Lecture 6

Midterm
Linguistics 522
Instructor: Jean Mark Gawron

Due: Nov. 3, 2004

Trees
Chapter 5

Using the X-bar theory of Chapter 5 draw trees for the following sentences:

John bought a picture of Mary.
The tall blond poet from Boston was tremendously proud of her gift for limericks.
John's bullet went right through that cup of coffee .
Some one jumps off a bridge every twenty minutes.

Complement
Adjunct
In drawing trees for section you had to make several decisions about whether a particular constituent was a complement or an adjunct. Defend your decision for the italicized constituents in Problem 1.
Defending your decision means using at least 2 of the tests we have discussed for distinguishing complements from adjuncts.

Trees
Chap 6

Draw the trees from Problem 1 again using the theory of Chapter 6:

Use DPs, TPs, and CPs wherever possible.
Root clauses should be represented as CPs.
Empty detreminers and complementizers shou\ld be shown. You may use "0" to represent the empty string if you like (or if your btree drawing program likes).

Binding
Theory

For the following sentences, accept the given judgments. Explain whether the given judgment is predicted by the binding theory or is a problem for it. For each example, discuss all principles that affect the coindexed NPs.

* Fred_i loves him_i.
* He_i loves him_i.
* He_i is certain that John_i will be on time.
That picture of him_i pleased Michael_i.
Near him_i, John_i saw a snake.
* Mary read him_i an article about John_i.

Binding
Theory
II

Consider the following sentence.
Michael_i held the book behind him_i.

Assuming the following tree:

Explain whether the given judgment, with this tree, is predicted by the binding theory or is a problem for it.
Now address the same binding theory issues for the same sentence but with two new assumptions.

First, we redefine "binding domain". Instead of being the "minimally containing clause", the binding domain will be the minimally containing category containing a DP specifier. Note that this means ordinary clauses are still binding domains, since subjects are specifiers of TP. But other possibilities are now opened.
Next, assume the following "small clause" analysis suggested by our treatment of all specifiers as subjects (Chapter 6):

Consider the following data:
* John_i held the book behind himself_i.
What analysis does this support?

DP's,
Specifiers

For this problem assume the new definition of "binding domain" introduced in the last problem. Instead of being the "minimally containing clause", the binding domain will be the minimally containing category containing a DP specifier.
Now consider this data:

John_i bought Mary's picture of him_i.
? John_i bought Mary's picture of himself_i.
John_i bought Mary's_j picture of herself_j.
* John_i bought Mary's_j picture of her_j.
? John_i bought that picture of him_i.
John_i bought that picture of himself_i.
Discuss the status of this data with respect to the modified definition of binding domain. Assume that is of category D.

Trees Chapter 5		Using the X-bar theory of Chapter 5 draw trees for the following sentences: John bought a picture of Mary. The tall blond poet from Boston was tremendously proud of her gift for limericks. John's bullet went right through that cup of coffee . Some one jumps off a bridge every twenty minutes.
Complement Adjunct		In drawing trees for section you had to make several decisions about whether a particular constituent was a complement or an adjunct. Defend your decision for the italicized constituents in Problem 1. Defending your decision means using at least 2 of the tests we have discussed for distinguishing complements from adjuncts.
Trees Chap 6		Draw the trees from Problem 1 again using the theory of Chapter 6: Use DPs, TPs, and CPs wherever possible. Root clauses should be represented as CPs. Empty detreminers and complementizers shou\ld be shown. You may use "0" to represent the empty string if you like (or if your btree drawing program likes).
Binding Theory		For the following sentences, accept the given judgments. Explain whether the given judgment is predicted by the binding theory or is a problem for it. For each example, discuss all principles that affect the coindexed NPs. * Fred_i loves him_i. * He_i loves him_i. * He_i is certain that John_i will be on time. That picture of him_i pleased Michael_i. Near him_i, John_i saw a snake. * Mary read him_i an article about John_i.
Binding Theory II		Consider the following sentence. Michael_i held the book behind him_i. Assuming the following tree: Explain whether the given judgment, with this tree, is predicted by the binding theory or is a problem for it. Now address the same binding theory issues for the same sentence but with two new assumptions. First, we redefine "binding domain". Instead of being the "minimally containing clause", the binding domain will be the minimally containing category containing a DP specifier. Note that this means ordinary clauses are still binding domains, since subjects are specifiers of TP. But other possibilities are now opened. Next, assume the following "small clause" analysis suggested by our treatment of all specifiers as subjects (Chapter 6): Consider the following data: * John_i held the book behind himself_i. What analysis does this support?
DP's, Specifiers		For this problem assume the new definition of "binding domain" introduced in the last problem. Instead of being the "minimally containing clause", the binding domain will be the minimally containing category containing a DP specifier. Now consider this data: John_i bought Mary's picture of him_i. ? John_i bought Mary's picture of himself_i. John_i bought Mary's_j picture of herself_j. * John_i bought Mary's_j picture of her_j. ? John_i bought that picture of him_i. John_i bought that picture of himself_i. Discuss the status of this data with respect to the modified definition of binding domain. Assume that is of category D.