Syntax IV November 23, 2012

Weekday Update Syntax homework will be posted after class today …due on Wednesday (November 28th) Next week, we will start working on the analysis of meaning: Pragmatics + Semantics Also note that the final exam for this course has been scheduled: Monday, December 17th, 3:30-5:30 pm EEEL 161

Complementizer Phrases New lexical category: complementizers (C). Ex: if, that, whether Complementizers function as the heads of complementizer phrases. (CPs) The complement of the CP is another IP (sentence). Ex: Marge thinks [that [Homer ate the cake] IP ] CP. Matrix clause = highest-level sentence “Marge thinks…” Complement, or embedded clause = within the CP “Homer ate the cake.”

IP NPI’ MargeIVP [-past]V’CP VC’ thinksCIP thatNPI’ Homer IVP [+past]V’ VNP atethe cake CP Example matrix clause embedded clause

Infinite Recursion, part 2 It is possible to create infinitely long sentences by embedding complementizer clauses within complementizer clauses… John said [that Mary thought [that Robin knew [that Angela hoped [that Quinton wished [that Bronwen believed that…]]]]] VP  V CPV CP CP  C IPV C IP IP  NP VPV C NP VP VP  V CPV C NP V CP etc.

Infinite Recursion, part 3 There is one other (very boring) way to produce inifinitely long sentences in language: I like baseball and basketball and hockey and football and soccer and rugby and cricket and ultimate and polo and lacrosse…. Sentences like this take advantage of the syntactic phenomenon of coordination. Coordination combines phrases or words of the same type with a conjunction (and, but, or…) to create a phrase or word of the same type. General coordination rule: X n  X n Con X n Where X n = {XP, X’, or X}

Coordination Examples NP  NP and NP NP  The fat man and the little boy VP  VP or VP VP  fish or cut bait IP  IP but IP IP  Ringo plays drums but Paul plays bass. Coordination of individual words works the same way: P  P and P She went [[above] P and [beyond] P ] P the call of duty.

Ambiguity Coordination can lead to a very simple kind of structural ambiguity.  I like green eggs and ham. Interpretation #1: just the eggs are green. I like [[green eggs] NP and [ham] NP ] NP. Interpretation #2: both the eggs and ham are green. I like [green [[eggs] N’ and [ham] N’ ] NP. Let’s check out the trees…

Interpretation #1 Only the eggs are green: IP NPI’ ProIVP I[-past]V’ VNP likeNPConNP APN’andham greenN eggs

Interpretation #2 Both the eggs and ham are green: IP NPI’ ProIVP I[-past]V’ VNP likeAPN’ greenN’ConN’ NandN eggsham

Further Ambiguity Let’s try another one: The police shot the terrorists with rifles. Why is this sentence ambiguous? (How can you describe the ambiguity, structurally?) Interpretation #1: the terrorists have rifles. [with rifles] is a PP embedded in the object NP. Interpretation #2: the police have rifles. [with rifles] is a PP that modifies the main VP. Let’s check out some more trees…

Interpretation #1 IP NPI’ the policeIVP [+past]V’ VNP shotDetN’ theNPP terroristsP’ PNP withrifles In this one, the terrorists have the rifles.

Interpretation #2 IP NPI’ the policeIVP [+past]V’PP VNPP’ shotDetN’PNP theNwithrifles terrorists In this one, the police are using the rifles to shoot the terrorists. The PP is a modifier of the VP here, not a complement. = it’s not required by the verb.

Quick Write Greatest Hits

More Modifiers From the Quick Write: IP NPI’ SheIVP [-past]V’AdvP VCPDegAdv’ wantsIPreallyAdv IVPbadly toVNP playtennis (I’m glossing over some of the structure here) In this interpretation, “really badly” modifies “wants”.

More Modifiers IP NPI’ SheIVP [-past]V’ VCP wantsIP IVP toVNPAdvP playtennisreally badly (I’m glossing over some of the structure here) In this interpretation, “really badly” modifies “play”.