.
We can predict the problem by considering the internal structure of a Noun Phrase:
The phrase (37) can be structured as (38) by Phrase Structure Rules.
An issued feature of (38) is that the string very tall girl does not form a constituent.
But this seems to be wrong, for the two reasons.
① First reason is that the sequence AP-N can be conjoined with another AP-N sequence.
(39) (a) These very tall men and very short women don’t get on.
(b) Mary is a very pretty girl and very good cook.
(c) He is the best writer and worst party-goer that I know.
One of the diagnostics for constituent structure was that a string is a constituent
if it can be conjoined with another similar string. So the same colored phrases in
each sentence in (39) are constituents. If so, they are needed to be bound with the
same category.
② Second reason is that the sequence AP-N can can serve as the antecedent of the
preform one like this: the antecedent of one is the phrase very tall girl.
(40) I like this very tall girl more than that one.
(= I like this very tall girl more than I like that very tall girl.)
One of the diagnostics for constituent structure is that Only a constituent can
serve as the antecedent of a proform.
Therefore, the AP-N sequence very tall girl must be a constituent. But this con-
stituent
cannot be appropriately explained by the Phrase Structure of (38).
=> In conclusion, we need an intermediate category that is larger than N
and
smaller than NP. So the N-bar node can be considered within the X-bar
Syntax.
In the X-bar framework, there may be more than one phrasal expansion of any
given lexical category X: we can find the following range of category-types.
(46)
Given the alternative theory of categories proposed in (46), we might now reanalyze
the structure of (37) along the following tree diagram:
N’’(N-double bar, =NP)
↓
← N’(N-single bar)
(We should also reanalyze the phrasal category AP(= Adjectival Phrase) as the corresponding
bar-category, perhaps A’’(A-double bar); but linguists sometimes find it convenient to ‘mix’ the
two systems. So in (47), the AP is acceptable generally.)
Here, the important thing is that the intermediate category N’ can play an cru-
cial
role as the description of an constituent ‘very tall girl’.
In summary:
(39) (a) These very tall men and very short women don’t get on.
(b) Mary is a very pretty girl and very good cook.
(c) He is the best writer and worst party-goer that I know.
(40) I like this very tall girl more than that one.
