1 Complements vs. adjuncts
Use the diagnostics discussed in class (onereplacement, adjacency to the head,
ability to be reordered) to determine if the PPs in the following examples are ad
juncts or complements.
1. the collection [of figurines] [in the window]
2. the statue [of Napoleon] [in the corner]
3. every window [in the building] [with a broken pane]
2 Binding theory
Draw a phrase structure tree for the following sentence. Use the following Xbar
theoretic rules for every category other than S:
1. XP → (Y) X
2. X → (YP) X
3. X → X (YP)
4. X → X (YP)
Remember to make sure that the tree you draw can be generated by our phrase structure rules. Be careful to distinguish complements from adjuncts.
(1) The old man walked to Mexico in the rain last year.
regards to the osmosis of pieces into lumps. Mill operator recognizes pieces and lumps of data, the differentiation being that a piece is comprised of various pieces of data. It is fascinating regards to the osmosis of pieces into lumps. Mill operator recognizes pieces and lumps of data, the differentiation being that a piece is comprised of various pieces of data. It is fascinating to take note of that while there is a limited ability to recall lumps of data, how much pieces in every one of those lumps can change broadly (Miller, 1956). Anyway it’s anything but a straightforward instance of having the memorable option huge pieces right away, somewhat that as each piece turns out to be more natural, it very well may be acclimatized into a lump, which is then recollected itself. Recoding is the interaction by which individual pieces are ‘recoded’ and allocated to lumps. Consequently the ends that can be drawn from Miller’s unique work is that, while there is an acknowledged breaking point to the quantity of pi
regards to the osmosis of pieces into lumps. Mill operator recognizes pieces and lumps of data, the differentiation being that a piece is comprised of various pieces of data. It is fascinating regards to the osmosis of pieces into lumps. Mill operator recognizes pieces and lumps of data, the differentiation being that a piece is comprised of various pieces of data. It is fascinating to take note of that while there is a limited ability to recall lumps of data, how much pieces in every one of those lumps can change broadly (Miller, 1956). Anyway it’s anything but a straightforward instance of having the memorable option huge pieces right away, somewhat that as each piece turns out to be more natural, it very well may be acclimatized into a lump, which is then recollected itself. Recoding is the interaction by which individual pieces are ‘recoded’ and allocated to lumps. Consequently the ends that can be drawn from Miller’s unique work is that, while there is an acknowledged breaking point to the quantity of pi