| Caroline Heycock |
Syntactic Theory |
Exam Guide |
Answer any TWO questions. Be sure to illustrate your answers with specific examples.
A. Consider the following gerunds in English:
a Mary's running the race was a surprise to everyone.
b. I was shocked at his leaving the table so quickly.
c. *I was shocked at his leaving of the table so quickly.
d. *I was shocked at his quick leaving the table.
e. Is my not having eaten anything a problem?
f. *Is my eating not anything a problem?
The -ing form (running, leaving, etc.) might be analysed as a verb or as a noun. Give an analysis of the type of gerund illustrated in the examples above (you need not account for other examples) under one or the other assumption, discussing both the advantages and problems that you see.
OR
B. The similarity between ``noun phrases'' like the Roman's reliance on their army, their arrival yesterday, on the one hand, and sentences like the Romans relied on their army, they arrived yesterday, on the other, has long been taken to suggest that the two types of phrase should be given parallel structure. Pick some analysis for each type of phrase and discuss the extent to which these analyses are successful in capturing the similarities, and whether any remaining differences can be easily accounted for or not.
2. For each set of sentences ((ai--aiii) and (bi--biv)) explain how the contrasts in grammaticality would be accounted for within the theory of grammar that we have been assuming. If you see any problems, mention these also.
a.
i. She trusted her mother.
ii. * She relied her mother.
iii. * She her mother trusted.
[With the intended interpretation of She trusted her mother.]
b.
i. The dog ate the bone.
ii. * The dog was eaten the bone.
iii. * There/it was eaten the bone
iv. The dog has eaten the bone.
3. Consider the sentences below. To what extent is it possible to give a unified analysis for all the instance of be and also for how the italicised word in each sentence gets its theta-role? Your answer should include specific proposals for the structure for the relevant parts of the examples given. If you see any problems, mentioned these also.
a. They are inventing a Process.
b. They seem to be inventing a Process.
c. They are the inventors of a Process.
d I consider them the inventors of this Process.
4. To what extent can the following set of data concerning wh-movement be accounted for by general principles? If there are any problems (for example, if any judgement cannot be accounted for) note these also:
a. Who did you think that she said they would employ?
b. Who did you think she said they would employ?
c. * Who did you think she said they would employ him?
d. * Who did you meet a woman who had employed?
[Compare: I met a woman who had employed my uncle.]
e. * Who did you think that would employ your uncle?
A. What syntactic motivation is there for distinguishing between modals (such as will, might) main verbs (such as win, make), and non-modal auxiliaries (have, be)?
OR
B. Give an account of the placement of the negative marker not in English sentences.
6. It has been claimed that despite their apparent similarity, the two sentences below have different structures. What empirical evidence is there for this claim, and how can each sentence be analysed in a way consistent with this evidence?
a. She expected him to make lunch.
b. She ordered him to make lunch.
7. Within ``binding theory''-the part of syntactic theory which deals with possible coreference between NPs/DPs-a 3-way distinction is made between anaphors (e.g. herself), pronominals (e.g. her), and r-expressions (e.g. Helen). Exemplify the difference in behaviour between these three classes, and explain how it can be accounted
| Caroline Heycock |
Syntactic Theory |
Exam Guide |
 |
12th May 2000 |