I'm new here. I'm a bit shy but I managed to post a message, I guess about a week and a half ago. I got a prompt reply and again I need some more help.
I understand all that X-bar thing and I understand that X-bar syntax is a theory of syntax that treats all phrases as being structured in the same way but how o earth can you explain how it can account for the parallel interpretation of the phrases in quote below?
(1) (He) "appreciates good wine."
(2) (He is) "appreciative of good wine."
(3) (His) "appreciation of good wine."
(1) He [V' appreciates [DP good wine]]
(2) He is [A' appreciative [PP of good wine]]
(3) His [N' appreciation [PP of good wine]]
Please visit Penn.U/Linguistic/Beatrice Santorini/Linguistic 150/Introduction to Syntax Theory.
[url="http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/index.html "]Lecture handout on X bar theory[/url]
Looking for ESL work?: Try our EFL / TOEFL / ESL Jobs Section!
I answered maryann's question because it was left unanswered. But now I'm afraid I should not have done so, as I do not know much about X-bar things. Here I'll quote what Beatrice told.
The traditional term 'noun phrase' is a misnomer since noun phrases are maximal projections of D(=determiner) rather than of N(=noun). Because the term 'noun phrase' is firmly established in usage, we continue to use it as an informal synonym for 'DP'. However, in order to avoid confusion, we will use the term 'NP' only to refer to the sub-constituent of a noun phrase that is the complement of a determiner. We will never use it to refer to an entire noun phrase (that is, a DP).
"Good wine" is likely to be analyzed as DP [silent determiner ^ NP (good^wine)].
In my understanding of X-bar theory, "good wine" would be both N' (N-bar) [without the null determiner] and N'' (N-double-bar) [with the null determiner]. The former is what Beatrice calls NP and the latter what she calls DP.
[N'' (null) [N' [A good] [N wine] ] ]
[DP (null) [NP [A good] [N wine] ] ]
Does that seem right to you?
People are waiting to help.