ambiguity

a structure is ambiguous if it can be interpreted in more than one way. We differentiate lexical ambiguity from structural ambiguity.

constituency test

a test for deciding whether a certain string of words is a constituent or not, e.g. coordination, preposing, extraposition, substitution etc.

constituent

a linguistic expression that functions as a unit in grammatical structure. A group of words that undergo syntactic processes together.

coordination

one of the constituency tests where two elements of the same type are put together to form a single element using a coordinating conjunction. The coordinated element acts like the two coordinated elements would individually.

determiner phrase (DP)

a phrase headed by a central determiner or the possessive ’s morpheme. The complement of a DP is an NP, the specifier the DP the possessive ending attaches to.

distribution

the set of positions that the grammar determines to be possible for a given category. Words that distribute in the same way will belong to the same categories, words that distribute differently will belong to different categories.

language

a system that enables people who speak it to produce and understand linguistic expressions.

movement

S-structure constituents do not always appear in the position where they are base-generated in D-structure, they often move from their base positions to other structural positions. There can be various reasons motivating movement, see wh-movement and DP-movement.

object

a DP complement immediately following the verb. It can move to the subject position in passive sentences. See also direct object, indirect object.

phrase

a group of words that can undergo syntactic operations (e.g. movement) as a unit.

preposition

a syntactic unit preceding its complement, the most often a DP defining a special syntactic and/or semantic relationship between the complement and another constituent: cat in the bag/grapes of wrath/tea without sugar/a reduction of taxes. Feature composition: [–F, –N, –V].

preposition phrase (PP)

a phrase headed by a preposition. It usually takes a DP complement but certain types of CPs can also appear in the complement position of PPs. PPs themselves can be complements of different constituents such as verbs, nouns and adjectives.

topic

an element appearing in front of the subject with a special interpretation (something like ‘as far as topic is concerned’). Topics have either already been mentioned before in a conversation or can be interpreted as easily accessible due to the context.

verb phrase (VP)

a phrase headed by a verb. It is in the VP together with the vp(s) that the basic argument structure of the clause is formed, thus, theta-role assignment takes place here. The specifier position of the VP is occupied by the constituent bearing the theme/patient theta role. In passive structures this constituent has to move from the specifier position of the verb to the specifier position of IP in order to get Case. A VP can have different types of complements such as a DP, CP, IP, PP.

word category

a set of expressions that share certain linguistic features, a grouping of words that cluster together, e.g. noun, verb. See also functional category, thematic category.

Basic English Syntax with Exercises

2.3.3 Coordination

There are other phenomena besides distribution that can also be used to support structural analyses. One of these involves coordination. This is a device used in language to take two elements and put them together to form a single element. This coordinated element then acts like the two coordinated elements would have individually. For example, we can take two nouns, say Bill and Ben, and we can coordinate them into a single element Bill and Ben. This coordinated element behaves exactly like each of the nouns in that it can appear as subject, object, object of a preposition or topic in a sentence:

(108)aBill and Ben went down the pub
bI know Bill and Ben
cthey sent a letter to Bill and Ben
dBill and Ben, everyone avoids

The point is that as the coordinated element behaves in the same way as its coordinated parts would individually, we cannot coordinate two conflicting things. So while two nouns can be coordinated, and two verbs can be coordinated, a noun and a verb cannot:

(109)athe [boys and girls]
bhave [sung and danced]
c*the [boys and danced] have [sung and girls]

Not just words can be coordinated however; we can also coordinate phrases and sentences. As long as the phrases and sentences are sufficiently the same, the result will be a phrase or a sentence which behaves in the same way as its coordinated parts:

(110)a[these boys] and [those girls]
b[have sung] and [are now dancing]
c[the boys have sung] and [the girls are now dancing]

Just like in the case of movement, only constituents may be coordinated and two independent constituents cannot act as one single conjunction which is coordinated with another. To demonstrate this, recall the ambiguous sentence in (104) where the PP was either associated with the object DP or with the VP. Now, if we coordinate the string of words, the bank manager with the gun with the DP the security guard, the ambiguity is resolved:

(111)the bishop killed the bank manager with the gun and the security guard

In this example two DP objects are coordinated, one the bank manager with the gun and the other the security guard. The first conjunct cannot be interpreted as a separate DP with following PP modifying the VP as this would not constitute a single constituent which could be coordinated with the second DP.

Again we can turn these observations round to provide a test for structural analyses. If we claim that a certain part of a sentence constitutes a phrase, then to test this claim we could take another similar element and see if the two things can be coordinated. Thus, to go back to the structure proposed in (100), there are three constituents proposed: the subject DP, the VP and the object DP inside the VP. If this is accurate, we should be able to find an element to coordinate with these constituents to form grammatical sentences:

(112)a[[the policeman] and [the chief constable]] searched the bishop
bthe policeman [[searched the bishop] and [confiscated his crosier]]
cthe policeman searched [[the bishop] and [the verger]]

The prediction seems to be supported and hence we can feel reasonably confident about the structure proposed in (100).

The coordination test, however, needs to be carefully applied. Recall that the way coordination works is to take two elements and form them into a single element that has the same function as the two elements would have individually. It therefore follows that two elements cannot be coordinated if they do not have the same function, even though they may be constituents of the same category. For example, if we tried to coordinate a PP that was a locative modifier of a DP with one which was an instrumental modifier of a VP the result would be ungrammatical:

(113)*the bishop shot the bank manager with a moustache and with a gun

By the same token, two constituents with the same function can be coordinated, even if they do not have the same categorial status:

(114)you should take the medicine regularly and under proper medical supervision

In this example the adverb regularly and the PP under medical supervision have the same modifying function in the VP and hence can be coordinated.

Still, despite these few complications, it remains a fact that only constituents can be coordinated and hence the coordination test is also a fairly reliable one for constituent structure.