[2] In X-bar theory, immediate dominance relations are invariant, meaning that all languages have the same constituent structure.
For example, the contrast between the well-formed (1a) and the ill-formed (1b) shows that in English, an adverb cannot intervene between a head (the verb study) and its complement (the DP the report).
The speaker must also know that the c-selected element must be adjacent to the affix, amounting to the requirement that branches of a tree never cross.
This is true because lexical entries do no impose a requirement on a part of word structure that it is not sister to.
However, [DP Time] in subject position does have this thematic quality and can be selected by [VP elapse].
One way to determine which syntactic items relate to each other within the tree structure is to examine covariances of constituents.
[2] EPP properties, or Extended Projection Principle, is located in certain syntactic items, which motivate movement due to their selection requirements.
[2] Binding Theory refers to 3 different theoretic principles that regulate DP's (Determiner Phrase).
[3] In consideration of the following definitions of the principles, the local domain refers to the closest XP with a subject.
In English, Principle A governs over anaphors, which include lexical items like reflexives, (e.g. myself, yourself...etc.
As co-indexation is already established by the matching subscript letter i, this sentence is grammatical and abides to Principle A.
However, example (3b) is ungrammatical because the anaphor is bound by the antecedent non-locally, which goes against Principle A which specifies local binding.
To summarize, it must be noted that anaphors must agree in gender, number, and also person with their antecedent, in a local domain.
For example, regardless of the consideration of locality, a sentence such as "[DPJohn]i likes [DPherself]i", it would be ungrammatical because the two co-indexed entities do not agree in gender.
Small clauses show that different categories can have subjects, which is supported by Binding Theory.
[2] As such, the underlying structure that is suggested is the following: Binding Theory correctly predicts that 5.1 a) will be an ungrammatical construction given Principle A which requires the anaphor to be bound locally.
(WH-island, Subjacency conditions and Condition on Extraction Domain) Relative barrier is the idea that syntactic dependencies between a filler and a gap are blocked by the intervention of a closer element of the same type Movement is the phenomenon that accounts for the possibility of a single syntactic constituent or element occupying multiple, yet distinct locations, depending on the type of sentence the element or constituent is in.
[8] Movement is motivated by selection of certain word types, which require their Projection Principles be met Locally.
When comparing surface structure to what selection predicts, there appears to be an anomaly in the word order of the sentence and the production of the tree.
These are expressed configurationally in relevance to particular languages, and are seen represented in the surface representation of the syntactic tree.
In this particular tree, it is the DP which is motivated to move, in order to satisfy the selectional properties of [VP seems] and T's EPP feature.
[1] This is seen in English word order of questions, which show Wh components as sentence initial, though in the underlying structure, this is not so.
The wh-phrase must also contain a question word, due to the fact that it needs to qualify as meeting the +q feature requirements.
Example (7a) is grammatical because the trace of the PP (prepositional phrase) "where" is not within the adjunct, therefore, movement is allowed.
The DP "what" that appears within the CP subject moves to the specifier position of the main clause.
Example (8a) is grammatical because the DP "who" does not have a trace within the CP subject, therefore, allowing movement to occur.
[1]: 278 Example (8a) is a grammatical because the DP complement of the verb moves as a whole to the specifier position of the main clause.
This extraction under the left branch constraint is not allowed, therefore, the sentence is predicted to be ungrammatical.
This sentence can be made grammatical by moving the larger DP as a unit to the specifier position of CP.
[1]: 278 In example (12c), the whole subject DP structure undergoes wh-movement, which results in a grammatical sentence.