لخّصلي

???

D as the Head of DP
The DP-Hypothesis proposes that D is the head of the noun phrase.
This hypothesis is based on the parallelism between sentences and noun phrases.
This parallelism is evident in structures like (23) where the DP specifies whether a noun phrase is definite or indefinite and the TP specifies whether the clause/sentence is tensed or untensed.
This parallelism is also evident in (23a) and (23b), where Ali occupies the Spec-TP position in the sentence and Ali's occupies the Spec-DP position in the DP.
D as the Head of DP
The DP-Hypothesis proposes that D is the head of the noun phrase.
This hypothesis is based on the parallelism between sentences and noun phrases.
This parallelism is evident in structures like (23) where the DP specifies whether a noun phrase is definite or indefinite and the TP specifies whether the clause/sentence is tensed or untensed.
This parallelism is also evident in (23a) and (23b), where Ali occupies the Spec-TP position in the sentence and Ali's occupies the Spec-DP position in the DP.
The importance of a head in a phrase

The head of a phrase is not always the most important word in meaning.
The determiner contributes meaning to the phrase, but it is not as important as the noun.
The noun contributes more meaning to the phrase and is expected to be the head.
In a PP, the preposition (P) is the head, not the noun.
In a phrase, the word that contributes more meaning is expected to be the head.
The head of a phrase can be a preposition.
Examples of phrases with different heads

(27c) Every student of English: The noun student is the head.
(27d) Bottles of water: The noun water is the head.
(27e) From Taiz: The preposition from is the head.
(28a) go to Taiz: The preposition to is the head.
(28b) look at Ali: The preposition at is the head.
*(28c) go Taiz: Ungrammatical, as the preposition go is the head, and there is no noun complement.
*(28d) look Ali: Ungrammatical, as the preposition look is the head, and there is no noun complement.
Conclusion

The head of a phrase can be a preposition.
The head of a phrase is not always the most important word in terms of meaning.
The importance of the head varies depending on the context and structure of the phrase.
Note: the examples provided are in the context of Minimalist Grammar, a theory in linguistics.
Introducing Minimalism: A Parametric Variation
The noun following the determiner (D) is not always necessary.

Example: "The man" is the same as "man".
Determiners can also have complements.

Example: "His book" vs. "His".
"His" must have a complement of some kind.
The meaning (semantics) of a Determiner Phrase (DP) can be seen in the following:

Example: "Every student of English".
Note: "Student" is the most important word, though "every" contributes to the meaning.
The noun is not always the most important part of the phrase.

Example: "Bottles of water" - the important word is "water", not "bottles".
It is expected that the most important word is the head of the phrase.
In a Prepositional Phrase (PP) the preposition is the head, not the noun.

Example: "Go to Taiz".
The preposition "to" is the head.
The head is not always the most important word.
The head of a phrase is not always the most important word.

The determiner (D) and the preposition (P) may not be the most important words.
The head is not always the most important word in a phrase.
The text discusses the grammatical properties of determiners in different languages and argues that determiners are not specifiers, but rather adjuncts to the noun. The example of Arabic is used to show the difference between definite and indefinite articles and how they combine with nouns to form phrases.

The author argues that determiners are adjuncts to the noun, not specifiers, and provides arguments to support this claim.
The author cites the use of definite and indefinite articles in Arabic as an example of how determiners contribute to the overall structure of the phrase.
The author acknowledges that there are exceptions to the rules, such as the possibility of determiners co-occurring with definite articles in some cases, but argues that these are not generalizable rules.
Definiteness is a feature of the determiner, not the noun

The difference between "A book" and "The book" is the definiteness, and the determiner is the head of the noun phrase, not the noun itself.
This can be demonstrated by the fact that definiteness cannot be projected from the noun.
Pronouns are determiners

The example of "Students" and "Syntax students" shows that a noun can premodify another noun.
"The she" is ungrammatical, showing that a determiner cannot premodify a pronoun.
"She" is grammatical and functions as a fragment, which suggests that pronouns function as determiners
The Problem with the Pronoun

The sentence (35c) "the she" is ungrammatical because it uses a determiner with a pronoun.
Determiners (like "the") can precede nouns, but not pronouns.
The Question

Can a determiner always precede a noun?
Examples that Prove Otherwise

The sentences (36a) "An Ali", (36b) "A Laila", and (36c) "The Yemen" are ungrammatical.
This suggests that determiners do not always precede nouns.
The Solution: Proper Nouns

The sentences (37a) "A Laila that I spent four years with in India called me yesterday", (37b) "I will visit the Alis tomorrow", and (37c) "The United States of America" are grammatical.
This shows that determiners can precede proper nouns.
Conclusion

Determiners can be used with nouns, but not all nouns.
The possibility that determiners can precede pronouns, as in sentence (34d), can be reanalyzed as (38).
The Image This image is a page from a linguistic textbook, focusing on the constituent structure in grammar.

Constituent Structure

Determiners as Heads
The image begins with a discussion about whether a determiner can be a head without a complement.
The example "She" is used to illustrate this point, stating that determiners like "She" can be a head in their own right, although they usually take complements.
Complement-less Heads
The examples "They laugh", "They are inside", and "They are happy" are used to illustrate complement-less heads.
These sentences demonstrate that the heads (VP, PP, and AP respectively) do not require a complement, making them heads with no complement.
The structural representations of each of these phrases are provided below the sentences.
Pronouns as Determiners
The image moves on to discuss the nature of pronouns like "You" and "We" in sentences such as "You students are the hope of Yemen" and "We teachers are your guides to a successful life."
The argument is presented that pronouns like "You" and "We" are actually determiners, not nouns, because they modify the nouns that follow them (e.g., students, teachers).
Structural representations of these phrases are provided to visually illustrate this point.
Key Terms

Head: The central word of a phrase, typically determining the phrase's syntactic category.
Complement: A phrase that completes the meaning of a head.
Determiners: Words that modify nouns, often indicating quantity or possession (e.g., "the", "a", "your").
Pronouns: Words that replace nouns (e.g., "he", "she", "it", "you", "we", "they").
VP: Verb Phrase
PP: Prepositional Phrase
AP: Adjective Phrase
Other Notes

The image mentions a footnote (not pictured) that discusses some linguists' alternative views on the nature of determiners.
The image is part of a larger discussion about constituent structure, a crucial concept in understanding how sentences are built.
The Issue of Proper Nouns Without Heads
The problem: Proper nouns, such as Ali, Alia, and Yemen, can appear without a determiner, seemingly lacking a head.
The misleading argument: It appears as though proper nouns don't need determiners, but this is incorrect for two reasons:
Proper nouns are inherently definite in all languages.
Empty categories exist in syntax, and they are invisible to phonology but remain syntactically and semantically intact.
The solution: Empty categories are responsible for the seeming lack of a determiner with proper nouns.
Proper Nouns as [+Def]
The argument: Proper nouns, unlike indefinite nouns, cannot function as subjects in there constructions because there constructions require indefinite nouns as subjects.
The conclusion: This suggests that proper nouns possess the feature [+Def] (definite).
Plural Nouns as [-Def]
The argument: Plural nouns, like teachers, can function as subjects in there constructions, implying they are indefinite.
The conclusion: This indicates that plural nouns have the feature [-Def] (indefinite).
Determiners as Heads of Noun Phrases
The conclusion: The fact that determiners are the heads of noun phrases, and not nouns, is supported by the fact that they can have specifiers.
The passage talks about specifiers, determiners and how the possessive construction works in English.

Specifiers

A specifier is a syntactic element that modifies a head.
The passage argues that the specifier of a noun phrase is the possessor in a possessive construction, despite being originally located in the specifier of the noun.
Determiners

Determiners modify nouns and specify the noun's quantity or identity.
The passage concludes that the possessive marker 's is a determiner, based on its similar behaviour to other determiners like "the" and "a".
Possessive Construction

The author uses the example "Ali's book" to illustrate the possessive construction.
The author clarifies that, even though the possessor "Ali" originally appears in the specifier of the noun "book", it actually modifies the determiner "D" (which stands for the possessive marker).
Feature Checking

The author mentions the concept of "feature checking" in the context of the derivation of possessive phrases.
It is suggested that the possessor "Ali" needs to move from the specifier of the noun "book" to the specifier of "D" to match certain features.
-Assignment

The author refers to "theta assignment", which refers to the process of assigning grammatical roles to words.
It is argued that the possessor "Ali" is assigned its role of Possessor in the specifier of the noun "book", but due to word order constraints, it needs to move to the specifier of "D".
Analysis of 's

The example 'Ali's his book' shows that 's cannot be considered a possessive pronoun due to its complementarity with the possessive pronoun 'his'. Therefore, 's is determined to be a determiner.
The fact that 'his' in 'His book' is positioned under D in the syntactic structure strengthens the notion of 's' being a determiner.
's' functions as a clitic determiner, meaning it's a determiner that is attached to a noun phrase or verb, instead of being an affix (specifically a suffix). This is evidenced by examples like 'The man's car', 'The man with a red hat's car', and 'The man who came yesterday's car'.
The examples (46f-h) demonstrate the difference in behavior between 's' as a possessive and 's' as a suffix. The former is restricted to being attached to a noun, while the latter can attach to a verb.
Derivation of the Clause

The derivation of the clause in (49b) is now complete, having three constituents: "He", "is trying", and "to write his homework".
Now, reconsidering (47), the authors state that (49a) and (49b) are clauses, but (49c) is a sentence.
The symbol ≤ implies that a clause may be a sentence, but not always vice versa.
Question Regarding (49b)

(47) raises the question if (49b) is the final stage in deriving clauses.
The answer is no, as it would contradict previous statements.
Contradiction

The authors have stated that the schema of a full sentence in minimalism is CP, a Complementizer Phrase headed by Cº.
This is because there are clauses in English such as "If he is trying to write his homework", where "if" is a complementizer.
Conclusion

Therefore, the derivation of the clause "If he is trying to write his homework" is presented in (50).
This type of clause is called subordinate.
It needs another clause to support its meaning.
A subordinate clause cannot stand alone.
Minimalist Full Schema
The minimalist full schema is complete in (50).
The CP is headed by C lexically realized as If.
The question is why we don't include the complete schema in other derivations like (49a), (49b), etc.
This is the core of minimalism.
We only need the minimum notions and apparatus.
Including them in such derivations complicates our derivation and the way we describe language.
There are many details we avoid to involve up to this stage of the book.
New Node in Derivation
Reconsidering (50), there is a new node, viz., Spec occurring under TP as a sister to T.
Spec is an acronym of Specifier.
Spec accommodates (hosts) the subject pronoun He.
Complement Clauses
Complement clauses are those that function as complements of transitive verbs, prepositions, and sometimes even nouns.
Complement Clauses examples:
(51a) I think [that you like syntax]
(51b) Ali wants [to be a linguist].
(51c) Ali likes [reading Arabic poetry].
(51d) The idea [that Ali likes syntax] surprises me.
These are considered complete clauses in the sense that they all are CPs.
They are roughly schematized in (52a-d).
The assumption that such clauses are CPs will be clear in Chapters 7 and 8.
These clauses are characterized as conforming to the EPP, i.e. having subjects either overt (as in the case of (51a&d), namely you and Ali, respectively) or covert, i.e. PRO (as in the case of (51b&c)).
Such clauses are distinguished from some other clauses known as defective.
This is the main concern of the following section.
The paper discusses defective clauses and the underlying reasons for why such clauses are called as such.

Defective clauses:

Defective clauses seem to have overt subjects but they are marked for Acc Case, not Nom Case.
Examples are "I believe [her to be innocent]" and "I consider [him innocent]."
Verbs like believe and consider have an underlying ability to assign Acc Case to the pronominal/nominal subjects of embedded clauses.
Evidence for defective clauses:

Ungrammaticality of (54a&b) suggests embedded clauses of believe and consider need overt subjects.
Ungrammaticality of (55a) and (55b) suggest such subjects need to be assigned Acc Case.
Conclusion:

Clauses with such subjects are called defective.
An explanation for why such clauses are called defective is provided by analyzing the structure of sentences such as "Ali expects [her to be there]" with a TP layer as in (56b) and a CP layer as in (56c).
The matrix verb assigns Acc Case to the subject of the embedded clause.
In (56b) the matrix verb "expects" assigns Acc Case to the subject "her"
There is a notable difference of Acc Case marking:
In (56b), the verb expects assigns Acc Case to the pronoun "her" which occupies Spec-TP
There is no maximal projection intervening between the Vº and its Acc subject, i.e. "her".
(56c) is ungrammatical because it has a CP layer (as a complement of the Vº) while (56b) does not.
This suggests that embedded ECM clauses are TPs, but not CPs.
The ungrammaticality of (56b) is due to the fact that the CP layer is a maximal projection and intervenes between the verb "expects" and its complement, i.e. the subject of the embedded clause, namely her.
This blocks the verb from assigning Acc Case to the subject "her".
In a minimalist perspective, Locality Principle is violated.
If the analysis is correct, then embedded ECM clauses have overt subjects.
Introducing Minimalism: A Parametric Variation
Specifiers
The subject He surfaces in the specifier position of the maximal projection (TP), referred to as Spec-TP.
The order in which these three elements occur is Spec-Head-Compl.
Some languages known as SOV have a different order of Compl-Head-Spec.
Kayne (1994) argues that Spec-Head-Compl conforms to markedness, a feature known specifically in Optimality Theory.
The order Compl-Head-Spec is more common.
Languages exhibiting the other orders are considered exceptions or involve parametric variation.
Specifiers in Other Phrases
Almost all phrases have specifiers.
The structure of a phrase may require a Spec position to accommodate subjects or other constituents.
Specifier is considered an extension of a derivation in its root.
Maximal Projection and Head Words
The words really, right and very are not the heads of the maximal projections.
The maximal projections are headed by V, P and A respectively.
syntax and the way are the complements of V and P respectively.
Introducing Minimalism: A Parametric Variation
Specifiers
The subject He surfaces in the specifier position of the maximal projection (TP), referred to as Spec-TP.
The order in which these three elements occur is Spec-Head-Compl.
Some languages known as SOV have a different order of Compl-Head-Spec.
Kayne (1994) argues that Spec-Head-Compl conforms to markedness, a feature known specifically in Optimality Theory.
The order Compl-Head-Spec is more common.
Languages exhibiting the other orders are considered exceptions or involve parametric variation.
Specifiers in Other Phrases
Almost all phrases have specifiers.
The structure of a phrase may require a Spec position to accommodate subjects or other constituents.
Specifier is considered an extension of a derivation in its root.
Maximal Projection and Head Words
The words really, right and very are not the heads of the maximal projections.
The maximal projections are headed by V, P and A respectively.
syntax and the way are the complements of V and P respectively.
Clefts and their Structure
The main focus of this chapter is on the constituent structure of clefts, specifically the structure of phrases and sentences in English. A cleft is a structure that emphasizes a specific part of a sentence.

Types of Clefts:

It-clefts: These clefts emphasize the subject of the sentence, as in "It is the syntax that he likes."
Wh-clefts: These clefts emphasize the object of the sentence, as in "What he really likes is syntax."
Rules of Clefting:

Only complements can be clefted, not specifiers or adverbs.
In wh-clefts, the focused element is a maximal projection, not necessarily the head.
Maximal projections from structures like It is that he likes cannot be clefted.
Examples:

(59a) It is the syntax that he likes.
(59c) What he really likes is syntax.
(59d) It was in the department that the teacher met his students.
Analysis:

The italicized and bolded elements (e.g., the syntax, really likes) are the focused elements in these clefts.
The ungrammaticality of **(59b) It is really that he likes ** demonstrates that adverbs cannot be focused.
The structure of (59a) and (59c) support the idea that only complements can be clefted.
(59c) illustrates that in wh-clefts it's the maximal projection that is focused, not necessarily the head.
The examples in (60) show that maximal projections from structures like It is that cannot be clefted.
Conclusion:

These examples demonstrate the structure of clefts in English and highlight the specific rules that govern their formation and use.
Cleft Condition

Clefted constituents must be maximal projections.
Problems with Cleft Condition

The adverb really in (59b) can’t be clefted, even though it is a maximal projection.
The adverb really in (59b) can’t be clefted, but the adverb very happily in (62c) can’t be clefted either.
The adverb really in (59b) is only one word, but it is still a maximal projection.
very happily is a maximal projection, but it can't be clefted either.
Resolution of Problem

AdvP’s cannot be clefted.
There is a possibility that AdvP’s can be clefted, but only in specific situations, like the examples in (63a&b).
Arabic Cleft

The Arabic cleft construction is similar to English clefts, except that the Arabic construction focuses on the predicate.
It seems that clefts are universal.
(64a) and (64b) provide further evidence that the cleft condition is universal.
What is a cleft?
Clefts are structures in English that are used to emphasize a particular piece of language.
Clefts aim to express meaning (semantics) by emphasizing certain elements.
Clefts work by structuring words in a sentence in a specific way, called clefting.
Examples of clefts:
(59a) It is the syntax that he likes.
(59c) What he really likes is syntax.
(59d) It was in the department that the teacher met his students.
What can and can't be clefted?
Complements can be clefted. (examples: the syntax, really likes)
Adverbs and/or AdvP cannot be clefted. (example: really)
Specifiers cannot be clefted. (example: really in really likes)
Maximal projections can be clefted. (examples: the department, very good, to teach you minimalism, that the man who came yesterday)
Heads of maximal projections (D, Adv, Very, T, infinitival to) cannot be clefted. (example: the, very, to)
What's the main point of the text?
The text aims to explain the structure of clefts in English and how they are used for emphasis.
The author argues that only complements and maximal projections can be clefted.
The author uses examples to illustrate the grammatical constraints of clefting.

...
Cleft Condition

Clefted constituents must be maximal projections.
Problem with Clefts

The adverb really in (59b) could not be clefted.
This is a problem because the adverb is a maximal projection, but it is only one word.
Proposed Solution

AdvP constituents cannot be clefted.
The cleft of (62a) is grammatical because the clefted constituent is the PP in great happiness.
The cleft of (62c) is ungrammatical because the clefted constituent is the AdvP very happily.
Radford's Arguments

Radford claims that AdvPs can be clefted in structures like (63a&b) above, but only rarely.
Radford claims that Advs of manner (like slowly or very happily) cannot be clefted.
Conclusion

The nature of clefted constituents and their syntactic function is not fully understood.
The author proposes that AdvPs function as Specs of VPs, but this requires further research.
The author also notes that clefting is a universal syntactic phenomenon, and the same constraints apply to Arabic as well. ⬤
Introduction

This document explains how clefts work in Arabic by comparing (64a) and (64b)
The negative particle laa (not) acts as a determiner in (64a) but a sentential negation particle in (64b)
laa (not) is equal to English no in (64a) and not in (64b)
Constituency Criteria

Sentences consist of interrelated words that form phrases, clauses, and sentences.
"Constituency" originates from "constituent" as a string of interrelated words (cf.5)
Permutation Formula

The number of combinations can be calculated using the permutation formula (66)
Formula: nCr = n! / (r! * (n-r)!)
Example: Finding the number of combinations of 2, 3, 4, and 5 out of six words in (65)
P(6) = 6 * 5 * 4 * 3 * 2 * 1 = 720 (n = 6, r = 2)
Examples

When r = 2, the number of combinations is shown in (67a)
C(6,2) = 6! / (2! * (6-2)!) = 15
When r = 3, the number of combinations is shown in (67b) ⬤
[11/19, 9:19 PM] ♧: Combinations

The number of combinations is calculated using the formula C(n,r) = n! / r!(n-r)!
If r is 2, 3 or 4, there is a high possibility for ungrammatical combinations.
When r is 5, there is no possibility for ungrammatical combinations.
Constituent Structure

Constituent: A word or group of words that functions as a unit in a sentence.
Intuition vs. Evidence: Relying on intuition to determine a constituent is unreliable. We need a test or evidence to confirm if something is a constituent.
Different Syntactic Constituents: Constituents in (68a-f) have different syntactic structures. ⬤
Introducing Minimalism: A Parametric Variation
Understanding Categories

The paper introduces categories in linguistics: DP, VP, DP, VP, VP and TP
These categories can be represented as tree diagrams.
The example in (68g) shows how a sentence can be represented in a tree diagram.
Theoretical Constructs in Linguistics

Each constituent within a tree diagram is a theoretical construct.
Linguists often use these constructs to explain observations about language.
An analogy is made to physicists who use molecules, atoms and subatomic particles to explain the universe.
Minimalism

Minimalism argues that we should rely on empirical evidence to determine a language's syntactic structure, not intuition.
The paper uses an example to illustrate this point: intuition is not reliable for determining molecular structures.
Similarly, intuition is not reliable for determining a language's syntactic structure.
Testing Hypotheses about Language Structure

The paper suggests that the tree diagram in (68g) can be considered a hypothesis.
This hypothesis can be tested using empirical methods.
There are various tests used in linguistics to study language structures. Some examples include Transposition, Substitution, coordination, and ellipsis.
Minimalism utilizes some of these tests but incorporates new ones.
Coordination is a specific test used to determine whether two constituents are coordinated with each other. Minimalism proposes that only the same categories can be coordinated with each other. ⬤
Coordination of Constituents

When using a coordinator like "and," "or," or "but," the constituents being coordinated must be of the same syntactic category.
In sentences (69a-69d), the coordinated constituents are of the same category (e.g., DP, AP, AdvP).
Sentence (69e) is ungrammatical because the coordinated constituents are not of the same category (AdvP and AP).
Sentence (69f) is ungrammatical because although both phrases appear to be nonfinite clauses, they are not exactly the same category (TP and VP).
Phrasal Verbs and Coordination

Sentence (70b) is grammatical, but sentence (71b) is not.
The difference lies in the fact that the preposition "on" in (70b) is an independent element, while in (71b) it forms a phrasal verb with the verb "rely."
You cannot coordinate two dissimilar constituents, one of which is a phrasal verb.
Key Takeaways

Coordination requires constituents to be of the same category.
Phrasal verbs cannot be coordinated with simple prepositions. ⬤
Coordination Principle
The Coordination Principle states that two elements can only be coordinated if they belong to the same grammatical category.

Example: "Ali bought the book and the pen." Both "the book" and "the pen" are DPs (Determinative Phrase) which are able to be coordinated.
Applying the Coordination Principle to Arabic
The Coordination Principle applies to all languages, but the paper is specifically looking at the application of the principle to Arabic. Arabic is chosen because it is a Semitic language, which is distinct from the Indo-European family of languages which includes English.

The paper analyzes various examples of coordination in Arabic to demonstrate how the principle works.

These examples include:

(73a) "Ali bought the book and the pen."
(73b) "Ali and Ahmed bought the book and the pen."
(73c) "Ali bought the same book from Sana'a and from Aden."
(73d) "Ali bought the beautiful and new book."
(73e) "Ali bought the book and Ahmed bought the pen."
(73f) "The teacher explained the lesson standing and sitting."
These examples demonstrate the principle's applicability to Arabic. However, it's important to note the distinction between grammatical categories.

For example: In (73g), "Ali bought the book from Sana'a" is ungrammatical because the phrases "the book" (DP) and "from Sana'a" (PP, Prepositional Phrase) belong to different categories.

Conclusion
The paper establishes that the Coordination Principle is a universal constraint on language. While the focus is on Arabic, the principle is applicable to all languages. ⬤
The ungrammaticality of (73g)

The book has been coordinated with (from Sana'a).
This proves that the coordination principle is universal.
The question is that is the term 'category' in (72)

Confined to lexical categories?
The ungrammaticality of (74) lies in the fact that the VP breaks his leg whose head is in present simple tense and has been conjoined with the VP played football whose head is in past simple.
Two VPs to be conjoined grammatically especially with and have to be of the same tense.
The coordination principle in (72) seems not to be confined to lexical categories but extends to include functional categories where TP is a functional category.
Another test that could be made use of to decide whether a string of words is a constituent

Called displacement.
Displacement could be simply defined as a movement of a constituent within the phrase/sentence from a position to another.
Consider (75)

Alia has passed the syntax exam.
Let us apply the displacement test to every constituent in (75)

Let us take Ali first as an answer to the question in (76).
Who has passed the syntax exam?
It is Alia who has passed the syntax exam.
There is some kind of cleft used in (76b) where the subject Alia has been displaced from its canonical position represented by [].
Has Alia [] passed the syntax exam?
Where the constituent has has been displaced.
This is known in English as Subject-Verb Inversion made use of when we construct a Yes/No question.
Let us take passed as a constituent and displace it as in (76d).
Alia [] certainly has passed the syntax exam.
Now, take has passed as a constituent and displace it as in (76e).
: Introducing Minimalism: A Parametric Variation
This text discusses how to determine if a string of words is a constituent.
There are three tests:
Displacement Principle: A constituent can be moved to a different position in the sentence.
Adv-modification: A constituent can be modified by an adverb.
Fragmentation: A constituent can be used as a complete sentence.
Example: The sentence "Alia has passed the syntax exam" can be broken down into its constituents.
"Alia" is a noun phrase (NP) and can be moved around in the sentence.
"has passed the syntax exam" is a verb phrase (VP) and can be modified by an adverb such as "probably" or "certainly."
These tests are used to identify constituents in a sentence and to understand the structure of language.
: Constituent Structure and Fragment Principle
(80a) & (80b) In (80a) "with Ali" functions as a constituent because it is part of the verb "playing" and can be understood as a full sentence. In (80b) "on father" does not function as a constituent because it is part of the verb "relying."
(81) & (82) The question in (81) asks for a description of what Ali is doing, and there are different answers presented in (82) below.
(82a) to (82g) Each string of words has its own reason why it cannot function as an answer to the question in (81). For example, (82a, b&f) are missing necessary components to form a complete sentence.
(82c) Functions as a possible answer to the question because it is a maximal projection. However, it is a VP and a maximal projection.
(82d) and (82e) Are both maximal projections (TPs) and can function as answers.
(82f) Is not a possible answer because it is not a maximal projection, due to the presence of the auxiliary "is."
(83) Fragment Principle A constituent can function as a fragment if it is a maximal projection.
Violation of (83) (82a) and (82b) violate the Fragment Principle because they are both maximal projections but do not function as fragments.
: Arabic Example

(84) is a question that requires a DP as the answer.
(85) is a question that requires a VP or TP as the answer.
The difference in the type of answer required in (84) vs (85) is relevant.
In (85a) and (85b) the NP and DP can't function as fragments even though they are maximal projections.
However, in (85b-e) the VP and TP can function as fragments.
This shows that the fragment principle (83) needs to be modified based on the nature of the information sought by the question.
Conclusion

The type of information sought by the question determines the type of maximal projection that can function as a fragment.
This is a modification of the fragment principle (83).
: The text is about syntactic operations that result in acceptable fragments of language, and specifically the operation of extraposition.

Extraposition is a syntactic operation that results in an alternative word order.
Extraposition moves a constituent from its canonical position to the right.
Extraposition occurs with CP and PP constituents.
There are two types of extraposition: optional and obligatory.
Obligatory extraposition is known as it-extraposition, which is triggered by the use of the pronoun "it".
Optional extraposition happens when the movement is not necessary.
Extraposition is motivated by the desire to reduce "within embedding" and increase right branching.
The text explains these concepts using the example of the sentence: "A man who she doesn't know has threatened her."

In this sentence, the CP "who she doesn't know" is initially part of the NP but then moves to the right, becoming part of the VP.
This is an example of optional extraposition.
: The images show syntactic trees of sentences with various grammatical constructions. The images represent the different ways that a prepositional phrase (PP) can be incorporated into a sentence in a specific way known as extraposition.

Image (88b): This image demonstrates extraposition of a CP (complementizer phrase), which is a type of phrase that contains a clause.
Image (89b): This image demonstrates extraposition of a PP, where the prepositional phrase is part of the NP (noun phrase).
Image (90b): This image shows how the PP can be part of the VP (verb phrase) rather than the NP.
Key Points:

The PP "with a pistol" is extraposed in all three images.
The position of the PP differs in each image.
This demonstrates how the same phrase can be incorporated into a sentence in different ways.
The image highlights a parametric variation in syntax.
Image (89b) and (90b) represent extraposition, with the PP being "extraposed" from its original position.
General Conclusion:

The images illustrate that extraposition of PPs can occur in different locations within a sentence, demonstrating the flexibility of syntactic structures.
The Examples

Example (88b) - This sentence shows extraposition with a CP ("who she doesn't know") being the extraposed material.

Example (89a) and (89b) - This sentence demonstrates extraposition with a PP ("with a pistol") being the extraposed material. In (89b), the PP is part of the NP.

Example (90a) and (90b) - This sentence illustrates the PP ("with a pistol") is part of the VP.

Extraposition

The term "extraposition" refers to a grammatical structure in which a constituent is moved from its typical syntactic position to a later position in a sentence. This often occurs with the CP or PP.
Key Points

The examples demonstrate how the placement of the PP can vary depending on the syntactic structure of the sentence.
The placement of the PP influences the interpretation of the sentence.
These examples illustrate the parametric variation that exists in language, where different languages can have different ways of structuring their sentences. ⬤
Extraposition is a grammatical process that involves moving a phrase (usually a PP) to the end of a sentence.

How extraposition works: It is a change in the c-commanding node, i.e. there is a change in the element that dominates the phrase being extraposed.
Extraposition constraint: A phrase can be extraposed if and only if it is a CP or a PP.
Why not all PPs can be extraposed: The ungrammaticality of a sentence like "A man was standing at the corner with a red hat" shows that not all PPs can be extraposed. This is because the PP "with a red hat" modifies the DP "the corner", which cannot have a red hat. In contrast, a sentence like "A man was talking to the woman with a red hat" is grammatical because the PP "with a red hat" modifies the DP "the woman", which can have a red hat.
Conclusion: The grammaticality of extraposition depends on the meaning of the sentence and the relationship between the extraposed phrase and the rest of the sentence. ⬤
The ungrammaticality of the sentence "The man was standing on the corner who has a red hat" can be explained by the fact that the CP (headed by "who") is too far from the DP ("the man") and violates the Locality Condition.
Extraposition is a syntactic process where a phrase is moved from its canonical position to a different position in the sentence.
Arabic, unlike English, requires extraposition of indefinite predicates (as in the sentence "A boy in the street"), where the predicate must be extraposed rightward.
In the sentence "The man who came is my friend", the CP "who came" is extraposed to the right, while in the sentence "The man is my friend who came yesterday", the CP "who came yesterday" is extraposed to the left. ⬤
: Extraposition in Arabic
CP Extraposition: The example (98b) shows that CP constituents can undergo extraposition in Arabic. However, this is only possible when the head noun (e.g., rajul) is definite.
PP Extraposition: In (99b), the PP bi-Simaamat-in is extraposed rightward. This shows that PPs can also be extraposed in Arabic.
Extraposition in Definite and Indefinite Contexts: The fact that (99c) is grammatical, where rajul (man) is definite, suggests that PPs in Arabic can undergo extraposition in both definite and indefinite contexts.
Ellipsis
Ellipsis as Deletion: Ellipsis is a syntactic operation where a constituent is deleted, often a redundant one.
Example (100a & 100b): The example (100a) shows the repetition of the phrase "the teacher". The example (100b) shows how ellipsis can be used to avoid repetition.
Human Language & Conciseness
Conciseness in Language: The examples illustrate how human languages prioritize conciseness. Ellipsis is an example of a mechanism that achieves this goal.
This excerpt discusses the concept of ellipsis in syntax, specifically in Minimalist theory. The text contrasts the ellipsis behavior of verbal heads and nominal heads.

Key Points:

Ellipsis: A syntactic process where a phrase or constituent is omitted but understood in context.
Maximal projection: A syntactic constituent that includes the head and all its dependent elements.
Nonprojecting head: A head that does not form a maximal projection.
Verbal heads: Heads that are verbs (e.g., speak).
Nominal heads: Heads that are nouns (e.g., board).
The text demonstrates that:

Verbal heads and maximal projections can undergo ellipsis: This is illustrated in examples (101b) and (101c) where the verbal head speak and the VP speak English are elided.
Nonprojecting heads cannot undergo ellipsis: This is shown in example (102b) where the nonprojecting head T cannot be elided.
Nominal heads cannot undergo ellipsis: This is shown in example (102c) and (102d), where the noun board cannot be elided.
Conclusion:

The text concludes that there is a difference in the ellipsis behavior of verbal and nominal domains. While verbal heads and their maximal projections can undergo ellipsis, the same does not apply to nonprojecting heads and nominal heads. This difference suggests a parametric variation in how ellipsis works across different syntactic domains. ⬤
: This passage discusses the ellipsis phenomenon, specifically how a constituent, which can be a head or maximal projection, can undergo ellipsis. It also explains the concept of gapping, another phenomenon related to ellipsis, and its two types: real gaps and parasitic gaps.

Key points:

The ungrammaticality of (102e) suggests that a that-CP (a type of phrase) cannot undergo ellipsis, contrary to what's observed in other examples.
The argument concludes that it is the context which determines when and where a constituent can undergo ellipsis.
The passage proposes the "Ellipsis Condition": a constituent can undergo ellipsis if the context allows it.
Gapping is defined as a syntactic operation where a constituent undergoes ellipsis, and there are two types of gaps: real gaps and parasitic gaps.
Real gaps are symbolized by "R," while parasitic gaps ar