Author Topic: Adjunct Rule & Complement Rule (Read 4518 times)

Jase · « **on:** March 16, 2014, 07:27:49 PM »

In chapter 6 of Syntax: A Generative Introduction (Carnie), the author introduces the adjunct rule and the complement rule with regard to the contrast between the PSRs N' → N' (PP) (adjunct) and N' → N (PP) (complement).

The author used triangles for the NPs in his illustrations, and I just wanted to check that I'm using the PSRs correctly at this point. This is the first thing I've ever done with X-bar Theory, and I want to make sure that I'm understanding the structure correctly. Would you mind looking over these and confirming that they are correct?

1) the book of poems

2) the book with a red cover

The idea is that in (1) the phrase uses the complement rule and (2) uses the adjunct rule, though on the surface they both look the same. Am I understanding this correctly so far?

Thanks!

P.S. How can you make X' appear without the backslash (X\') when using the tree tag?

Daniel · « **Reply #1 on:** March 16, 2014, 09:51:43 PM »

That looks fine.

Re: PS: hmm. Seems to be a bug in the way trees are generated. No easy workaround. I'll try to look into it in the future.

ibarrere · « **Reply #2 on:** March 18, 2014, 02:39:07 PM »

I think this is just notational, but shouldn't the PP's complement (in #2) be a DP rather than an NP? You correctly have a D head, but the label is still NP.

Daniel · « **Reply #3 on:** March 18, 2014, 04:33:34 PM »

Hmm. Depends on which part of the book. The comp/adjunct distinction is ok either way.

Jase · « **Reply #4 on:** March 20, 2014, 12:35:36 AM »

Quote from: ibarrere on March 18, 2014, 02:39:07 PM

I think this is just notational, but shouldn't the PP's complement (in #2) be a DP rather than an NP? You correctly have a D head, but the label is still NP.

Yes, of course. I hadn’t gotten to where he changed the NP/DP rule and made DP a head for NP and pulled the D outside. I brought that up in another thread. I’m progressing through the book chapter-by-chapter, and this is the first time I’ve really worked on syntax – and especially X-bar Theory. Thanks for the comment.

Jase · « **Reply #5 on:** March 24, 2014, 06:12:59 AM »

I’ve attached an image (png) of a tree for a DP that I created to check that I’ve got the adjunct and complement thing down. Could you look at it and give a nod?

Thanks!

Jase · « **Reply #6 on:** March 24, 2014, 06:44:21 AM »

Quote from: Jase on March 24, 2014, 06:12:59 AM

I’ve attached an image (png) of a tree for a DP that I created to check that I’ve got the adjunct and complement thing down. Could you look at it and give a nod?

Thanks!

Well, that’s problematic. I left off the PP → (spec) P' rule. It should be [PP [P' [P ...][NP ...]]]. I left off the P' note in each of the PPs. It should be included so that I won’t forget about that a specifier can appear before the prepositional phrase. For example, the phrase right outside the window has the specifier right before (and as part of) the prepositional phrase. This is something that I shouldn’t have left out, and I realized it after I created the image. :snap:

Daniel · « **Reply #7 on:** March 24, 2014, 09:09:39 AM »

That looks fine to me (regardless of the P' issue).

Author Topic: Adjunct Rule & Complement Rule (Read 4518 times)

Jase

Adjunct Rule & Complement Rule

Daniel

Re: Adjunct Rule & Complement Rule

ibarrere

Re: Adjunct Rule & Complement Rule

Daniel

Re: Adjunct Rule & Complement Rule

Jase

Re: Adjunct Rule & Complement Rule

Jase

Re: Adjunct Rule & Complement Rule

Jase

Re: Adjunct Rule & Complement Rule

Daniel

Re: Adjunct Rule & Complement Rule