Note: You may not discuss the final with other students (until after everyone has turned it in). Please send any questions about the final directly to me (via email) rather than posting on GoPost. I will respond by email and post answers as appropriate on the GoPost. Please read GoPost.
A. Draw a tree for the following sentence, using the grammar from the textbook (Appendix A) and according to the instructions below. (NB: This problem is not only about long distance dependencies, but also about multiple phenomena involving the rules and principles of our grammar.)
B. Describe each step in the cascade of identities that link the INST value of the car predication to the DRIVEN value of drive predication. Your answer should take the form of an enumerated list. Each item in the list should describe one step, i.e., state which features are required to have the same value and state which lexical entry, rule or principle of the grammar requires this.
I found 30 steps in this chain. You do not need to mention any lexical rules, nor any specific lexical types. Identities that come from either can be described as enforced by the lexical entries themselves. You should, however, account for identities required by the ARP (I found 9 of those). To start you off, here are the first and last, plus one from the middle
A. For each word in the following sentence, list the lexical rules involved in licensing its word structure. (Again, this question is cumulative, and not about any one particular phenomenon. Once again, use the grammar in Appendix A for reference. Also, while you do not need to provide a tree for your answer, it might help you work through the problem to sketch one out.)
Check your work: Though there are 13 words in the sentence, they collectively represent 16 applications of lexical rules. One lexical rule is used 8 times.
B. Show the word structure for didn't as it appears in this sentence. Include the effects of the lexical rule(s) it undergoes as well as constraints inherited from types (e.g., those on auxv-lxm and its supertypes, as well as those on word). You don't need to show the RESTR values of the elements of the ARG-ST and valence lists or any other information that is underspecified by the combination of the lexical entry and lexcial rules but rather `unifed in' from other parts of the tree.
C. How does our analysis capture the fact that do cannot appear before would in this example? That is, why is the following ungrammatical?
How does our analysis capture the fact that there cannot replace it in the first clause?