Linguistics Assignment 2 Page Finish In 20Hours

Jeffvong

Sample-HW-Assignment-Writeup.pdf

Home >English homework help >Linguistics Assignment 2 Page Finish In 20Hours

Syntactic Structures Sample Write-up

RB & KS

April 2019

Important: This is meant as an example for how to write the warm-up, plus a

portion of Part 2, for Homework 3. This sample does not complete the assign-

ment.

As always, you should try your best to complete all of an assignment. This

sample is meant to be a representative template for how to present a strong,

well-structured argument for any part of an assignment.

1 Grammar Warm-up

1.1 Our PSRs1

(1) S →NP VP

(2) VP →V (NP) (AP) (PP)n

(3) NP →

8 >><

>>:

(D)(AP)nN(PP)n

pronoun

name

(4) PP →P NP

(5) AP →(Deg) A

(6) a. VP →VP PP

b. NP →NP PP

(7) XP →XP Coord XP

1.2 Applying adjunction rules

Our current grammar can generate two di↵erent structures for the sentence in (8).

(8) The beatnik drinks co↵ee from Nicaragua in the smokey cafe.

The tree in (9) illustrates a possible structure for (8) that does not use any adjunction rules—i.e., the rules

in (6). The PPs from Nicaragua and in the smokey cafe could be generated as adjuncts, but here they are

generated as arguments of co↵ee and drinks, respectively.

1 As of 4/19/19

First, we introduce the relevant data point.

Then, we introduce the tree—pointing out which parts the reader should pay the most attention to.

(9)

cafe

smokey

the

Nicaragua

from

co↵ee

drinks

beatnik

the

The tree in (10), in contrast, illustrates how the same sentence can be generated using our adjunction rules.

Specifically, the PP from Nicaragua is an adjunct of an NP, and in the smokey cafe is an adjunct of VP.

(10)

cafe

smokey

the

Nicaragua

from

co↵ee

drinks

beatnik

the

To determine whether the structure in (9) or (10) is the more appropriate one, we have to consider

the syntax-semantics correspondence posited in class. On the view we’ve adopted, if a phrase contributes

a meaning that is particular to the meaning of the word it may attach to, it should be generated as an

argument—that is, as the sibling of the head whose meaning it plays a role in. If a phrase does not

contribute a meaning specific to any head, but instead contributes some modifying, additional meaning such

as a location or a time, the phrase should be generated as an adjunct.

The PP from Nicaragua could be an argument of co↵ee, as in (9). However, it contributes information

about location, not information that seems integral to interpreting co↵ee, so it should be generated as an

adjunct. Similarly, in the smokey cafe could be an argument of drinks, but since it only contributes extra

location information and not information crucial to the verb drinks, it should also be an adjunct. So, the

tree in (10), in which both PPs are adjuncts, best reflects the meaning of the sentence in (8).

In introducing the next tree, we note the crucial difference between it and the first one.

Now that we have trees to refer to, we discuss which one better reflects the syntax-semantics correspondence.

2 Extending the grammar

We are presented with some novel data to consider with respect to our current grammar. The sentences

presented in (11) and (12) cannot be handled by the current grammar.

(11) The professor’s ideas shocked the students.

(12) The old professor’s ideas shocked the students.

Currently, our grammar has no way to handle two NPs—professor and ideas, in (11)—occurring directly

next to each other. An additional factor we cannot yet account for is the presence of ’s, indicating possession

in English; this may be partly responsible for the two NPs in (11)-(12) occurring adjacent to one another. We

will consider two alternative revisions to the current grammar that can both generate possessive structures.

The first, given in (13) below, simply revises our current NP rule.

(13) NP →(D) (AP) (N POSS) N (PP)

The revision stated in (13) introduces a single optional sequence of an N, followed immediately by a

POSS (a new lexical category containing ’s). This revision allows us to generate a structure for the NP the

old professor’s ideas, as displayed in (14).

(14)

ideas

POSS

’s

professor

old

the

The structure in (14) correctly assigns a structure to the NP the old professor’s ideas, both capturing

the correct linear order and the correct domination relations entailed by the rule in (13). However, there

is one ambiguity which is generated by this structure; namely, it is ambiguous as to what old is modifying.

Because the AP, and both Ns in the above structure are all immediately dominated by the same NP, it is

unclear which N is meant to be modified by the AP. This is already one potential weakness of this proposal;

we will see more throughout this analysis.

A second possible revision would not only revise the current NP rule, but would also introduce a new

PSR to generate a Determiner Phrase (DP).

(15) NP →(DP) (AP) N (PP)

(16) DP →

8 <

: D

NP POSS

The revised NP rule in (15) now introduces an optional DP as the leftmost possible child of NP. The

newly introduced DP rule, stated in (16), allows a DP to be composed of either an obligatory D, or an

obligatory sequence of NP and POSS. This possible revision to the grammar would also allow us to generate

the NP the old professor’s ideas as shown in (17) below.

Step 1: Introduce some data with a lead-in sentence or two about why it’s important for us.

Step 4: Discuss any apparent pros and cons of how the proposal captures the data.

Step 3: Introduce and describe one proposal, tree included.

Step 2: Explain why the data causes problems for (or fits into) our grammar.

Step 5: Introduce and describe another proposal, tree included.

(17)

ideas

POSS

’s

professor

old

the

The structure in (17) illustrates the revised rules in (15) and (16).

Given just the sentences in (11) and (12), the two di↵erent possible revisions to the grammar seem

functionally equivalent. However, we can begin to weigh the e↵ectiveness of each of these proposals through

the analysis of other data. Observe the sentence in (18), which crucially shows the interaction of coordination

and possession.

(18) The man and the woman’s relationship was intense.

On the surface, both proposals should generate a valid structure for the sentence above. However,

we must consider which structure corresponds more accurately to the meaning of the sentence. This has

been a principal concern in our understanding of how structure should be generated for a given sentence, as

represented by our rules of interpretation and through our discussion of the syntax-semantic correspondence.

First, let us consider how the sentence in (18) is interpreted. One accurate paraphrase of the sentence is

this: “The shared relationship between both the man and the woman was intense”. Crucially, this meaning

does not correspond to a structure in which the possessive ’s is only associated with the woman. Instead,

possession must be shared by both the man and the woman. Therefore, the structure of the sentence should

reflect that the possessive indeed can contribute its meaning to both the NP the man and the NP the

woman. Given this necessary assumption about the meaning and corresponding structure for (18), I assert

that only Revision 2, namely the revision which introduces DP, can assign a structure to (18) that captures

the meaning paraphrased above.

Let us first observe the structure generated by Revision 2, provided in (19).

Step 8: Discuss how we can decide between the proposals. In this case, we’re looking for one that can generate the structure that best corresponds to the meaning of the new data point.

Step 7: Introduce some more data.

Step 6: Discuss how the data we have so far do or do not help us decide between the proposals.

(19)

intense

was

relationship

POSS

’s

woman

the

COORD

and

man

the

We see from the tree above that Revision 2 allows us to associate the POSS with a whole coordinated

NP containing the man and the woman. Rather than only associating the POSS with the leftmost NP the

woman, the POSS is a sister to the coordinated NP which itself contains both relevant NPs. This structure

corresponds to the desired meaning, in which the relationship belongs to both the man and the woman.

Let us now compare the structure in (19) to a structure that is generated by Revision 1.

(20)

intense

was

POSS

’s

woman

the

COORD

and

man

the

While Revision 1 can integrate all the words in the sentence into a well-formed tree, it does not accurately

capture the meaning of this sentence. This is due to the fact that POSS is sister only to the head N woman,

thereby only contributing meaning to woman. This means that POSS is not contributing any meaning to

man, and more importantly, is not modifying the whole coordinated NP containing both the man and the

woman. Because the revised PSRs for Revision 1 do not allow POSS to occur as sister to a whole NP, we

will never be able to generate a structure where POSS correctly modifies an NP that coordinates both the

man and the woman. Comparing the structure in (20) to that of (19), it is clear that Revision 2 is a superior

proposal in accounting for the sort of meaning conveyed by sentences like (18).

Step 10: Illustrate the structure the other proposal generates. Discuss whether or not this is the structure we want.

Step 9: Illustrate the structure one proposal generates with a tree. Then, discuss whether or not this is the structure we want (as determined in Step 8).

Step 11: Wrap up this chunk—Sum up which proposal does better on this particular part of the data.

Note: This is not a write-up of the full assignment! Repeat the steps we’ve laid out for each part of the data that follows, then make a final summary and decision between the two proposals.