- The X' schema for elementary trees
- Transitive elementary trees
- The X' schema
- Intransitive elementary trees
- Deriving simple sentences
- Deriving complex sentences
- The adjunct relation
- Modification is different
- The need for an adjunction operation
- A typology of syntactic dependents
- More on the distinction between complements and adjuncts
- Notes
- Exercises and problems
- Supplementary material
- Modals and auxiliaryverbs in English
- Reference and relatednotions
- Thematic roles
As was mentioned in Chapter1, we can represent the individual vocabulary items of alanguage as small pieces of syntactic structure, or elementarytrees. The idea is to generate phrases andsentences by composing these elementary trees and possibly manipulatingthem in well-defined ways.
In this view, vocabulary items are comparable to the atoms of physicalmatter. Atoms do not combine into molecules just because they happen to benext to each other; rather, their combinatorial possibilities are governedby their internal structure (for instance, the number of electrons on anatom's outermost shell and the relative number of protons and electrons).
Accordingly, in the first part of this chapter, we consider theinternal structure of elementary trees. As in the last chapter, webegin by focusing on how verbs combine with their arguments to formlarger phrases. For the time being, we will treat noun phrases andprepositional phrases as unanalyzed units, leaving a detailed discussionof their internal structure until Chapter5. We then generalize the approach developed for verbs andtheir arguments to the point where we can build simple sentences as wellas complex sentences containing subordinate clauses. In order to derivesentences, we will find it necessary to introduce a formal operationcalled movement, which allows us to represent the fact thatconstituents can have more than one function in a sentence.
In the second part of the chapter, we turn to the representation ofmodification. As we will show, it is conceptually undesirable to combinemodifiers with elementary trees by the substitution operation introduced inChapter 1. Accordingly, we introduce athird and final formal operation (besides substitution and movement) calledadjunction. As we will see, it is not only modifiers that areintegrated into syntactic structure by adjunction, but certain semanticarguments as well.
The X' schema for elementary trees
Transitive elementary trees
We begin our investigation of the internal structure of elementary trees byconsidering how a transitive verb like ate combines with its twoarguments in a sentence like (1).| (1) | The children ate the pizza. |
From the possibility of pronoun substitution, as in (2), we know thatthe two arguments are constituents (specifically, noun phrases).
| (2) | They ate it. |
In principle, the verb could combine with its two noun phrasearguments in either order, or with both at once. The threepossibilities are represented by the schematic structures in (3) (weaddress the question of which syntactic category to assign to the nodeslabeled by question marks in a moment).
| (3) | a. |  | b. |  | c. |  |
However, as we already know from the discussion in Chapter 2, only therepresentation in (3a) represents the do so substitution facts in(4).
| (4) | The children ate the pizza; the children did so. |
In other words, transitive verbs combine first with their object, withthe resulting constituent in turn combining with the subject.
What is the syntactic category of the constituents that result fromthese two combinations? In principle, the result of combining a verbwith a noun phrase might be a phrase with either verbal or nominalproperties. But clearly, a phrase like ate the pizza doesn'thave the distribution of a noun phrase. For instance, it can't functionas the object of a preposition (even a semantically bleached one likeof) Nor does it pattern like a noun phrase in other respects.For instance, as we have just seen, the appropriate pro-form for it isnot a pronoun, but a form of do so, just as would be the case ifthe predicate of the sentence were an intransitive verb. In otherwords, for the purposes of do so substitution, the combination ofa verb and its object is equivalent to an intransitive verb (say,intransitive eat); cf. (4) with (5).
| (5) | The children ate; the children did so. |
However, it won't do to simply assign the syntactic category V tothe verb-object combination, on a par with the verb that it contains,since that would leave unexplained the contrast between (4) and (6) withrespect to do so substitution (again, recall the discussion in Chapter 2).
| (6) | The children ate the pizza; *the children did so the pizza. |
Notice furthermore that the syntactic category of the verb-objectconstituent is distinct from the syntactic category of the constituent thatincludes the subject. This is evident from the contrast in (7), which wouldbe unexpected if both constituents belonged to the same syntactic category.
| (7) | a. | We saw the children eat the pizza. | |
| b. | * | We saw eat the pizza. |
In order to represent the facts in (4)-(7), thefollowing notation has been developed. Verbs are said to projectthree bar levels, conventionally numbered from zero to two. Thelowest bar level, V0, is a syntactic category for vocabularyitems; it is often indicated simply by V without a superscript. The nextbar level is V' (read as 'V-bar'),1 thesyntactic category of a transitive verb and its object. The highest barlevel is V" (read as 'V-double-bar'), which is the result of combining a V'with a subject. Note that for a transitive verb, each bar levelcorresponds to the number of arguments with which the verb has combined.
Somewhat confusingly, the verb's second projection, V", is moreoften than not labeled VP. In early work in generative grammar, thelabel VP was intended to be a mnemonic abbreviation for the verb phraseof traditional gramar and did indeed correspond to that category. Incurrent phrase structure theory, however, the label that corresponds tothe traditional verb phrase is V', whereas VP includes a verb's subject,which the traditional verb phrase does not. The idea is that thehighest bar level projected by a verb contains all of its arguments.For clarity, we will avoid using the term 'verb phrase', but if we douse it, we mean the traditional verb phrase that excludes the subject(V', not VP).
The fully labeled structure for (1), with the standard labels for thethree verbal projections, is given in (8).
| (8) |  |
From (8), we can derive the elementary tree for ate in (9) by'un-substituting' the two arguments.
| (9) |  |
The X' schema
As we show later on in this chapter andin Chapter 5, the basic form of theelementary tree in (8) can be extended to other syntactic categories. Inother words, (8) is an instantiation of a general phrase structuretemplate, shown in (10) and known as the X' schema (read: X-barschema) of phrase structure; X, Y, and Z are variables over syntacticcategories.
| (10) |  |
A number of standard terms are in use in connection with the X' schema. X
 | The terms 'intermediate' and 'phrasal' are somewhat misleading, sincethey both suggest that the syntactic status of intermediate projections issomehow intermediate between lexical and phrasal constituents. This is notthe case. Intermediate projections are full-fledged phrases, and'intermediate' simply refers to the position of the projection in the treestructure. |
| (11) | Label | Projection | Bar level | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X (= X0) | Lexical | 0 | |||
| X' | Intermediate | 1 | |||
| XP (= X") | Maximal, phrasal | 2 | |||
X is known as the head of the structure in (10) (the term issometimes also used to refer to the vocabulary item dominated by thelexical projection). The three projections of the head form what we willcall the spine of the elementary tree. Following traditionalterminology, the sister of the head---YP in (10)---is called itscomplement. As we discuss in the nextsubsection, elementary trees need not include a complement position.
| Note the spelling of complement with e (not i).The idea is that complements complete the meaning of the head. |
The sister of the intermediate projection---ZP in (10)---is called thespecifier. Each elementary tree has at most one specifier, andelementary trees can lack a specifier altogether, as we will see later on in this chapter. The specifier andcomplement positions of a head are its (syntactic) argumentpositions. In other words, an elementary tree consists of a spine andup to two argument positions.
The terms 'specifier,' 'complement,' and 'argument' are generallyused to refer to the constituents that substitute into the positionsjust described, but they can also refer to the structural positionsthemselves. (This is analogous to the way we can use a nontechnicalterm like 'box' to refer either to the contents of a container or to thecontainer itself.) If it is necessary to avoid confusion between thetwo senses, we can distinguish between 'specifier position' and'specifier constituent' (and analogously for 'complement' and'argument'). An important question that arises in connectionwith the X' schema in (10) is how to represent predicates with more thantwo semantic arguments. The most obvious approach is to allowelementary trees with more than two complements. Plausible as thisapproach may seem, however, it is now widely assumed that syntacticstructure is at most binary-branching (in other words,binary-branchingness is assumed to be a formal universal). If apredicate has more than two semantic arguments, there are two ways inwhich the additional arguments can be integrated into syntacticstructure. In some cases, the apparently atomic predicate is decomposedsemantically and syntactically and associated with more than one head,yielding a total of more than two argument positions (see Chapter 7 for more detailed discussion). In othercases, the supernumerary arguments are integrated into syntacticstructure by an operation distinct from substitution calledadjunction, which we introduce later inthis chapter. The second case involves a syntax-semanticsmismatch, since a semantic argument can end up occupying a positionthat is not a syntactic argument position.
| (12) | a. |  | b. |  |
As is evident, the trees differ in the presence of an intermediateprojection, and (12b) might at first glance seem preferable because itis simpler (in the sense of containing fewer nodes). Nevertheless, wewill prefer (12a) on the grounds that adopting it results in asimplification of the grammar as a whole---that is, a simplification notjust of the elementary trees themselves, but also of rules anddefinitions stated over them. For instance, adopting (12a) allows us tosummarize the facts concerning do so substitution illustrated in(4)-(6) by means of the succinct generalization in (13).
| (13) | Do so substitutes for instances of V'. |
Given (12b), the corresponding generalization in (14), being adisjunctive statement (a statement that contains or) ismore cumbersome.
| (14) | Do so substitutes for instances of V' or of V without a complement. |
A second, similar reason to prefer (12a) is that it permits thesuccinct definition of the notion of specifier in (15a) rather than thedisjunctive 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. |
In concluding this section, we make explicit a point that isimplicit in the preceding discussion. Obligatorily transitive andobligatorily intransitive verbs project (= are associated in the lexiconwith) a single elementary tree of the right shape. Verbs that can beused either transitively or intransitively, such as eat, projecttwo elementary trees. More generally, we will allow a vocabulary itemof any syntactic category to project one or more elementary trees, asrequired by its combinatorial properties.Deriving simple sentences
We are almost at the point of being able to construct representations ofcomplete sentences, but before we can, we need to address the syntacticrepresentation of tense. The following discussion relies on the notion of do support and on the status ofmodals and auxiliary do as members of thesyntactic category I(nflection); see Modals andauxiliary verbs in English for more details.
In a sentence like (16), the verb waited contains thebound morpheme -ed, which expresses past tense.
| (16) | He waited. |
If tense morphemes were invariably expressed on the verb in this way,then complete structures for full sentences could be derived bysubstituting appropriate structures into the argument positions of theverb's elementary tree. However, this is not a general solution, becausetense is not always expressed as a bound morpheme on the verb. Forinstance, in (17), the future tense counterpart of (16), the future tense is expressed by a free morpheme---the modal will.
| (17) | He will wait. |
Even more strikingly, the past tense in English, though ordinarilyexpressed as a bound morpheme on the verb, must be expressed by a freemorpheme in do supportcontexts, as shown in (18).
| (18) | a. | Emphasis: | He did wait. | |
| b. | Negation: | He didn't wait. | ||
| c. | Question: | Did he wait? |
The morphologically variable expression oftense as a free or bound morpheme raises two related syntacticquestions. First, what is the representation of sentences like (17) and(18a), where tense is expressed as a free morpheme? (We postponediscussion of negated sentences and questions until later chapters.) Second, and more generally, how canwe represent all sentences in a syntactically uniform way, regardless ofhow tense is expressed morphologically? The reason that we want asyntactically uniform representation is that from a semantic point ofview, both past and future are semantically parallel functions, takingsituations (denoted by VPs) as input and returning as output situationsthat are located in time, either before or after the time of speaking.2
We begin by answering the first question in several steps. First,it is clear that (17) and (18a) share a commonpredicate-argument structure. That is, both of these sentencesdenote a situation in which someone is waiting, with the sentencesdiffering only as to which point in time the situation holds. We cancapture this commonality by taking the elementary tree for the verbwait in (19a) and substituting an argument constituent in thespecifier position, yielding (19b).
| (19) | a. |  | b. |  |
Second, in line with the general approach to syntactic structure thatwe have been developing, modals and auxiliaries, like all vocabulary items,project elementary trees. For instance, the elementary trees forwill and auxiliary did are shown in (20).
| (20) | a. |  | b. |  |
Next, we substitute the structure in (19b) into each of the elementarytrees in (20), yielding (21).3
| (21) | a. |  | b. |  |
The structures in (21) neatly reflect thesemantic relation between tense and situations. The element in Icorresponds to the tense function, the complement of I (VP) correspondsto the function's input (the situation), and the maximal projection of I(IP) corresponds to the function's output (the situation located intime). There is a problem, however: the I element and the subject ofthe sentence are in the wrong order in (21). This problem is solved byintroducing a movement operation that transforms the structuresin (21) into those in (22).
| (22) | a. |  | b. |  |
A few remarks are in order about this operation. Movement is bestunderstood as a convenient way of representing mismatches betweenvarious aspects of a sentence or its constituents. Specifically, in thecase at hand, he satisfies two distinct functions. First, it isa semantic argument of the verb wait. Second, it is the subjectof the entire sentence, which is headed by I. It is important torecognize that these two functions are distinct. This is clearly shownby the existence of passive sentences. For instance, in the activesentence in (23a), it is the agentargument that functions as the subject,whereas in its passive counterpart in (23b), it is the theme argument.
| (23) | a. | Susie | drafted | the letter. | ||
| Agent | Theme | |||||
| Subject | Object | |||||
| b. | The letter | was drafted | (by Susie). | |||
| Theme | Agent | |||||
| Subject | Prepositional phrase | |||||
In order to clearly express a phrase's multiplefunctions, we do not simply move the phrase from one position toanother. Instead, movement leaves a trace in the phrase'soriginal position, and the two positions share an index. In thesyntactic literature, indices for movement are represented by the samealphabetical subscripts as referential indices. Forclarity, we diverge from this practice and use the natural numbers asreferential indices, and the lowercase letters i, j, k, and soon, as movement indices. A constituent and its traces of movement(possibly none, in the absence of movement) are called a chain.The elements of a chain are its links. Higher links in a chainare often referred to as the antecedents of lower ones. Finally, the highest and lowest links in a chain are sometimes referredto as the chain's head and tail, respectively.
| Don't confuse this sense of the term 'head' with the sense introduced earlier 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 head of a movement chain is the highest element in the chain (whatever its X' status). As we will see in connection with verb movement in Chapter 6, the head in the chain sense can be a head in the X' sense. But in (22), the heads of the movement chains (the NounPhr nodes dominating he, are maximal projections. |
We are now in a position to answer the second question posedearlier---namely, how can sentences be represented in a syntacticallyuniform way regardless of the morphological expression of tense? A simpleanswer to this question is possible if we assume that English has tenseelements that are structurally analogous to auxiliary do, but notpronounced, as shown in (24); we will use square brackets as a convention toindicate such silent elements.
| (24) | a. |  | b. |  |
Elementary trees as in (24) make it possible to derive structures forsentences in which tense is expressed as a bound morpheme on the verb alongthe same lines as for sentences containing a modal or auxiliary do.In (25), we illustrate the derivation of He waited.
| (25) | a. |  | b. |  | c. |  | d. |  | |||||||
| Select elementary tree for verb | Substitute argument | Substitute predicate-argument structure in (25b) into elementary tree for tense | Move subject from Spec(VP) to Spec(IP) | ||||||||||||
Deriving complex sentences
This section is devoted to the derivation of sentences that containcomplement clauses. Some examples are given in (26); thecomplement clauses, which are also called clausal complements,are in italics.| (26) | a. | We will ask if she left. | |
| b. | They believe that he came. |
Although sentences with complement clauses can become quite long andcomplex (recall the instances of recursion in
| (27) | a. |  | b. |  |
Given elementary trees like (27), we can derive the italicizedcomplement clause in (26a) as in (28).
| (28) | a. |  | b. |  | |||||||
| Elementary tree for complement clause verb | Substitute argument | ||||||||||
| c. |  | d. |  | e. |  | ||||||
| Substitute (28b) in elementary tree for tense (24b) | Move subject in complement clause | Substitute (28d) in elementary tree for complementizer (27a) | |||||||||
The structure in (28e) in turn allows us to derive the entire matrixclause, as in (29).
| (29) | a. |  | b. |  | |||
| Elementary tree for matrix clause verb | Substitute arguments, including clausal complement (28e) | ||||||
| c. |  | d. |  | ||||
| Substitute (29)b in elementary tree for modal (20a) | Move subject in matrix clause | ||||||
Given the representation in (29d), we can now formally characterize recursivestructures as in (30).
| (30) | a. | A structure is recursive iff it contains at least one recursive node. | |
| b. | A node is recursive iff it dominates a node distinct from it, but with the same label. |
The adjunct relation
Modification is different
The elementary trees introduced in the first part of this chapter allowus to represent two of the three basic linguistic relations discussed inChapter 3: namely, argumenthood andpredication. As we have seen, semantic arguments of a verb can beexpressed as syntactic arguments, substituting into one of the twoargument positions in the verb's elementary tree: either the complementposition or the specifier position. VPs and IPs can be treated asarguments (specifically, as complements) of I and C, respectively.Finally, although predication is not reducible to argumenthood (recallfrom Chapter 3 thatexpletive subjects are required independently of a verb's semanticrequirements), it does not require a structural relationship uniquelyassociated with it, since subjects occupy specifier positions regardlessof whether they are semantic arguments or not. An important remainingquestion is how to represent the modification relation using the X'schema developed so far.In principle, modification might resemble predication in notrequiring a structural relation of its own. As it turns out, however,neither of the two structural relations available so far in X'structures (head-complement, head-specifier) adequately represents therelation between a head and a modifier. Recall that when a verbcombines with a complement, the category of the resulting constituent(V') is distinct from that of the verb (V) (recall the contrast between(4) and (6)), and that when the verb and the complement in turn combinewith the specifier, the category of the resulting constituent (VP) isdistinct yet again (see (7)). By contrast, modifying a verb-complementcombination like ate the pizza, in (31) does not change thesyntactic category of the resulting constituent, which remains V' (themodifier is in italics).
| (31) | a. | The children ate the pizza. | |
| b. | The children ate the pizza with gusto. |
This is evident from the do so substitution facts in (32),where either the unmodified or the modified verb-complement combinationcan be replaced by a form of do so.
| (32) | a. | The children ate the pizza with gusto; the children did so with gusto. | |
| b. | The children ate the pizza with gusto; the children did so. |
The same pattern holds for intransitive verbs that combine with amodifier.
| (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 so substitution facts just discussed motivate thesyntactic structure for (31) that is given in (34) (for simplicity, wefocus on the internal structure of the VP, omitting the projection of thesilent past tense element).
| (34) |  |
The structural relation of the modifier with gusto to thespine of the V projection is known as the adjunct relation, andthe modifier itself is said to be an adjunct. Modifiers arealways represented as adjuncts in syntactic structure. As a result,'modifier' and 'adjunct' tend to be used somewhat interchangeably. Inthis book, however, we will distinguish between the two terms asfollows. We will use 'modifier' to refer to a phrase's semanticfunction of qualifying or restricting the constituent being modified.For instance, as we mentioned in Chapter 3, a verb likelaugh denotes the set of entities that laugh. Combining the verbwith a modifier like uproariously yields the expression laughuproariously, which denotes a subset of the set denoted bylaugh. By contrast, we will use the term 'adjunct' to refer to apurely structural relation. As we will see lateron, it is possible for semantic arguments to be represented assyntactic adjuncts. This does not change them into modifiers, however!The need for an adjunction operation
The structure in (34) raises the question of what elementary tree fortransitive ate is involved in its derivation. 'Un-substituting'both arguments and the modifier, as we did earlier with just arguments,yields the structure in (35).
| (35) |  |
Is the structure in (35) a satisfactory elementary tree? Clearly,allowing it means that our grammar now contains two elementary trees fortransitive ate. At first glance, this doesn't seem serious, sincewe already allow distinct elementary trees for transitive andintransitive ate.
| (36) | a. | | b. |  |
But (35) differs in one important respect from the structures in(36): it is a recursive structure. This has a conceptually veryundesirable consequence: namely, that if we decided to derive structureslike (34) by means of elementary trees like those in (35), there wouldbe no principled way to avoid an unbounded number of such elementarytrees. For instance, the derivations of the sentences in (36), withtheir increasing number of modifiers, would each require a distinctelementary tree for drink.
| (36) | a. | We would drink lemonade. | |
| b. | We would drink lemonade in summer. | ||
| c. | We would drink lemonade in summer on the porch. | ||
| d. | We would drink lemonade in summer on the porch with friends. |
In order to avoid such a proliferation of elementary trees, we willrequire them to be non-recursive structures. This has the consequencethat adjuncts cannot be integrated into larger syntactic structures bysubstitution, and accordingly, we introduce a further treeoperation called adjunction. For clarity, the operation ofinterest to us is sometimes called Chomsky-adjunction, to distinguish itfrom Joshi-adjunction, a different formal operation that plays a centralrole in Tree-Adjoining Grammar, a mathematically rigorous formalism forderiving syntactic structure (Joshi, Levy, andTakahashi 1975).
For the moment, we will be using the adjunction operation tointegrate modifiers into syntactic structures. As we will see in Chapter 6, the adjunction operation isalso used for other purposes. Whatever its linguistic purpose, however,it is always the same formal
| (37) | a. |  | b. |  | c. |  | |||||
| Select target of adjunction | Clone target of adjunction | Attach modifier as daughter of clone | |||||||||
Deriving the rest of the structure for the entire sentence proceeds asoutlined earlier, as shown in (38).
| (38) | a. |  | b. |  | c. |  | |||||
| Substitute arguments | Substitute (38a) in elementary tree for tense | Move subject | |||||||||
For expository reasons, we have chosen to derive the sentence withadjunction preceding substitution and movement. However, the order ofadjunction with respect to the other operations is irrelevant.
In concluding this section, we raise a general point concerningintermediate projections and adjunction to them. Given that words (orsyntactic atoms of some sort) combine with one another to form phrases,any theory of syntax must assume heads and projections. However,distinguishing between two types of phrasal projection (intermediatevs. maximal) seems uneconomical, and attempts have therefore been madeto eliminate the need for intermediate projections, along with thepossibility of adjunction to them. For instance, given our currentassumptions, sentences like (39) force us to allow adjunction to X'.
| (39) | a. | [IP They [I' never [I' will agree to that. ] ] ] | |
| b. | God let [VP there [V' suddenly [V' be light. ] ] ] |
However, if the IP and the small clause VP in such sentences were'split up' into two separate projections, it would be possible toeliminate the intermediate projections and to adjoin the modifiers tomaximal projections instead. This is illustrated in (40), where IP hasbeen split into Agr(eement)P and T(ense)P, and Pred(ication)P has beenadded to the small clause VP. We plan to discuss such structures indetail in a later chapter (to be written).
| (40) | a. | [AgrP They [TP never [TP will agree to that. ] ] ] | |
| b. | God let [PredP there [VP suddenly [VP be light. ] ] ] |
A related question is whether, even in a system with intermediateprojections such as we continue to assume for the moment, it is possiblefor adjunction to target either intermediate or maximal projections. Weremain agnostic on this issue, but since we know that adjunction must beable to target intermediate projections under our current assumptions,we will consistently represent it as doing so for expository simplicity.A typology of syntactic dependents
Each of the three types of syntactic dependents that we havebeen discussing---complements, specifiers, and adjuncts---stands in aunique structural relation to the head and to the spine of the head'sprojection. Complements and adjuncts are both daughters of intermediateprojections, but they differ in that complements are sisters of heads,whereas adjuncts are sisters of the next higher projection level. Assisters of intermediate projections, adjuncts resemble specifiers. Butagain, the two relations are distinct because adjuncts are daughters ofintermediate projections, whereas specifiers are daughters of maximalprojections. These structural relations and distinctions are summarizedin (41). For convenience, we also include the formal operations thatfill or create the positions in question.
| (41) | Relation to head | Sister of ... | Daughter of ... | Formal operation | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Complement | Head | Intermediate projection | Substitution | |||
| Adjunct | Intermediate projection | Intermediate projection | Adjunction | |||
| Specifier | Intermediate projection | Maximal projection | Substitution | |||
More on the distinction between complements and adjuncts
Given the table in (41), it is easy to tell whether a constituent isrepresented in a particular tree structure as a complement or as anadjunct. However, it is not always self-evident whether a phrase is acomplement or an adjunct as a matter of linguistic fact. | Remember that tree structures are models of linguistic facts. Justbecause it is possible to build a tree that represents a certain phrase asa complement of a certain head doesn't mean that the phrase actually is a complement. In other words, trees can "lie". |
The most reliable way to determine the status of a particular phraseis to use do so substitution. If a phrase need not be includedas part of the sequence being replaced by do so, then it is anadjunct. If it must be included, then it is a complement. Using thistest, we find that phrases specifying cause or rationale, time,location, or manner are generally adjuncts, even if they are bare nounphrases. Some examples, including the results of do sosubstitution, are given in (42); the adjuncts are in italics.
| (42) | a. | Rationale | They waited for no good reason, but we did so for a very good one. | |
| b. | Duration | They waited (for) a day, but we did so (for) a month. | ||
| c. | Location | They waited in the parking lot, but we did so across the street. | ||
| d. | Manner | They waited patiently, but we did so impatiently. |
In the examples we have seen in this book so far, semantic argumentsare expressed in a syntactic tree as syntactic arguments (or not atall), and modifiers are expressed as adjuncts. It is possible, however,for semantic arguments to be expressed in the syntax as adjuncts (thisis the mismatch case mentioned earlier inconnection with binary-branchingness). For example, as we mentioned inChapter 3, rent,from a semantic point of view, is a five-place predicate taking fivearguments that denote landlords, tenants, rental properties, amounts ofmoney, and lengths of time (lease terms). Some of these semanticarguments are expressed as syntactic arguments. For instance, in (43),the phrase denoting the rental property is a complement, as is evidentfrom the results of do so substitution.
| (43) | a. | Dennis rented an apartment to Lois. | |
| b. | * | ... and David did so an apartment to Rob. |
On the other hand, do so substitution shows that the phrasedenoting the tenant is an adjunct, even though tenants are semanticarguments of rent on a par with rental properties.
| (44) | ok | ... and David did so to Rob. |
A final word should be said about the correlation between a syntacticdependent's obligatory or optional character and its status as a complementor adjunct. It is tempting to assume the biconditional relationship in (45).
| (45) | a. | If a syntactic dependent is obligatory, then it is a complement. | TRUE | ||
| b. | If a syntactic dependent is a complement, then it is obligatory. | FALSE |
But as the annotation indicates, the biconditional in (45) is not valid.It is true that obligatory syntactic dependents are complements. Forinstance, the contrast in (46) is evidence that the noun phrase followingdevour is a complement, a conclusion that is borne out by doso substitution in (47).
| (46) | Every time I see him, ... | ||
| a. | * | ... he's devouring. | |
| b. | ... he's devouring a six-inch steak. | ||
| (47) | a. | He devoured a hamburger and french fries, and I did so, too. | |
| b. | * | He devoured a hamburger and french fries, and I did so six samosas. |
But not all complements are obligatory. The grammaticality of (48a)shows that the phrase French fries is optional, but theungrammaticality of (48c) shows that it is nevertheless a complement.
| (48) | a. | He ate, and I did so, too. | |
| b. | He ate French fries, and I did so, too. | ||
| c. | * | He ate French fries, and I did so three samosas. |
Although (45b) is false, (45a) does have the consequence in (49)(derived by the so-called modus tollens rule of classical logic).
| (49) | If a syntactic dependent is not a complement, it is not obligatory. |
The two valid generalizations in (45a) and (49) can be summarizedsuccinctly as in (50).
| (50) | a. | Obligatory syntactic dependents are complements. | |
| b. | Adjuncts are optional. |
Notes
1. Why is V' read as V-bar when it containsnot a bar, but a prime symbol? The reason is that when the idea of barlevels was introduced in the 1970s, the various levels weredistinguished by horizontal bars over a syntactic category. The lowestlevel had no bars, the first level one, and the second two. But back inthe days of typewriters, such overbars were cumbersome to type (youtyped the symbol, --* rolled up the platen a bit, backspaced, typed anoverbar *--, repeated from --* to *-- for each overbar, and then rolledthe platen down again the right amount). Overbars are also expensive totypeset, and even today, they aren't part of the standard character setsfor HTML documents such as this one. Therefore, it was and continues tobe convenient to substitute prime symbols for overbars. However,linguists have failed to update their terminology (terminologicalinertia), and so the old term 'bar' is still with us.2. The semantics of tense we areassuming here is oversimplified, but sufficient for our purposes.
3. The representations in (21) looklike appropriate representations for the questions Will he wait?and Did he wait? However, as we will see in Chapter 10, there is reason topostulate an additional layer of structure in the representations ofquestions.
Exercises and problems
Exercise 4.1
What is the X' status of Fregean and of Aristotelian predicates?Exercise 4.2
Are the italicized phrases in (1) syntactic arguments or adjuncts?Explain. Your discussion needn't be extensive, but you must include thesyntactic evidence (do so substitution facts) on which you baseyour conclusions.
| (1) | a. | They waited for us. | |
| b. | In 1999, this program cost twenty dollars. | ||
| c. | We drove to Denver. | ||
| d. | We worded the letter carefully. | ||
| e. | They are behaving very inconsiderately. | ||
| f. | This volcano might erupt any minute. |
Exercise 4.3
The trees in (1) fail to correctly represent certain grammaticalityjudgments. What are the judgments?| (1) | a. |  | b. |  |
Exercise 4.4
A. Using the grammar tool in treebuilder 1, build structures for the sentences in (1).
| (1) | a. | They demolished the house. | |
| b. | Mona Lisa called the other neighbor. | ||
| c. | Mona Lisa called the other day. | ||
| d. | You will recall that her smile amazed everyone. | ||
| 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 buildfor (1). You can do this by hand, or by using the grammar tool'shighlighting feature (see the "Instructions" menu).
Exercise 4.5
A. (1) is structurally ambiguous. Paraphrase the two relevantinterpretations.
| (1) | They claimed that they paid on the 15th. |
B. Using the grammar tool in treebuilder 1, build a structure for each of the interpretations, indicating which structuregoes with which interpretation.
Exercise 4.6
Make up a sentence that contains two adjuncts. Using the grammartool in treebuilder 1, build a structure for it.Then switch the linear order of the adjuncts, and build a structure forthe resulting word order variant of your original sentence.
Problem 4.1
A. Is it possible for an adjunct to immediately precede a complement?Explain, taking into account both VO and OV languages.
You may find it helpful to use the grammar tool invariable headedness 1.
B. Is it possible for two adjuncts to be sisters? Explain.
