Empirical arguments are based on primarily linguistc data (including judgements of acceptability/ interpretation, etc), rather than on theoretical simplicity, economy, and so on. For instance, the fact that the representations in (4) are not instantiations of the X' schema is a conceptual argument, not an empirical one. On the other hand, arguments based on the acceptability or unacceptability of substitution are empirical arguments.
Assume that the italicized sequence in (1) constitutes an NP
1. This book on the shelf is over 200 years old.
Two possible structures for it could be given as
2. [NP [Art this] [N book] [PP on the shelf]]
3. [NP [NP [Art this] [N book]] [PP on the shelf]]
What empirical arguments can you find against each of these structures? Can you find any arguments in favour of either?
A. Using terminology introduced in this course and bearing in mind cross-categorial parallelism, succinctly state the difference between the two classes of prepositions in (1) and (2):
1. despite, during, from, of
2. along, before, by, in, out
B. Find 4 more prepositions, and decide which class they belong to, based on your own judgements, or the judgements of native speakers with which you consult.
As discussed in Chapter 3, human language is characterized by structural ambiguity. For instance, the noun phrase in (1) has two distinct interpretations, which can be paraphrased as in (2) and (3):
1. the houses on the corner with a sign
2. the houses on the corner that have a sign
3. the houses on the corner that has a sign
A. Using the grammar tool in structural ambiguity, build two distinct structures for the noun phrase in (1), and indicate which structure goes with which interpretation in (2-3). [When downloading, remember to right-click and to use the "save target as" option.]
B. Give paraphrases for any structurally ambiguous sentences in (4-7), making sure that the paraphrases themselves are unambiguous.
4. He put the letter into the envelope on the table.
5. He put the letter in the envelope onto the table.
6. He put the letter in the envelope on the table.
7. He put the letter in the envelope in a hurry.
C. Using the same grammar tool, build as many structures as necessary for (4-7). Where necessary, indicate which structure goes with which interpretation.
D. Give paraphrases for the two interpretations available for (8), and use the grammar tool to build the structures corresponding to them, indicating which structure goes with which interpretation.
8. I enthusiastically recommend this candidate with no qualifications.
Discuss the ways that the following Phrase Structure rules and/or trees violate the constraints on phrase structure discussed in the lecture (e.g. Maximality, Endocentricity, and Declining/Steady-State Bar Levels). Can you suggest any ways in which the analyses/rules could be altered to bring them into line with X-Bar Theory?
Note: the sequence in (3) is intended as a structure for the gerund, as in "John's eating meat really annoys me." Or "I was surprised at John's eating meat." That is, it is the type of phrase in (a) and not in e.g. (b):
a. John's eating meat is a source of worry to his parents.
b. The Smiths eating meat are not a pretty sight.
