Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-cbk24 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T12:40:00.961Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The X-bar theory of phrase structure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

András Kornai and
Geoffrey K. Pullum
András Kornai*
Affiliation:
Stanford University and Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Geoffrey K. Pullum*
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Cruz
*
Department of Linguistics Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305
Cowell College University of California Santa Cruz, CA 95064
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , March 1990, pp. 24 - 50
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 by the Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

This paper supersedes two earlier papers, Kornai 1983 and Pullum 1985. We would like to thank the many people who contributed to our understanding of X-bar theory in various ways and gave us helpful comments on work that contributed either to our earlier work or the present paper. These people include: Erzsébet Csuhaj-Varjú, Janet Dean Fodor, Gerald Gazdar, László Kálmán, István Kenesei, Ferenc Kiefer, Katalin É. Kiss, András Komlósi, William A. Ladusaw, Steven G. Lapointe, P. Stanley Peters, Livia Polányi, Gábor Prószéky, John Richardson, Iván A. Ság, Stuart Shieber, Anna Szabolcsi, and Thomas Wasow. We also benefited greatly from the comments of several anonymous reviewers. None are to be blamed for errors that this paper might still contain. For partial support of their research, the authors are indebted to the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the Center for the Study of Language and Information at Stanford University (funding by a gift from the System Development Foundation), and the Syntax Research Center at the University of California, Santa Cruz (funding by NSF grant no. BNS-85 19708).

References

Abney, Stephen. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Baker, C. L. 1978. Introduction to generative-transformational syntax. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Barker, Chris, and Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1990. A theory of command relations. Linguistics and Philosophy, to appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brame, Michael. 1981. Trace theory with filters vs. lexically based syntax without. Linguistic Inquiry 12. 275–93.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan W. 1976. Transformations and categories in syntax. Basic problems in methodology and linguistics, ed. by Butts, Ronald and Hintikka, Jaakko, 261–82. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. Readings in English transformational grammar, ed. by Jacobs, Roderick A. and Rosenbaum, Peter S., 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dougherty, Ray. 1968. A transformational grammar of coordinate conjoined structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. 1976. A transformational approach to English syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald. 1982. Phrase structure grammar. The nature of syntactic representation, ed. by Jacobson, Pauline and Pullum, Geoffrey K., 131–86. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, Pullum, Geoffrey K.; and Sag, Ivan A. 1985. Generalized phrase structure grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, and Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1982. Generalized phrase structure grammar: A theoretical synopsis. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, and Levine, Geoffrey K. Pullum; Robert Carpenter; Ewan Klein; Thomas E. Hukari; and Robert D. 1988. Category structures. Computational Linguistics 14. 1–19. [Also technical report no. CSLI-87–102, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University, 1987.]Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, and Sag, Geoffrey K. Pullum; and Ivan A. 1982. Auxiliaries and related phenomena in a restrictive theory of grammar. Lg. 58.591–638.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1981. Form, function, and the language acquisition device. The logical problem of language acquisition, ed. by Baker, C. L. and McCarthy, John J., 165–82. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halitsky, David. 1975. Left branch S's and NP's in English: A bar notation analysis. Linguistic Analysis 1. 279–96.Google Scholar
Harris, Zellig. 1951. Methods in structural linguistics. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Hellan, Lars. 1980. Toward an integrated theory of noun phrases. Trondheim: University of Trondheim dissertation.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert, and Lightfoot, David. 1981. Introduction. Explanation in linguistics: The logical problem of language acquisition, ed. by Hornstein, Norbert and Lightfoot, David, 9–31. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 1984. Word grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1977. X syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1981. Unambiguous paths. Levels of syntactic representation, ed. by Koster, Jan and May, Robert, 143–83. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kean, Marie-Louise. 1978. Some features of features. Social Science Research Report R41, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
Kornai, András. 1982. X-vonás nyelvtanok. (X-bar Grammars.) Budapest: Eötvös Loránd University dissertation.Google Scholar
Kornai, András. 1983. ‘... some version of the X-bar theory’. Institute of Computer Science, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, ms.Google Scholar
Kornai, András. 1985. X-bar grammars. Algebra, combinatorics, and logic in computer science, ed. by Demetrovics, J., Katona, G. O. H., and Salomaa, A., 523–36. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Langendoen, D. Terence. 1975. Finite-state parsing of phrase-structure languages and the status of readjustment rules in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 6. 533–54.Google Scholar
Langendoen, D. Terence. 1976. On the weak generative capacity of infinite grammars. CUNYForum 1. 13–24. New York: Graduate Center, City University of New York.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ore, Oystein. 1963. Graphs and their uses. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Peters, P. Stanley. 1970. Why there are many ‘universal’ bases. Papers in Linguistics 2. 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1984. Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl J. 1984. Generalized phrase structure grammars, head grammars, and natural language. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 365–424.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1983. How many possible human languages are there? Linguistic Inquiry 14. 447–67.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1985. Assuming some version of X-bar theory. Chicago Linguistic Society 21. 323–53. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 1981. Transformational syntax: A student's guide to Chomsky's extended standard theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1974. Syntax and coreference. Northeastern Linguistic Society 5. 92–105. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Richardson, John F. 1984. Let $XM = $XM. Chicago Linguistic Society 20. 321–33. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan, Gazdar, Gerald, Wasow, Thomas; and Weisler, Stephen. 1985. Coordination and how to distinguish categories. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3. 117–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1977. Some remarks on noun phrase structure. Formal syntax, ed. by Culicover, Peter W., Wasow, Thomas, and Akmajian, Adrian, 285–316. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sells, Peter. 1985. Lectures on contemporary syntactic theories. (CSLI Lecture Notes 3.) Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information and Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Starosta, Stanley. 1984. Lexicase and Japanese language processing. Tokyo: Musashino Electrical Communication Laboratories, Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Public Corporation.Google Scholar
Stowell, Timothy A. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Stuurman, Frits. 1985. Phrase structure theory in generative grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verkuyl, H. 1981. Numerals and quantifiers in X-bar syntax and their semantic interpretation. Formal methods in the study of language (Amsterdam Mathematical Centre tracts), ed. by Groenendijk, Jeroen, Janssen, Theo, and Stokhof, Martin, 567–99. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1975. Small clauses in English. Syntax and semantics 4, ed. by Kimball, John, 249–73. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar