Rokaya Hajjaji

ML Student
Apogee number : 2001337

An Essay on X-bar Theory

X-bar theory was first introduced by Noam Chomsky in order to account for the
inadequacies of the flat structure. This theory has profoundly influenced linguistic theory by
providing a unified structure for analyzing the syntactic organization of natural languages.
Despite its widespread application, X-bar theory is not without its limitations, particularly in
its tendencies to over-generate and under-generate. Over-generation refers to the theory's
prediction of syntactic structures that do not occur in natural languages, leading to the
formulation of ungrammatical sentences. Conversely, under-generation occurs when the
theory fails to account for legitimate syntactic variations observed across languages. To
address these issues, syntacticians have embarked on a quest for solutions. This essay will
explore the intricacies of X-bar theory's over-generation and under-generation, examining
specific examples of these phenomena and discussing the innovative approaches proposed by
linguists to constrain these weaknesses, thus enhancing the theory's explanatory power and its
applicability to a broader spectrum of linguistic phenomena.

To start, X-bar theory sometimes overgenerates, producing sentences that are not
grammatically correct. For instance, while X-bar theory suggests that complements are
optional, this principle doesn't uniformly apply across different verbs, leading to errors.
Consider the sentences "The kid loves candy." and "The kid smiled.", the absence of a direct
object in the second sentence is acceptable, aligning with the theory's flexibility regarding
complements. However, applying this rule indiscriminately yields incorrect sentences like
"The kid loves." and "The kid smiles the man." The issue arises because the verb "love"
necessarily requires a complement, whereas "smile" does not. This discrepancy highlights that
the need for a complement depends on specific lexical properties of verbs—some require
arguments (like "love"), while others do not (like "smile"). Thus, it becomes clear that lexical
information, rather than a uniform syntactic rule, dictates the presence or absence of
complements. Therefore, we need to include lexical information in our system in order to
restrict how x-bar theory works.
Under-generation occurs when the principles of X-bar theory prove too restrictive,
failing to encompass the full spectrum of syntactic phenomena found in languages. X-bar
theory assumes a binary branching structure and a fixed hierarchical order of constituents
within a phrase, which may not adequately capture the variability of languages with flexible
word order or non-configurational syntax. For example, Latin allows subjects, verbs, and
objects to appear in any order without affecting grammaticality. Moreover, X-bar theory
struggles to account for movement phenomena, such as the movement of wh- phrases in
interrogative constructions. In English, the question "What did Sarah buy?" involves the
movement of the wh-phrase "what" from its base-generated position within the sentence to the
initial position to form a question. X-bar theory's traditional mechanisms may struggle to
 2

adequately account for this movement operation and its effects on sentence structure. Finally,
X-bar theory struggles with generating structures involving ditransitive verbs in English,
which require both a direct and an indirect object, such as verb “to give”. Traditionally
assuming verbs take only one complement, X-bar theory may inaccurately predict these
constructions, leading to incomplete or ungrammatical sentences.
One of the solutions syntacticians came up with in order to constrain X-bar theory and
account for its overgenerability and undergenrability is Theta theory. This theory, first
proposed by Noam Chomsky, focuses on assigning thematic roles or theta roles to syntactic
constituents within a sentence. These roles represent the semantic relationships between verbs
and their arguments, such as agent, theme, experiencer, etc. Theta theory imposes constraints
on the number and type of arguments that verbs can take, for the purpose of preventing the
generation of ungrammatical sentences. For example, a transitive verb like "eat" requires both
an agent (the one doing the eating) and a theme (the thing being eaten). By constraining X-bar
theory with theta theory, syntacticians can ensure that verbs are appropriately licensed to take
the necessary arguments, thereby preventing the generation of sentences like "The cat eats,"
where the verb "eat" lacks its required arguments. Additionally, theta theory helps to account
for the variability in argument structure across different verbs and languages. Some verbs may
take different numbers or types of arguments depending on their lexical semantics. For
example, the verb "give" may take either two or three arguments depending on whether the
recipient is explicitly stated. Another solution proposed by syntacticians in order to account
for the movement phenomena is the inclusion of movement operations such as head-to-head
movement, DP movement, and wh-movement which can help address the undergenerability
issue. These movement operations allow constituents within a sentence to move from their
base-generated positions to new positions, thereby generating different word orders and
syntactic structures. Head-to-head movement involves the movement of functional heads to
specific positions adjacent to other heads, helping to account for phenomena like verb raising
or auxiliary movement. DP movement, on the other hand, entails the movement of determiner
phrases within the sentence, allowing for variations in word order related to quantification and
definiteness. Lastly, wh-movement involves the movement of wh-phrases to the beginning of
sentences or clauses, facilitating the generation of questions and relative clauses. By
incorporating these movement operations into syntactic analyses, syntacticians can better
capture the dynamic nature of syntactic structures and the variability of word order observed
across languages.

In conclusion, X-bar theory has significantly impacted linguistic theory by providing a

unified framework for analyzing the syntactic organization of natural languages. Despite its
widespread application, X-bar theory is not without limitations, notably its tendencies to over-
generate ungrammatical structures and under-generate legitimate syntactic variations. To
address these issues, syntacticians have proposed innovative solutions. Theta theory, which
assigns thematic roles to syntactic constituents, constrains X-bar theory to generate
semantically and grammatically plausible sentences. Additionally, the inclusion of movement
operations like head-to-head movement, DP movement, and wh-movement helps mitigate
undergenerability by expanding the set of grammatical structures that can be generated within
the theory. These refinements enhance X-bar theory's explanatory power and its applicability
 3

to a broader spectrum of linguistic phenomena, contributing to a deeper understanding of

natural language syntax.