Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
  1. Home
  2. Publications
  3. Journals
  4. Content listing

Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

2102570 results in Journals

Page 313 of 105129

  • Where the grammar fails

  • Robert Hetzron
  • Journal:
    Language / Volume 51 / Issue 4 / December 1975
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    12 March 2026, pp. 859-872

  • One sometimes finds gaps in the morphological systems of languages, such as the lack of a 1sg. non-past in certain Russian verbs. In some Arabic dialects, verbs with identical final radicals are defective: they lack forms where conflicts between rules would yield a phonetically uncomfortable configuration. For some Hungarian verbs in the ik-class which have a stem-final cluster, the grammar disallows epenthesis, so that these verbs lack the paradigms which would normally be formed by a consonantal suffix. However, though such defectiveness is often confined to individually specified words, Halle's extreme views of morphology (1973) cannot be accepted.

  • The X-bar theory of phrase structure

  • András Kornai, Geoffrey K. Pullum
  • Journal:
    Language / Volume 66 / Issue 1 / March 1990
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    12 March 2026, pp. 24-50

  • X-bar theory is widely regarded as a substantive theory of phrase structure properties in natural languages. In this paper we will demonstrate that a formalization of its content reveals very little substance in its claims. We state and discuss six conditions that encapsulate the claims of X-bar theory: Lexicality—each nonterminal is a projection of a preterminal; Succession—each Xn+1 dominates an Xn for all n ≥ 0; Uniformity—all maximal projections have the same bar-level; Maximality—all nonheads are maximal projections; Centrality—the start symbol is a maximal projection; and Optionality—all and only nonheads are optional. We then consider recent proposals to ‘eliminate’ base components from transformational grammars and to reinterpret X-bar theory as a set of universal constraints holding for all languages at D-structure, arguing that this strategy fails. We show that, as constraints on phrase-structure rule systems, the X-bar conditions have hardly any effect on the descriptive power of grammars, and that the principles with the most chance of making some descriptive difference are the least adhered to in practice. Finally, we reconstruct X-bar theory in a way that makes no reference to the notion of bar-level but instead makes the notion ‘head of the central one.

Page 313 of 105129