Live chat

Research paper topics, free example research papers

You are welcome to search thousands of free research papers and essays. Search for your research paper topic now!

Research paper example essay prompt: Xbar Theory Of Psg - 1123 words

NOTE: The samle research paper or essay prompt you see on this page is a free essay, available to anyone. You can use any paper as a sample on how to write research paper, essay prompts or as a source of information. We strongly discourage you to directly copy/paste any essay and turn it in for credit. If your school uses any plagiarism detecting software, you might be caught and accused of plagiarism. If you need a custom essay or research paper, written from scratch exclusively for you, please use our paid research paper writing service!

.. relationship of three grammatical categories, namely N'' for the full phrase, N' for the intermediate phrase, and N for the word level or the head of the phrase (Class notes). In order to prove that the X-Bar theory makes a contribution to explanatory adequacy, we would need to show that it is possible to apply the same phrasal analysis to the other major grammatical categories, i.e. VP, AP, PP, and ADVP and then to other languages. Before extending the phrasal analysis of the NP to the VP, let us begin by recognising the need for a third intermediate category for VPs, in the example eating a chocolate.

This is shown by the fact that (1) only this unit can be preposed: a) He might have been eating a chocolate. b) Eating a chocolate he might have been. c) *Been eating a chocolate he might have. d) *Have been eating a chocolate he might. And (2) some main verbs can only be combined with a verbal unit that consists of the verb and what follows it. As in I saw Mary close the curtains, but not *I saw Mary be closing the curtains (Class notes).

Verbs are similar to NPs as they can combine with Complements and Adjuncts. This is shown in the structure below: carve the turkey at my house on Christmas Day Carve is the V, or the head, the NP the turkey is the Complement, and it is closest to the head, the PP at my house is an Adjunct and the PP on Christmas Day is an Adjunct as well. The distinction between complement and adjunct helps to capture structural ambiguity in VPs, just as it does in NPs. In the following example, the PP on the boat can either be a Complement or an Adjunct: They decided on the boat. vs.

They decided on the boat. In the first interpretation, the decision took place on the boat, whereas in the second, they decided to purchase the boat (Class notes) In addition, "the distinction V complement and adjunct explains a number of distributional phenomena, and therefore achieves better descriptive adequacy" (Class notes). For example, He played football in Liverpool is an acceptable sentence, but *He played in Liverpool football is not acceptable. This is because Complements normally precede Adjuncts. It is clear from our analysis of the VP that introducing a third intermediate phrasal category as well as bar notation accounts for better descriptive adequacy. Furthermore, we have seen that the system of phrasal analysis that applies for NPs can be extended to VPs, which shows that the system has better explanatory adequacy.

It is possible to go through all the phrasal categories and show that the X-bar theory holds true for all of them, but due to the constraints on the length of this essay, I will not do so. It is important, however to state that due to crosscategorial symmetry, i.e. all phrasal categories are analysed in the same way, we are able to generalize the rules and state them in terms of the category variable X: X" (Spec) ; X' X' YP ; X (Attribute rule optional) X' X' ; YP (Adjunct rule optional) X' X ; YP (Complement Rule) (Haegeman, p.104) There are three constraints on this theory: the Endocentricity Constraint, the Modifier Maximality constraint, and Category Neutrality Constraint. The Endocentricity Constraint states, "the output of a rule must contain a category of the same type as the input category" (Class notes). The Modifier Maximality Constraint states that every non-head term must itself be a maximal projection of some category.

This means that the sequence must be P-P'-P", where P" is the maximal projection of the category P. The Category Neutrality Constraint states that "all categorial rules must be formulated in terms of category variables", consequently eliminating all categorial rules (Class notes). These rules and constraints are said to be universals, with the exception of languages differing along two parameters: "The configurationality parameter, which determines whether the elements in the phrase are hierarchically organised in a fixed way or they are in a flat structure, and The linear ordering parameter or the head first head last parameter" (Class notes). Our analysis of phrases is now complete. The only category that has yet to be analysed according to X-bar analysis is S'.

Let us consider the sentence I hope that the flight will arrive on time. We used to represent it: the flight will arrive on time There is a weakness in this analysis due to the following reasons: 1) it is a phrasal category, but appears with only one bar instead of two. 2) The phrasal category S' is not a projection of a lexical head. And 3) the main element of S' is the lexical item of the Complementizer. Although this COMP is viewed as the head, it has no corresponding maximal projection in the analysis above.

We may revise the above in order that it may comply with X-bar syntax and avoid these problems in the following way: that the flight will arrive on time This is a better method of analysis because is complies with X-bar syntax and therefore leads to better explanatory power of the theory. In order to illustrate the better explanatory power of X-bar syntax, it is useful to apply the principles to other languages. The theory takes into account SOV languages, such as English, as well as to SVO languages, such as Gujarati: Mane phool khapechhe. I flower want. The semicolon that separates the constituents in the rule, for example: X' X;YP, shows that the linear order is not fixed. This can also be illustrated in the following example from Lingala: Muntu oyo alati bilamba ya rouge.

Person this wears clothes red(This person is wearing red clothes). In conclusion, X' phrase structure grammar makes a significant contribution to descriptive and explanatory adequacy of Linguistic theory in a number of ways. It makes a contribution to descriptive adequacy in three ways. Firstly, it simplifies grammar by adopting binary branching, which in turn makes the learning of languages easier for children. Secondly, it introduces a third intermediate phrasal category that allows us to distinguish between complements and adjuncts.

Thirdly, it introduces prime or bar notation, which allows us to capture the distinction between categories formally, i.e. using N", N', and N. X-bar theory adds to explanatory adequacy because it allows us to state general principles that apply across categories, and are therefore category neutral. These principles are universals and apply across languages. In order to account for differences in languages, the theory introduces two parameters. Due to the fact that this theory is simple and universal, it helps us to explain the problem of learnablility, therefore contributing to greater explanatory adequacy (Class notes). Psychology Essays.

Related: general principles, flat, adopting, liverpool

Research paper topics, free essay prompts, sample research papers on Xbar Theory Of Psg