Assignment 15

PART 1.

Consider the following sentences:

(1) The cat may hunt.
(2) The cat may hunt for mice.
(3) The cat may hunt for fun.
(4) The cat may hunt for mice for fun.

Note that sentence (4) has two PPs, both of which are optional. One is a
modifier, and one is an optional complement. Which one is which? How
can we tell?

Does our current grammar distinguish modifiers from optional complements?
If it doesn't, change it so it does. Explain clearly how the distinction is
encoded. Give examples.

Along the way, you should make up many more examples of modifiers and
optional complements and give good arguments as to which is which.


PART 2.

Write out what you took the Determiner Law to be. Now explain how we are
able to rid our grammar of that proposed law while still accounting for
sentences like (5)-(8).

(5) Is there mud on the table?
(6) *Is there cup on the table?
(7) Are there cups on the table?
(8) Is there some mud on the table?

Now explain why the new proposal is an improvement over the old one.


PART 3.

The phrase structure rules we've come up with thus far show certain
recurring patterns. One pattern is that almost every phrase is an XP and
thus contains a head X. There are actually two kinds of such rules,
exemplified by VP -> V DP and VP -> VP PP. Explain briefly what the
difference is, and why we need both kinds of rules.

In the rules that introduce a head, is there any generalization about
where the head is?

There are two rules that don't fit either of these patterns: our S rule,
and our rule for possessive DPs. Your task is to revise the grammar so that
these are no longer so exceptional after all.

If S had a head, what in our grammar would be most likely to be its head?
Show how the grammar would be revised to reflect this new hypothesis.

Now do the same thing for possessive DPs.

If you come up with any phrase structure rules that are exceptional in some
way, make sure you discuss what is exceptional and try to figure out how to
make it unexceptional.