Constituent Structure - Part sách này khám phá những khía cạnh thực nghiệm và lý thuyết của cơ cấu thành phần trong cú pháp ngôn ngữ tự nhiên. Nó mô tả các bài kiểm tra truyền thống cho bầu cử và các phương tiện chính thức đại diện cho họ trong cấu trúc ngữ pháp cụm từ, cụm từ ngữ pháp cơ cấu mở rộng, lý thuyết, và thiết lập cấu trúc lý thuyết cụm từ. | 260 CONTROVERSIES some functional category is also the head of the nominal. See Stowell 1989 for a semantic argument that splits nominals into DP and NP. Ritter 1988 argues using evidence from construct-state nominals in Hebrew that a rule of N D movement parallel to V T movement explains the complementarity between construct state nominals and overt determiners and explains the order of elements in the NP see also Mohammed 1988 . Ritter 1991 1992 proposes splitting the DP into two categories DP which is the rough equivalent of the CP and NumP to account for alternations in order between two types of possessive construction in Hebrew. Picallo 1991 proposed a GenderP but Ritter 1993 presented a number of a arguments against it. Several of scholars most prominently Baltin 1980 have suggested that a Quanitifer Phrase QP dominates the DP in order account for phrases like all the men . A very articulated DP structure is proposed in Manzini and Savoia 2004 an earlier proposal is in Zamparelli 1995 . For good summaries of the literature on DPs and their internal structure see Bernstein 2001 and Longobardi 2001 and more recent work cited in Roberts 2005 . Concluding remarks I started this chapter with the warning that the topic of the content of constituents was a massive one. I have attempted to provide here an outline of some of the arguments for one particular view of phrase structure cartography with occasional pointers to other approaches. I have tried to provide arguments for a tripartite organized clause which makes extensive use of functional categories at all levels. But I have barely scratched the surface of this intricate topic. Scholars working in other traditions will no doubt be frustrated that I have not given more space to their views but I feel that s inevitable in a survey like this. There is also a significant number of topics that I did not even attempt to cover here. For example I have not discussed the question of how prepositional phrases PPs .
