syntactic tree what to do with not carnie
4 Introducing the 10' schema of phrase structure
- The X' schema for elementary trees
- Transitive elementary trees
- The 10' schema
- Intransitive elementary trees
- Deriving simple sentences
- Deriving complex sentences
- The offshoot relation
- Modification is different
- The demand for an adjunction performance
- A typology of syntactic dependents
- More on the distinction between complements and adjuncts
- Notes
- Exercises and bug
- Supplementary material
- Modals and auxiliary verbs in English
- Reference and related notions
- Thematic roles
As was mentioned in
In this view, vocabulary items are comparable to the atoms of physical matter. Atoms do not combine into molecules just considering they happen to be next to each other; rather, their combinatorial possibilities are governed by their internal structure (for example, the number of electrons on an atom's outermost shell and the relative number of protons and electrons).
Accordingly, in the first part of this chapter, we consider the internal construction of unproblematic trees. As in the last affiliate, we begin by focusing on how verbs combine with their arguments to form larger phrases. For the time being, we will treat noun phrases and prepositional phrases as unanalyzed chunks, postponing discussion of their internal structure until
In the second part of the affiliate, we turn to the representation of the modification relation (familiar from Chapter 3). As we will show, it is not possible to combine modifiers with elementary trees by the substitution performance introduced in
The X' schema for elementary copse
Transitive elementary copse
We begin our investigation of the internal construction of elementary trees past considering how a transitive verb like ate combines with its two arguments in a sentence like (1).| (1) | The children ate the pizza. |
From the possibility of pronoun exchange, every bit in (2), nosotros know that the two arguments are constituents (specifically, noun phrases).
In principle, the verb could combine with its 2 noun phrase arguments in either order, or with both at once. The 3 possibilities are represented by the schematic structures in (three) (nosotros accost the question of which syntactic category to assign to the nodes labeled by question marks in a moment).
| (3) | a. |  | b. |  | c. |  |
Even so, equally we already know from the discussion in
| (iv) | The children ate the pizza; the children did then. |
In other words, transitive verbs combine kickoff with their object. The resulting constituent in turn combines with the subject.
What is the syntactic category of the constituents that consequence from these 2 combinations? In principle, the result of combining a verb with a noun phrase might exist a phrase with either exact or nominal properties. Simply clearly, a phrase like ate the pizza doesn't have the distribution of a noun phrase. For instance, it can't function as the object of a preposition (even a semantically vacuous one like of) Nor does information technology pattern similar a noun phrase in other respects. For instance, equally we have just seen, the appropriate pro-form for it is not a pronoun, but a grade of do so, but every bit would be the case if the predicate of the judgement were an intransitive verb. In other words, for the purposes of do so exchange, the combination of a verb and its object is equivalent to an intransitive verb (say, intransitive consume); cf. (iv) with (v).
| (5) | The children ate; the children did so. |
However, information technology won't do to simply assign the syntactic category V to the verb-object combination, on a par with the verb that it contains, since that would leave unexplained the dissimilarity between (4) and (6) with respect to do so substitution.
| (six) | The children ate the pizza; *the children did and then the pizza. |
Notice furthermore that the syntactic category of the verb-object constituent is singled-out from the syntactic category of the constituent that includes the bailiwick. This is evident from the contrast in (7), which would be unexpected if both constituents belonged to the same syntactic category.
| (7) | a. | Nosotros saw the children eat the pizza. | |
| b. | * | Nosotros saw consume the pizza. |
In order to represent the facts in (4)-(vii), the post-obit note has been developed. Verbs are said to projection three bar levels, conventionally numbered from cypher to two. The lowest bar level, V0, is a syntactic category for vocabulary items; information technology is ofttimes indicated but by V without a superscript. The next bar level is Five' (read as 'V-bar'),one the syntactic category of a transitive verb and its object. The highest bar level is 5" (read as 'V double bar'), which is the result of combining a Five' with a discipline. For a transitive verb, each bar level corresponds to the number of arguments with which the verb has combined.
Somewhat confusingly for the novice, the verb's second projection, V", is by and large labeled VP. In early work in generative grammer, the label VP was intended as a mnemonic abbreviation for the verb phrase of traditional grammer and did indeed correspond to that category. In current phrase structure theory, nevertheless, the label that corresponds to the traditional verb phrase is Five', whereas VP includes a verb'south subject, which the traditional verb phrase does not. The idea is that the highest bar level projected by a verb contains all of its arguments. For clarity, we volition avoid using the term 'verb phrase' if possible, but if we do use it, we mean the traditional verb phrase that excludes the subject (V', not VP). Conversely, when we say VP, we always mean the projection that contains all of the verb's arguments, not the verb phrase of traditional grammar.
The fully labeled structure for (1), with the standard labels for the three exact projections, is given in (8).
| (8) |  |
Given (eight), nosotros can 'un-substitute' the ii arguments. This yields the elementary tree for ate in (ix).
| (nine) |  |
The X' schema
Every bit we prove later on in this chapter and in
| (x) |  |
A number of standard terms are used in connection with the X' schema. X
 | The terms 'intermediate' and 'phrasal' are somewhat misleading, since they suggest that the syntactic status of intermediate projections is somehow intermediate between lexical and phrasal constituents. This is not the case. Intermediate projections are full-fledged phrases, and 'intermediate' simply refers to the position of the project in the tree structure. |
| | |||||
| (11) | Characterization | Projection | Bar level | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | |||||
| X (= 100) | Lexical | 0 | |||
| X' | Intermediate | 1 | |||
| XP (= X") | Maximal (phrasal) | two | |||
| | |||||
The lexical projection Ten is known every bit the caput of the structure in (10) (the term is sometimes also used to refer to the vocabulary particular dominated by the lexical projection). The three projections of the head course what we will call the spine of the elementary tree. Following traditional terminology, the sister of the head - YP in (10) - is called its complement. As we discuss in the adjacent subsection, uncomplicated trees need non include a complement position.
| | Note the spelling of complement with e (non i). The idea is that compleastwardments complete the meaning of the head. |
The daughter of the maximal project - ZP in (10) - is called the specifier.
| | The term "specifier" suggests that constituents in that position somehow specify the remainder of the tree, and this might atomic number 82 you to confuse specifiers with modifiers (discussed after in this chapter). At i point, constituents in specifier position were idea to have this function, and that is how the name arose. Nosotros no longer believe this, but unfortunately, the proper noun has stuck (what we might phone call terminological inertia). In gild to minimize this confusion, syntacticians oftentimes use the abbreviation "Spec" (pronounced "speck"). |
Each simple tree has at about ane specifier, and simple trees can lack a specifier birthday, as nosotros will see after on in this chapter. The specifier and complement positions of a head are its (syntactic) statement positions.
In summary, an unproblematic tree consists of a spine and from zilch to two argument positions.
 | The terms 'specifier,' 'complement,' and 'statement' can be used to refer to the structural positions just divers or to the constituents that substitute into those positions. (This is coordinating to the manner we can use a nontechnical term like 'basin' to refer either to the container itself (Hand me the bowl) or to its contents I'd like a basin (of soup).) If it is necessary to avoid defoliation between the ii senses, we tin distinguish between 'specifier position' and 'constituent in specifier position' (and analogously for 'complement' and 'argument'). |
An important question that arises in connectedness with the Ten' schema in (10) is how to represent predicates with more than than two semantic arguments (say, rent or give). The most obvious approach is to allow uncomplicated trees with more than two complements. Plausible as this approach may seem, all the same, it is now widely assumed that syntactic structure is at most binary-branching. In cases where we have evidence from linguistic judgments concerning the issue, we repeatedly notice that binary-branching structures correctly represent our judgments, whereas ones with more branches don't. Information technology is on this empirical ground that we are led to hypothesize that binary-branchingness is a formal universal. If a predicate has more than two semantic arguments, there are two ways in which the additional arguments tin be integrated into syntactic construction. In some cases (equally with rent), the supernumerary arguments are integrated into syntactic construction by adjunction, an operation distinct from substitution that we introduce later in this chapter. This case involves a syntax-semantics mismatch, since a semantic argument ends upward occupying a position that is not a syntactic argument position. In other cases (equally with give), the apparently diminutive predicate is decomposed semantically and syntactically into more than one caput, thus yielding a total of more than ii argument positions. This second case is discussed in detail in Chapter 7.
Intransitive elementary copse
Then far, we have discussed the internal structure of the unproblematic trees required for transitive verbs (and transitive categories more mostly). In this section, we address the internal structure of the elementary trees required for intransitive verbs - for instance, intransitive eat. The two structures in (12) come to listen as possibilities.
| (12) | a. |  | b. |  |
The trees differ in the presence of an intermediate projection, and (12b) might at beginning glance seem preferable considering it is simpler (in the sense of containing fewer nodes). However, (12b) violates the Ten' schema, and adopting it would complicate the grammar as a whole, which consists not simply of the uncomplicated trees, but of the rules and definitions stated over them. For instance, adopting (12a) allows us to summarize the facts apropos do then commutation illustrated in (4)-(vi) by means of the succinct generalization in (13).
| (thirteen) | Practise so substitutes for instances of Five'. |
Given (12b), (13) would need to be reformulated as the more cumbersome disjunctive statement in (xiv).
| (14) | Do so substitutes for instances of Five' or of V without a complement. |
A second, similar reason to prefer (12a) is that information technology permits the succinct definition of the notion of specifier in (15a) rather than the disjunctive statement in (15b).
| (15) | a. | Specifiers are sisters of intermediate projections. | |
| b. | Specifiers are sisters of intermediate projections or of lexical projections without a complement. |
Detect that we allow verbs that can be used either transitively or intransitively, such equally consume, to be associated with two elementary trees. More mostly, we will permit a vocabulary item of any syntactic category to project i or more simple copse, as required by its combinatorial properties.
Deriving simple sentences
We are almost at the point of existence able to construct X'-compliant representations of consummate sentences, but earlier nosotros can, we demand to address the syntactic representation of tense. The following discussion relies on the notion of do back up and on the status of modals and auxiliary do as members of the syntactic category I(nflection); see Modals and auxiliary verbs in English for more details.In a sentence like (16), the verb waited contains the spring morpheme -ed, which expresses by tense.
If tense morphemes were invariably expressed on the verb in this style, then consummate structures for total sentences could be derived past substituting advisable structures into the statement positions of the verb'southward elementary tree. However, this is not a general solution, because tense is not e'er expressed as a spring morpheme on the verb. For instance, in (17), the hereafter tense counterpart of (16), the future tense is expressed by a costless morpheme, the modal will.
Even more than strikingly, the by tense in English language, though usually expressed as a bound morpheme on the verb, must be expressed past a free morpheme in practise support contexts, as shown in (eighteen).
| (18) | a. | Accent: | He did await. | |
| b. | Negation: | He didn't wait. | ||
| c. | Question: | Did he await? |
The morphologically variable expression of tense as a costless or a bound morpheme raises two related syntactic questions. First, what is the representation of sentences like (17) and (18a), where tense is expressed equally a free morpheme? (We postpone discussion of negated sentences and questions until later chapters; encounter Chapters 6 and eleven.) Second, and more generally, how tin can we represent all sentences in a syntactically uniform manner, regardless of how tense is expressed morphologically? There are two reasons for wanting a compatible representation. First, from a semantic point of view, both by and future are semantically parallel functions, taking situations (denoted by VPs) as input and returning as output situations that are located in time, either before or afterward the time of speaking.two 2nd, and very generally, when like objects are represented in a uniform mode, information technology is easier for the listen to manipulate them and they are computationally more than tractable than when they are not and so represented. Mathematicians, logicians, figurer scientists and others are therefore fond of finding normal forms or canonical forms for the abstract objects they bargain with. An case from daily life is that nosotros impose a normal form on the set of messages in the alphabet (namely, the conventional guild in the alphabet song). That fashion, looking upwardly words in the lexicon is much quicker than it would be if the words were not sorted with reference to the alphabet'south normal form. Find, by the way, that the 10' schema of phrase construction under discussion in this chapter is a normal class, and our earlier preference for (12a) over (12b) can exist framed as a preference for a representation that is in normal form over one that isn't.
Returning to the problem at manus, we begin by answering the first question in several steps. First, it is clear that (17) and (18a) share a common predicate-statement structure (predicate used here in the sense of Fregean predicate). That is, both of these sentences announce a situation in which someone is waiting, with the sentences differing only as to which point in fourth dimension the state of affairs holds. We tin capture this commonality by taking the elementary tree for the verb expect in (19a) and substituting an statement constituent in the specifier position, yielding (19b).
| (19) | a. |  | b. |  |
2d, in accordance with the general approach to syntactic structure that we take been developing, modals and auxiliaries, like all vocabulary items, project uncomplicated copse. The elementary copse for will and auxiliary did are shown in (20).
| (xx) | a. |  | b. |  |
We tin can substitute the structure in (19b) into each of the elementary copse in (20), yielding (21).iii
| (21) | a. |  | b. |  |
The structures in (21) neatly reflect the semantic relation between tense and situations. The element in I corresponds to the tense office, the complement of I (= VP) corresponds to the office's input (the state of affairs), and the maximal projection of I (= IP) corresponds to the function's output (the situation located in time). There remains a problem, nevertheless: the I element and the discipline of the sentence are in the wrong gild in (21). This problem can be solved by introducing a move operation that transforms the structures in (21) into those in (22).
| (22) | a. |  | b. |  |
A few remarks are in order about this functioning. Movement is best understood equally a convenient way of representing mismatches between various aspects of a sentence or its constituents. Specifically, in the case at hand, he satisfies two singled-out functions. Showtime, it is a semantic argument of the verb wait. Second, it is the subject of the unabridged sentence, whose syntactic head is I, non V. It is important to recognize that these two functions are distinct. This is clearly shown by the beingness of passive sentences. For case, in the agile judgement in (23a), information technology is the amanuensis argument that functions every bit the subject, whereas in its passive counterpart in (23b), information technology is the theme argument.
| (23) | a. | Susie | drafted | the letter of the alphabet. | ||
| Amanuensis | Theme | |||||
| Subject field | Object | |||||
| b. | The letter | was drafted | (by Susie). | |||
| Theme | Agent | |||||
| Subject | Prepositional phrase | |||||
In society to clearly express a phrase's multiple functions, we do not merely motion the phrase from one position to another. Instead, movement leaves a trace in the phrase's original position, and the two positions share an alphabetize. We volition utilise the lowercase letters (i, j, k, ...) as motility indices.4 A constituent and its traces of motility are called a chain. The elements of a chain are its links. Higher links in a chain are often referred to equally the antecedents of lower ones. Finally, the highest and lowest links in a chain are sometimes referred to as the chain's head and tail, respectively.
| | Don't confuse this sense of the term 'head' with the sense introduced before in connection with X' structures. The head of an X' structure is the structure's lexical projection (or sometimes the vocabulary item dominated by it). The caput of a movement concatenation is the highest elective in a chain; the elective's X' status is irrelevant). Which sense is meant is generally clear from the context. Is the head of the move chains in (22) a head in the X' sense? No. The reason is that it is possible to supplant information technology by what is conspicuously a phrase (say, by the student in the ruby-red sweater). Just the head of a concatenation tin can be a head in the 10' sense, as nosotros will encounter in Finally, we should point out the beingness of a special type of chain - what mathematicians would phone call a degenerate example. It is perfectly possible for a concatenation to consist of a single elective. This is the example when a constituent hasn't moved. The chain so contains a single link, which is simultaneously the chain'southward head and its tail. |
We are now in a position to answer the second question posed earlier - namely, how can sentences exist represented in a syntactically uniform way regardless of the morphological expression of tense? A simple answer to this question is possible if we assume that English has tense elements that are structurally analogous to auxiliary practise, but not pronounced, as shown in (24); we will utilise square brackets every bit a convention to betoken such silent elements.
| (24) | a. |  | b. |  |
Simple trees every bit in (24) make it possible to derive structures for sentences in which tense is expressed as a jump morpheme on the verb along the same lines as for sentences containing a modal or auxiliary do. In other words, they make it possible to impose IP every bit the normal grade for all sentences. In (25), nosotros illustrate the derivation of He waited.
| (25) | a. |  | b. |  | c. |  | d. |  | |||||||
| | Substitute argument | | | ||||||||||||
Deriving complex sentences
This section is devoted to the derivation of sentences that incorporate complement clauses (likewise known equally clausal complements). Some examples are given in (26); the complement clauses are in italics.| (26) | a. | Nosotros volition enquire if she left. | |
| b. | They believe that he came. |
Although sentences with complement clauses tin can become unboundedly long (recall the instances of recursion in
| (27) | a. |  | b. |  |
Given elementary trees like (27), we can derive the italicized complement clause in (26a) as in (28).
| (28) | a. |  | b. |  | |||||||
| Uncomplicated tree for verb of complement clause | Substitute argument | ||||||||||
| c. |  | d. |  | eastward. |  | ||||||
| Substitute (28b) in elementary tree for tense (24b) | Movement subject area in complement clause | Substitute (28d) in elementary tree for complementizer (27a) | |||||||||
The construction in (28e) in plow allows us to derive the entire matrix clause, as in (29).
| (29) | a. |  | b. |  | |||
| Uncomplicated tree for matrix clause verb | Substitute arguments, including clausal complement (28e) | ||||||
| c. |  | d. |  | ||||
| Substitute (29b) in uncomplicated tree for modal (20a) | Move subject in matrix clause | ||||||
Given representations like (29d), we can now formally characterize recursive structures every bit in (thirty).
| (30) | a. | A construction is recursive iff it contains at to the lowest degree one recursive node. | |
| b. | A node is recursive iff it dominates a node singled-out from it, but with the aforementioned label. |
| | The recursive nodes in (29d) are the higher IP, I', VP, and Five' nodes (and no others). Note that a recursive node need not be the root node of a tree, and that it can exist any projection level (XP, 10', or Ten). The lower IP, I', VP, and Five' nodes are not recursive nodes, since they don't dominate another case of the same category. For a node to be recursive, information technology is not enough that the tree contains a 2nd instance of the category somewhere. The commencement node has to dominate (though not necessarily immediately dominate) the 2d one. For example, none of the NounPhr nodes in (29d) is recursive. |
The adjunct relation
Modification is different
The elementary copse introduced so far allow united states to represent two of the iii basic linguistic relations discussed inAn important remaining question is how to represent the modification relation using the 10' schema developed so far. In principle, modification might resemble predication in not requiring a structural relation of its own. As information technology turns out, however, neither of the two caput-statement relations (head-specifier, head-complement) fairly represents the relation between a head and its modifier. As we have seen, when a verb combines with a complement, the category of the resulting constituent (V') is singled-out from that of the verb (V) (recollect the dissimilarity between (4) and (6)), and when the verb and the complement in plow combine with the specifier, the category of the resulting elective (VP) is distinct even so again (recollect the contrast in (7)). Past contrast, modifying a verb-complement combination like ate the pizza in (31) does not modify the syntactic category of the resulting elective, which remains V' (the modifier is in italics).
| (31) | a. | The children ate the pizza. | |
| b. | The children ate the pizza with gusto. |
This is evident from the do and then substitution facts in (32), where either the unmodified or the modified verb-complement combination can exist replaced by a form of do so.
| (32) | a. | The children ate the pizza with gusto; the children did then with gusto. | |
| b. | The children ate the pizza with gusto; the children did so. |
The aforementioned pattern holds for intransitive verbs that combine with a modifier.
| (33) | a. | The children ate with gusto; the children did so with gusto. | |
| b. | The children ate with gusto; the children did so. |
The do and so substitution facts in (32) and (33) motivate the syntactic structure for (31b) that is given in (34) (for clarity, we focus on the internal structure of the VP, omitting the projection of the silent past tense element and subject movement).
| (34) |  |
The structural relation of the modifier with gusto to the spine of the 5 project is known as the adjunct relation, and the modifier itself is said to exist an offshoot. Modifiers are always represented as adjuncts in syntactic structure. As a consequence, 'modifier' and 'adjunct' tend to be used somewhat interchangeably. In this book, however, nosotros volition distinguish betwixt the two terms as follows. We will use 'modifier' when nosotros want to highlight a phrase'southward semantic function of qualifying or restricting the constituent being modified. For instance, as we mentioned in
The need for an adjunction operation
The structure in (34) raises the question of what elementary tree for transitive ate is involved in its derivation. 'Un-substituting' both arguments and the modifier, every bit we did earlier for copse containing only arguments, yields the structure in (35).| (35) |  | ← not an elementary tree! |
Is the structure in (35) a satisfactory elementary tree? Clearly, allowing it means that our grammar now contains ii elementary copse for transitive ate. At beginning glance, this doesn't seem like a serious problem, since nosotros already allow the 2 unproblematic trees for transitive and intransitive ate in (36).
| (36) | a. | | b. |  |
But (35) differs in one important respect from the structures in (36): information technology is a recursive construction. This has an extremely undesirable consequence: namely, that if we were to derive structures similar (34) by means of elementary trees like those in (35), there would be no principled way to avoid an unbounded number of such elementary trees. For instance, the derivations of the sentences in (37), with their increasing number of modifiers, would each require a distinct elementary tree for drink, and each additional modifier would crave an additional elementary tree.
| (37) | a. | We would drink lemonade. | |
| b. | We would drink lemonade in summertime. | ||
| c. | We would drink lemonade in summer on the porch. | ||
| d. | Nosotros would beverage lemonade in summer on the porch with friends. |
Just the whole indicate of a generative grammar is to generate an unbounded set of sentences from a finite set of elementary expressions and operations. Given this aim, we are compelled to crave elementary trees to exist non-recursive structures. This has the outcome that adjuncts cannot exist integrated into larger syntactic structures past commutation, and accordingly, nosotros introduce a further tree operation called adjunction. For clarity, the functioning of involvement to the states is sometimes called Chomsky-adjunction, to distinguish it from Joshi-adjunction, a different formal performance that plays a central role in Tree-Adjoining Grammer (Joshi, Levy, and Takahashi 1975).
For the moment, we volition use the adjunction functioning to integrate modifiers into syntactic structures. Every bit we volition see in
| (38) | a. |  | b. |  | c. |  | |||||
| Select target of adjunction | Clone target of adjunction | Attach modifier as girl of college clone | |||||||||
Deriving the remainder of the construction for the entire sentence proceeds every bit outlined before, as shown in (39).
| (39) | a. |  | b. |  | c. |  | |||||
| Substitute arguments | Substitute (39a) in elementary tree for tense | Move subject area | |||||||||
For expository reasons, we illustrate the derivation of the sentence with adjunction preceding substitution and movement. However, the order of adjunction with respect to the other operations is irrelevant.
Nosotros conclude this section with a general indicate concerning intermediate projections and adjunction to them. Given that words (or syntactic atoms of some sort) combine with one another to form phrases, whatsoever theory of syntax must presume heads and phrases. Simply distinguishing betwixt two types of phrases (intermediate projections vs. maximal projections) seems inelegant, and attempts accept therefore been made to eliminate intermediate projections, along with the possibility of adjunction to them. For instance, given our electric current assumptions, sentences like (40) force us to allow adjunction to intermediate projections.
| (40) | a. | [IP They [I' never [I' volition hold to that. ] ] ] | |
| b. | God let [VP at that place [V' suddenly [V' be light. ] ] ] |
However, if the IP and the small clause VP in such sentences were 'split up' into two divide projections, it would exist possible to eliminate the intermediate projections and to adjoin the modifiers to maximal projections instead. This is illustrated in (41), where IP has been split up into Agr(eement)P and T(ense)P, and the pocket-sized clause VP has been dissever into Pred(ication)P and a lower VP.
| (41) | a. | [AgrP They [TP never [TP will agree to that. ] ] ] | |
| b. | God allow [PredP there [VP suddenly [VP be low-cal. ] ] ] |
A useful manner to frame the consequence is every bit a trade-off betwixt two options. The first pick buys a relatively small set of familiar syntactic categories at the cost of assuming intermediate projections. The second option buys an intuitively highly-seasoned two-level phrase construction scheme at the cost of a proliferating and increasingly abstract gear up of syntactic categories. As befits a science, current syntactic theory generally prefers the 2d option: generality at the cost of abstraction. In this introductory textbook, withal, we will make the opposite pick and continue to presume the archetype X' schema in (x) with its 3 bar levels.
Given this choice, we know from (40) that adjunction must be able to target intermediate projections. As we will run across in Affiliate half-dozen, adjunction must also be able to target heads. Assuming three bar levels, can adjunction also target maximal projections? The ximplest reply (taking 'elementary' to mean 'maximally general') answer is 'yes'. For expository simplicity, nonetheless, we will restrict adjunction in this textbook to heads and intermediate projections.5
A typology of syntactic dependents
Each of the three types of syntactic dependents that we have been discussing - complements, specifiers, and adjuncts - stands in a unique structural relation to the head and to the spine of the head'south projection. Complements and adjuncts are both daughters of intermediate projections, but they differ in that complements are sisters of heads, whereas adjuncts are sisters of the next college projection level. As sisters of intermediate projections, adjuncts resemble specifiers. Merely over again, the 2 relations are distinct because adjuncts are daughters of intermediate projections, whereas specifiers are daughters of maximal projections. These structural relations and distinctions are summarized in (42), which also includes the formal operations that fill or create the positions in question.| | ||||||
| (42) | Relation to head | Sister of ... | Daughter of ... | Formal operation | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | ||||||
| Complement | Caput | Intermediate projection | Commutation | |||
| Adjunct | Intermediate projection | Intermediate projection | Adjunction | |||
| Specifier | Intermediate projection | Maximal project | Substitution | |||
| | ||||||
More than on the stardom betwixt complements and adjuncts
Given the tabular array in (42), information technology is easy to tell whether a constituent is represented in a detail tree structure equally a complement or as an adjunct. However, it is not always self-evident whether a phrase is a complement or an adjunct as a affair of linguistic fact..| | Call up that tree structures are models of linguistic facts. Only because it is possible to build a tree that represents a sure phrase as a complement doesn't hateful that the phrase really is a complement. In other words, copse can "lie". |
The about reliable manner to determine the relation of a item phrase to a verb is to utilize exercise so substitution. If a phrase need not exist included equally office of the sequence being replaced by practice so, then it is an adjunct. If it must exist included, then it is a complement. Using this test, nosotros find that phrases specifying cause or rationale, time, location, or manner are generally adjuncts, even if they are noun phrases. Some examples, including the results of do so substitution, are given in (43); the adjuncts are in italics.
| (43) | a. | Rationale | They waited for no good reason, but nosotros did so for a very proficient one. | |
| b. | Duration | They waited (for) a day, but we did and then (for) a month. | ||
| c. | Location | They waited in the parking lot, merely we did so across the street. | ||
| d. | Manner | They waited patiently, merely nosotros did so impatiently. |
In the examples we have seen in this book and so far, semantic arguments are expressed every bit syntactic arguments (or non at all), and modifiers are expressed as adjuncts. Information technology is possible, however, for semantic arguments to be expressed in the syntax as adjuncts (this is the mismatch case mentioned earlier in connection with binary-branchingness). For example, every bit we mentioned in
| (44) | a. | Dennis rented the flat to Lois. | |
| b. | * | ... and David did so the studio to Rob. |
On the other manus, do and then commutation shows that the phrase denoting the lease term is an adjunct, even though charter terms are semantic arguments of rent on a par with rental backdrop.
| (45) | a. | Dennis rented Lois the apartment for two months. | |
| b. | ✓ | ... and David did so for a whole year. |
A final word should be said almost the correlation between a syntactic dependent'south obligatory or optional character and its condition every bit a complement or adjunct. Information technology is tempting to assume the biconditional relationship indicated in the "Wishful thinking" column in (46).vi
| Wishful thinking | Bodily state of affairs | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (46) | a. | If a syntactic dependent is obligatory, then it is a complement. | Truthful | TRUE | |
| b. | If a syntactic dependent is a complement, then it is obligatory. | True | FALSE | ||
But as the rightmost column indicates, the biconditional relationship doesn't hold. It is truthful that obligatory syntactic dependents are complements. For instance, the dissimilarity in (47) is evidence that the noun phrase post-obit devour is a complement, a determination that is borne out past do so substitution in (48).
| (47) | Every time I come across him, ... | ||
| a. | * | ... he'due south devouring. | |
| b. | ... he'southward devouring a six-inch steak. | ||
| (48) | a. | * | He devoured a hamburger and french fries, and I did so six samosas. |
| b. | He devoured a hamburger and french chips, and I did and then, too. |
But not all complements are obligatory. The grammaticality of both (49a) and (49b) shows that the phrase French fries in (49b) is optional. Only the ungrammaticality of (49c) shows that it is nevertheless a complement.
| (49) | a. | He ate, and I did so, likewise. | |
| b. | He ate French fries, and I did so, as well. | ||
| c. | * | He ate French chips, and I did and then three samosas. |
Although (46b) is simulated, (46a) does take the consequence in (fifty) (derived past the modus tollens rule of propositional logic).
| (50) | If a syntactic dependent is not a complement, it is non obligatory. |
The ii valid generalizations in (46a) and (fifty) can exist summarized succinctly every bit in (51).
| (51) | a. | Obligatory syntactic dependents are complements. | |
| b. | Adjuncts are optional. |
Notes
one. Why is V' read equally Five-bar when it contains not a bar, but a prime symbol? The reason is that when the thought of bar levels was introduced in the 1970s, the various levels were distinguished by horizontal confined over a syntactic category. The lowest level had no confined, the outset level i, and the second two. But back in the days of typewriters, such overbars were cumbersome to type (you typed the symbol, --* rolled upward the platen a chip, backspaced, typed an overbar *--, repeated from --* to *-- for each overbar, so rolled the platen down again the right amount). Overbars are besides expensive to typeset, and even today, they aren't part of the standard grapheme sets for HTML documents such as this i. Therefore, it was and continues to be user-friendly to substitute prime number symbols for overbars. However, linguists take failed to update their terminology (terminological inertia again!), and then the one-time term 'bar' is still with us.2. The semantics of tense we are bold here is oversimplified, but sufficient for our purposes.
3. The representations in (21) await like appropriate representations for the questions Will he wait? and Did he wait? Just notice that they can't be, since they contain unfilled substitution nodes. Moreover, as we will meet in Affiliate 11, there is reason to postulate a projection above IP in the representations of questions.
4. In the syntactic literature, alphabetical subscripts are used as movement indices but also to specify reference and coreference (see Reference and related notions). For clarity, this textbook uses the lowercase letters as motility indices exclusively. If nosotros need referential indices, we volition employ the natural numbers.
5. Sentences like (i) appear to crave adjunction to maximal projections (IP in the present case).
| (i) | Tomorrow, we will eat pizza. |
It has been argued, however, that the clause-initial phrase occupies the specifier position of the projection of a (silent) head higher than I. Analogous reasoning would extend to examples like (ii), where the silent head is fifty-fifty higher..
| (ii) | Tomorrow, what volition nosotros consume? |
7. A similarly tempting (but false) biconditional human relationship was discussed in Chapter two.
Exercises and problems
Practise four.one
What is the X' status of Fregean and of Aristotelian predicates? Y'all should be able to respond in ane or ii brief sentences.Exercise 4.2
The copse in (one) fail to correctly business relationship for certain grammaticality judgments. What are the judgments?| (one) | a. |  | b. |  |
Exercise 4.3
A. Are the italicized phrases in (one) syntactic arguments or adjuncts? Explicate. There is no need for extensive discussion beyond the syntactic testify (the practice so exchange facts) on which you base your conclusions.
| (1) | a. | They waited for u.s.a.. | |
| b. | This programme costs twenty dollars. | ||
| c. | We drove to Denver. | ||
| d. | We worded the letter carefully. | ||
| east. | They are behaving very inconsiderately. | ||
| f. | This volcano might erupt any minute. |
B. Using the grammar tool in x-bar ch4, build structures for the sentences in (1). Needless to say, the structures y'all build should be consistent with the evidence you gave in Function A.
Exercise iv.four
A. Using the grammer tool in x-bar ch4,build structures for the sentences in (one). Motivate your attachment of the lowest argument or adjunct in each sentence (in other words, give the judgments that pb you to adhere the relevant phrase the way y'all do).
| (1) | a. | They demolished the house. | |
| b. | Mona Lisa called the other neighbor. | ||
| c. | Mona Lisa called the other 24-hour interval. | ||
| d. | You will recall that her smile amazed anybody. | ||
| e. | Most people doubt that Mona Lisa lives in Kansas. | ||
| f. | My friend wondered if Mona Lisa would come to his party. |
B. Indicate all recursive nodes in the structures that you build for (1). You can do this past using the grammar tool'south highlighting characteristic (see the "Instructions" menu).
Do 4.5
A. (i) is structurally ambiguous. Paraphrase the two relevant interpretations. (Focus on the structural ambiguity, ignoring the referential ambiguity of they.)
| (1) | They claimed that they paid on the 15th. |
B. Using the grammar tool in x-bar ch4, build a structure for each of the interpretations, indicating which structure goes with which interpretation.
C. Indicate all recursive nodes in the structures that you lot build for (ane). You can exercise this by using the grammar tool's highlighting feature (see the "Instructions" menu).
Practise 4.vi
A. Make upward a judgement with two adjuncts. Provide syntactic evidence that the adjuncts are adjuncts rather than syntactic arguments. Then build the structure for the judgement using the grammar tool in 10-bar ch4. Finally, switch the linear order of the adjuncts, and build the construction for the resulting word order variant of your original sentence.B. Make upward a elementary judgement in which ane of the semantic arguments of the verb is expressed in the syntax every bit an offshoot. Provide testify that the adjunct is one. Finally, build the structure for your sentence using the grammar tool in x-bar ch4.
Trouble four.1
A. Is it possible for an adjunct to precede a complement? How about immediately precede?
What if you are allowed to "swivel" at X' in the Ten' schema, so that YP precedes Ten? (The resulting head-terminal structures are discussed in more detail in Chapter five.) Paste the following structures into a tree generator to meet what is meant.
| (one) | a. | Head-initial (= (10): | [XP [YP spec^] [X' [X caput] [ZP comp^]]] |
| b. | Head-final: | [XP [YP spec^] [X' [ZP comp^] [X head]]] |
B. Is it possible for two adjuncts to be sisters? Explain.
C. In the chapter, we define adjunction as an operation that clones a target node and attaches a phrase as the daughter of the higher clone. Imagine an performance that clones the target node and attaches a phrase as the daughter of the lower clone. Would such an performance be useful? Explicate.
Source: https://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch4.html
0 Response to "syntactic tree what to do with not carnie"
Post a Comment