Chapter 6 - Inflectional PhrasesSo far we have taken the rather simple (perhaps simplistic) view that the VP is the
complement of the inflection because the VP follows it. Indeed, if we assume that the
VP is the complement of the inflection, this is exactly what we would expect to find as
in English all complements follow the head. So this assumption accounts for certain
word order facts of English that without it would simply have to be stipulated. Exactly
the same is true for the subject. If we assume that this is the specifier of the inflection
we account for why the subject precedes both the inflection and the VP, as this is
exactly the position in which we find English specifiers.
To see the advantage of this analysis, consider what happens if we do not assume
that the inflectional element is the head of the clause. English is often described as an
SVO language, based on a way of classifying languages in accordance with the
‘typical’ ordering of the major elements of the sentence (subject, verb and object).
Without X-bar theory and the notions of head, complement and specifier, however,
this is just a description of the facts which tells us nothing beyond what can already be
observed. Assuming X-bar theory we have a way of accounting for word order
patterns by using general statements about the relationships between elements in an X-
bar structure and so this is a step in the right direction. However, if we do not assume
that the inflection is a head, it is not easy to think of how we can use X-bar
generalisations to account for the basic word order of English. This is especially so if
we take the traditional view that sentences are exocentric and therefore stand outside
of the set of facts that X-bar theory can account for. Only if we assume that sentences
are endocentric can X-bar generalisations be used to account for word order facts
concerning sentences.
Thus we seem to be inevitably drawn to the conclusion that sentences have heads
and that the elements of the sentence are organised in terms of X-bar relationships to
the head. The only question that remains is ‘what is the head of the clause?’ and there
seem to be very few options available. The only two real contenders are the inflection
and the verb and of these only the inflection really satisfies all the conditions with the
minimal number of assumptions.
More supporting evidence for the head status of the inflection comes from its
relationships to the other clausal elements. As a head we should expect the inflection
to impose restrictions on its complement and specifier positions. Of course, we would
not expect these to be based on -roles as the inflection is a functional element and
plays no role in -role assignment. Instead we would expect these restrictions to be
similar to those found within the DP discussed in chapter 3. Recall that determiners
always take NP complements and no other phrase can appear in this position. The
complement of an inflection is always a verbal phrase, be it vP or VP and again no
other phrase can appear in this position. We can make this more precise if we use
categorial features to describe the situation. The phrase that sits in the complement
position of the inflection must be headed by an element with the categorial features [(–
F), –N, +V], that is, by a non-functional verb including V and v. We can therefore
suggest a very restrictive template for the lexical entries of all inflections:
(10) category: [+F, –N, +V]
subcat: [(–F), –N, +V]