Part 1

I. Read the paper by S. Beck and K. Jonhnson“Double objects again” (2002)

and answer the questions:
1. Provide you own examples (distinct from the ones in the paper) of a double object
frame and a NP+PP frame.

Double Object Frame:

 She gave her friend a book.
 He bought his daughter a toy.
 They sent me an email.
 The teacher assigned the students a project.
 My mom baked me a cake.
 We made our parents a card.

NP+PP Frame:

 She placed the book on the table.

 He left his keys in the car.
 They hung the picture on the wall.
 The cat slept under the bed.
 We found the treasure in the cave.
 The bird built its nest in the tree

2. How according to Kayne (1986b) can Nominalizations be used to determine

whether the NP is the verb’s argument or not?
Kayne (1986b) proposed that nominalizations can serve as a diagnostic tool to determine
whether an NP (noun phrase) is the verb's argument or not.

1. Nominalizations and PP Attachment:

- Nominalizations are derived nouns from verbs. They often retain some syntactic
properties of the original verb.

- When an NP appears as an argument of a verb, it typically occurs close to the verb

without intervening elements such as prepositional phrases (PPs).

- If an NP is separated from the verb by a PP in the structure of a nominalization, it

suggests that the NP is not the direct argument of the verb.

Examples:

- John's painting of the house surprised everyone.(In this sentence, "John's painting"
is a nominalization derived from the verb "to paint." The NP "John's painting" is separated
from the verb "surprised" by the prepositional phrase "of the house." This suggests that
"John's painting" is not the direct object of the verb "surprised," indicating that "everyone"
is the verb's argument.

2.Absence of PP Attachment:
 - Conversely, if an NP derived from a nominalization cannot be separated from the verb
by a PP, it suggests that the NP is the direct argument of the verb.

- In such cases, the NP behaves more like a direct object in the sentence structure.

Example:

-His explanation of the theory convinced everyone (In this sentence, "his explanation"
is a nominalization derived from the verb "to explain." Notice that "his explanation" directly
follows the verb "convinced" without any intervening PP. This indicates that "his
explanation" is the direct object of the verb "convinced.")

Kayne's proposal suggests that the behavior of nominalizations in allowing or disallowing

PP attachment can help determine whether an NP is the verb's argument or not. If an NP
can be separated from the verb by a PP, it's likely not the verb's argument; if it cannot, it's
more likely to be the verb's argument.

3. What component according to Green (1974) is there in the double object frame
that is not necessarily found in the NP+PP frame?

In Green's analysis (1974), the component present in the double object frame that isn't necessarily found in
the NP+PP frame is the "benefactive" or "dative" meaning. In the double object frame, the direct object
receives the action, while the indirect object receives the benefit or is the recipient of the action. This is
often expressed with verbs like "give," "send," or "show." For example:

1. Double object frame: "She gave him a book." (Him receives the benefit of the action.)
2. NP+PP frame: "She gave a book to him." (The prepositional phrase "to him" specifies the recipient, but
the benefactive/dative meaning is less prominent.)

In general, the double object frame emphasizes the benefactive/dative meaning more explicitly compared
to the NP+PP frame.

4. Explain (in your own words or with the example) the ambiguity of the sentence like “Sally
opened the door again”.

The ambiguity in the sentence "Sally opened the door again" lies in the interpretation of
the word "again." It can be interpreted in two different ways:

1. Sally opened the door for a second time: Here, "again" modifies the action of
opening, suggesting that Sally had previously opened the door, and now she is doing it
once more.

2. Sally reopened the door that had been closed previously: In this interpretation,
"again" modifies the state of the door being open. It implies that the door had been
closed at some point, and Sally is now opening it once more.

The ambiguity arises because "again" can refer to either the repetition of the action or
the restoration of a previous state.
5. What argument does Stechow provide in favour of the syntactic interpretation of such an
ambiguity as in Question 4?

Stechow's argument for the syntactic interpretation of ambiguity emphasizes that it relies on the structural
properties of language, providing a more robust framework for disambiguation compared to purely
semantic approaches.

For example, consider the sentence "I saw the man with the telescope."

In a purely semantic analysis, it's ambiguous whether "with the telescope" modifies "saw" (suggesting the
observer used a telescope to see) or "man" (suggesting the man had a telescope). However, a syntactic
approach suggests that "with the telescope" attaches to "saw" because it's positioned closer to the verb,
following the principle of late closure.

This syntactic analysis resolves the ambiguity by considering the hierarchical structure of the sentence,
leading to a clearer interpretation.

Talking about the 4th questions we can see that his structural explanation points that the position of the
adverb “again” relative to the constituents in the sentence determines its interpretation.
So, “Sally opened the door again” based on several factors :
 Syntactic Context
 Word order
 Adjunctive Sites
 Cross-linguistic Evidence

II. Read Chapter 8 Case and grammatical relations by M. Polinsky and O. Preminger
in The Routledge Handbook of Syntax and answer the questions:
1. What are the three most common morphological case systems? Give brief
definitions.
The morphological case systems are:

Accusative Case: The accusative case often answers questions like "what" or "whom" after
the verb, indicating the entity directly affected by the action. In this system, the nominative
case marks the subject of a transitive verb and the agent of an intransitive verb, while the
accusative case marks the direct object of a transitive verb.
Ergative Case: the ergative case marks the subject of a transitive verb, while the absolutive case
marks the subject of an intransitive verb and the object of a transitive verb.
Neutral Case: In a “neutral” case system, the overt marking does not distinguish between
S, A, and P: the surface form of a noun does not change depending on whether it is, for
example, a subject or an object (this is the case for English outside of the pronominal
system). Overt case marking is absent in Mandarin, Thai, Vietnamese, and all or most creole
languages.This system is called "neutral" because it does not make a formal distinction between
the subjects of transitive and intransitive verbs, unlike the ergative-absolutive system where such a
distinction exists.
2. What is Case Filter?
In syntax, a "case filter" refers to a principle or constraint that determines which syntactic
configurations are grammatical based on the distribution of case markings. Essentially, it
describes the requirement that certain syntactic roles or relationships must be
appropriately marked by case morphology.

For example, in languages with nominative-accusative alignment, the case filter would
require that the subject of a transitive verb (nominative case) and the object of a transitive
verb (accusative case) be correctly marked to satisfy grammaticality constraints. If a
sentence violates this principle by having a nominative-marked element in the object
position or vice versa, it would be considered ungrammatical according to the case filter.

3. Can adjectival predicates assign case?

In "The Routledge Handbook of Syntax" by M. Polinsky and O. Preminger, they likely
discuss that adjectival predicates typically do not assign case. Adjectival predicates
function to describe or modify nouns without directly impacting their case. Instead, case
assignment is usually associated with verbs, prepositions, or other functional elements in a
sentence. These elements govern the grammatical features of nouns or pronouns,
including their case.
4. What is Split VP Hypothesis?
The Split VP Hypothesis, as discussed by M. Polinsky and O. Preminger in "The
Routledge Handbook of Syntax," proposes that the verbal projection (VP) in syntactic
structures can be split into two distinct domains: an outer aspectual domain and an inner
domain responsible for argument structure.
The Split VP Hypothesis suggests that these two layers can be syntactically separated, with
elements from each layer potentially moving independently in the syntactic structure of a sentence.
This hypothesis helps to account for various syntactic phenomena observed in natural languages,
such as the movement of adverbs or the distribution of verbal complements.
This hypothesis allows for a more nuanced understanding of how syntactic and
semantic properties are encoded within the VP. By separating the aspectual and argument
structure domains, the Split VP Hypothesis provides a framework for analyzing the internal
structure of verb phrases and how they interact with other elements in a sentence.

5. What is configurational system of case assignment?

The configurational system of case assignment refers to a linguistic framework where the
assignment of case to noun phrases is determined by the syntactic configuration or
structural relationships within a sentence. In this system, the case assigned to a noun
phrase depends on its position or role in the syntactic structure of the sentence, rather
than solely on the semantic or pragmatic properties of the noun phrase.

For example, in a nominative-accusative language like English, the subject of a transitive

verb typically receives nominative case, while the direct object receives accusative case.
This assignment is based on the configurational relationship between the verb and its
arguments within the sentence's syntactic structure.
The configurational system of case assignment contrasts with other systems, such as the
inherent case system, where case assignment is determined by semantic or pragmatic
factors rather than syntactic configuration.

Part 2
1. Show all the phrase structure trees that our rules allow for the following sentences (the
parses you will come up with will show some difference in meaning):
2. What is responsible for the contrast in grammaticality of the pairs of sentences
below (these could be rather informal explanations shaped in a few sentences, but
they should contain specific rules in our grammar system; explain each pair
separately):
(1) a) Blair told him that the dogs are sleeping.
(b) * Blair told that the dogs are sleeping him.

(2)
(a) Chuck put the puppy on the train.
(b) *Chuck put on the train.
The sentences 1(b) and 2(b) are wrong.
Explanations:
1. In sentence 1(b), Blair told that the dogs are sleeping him." - This sentence is ungrammatical.
In English, the indirect object usually comes before the direct object in a sentence with a verb like
"tell." So, "him" should come before "that the dogs are sleeping."

2. In sentence 2(b), "* Chuck put on the train." - This sentence is ungrammatical because it lacks
a direct object. In the first sentence, "the puppy" is the direct object of "put," but in this sentence,
there is no direct object specified after "put," making the sentence incomplete.

3. Explain in your own words why the Tense-head agrees with the subject in English. (E.g. She
buys clothes in this store vs *She buy clothes in this store).
In English, the agreement between the tense-head (verb) and the subject ensures that the
sentence is grammatically correct. This agreement means that the form of the verb
changes depending on the subject's person (first, second, or third) and number (singular or
plural). For example, "She buys clothes" is correct because "buys" agrees with the singular
subject "She," while "*She buy clothes" is incorrect because there's a mismatch in number
between the subject and the verb.