Misplaced Pages

#927072

56-481: X0 may refer to: Grammar [ edit ] X, denoting a sentence component Zero-level projection , in X-bar theory Head (linguistics) , or nucleus Science, technology and mathematics [ edit ] SpaceShipOne flight 15P , a 2004 private spaceflight X/0 , division by zero Turner syndrome , a disorder in which all or part of an X chromosome

112-666: A calque of Ancient Greek : ἐπίθετον ὄνομα (surname) , romanized :  epítheton ónoma , lit.   'additional noun' (whence also English epithet ). In the grammatical tradition of Latin and Greek, because adjectives were inflected for gender, number, and case like nouns (a process called declension ), they were considered a type of noun. The words that are today typically called nouns were then called substantive nouns ( nōmen substantīvum ). The terms noun substantive and noun adjective were formerly used in English but are now obsolete. Depending on

168-565: A part of speech (word class) in most languages . In some languages, the words that serve the semantic function of adjectives are categorized together with some other class, such as nouns or verbs . In the phrase "a Ford car", "Ford" is unquestionably a noun but its function is adjectival: to modify "car". In some languages adjectives can function as nouns: for example, the Spanish phrase " un rojo " means "a red [one]". As for "confusion" with verbs, rather than an adjective meaning "big",

224-487: A beautiful park is beautiful, but a car park is not "car". The modifier often indicates origin (" Virginia reel"), purpose (" work clothes"), semantic patient (" man eater") or semantic subject (" child actor"); however, it may generally indicate almost any semantic relationship. It is also common for adjectives to be derived from nouns, as in boyish , birdlike , behavioral (behavioural) , famous , manly , angelic , and so on. In Australian Aboriginal languages ,

280-447: A cause "), relative clauses (as in "the man who wasn't there "), and infinitive phrases (as in "a cake to die for "). Some nouns can also take complements such as content clauses (as in "the idea that I would do that "), but these are not commonly considered modifiers . For more information about possible modifiers and dependents of nouns, see Components of noun phrases . In many languages, attributive adjectives usually occur in

336-584: A language might have a verb that means "to be big" and could then use an attributive verb construction analogous to "big-being house" to express what in English is called a "big house". Such an analysis is possible for the grammar of Standard Chinese and Korean , for example. Different languages do not use adjectives in exactly the same situations. For example, where English uses " to be hungry " ( hungry being an adjective), Dutch , French , and Spanish use " honger hebben ", " avoir faim ", and " tener hambre " respectively (literally "to have hunger",

392-433: A node branches. When it comes to the head and the complement, their relative order is determined based on the principles-and-parameters model of language , more specifically by the head parameter (not by the X-bar schema itself). A principle is a shared, invariable rule of grammar across languages, whereas a parameter is a typologically variable aspect of the grammars. One can either set their parameter with

448-420: A nominal element within a particular context. They generally do this by indicating definiteness ( a vs. the ), quantity ( one vs. some vs. many ), or another such property. An adjective acts as the head of an adjective phrase or adjectival phrase (AP). In the simplest case, an adjective phrase consists solely of the adjective; more complex adjective phrases may contain one or more adverbs modifying

504-585: A noun, they are far more circumscribed than adjectives in their use—typically, only a single determiner would appear before a noun or noun phrase (including any attributive adjectives). This means that, in English, adjectives pertaining to size precede adjectives pertaining to age ("little old", not "old little"), which in turn generally precede adjectives pertaining to colour ("old white", not "white old"). So, one would say "One (quantity) nice (opinion) little (size) old (age) round (shape) [ or round old] white (colour) brick (material) house." When several adjectives of

560-567: A phrasal category XP must contain one specifier, one head, and one complement. On the other hand, the adjunct is optional; hence, a phrasal category contains zero or more adjuncts. Accordingly, when a phrasal category XP does not have an adjunct, it forms the structure in Figure 2. For example, the NP linguistics in the sentence John studies linguistics has the structure in Figure 3. It is important that even if there are no candidates that can fit into

616-401: A proper town (a real town, not a village) vs. They live in the town proper (in the town itself, not in the suburbs). All adjectives can follow nouns in certain constructions, such as tell me something new . In many languages, some adjectives are comparable and the measure of comparison is called degree . For example, a person may be "polite", but another person may be " more polite", and

SECTION 10

#1732772328928

672-688: A small closed class of adjectives, and new adjectives are not easily derived. Similarly, native Japanese adjectives ( i -adjectives) are considered a closed class (as are native verbs), although nouns (an open class) may be used in the genitive to convey some adjectival meanings, and there is also the separate open class of adjectival nouns ( na -adjectives). Many languages (including English) distinguish between adjectives, which qualify nouns and pronouns, and adverbs , which mainly modify verbs , adjectives, or other adverbs. Not all languages make this exact distinction; many (including English) have words that can function as either. For example, in English, fast

728-433: A special comparative form of the adjective. In such cases, as in some Australian Aboriginal languages , case-marking, such as the ablative case may be used to indicate one entity has more of an adjectival quality than (i.e. from —hence ABL) another. In English, many adjectives can be inflected to comparative and superlative forms by taking the suffixes "-er" and "-est" (sometimes requiring additional letters before

784-547: A specific order. In general, the adjective order in English can be summarised as: opinion, size, age or shape, colour, origin, material, purpose. Other language authorities, like the Cambridge Dictionary , state that shape precedes rather than follows age. Determiners and postdeterminers—articles, numerals, and other limiters (e.g. three blind mice)—come before attributive adjectives in English. Although certain combinations of determiners can appear before

840-414: A statement is only tentative or tendential: one might say "John is more the shy-and-retiring type", where the comparative "more" is not really comparing him with other people or with other impressions of him, but rather, could be substituting for "on the whole" or "more so than not". In Italian, superlatives are frequently used to put strong emphasis on an adjective: bellissimo means "most beautiful", but

896-486: A third person may be the " most polite" of the three. The word "more" here modifies the adjective "polite" to indicate a comparison is being made, and "most" modifies the adjective to indicate an absolute comparison (a superlative ). Among languages that allow adjectives to be compared, different means are used to indicate comparison. Some languages do not distinguish between comparative and superlative forms. Other languages allow adjectives to be compared but do not have

952-481: Is a theory that attempts to resolve these issues by assuming the mold or template phrasal structure of "XP". The "X" in the X-bar theory is equivalent to a variable in mathematics: It can be substituted by syntactic categories such as N , V , A , and P . These categories are lexemes and not phrases : The "X-bar" is a grammatical unit larger than X, thus than a lexeme, and the X-double-bar (=XP) outsizes

1008-521: Is a word that describes or defines a noun or noun phrase . Its semantic role is to change information given by the noun. Traditionally, adjectives are considered one of the main parts of speech of the English language, although historically they were classed together with nouns . Nowadays, certain words that usually had been classified as adjectives, including the , this , my , etc., typically are classed separately, as determiners . Examples: Adjective comes from Latin nōmen adjectīvum ,

1064-458: Is absent X0 sex-determination system , as found in some insects Vehicles [ edit ] X0, a smaller rigged version of an X1 (dinghy) X0, running number for N700 Series Shinkansen prototype from 2014 to 2021 See also [ edit ] XO (disambiguation) X00 , a popular DOS-based FOSSIL driver which was commonly used in the mid 1980s to the late 1990s 0X (disambiguation) [REDACTED] Topics referred to by

1120-503: Is already absolute in its semantics. Such adjectives are called non-comparable or absolute . Nevertheless, native speakers will frequently play with the raised forms of adjectives of this sort. Although "pregnant" is logically non-comparable (either one is pregnant or not), one may hear a sentence like "She looks more and more pregnant each day". Comparative and superlative forms are also occasionally used for other purposes than comparison. In English comparatives can be used to suggest that

1176-519: Is an adjective in "a fast car" (where it qualifies the noun car ) but an adverb in "he drove fast " (where it modifies the verb drove ). In Dutch and German , adjectives and adverbs are usually identical in form and many grammarians do not make the distinction, but patterns of inflection can suggest a difference: A German word like klug ("clever(ly)") takes endings when used as an attributive adjective but not when used adverbially. Whether these are distinct parts of speech or distinct usages of

SECTION 20

#1732772328928

1232-503: Is being fronted . For example, the usual order of adjectives in English would result in the phrase "the bad big wolf" (opinion before size), but instead, the usual phrase is "the big bad wolf". Owing partially to borrowings from French, English has some adjectives that follow the noun as postmodifiers , called postpositive adjectives , as in time immemorial and attorney general . Adjectives may even change meaning depending on whether they precede or follow, as in proper : They live in

1288-440: Is different from Wikidata All article disambiguation pages All disambiguation pages Zero-level projection X-bar theory was incorporated into both transformational and nontransformational theories of syntax, including government and binding theory (GB), generalized phrase structure grammar (GPSG), lexical-functional grammar (LFG), and head-driven phrase structure grammar (HPSG). Although recent work in

1344-484: Is honest , for example, then has the following structure. Moreover, Chomsky (1986a) assumes that the landing site of wh-movement is the specifier position of CP ( Spec-CP ). Accordingly, the wh-question What did John eat? , for example, is derived as in Figure 12. In this derivation, the I-to-C movement is an instance of subject-auxiliary inversion (SAI), or more generally, head movement . The PSR has

1400-462: Is in fact more commonly heard in the sense "extremely beautiful". Attributive adjectives and other noun modifiers may be used either restrictively (helping to identify the noun's referent, hence "restricting" its reference) or non-restrictively (helping to describe a noun). For example: Here "difficult" is restrictive – it tells which tasks he avoids, distinguishing these from the easy ones: "Only those tasks that are difficult". Here difficult

1456-507: Is necessarily left-branching across languages, the idea of which is (partially) motivated by the fact that both English and Japanese have subjects on the left of a VP, whereas others such as Saito and Fukui (1998) argue that the directionality of the node is not fixed and needs to be externally determined, for example by the head parameter. Under the PSR, the structure of S (sentence) is illustrated as follows. However, this structure violates

1512-435: Is non-restrictive – it is already known which task it was, but the adjective describes it more fully: "The aforementioned task, which (by the way) is difficult." In some languages, such as Spanish , restrictiveness is consistently marked; for example, in Spanish la tarea difícil means "the difficult task" in the sense of "the task that is difficult" (restrictive), whereas la difícil tarea means "the difficult task" in

1568-447: Is obvious that this structure fails to capture the NP modification reading because [ PP with binoculars] modifies the VP no matter how one tries to illustrate the structure. The X-bar theory, however, successfully captures the ambiguity as demonstrated in the configurations in Figure 14 and 15 below, because it assumes hierarchical structures in accordance with the binarity principle. Thus,

1624-487: Is referred to as projection . Figure 5 suggests that syntactic structures are derived in a bottom-up fashion under the X-bar theory. More specifically, the structures are derived via the following processes. It is important that all the processes except for the third are obligatory. This means that one phrasal category necessarily includes X , X , and XP (=X''). Moreover, nodes bigger than X (thus, X and XP nodes) are called constituents . Figures 1–5 are based on

1680-882: Is that some nominals seem to semantically denote entities (typically nouns in English) and some nominals seem to denote attributes (typically adjectives in English). Many languages have participle forms that can act as noun modifiers either alone or as the head of a phrase. Sometimes participles develop into functional usage as adjectives. Examples in English include relieved (the past participle of relieve ), used as an adjective in passive voice constructs such as "I am so relieved to see you". Other examples include spoken (the past participle of speak ) and going (the present participle of go ), which function as attribute adjectives in such phrases as "the spoken word" and "the going rate". Other constructs that often modify nouns include prepositional phrases (as in "a rebel without

1736-491: The minimalist program has largely abandoned X-bar schemata in favor of bare phrase structure approaches, the theory's central assumptions are still valid in different forms and terms in many theories of minimalist syntax. The X-bar theory was developed to resolve the issues that phrase structure rules (PSR) under the Standard Theory had. The PSR approach has the following four main issues. The X-bar theory

X0 - Misplaced Pages Continue

1792-467: The word order of English , but the X-bar schema does not specify the directionality of branching because the binarity principle does not have a rule on it. For example, John read a long book of linguistics with a red cover , which involves two adjuncts, may have either of the structures in Figure 6 or Figure 7. (The figures follow the convention of omitting the inner structures of certain phrasal categories with triangles.) The structure in Figure 6 yields

1848-400: The PSR. (This resolves the second issue above.) In the meantime, one needs to be wary of when such empty positions are representationally omitted as in Figure 4. In illustrating syntactic structures this way, at least one X'-level node is present in any circumstance because the complement is obligatory. Next, the X'' and X' inherit the characteristics of the head X. This trait inheritance

1904-514: The X(-single)-bar. X-double-bar categories are equal to phrasal categories such as NP , VP , AP , and PP . The X-bar theory assumes that all phrasal categories have the structure in Figure 1. This structure is called the X-bar schema . As in Figure 1, the phrasal category XP is notated by an X with a double overbar. For typewriting reasons, the bar symbol is often substituted by

1960-592: The X-bar theory resolves the fourth issue mentioned in § Background as well. There is always a unilateral relation from syntax to semantics (never from semantics to syntax) in any version of generative grammar because syntactic computation starts from the lexicon , then continues into the syntax, then into Logical Form (LF) at which meanings are computed. This is so under any of Standard Theory (Chomsky, 1965 ), Extended Standard Theory (Chomsky, 1972 ), and Revised Extended Standard Theory (Chomsky, 1981 ). Adjective An adjective ( abbreviated adj. )

2016-448: The X-bar theory, namely the headedness principle and the binarity principle. Words that introduce subordinate or complement clauses are called complementizers , and representative of them are that , if , and for. Under the PSR, complement clauses were assumed to constitute the category S' . Chomsky (1986a) proposed that this category is in fact a CP headed by the functional category C . The sentence I think that John

2072-496: The adjective moorrooloo 'little' in the phrase moorrooloo baawa 'little child' can stand on its own to mean 'the little one,' while the attributive noun aamba 'man' in the phrase aamba baawa 'male child' cannot stand for the whole phrase to mean 'the male one.' In other languages, like Warlpiri , nouns and adjectives are lumped together beneath the nominal umbrella because of their shared syntactic distribution as arguments of predicates . The only thing distinguishing them

2128-512: The adjective (" very strong"), or one or more complements (such as "worth several dollars ", "full of toys ", or "eager to please "). In English, attributive adjective phrases that include complements typically follow the noun that they qualify ("an evildoer devoid of redeeming qualities "). In many languages (including English) it is possible for nouns to modify other nouns. Unlike adjectives, nouns acting as modifiers (called attributive nouns or noun adjuncts ) usually are not predicative;

2184-476: The distinction between adjectives and nouns is typically thought weak, and many of the languages only use nouns—or nouns with a limited set of adjective-deriving affix es—to modify other nouns. In languages that have a subtle adjective-noun distinction, one way to tell them apart is that a modifying adjective can come to stand in for an entire elided noun phrase, while a modifying noun cannot. For example, in Bardi ,

2240-475: The headedness principle because it has an exocentric, headless structure, and would also violate the binarity principle if an Aux (auxiliary) occurs, because the S node will then be ternary-branching. Given these, Chomsky (1981) proposed that S is an InflP headed by the functional category Infl (ection), and later in Chomsky (1986a), this category was relabelled as I (hence constitutes an IP ), following

2296-464: The inflection of a verb. Assuming that S constitutes an IP, the structure of the sentence John studies linguistics at the university , for example, can be illustrated as in Figure 10. As is obvious, the IP hypothesis makes it possible to regard the grammatical unit of sentence as a phrasal category. It is also important that the configuration in Figure 10 is fully compatible with the central assumptions of

X0 - Misplaced Pages Continue

2352-409: The language, an adjective can precede a corresponding noun on a prepositive basis or it can follow a corresponding noun on a postpositive basis. Structural, contextual, and style considerations can impinge on the pre-or post-position of an adjective in a given instance of its occurrence. In English, occurrences of adjectives generally can be classified into one of three categories: Adjectives feature as

2408-419: The meaning the book of linguistics with a red cover is long , and the one in Figure 7 the long book of linguistics is with a red cover (see also #Hierarchical structure ). What is important is the directionality of the nodes N' 2 and N' 3 : One is left-branching, while the other is right-branching. Accordingly, the X-bar theory, more specifically the binarity principle, does not impose a restriction on how

2464-429: The notational convention that phrasal categories are represented in the form of XP, with two letters. The category I includes auxiliary verbs such as will and can , clitics such as -s of the third person singular present and -ed of the past tense. This is consistent with the headedness principle, which requires that a phrase have a head, because a sentence (or a clause) necessarily involves an element that determines

2520-478: The prime ('), as in X' . The X-bar theory embodies two central principles. The headedness principle resolves the issues 1 and 3 above simultaneously. The binarity principle is important to projection and ambiguity, which will be explained below. The X-bar schema consists of a head and its circumstantial components, in accordance with the headedness principle. The relevant components are as follows: The specifier, head, and complement are obligatory; hence,

2576-511: The same part of speech is a question of analysis. While German linguistic terminology distinguishes adverbiale from adjektivische Formen , German refers to both as Eigenschaftswörter ("property words"). Linguists today distinguish determiners from adjectives, considering them to be two separate parts of speech (or lexical categories ). Determiners formerly were considered to be adjectives in some of their uses. Determiners function neither as nouns nor pronouns but instead characterize

2632-447: The same term This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title formed as a letter–number combination. If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article. Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X0&oldid=1240243935 " Category : Letter–number combination disambiguation pages Hidden categories: Short description

2688-516: The same type are used together, they are ordered from general to specific, like "lovely intelligent person" or "old medieval castle". This order may be more rigid in some languages than others; in some, like Spanish, it may only be a default ( unmarked ) word order, with other orders being permissible. Other languages, such as Tagalog , follow their adjectival orders as rigidly as English. The normal adjectival order of English may be overridden in certain circumstances, especially when one adjective

2744-420: The sense of "the task, which is difficult" (non-restrictive). In English, restrictiveness is not marked on adjectives but is marked on relative clauses (the difference between "the man who recognized me was there" and "the man, who recognized me , was there" being one of restrictiveness). In some languages, adjectives alter their form to reflect the gender, case and number of the noun that they describe. This

2800-489: The shortcoming of being incapable of capturing sentence ambiguities. This sentence is ambiguous between the reading I saw a man, using binoculars , in which with binoculars modifies the VP, and the reading I saw a man who had binoculars , in which the PP modifies the NP. Under the PSR model, the sentence above is subject to the following two parsing rules. The sentence's structure under these PSRs would be as in Figure 13. It

2856-399: The specifier and complement positions, these positions are syntactically present, and thus they are merely empty and unoccupied. (This is a natural consequence of the binarity principle.) This means that all phrasal categories have fundamentally uniform structures under the X-bar schema, which makes it unnecessary to assume that different phrases have different structures, unlike when one adopts

SECTION 50

#1732772328928

2912-413: The structures in Figure 8 and Figure 9, respectively. ジョンが John-ga John- NOM リンゴを ringo-o apple- ACC 食べた tabe-ta eat- PAST ジョンが リンゴを 食べた John-ga ringo-o tabe-ta John-NOM apple-ACC eat-PAST 'John ate an apple' Finally the directionality of the specifier node is in essence unspecified as well, although this is subject to debate: Some argue that the relevant node

2968-438: The suffix; see forms for far below), respectively: Some adjectives are irregular in this sense: Some adjectives can have both regular and irregular variations: also Another way to convey comparison is by incorporating the words "more" and "most". There is no simple rule to decide which means is correct for any given adjective, however. The general tendency is for simpler adjectives and those from Anglo-Saxon to take

3024-411: The suffixes, while longer adjectives and those from French , Latin , or Greek do not—but sometimes the sound of the word is the deciding factor. Many adjectives do not naturally lend themselves to comparison. For example, some English speakers would argue that it does not make sense to say that one thing is "more ultimate" than another, or that something is "most ultimate", since the word "ultimate"

3080-471: The values of "+" or "-": In the case of the head parameter, one configures the parameter of [±head first], depending on what language they primarily speak. If this parameter is configured to be [+head first], what results is head-initial languages such as English, and if it is configured to be [-head first], what results is head-final languages such as Japanese . For example, the English sentence John ate an apple and its corresponding Japanese sentence have

3136-419: The words for "hunger" being nouns). Similarly, where Hebrew uses the adjective זקוק ‎ ( zaqūq , roughly "in need of" or "needing"), English uses the verb "to need". In languages that have adjectives as a word class, it is usually an open class ; that is, it is relatively common for new adjectives to be formed via such processes as derivation . However, Bantu languages are well known for having only

#927072