-
The KÀnÃngkÓn Noun Phrase
CHAPTER ONE -- [Total Page(s) 5]
Page 3 of 5
-
-
-
1.9. Data analysis
The data in this work were taken from the informant and analysed using
the Government and Binding theory. The Kaningkon noun phrase will be
critically analysed using the theory mentioned above.
1.10. Brief review of the chosen framework.
Government
and binding theory has been chosen as the framework for the analysis of
Kaningkon noun phrase. Government and Binding (GB) theory was
introduced by Chomsky (1981). The theory explains the universal Grammar.
Udofot (2009:146) explains that Government and Binding theory is an
advanced form of universal grammar. According to Udofot (2009), it is a
more generalized model of grammar. It studies the grammar of languages
in general, not individual language grammar.
According to
Radford (1988:401), Government and Binding theory is a modular deductive
theory of grammar that posits multiple levels of representation related
by a transformational ‘move alpha’ (move α). Cheryl (1999:5) claims
that GB seeks to capture the similarities between different categories
of lexical phrases by assigning the same structure to them. According to
Udofot (2009:149), as a result of the organization of GB into modules,
GB is said to have modular character.
Government and Binding
theory is organized into sub-theories more technically known as modules.
Horrocks (1987:29) opines that, the core grammar of a given language is
derived from the interaction of sub-theories of universal grammar.
These sub-theories are inter-related that each of them can account for
grammaticality and ungrammaticality of any sentence.
The sub
theories (modules) of Government and Binding theories are; x-bar (x')
theory, bounding theory, government theory, theta theory (θ-theory),
case theory, binding theory and control theory. We can graphically
represent the interaction between the sub-theories of Government and
Binding as follow, as adapted by Yusuf (1998:23) from sell (1985) and
cook (1988).
X- Bar theory
D-STRUCTURE
Case filter
S- STRUCTURE
PHONETIC FORM
LOGICAL FORM
Projection
D - STRUCTURE principle
Move α LEXICON
(Bounding)
Case theory S – STRUC ϴ-THEORY
Case filter ECP (Ï´- Criterion)
CONTROL
BINDING
Fig 1.3. Modules of grammar :( adapted from sells (1985) and cook (1988)).
We shall briefly explain these modules as follow:
1.10.1. The x-Bar Theory (X'-Theory)
Akmajian et al (2008:215) says that the basic idea of x-bar is that
phrasal categories (eg VP, PP, NP, AP) all have heads that belong to the
same category as the phrasal category. The core of the x-bar theory is
the acknowledgement of the lexical categories such as Noun, Verb,
Prepositions, Adjective, as the head of phrase. This head projects to
their phrasal categories like Noun phrase (NP), Verb phrase (VP),
Prepositional phrase (PP), Adjective phrase (AP). The head of the
projection is zero (X°). Heads are terminal nodes. They dominate words.
Haegeman (1994:105) explains that X' theory distinguishes two further
levels of projection. Complements combines with X to form X' projection;
adjuncts combines with X' to form X' projections. Specifier combines
with the topmost X' to form the maximal projection XP (Haegeman,
1994:105).
In X' theory node will continue to reduce from phrasal category to give the final satellites on the node.
XP
Spec X'
X' Adjunct
X° Complement
Fig 1: Adapted from Yusuf (1998:33).
CHAPTER ONE -- [Total Page(s) 5]
Page 3 of 5
-
