syntax - a [box [of apples] ] vs [a box] [of apples]


The standard linguistic analysis of the NP


a box of apples


is that we have a determiner (a) which acts on (modifies?) box of apples. (For an example of standard analysis, see e.g. Fig. 6 here). CGEL refers to box of apples as a nominal, though I understand that others would prefer to call it an NP'. Then box of apples is further parsed into box being modified by of apples. In other words, we have


enter image description here


My question is: what is the evidence against the following alternative parsing: a box being modified by of apples?


enter image description here


In other words, why does


a [box [of apples] ]


make more sense than


[a box] [of apples]?


Equivalently: why is a taken to modify box of apples rather than of apples taken to modify a box?


What is particularly impressive (or surprising) is that, on the standard analysis, the parsing seems to be completely independent of context. It is simply never the case that a box gets modified by of apples; it is always box being modified by of apples, and then a modifying box of apples.


I hope it is understood that I'm only mentioning a box of apples for the sake of concreteness. What I would like to know is why such a parsing applies in all relevantly similar cases. In other words, my actual question is: consider an NP which is Det + Head + PP. Why is Det taken to modify Head + PP, rather than PP taken to modify Det + Head?


I'm sure there is more than one piece of evidence, and would appreciate it if someone could explain the first several strongest pieces of evidence.


(In contrast, I find the standard parsing far more intuitive in the cases of NPs which look like Det + Mod + Head, e.g. an old man. The correct parsing is, of course, an [old man], and somehow I don't have the slightest inclination to parse it as [an old] man.)


Update 1: found a page that seems to say something relevant on the issue: this one. Still digesting it...


Update 2: I have accepted the answer given by Greg Lee. (Thanks!) The answer uses the notion of a pro-form. A pro-form is a particular type of function word---"a word that has little lexical meaning or has ambiguous meaning, but instead serves to express grammatical relationships with other words within a sentence, or specify the attitude or mood of the speaker" (Wikipedia). For completeness, here are details (also from Wikipedia):



A pro-form is a type of function word or expression that stands in for (expresses the same content as) another word, phrase, clause or sentence where the meaning is recoverable from the context. They are used either to avoid repetitive expressions or in quantification (limiting the variables of a proposition).


Pro-forms are divided into several categories, according to which part of speech they substitute:



  • A pronoun substitutes a noun or a noun phrase, with or without a determiner: it, this. (Compare also prop-word; this denotes a word like one in "the blue one".)

  • A pro-adjective substitutes an adjective or a phrase that functions as an adjective: so as in "It is less so than we had expected."

  • A pro-adverb substitutes an adverb or a phrase that functions as an adverb: how or this way.

  • A pro-verb substitutes a verb or a verb phrase: do.

  • A pro-sentence substitutes an entire sentence or subsentence: Yes, or that as in "That is true".



Now the answer by Greg Lee is easy to follow (some of the emphases are mine):



One generally assumes that only constituents can be replaced by a pro-form and that only a constituent can be the antecedent for such a replacement. So since we can go from


I want a big box of apples, but my sister wants only a small box of apples.


to


I want a big box of apples, but my sister wants only a small one.


then "box of apples" must be a constituent. This rules out the structure: [a (Adj) box] [of apples]. It must be instead: a (Adj) [box of apples].



Once this answer was posted, it was easy to find other resources that discuss this; one of them is here.



Answer



One generally assumes that only constituents can be replaced by an indefinite pro-form and that only a constituent can be the antecedent for such a replacement. So since we can go from



I want a big box of apples, but my sister wants only a small box of apples.



to



I want a big box of apples, but my sister wants only a small one.



then "box of apples" must be a constituent. This rules out the structure: [a (Adj) box] [of apples]. It must be instead: a (Adj) [box of apples].


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

verbs - "Baby is creeping" vs. "baby is crawling" in AmE

Years and years ago, I remember reading in a book on AmE usage that the phrasal turn a baby creeps before it walks was to some extent more common to AmE than to BrE, which preferred exclusively the "crawl" version. And so, I just recently checked on the accuracy of that information on NGram Viewer , and it actually was fact... more than a century ago! What I would like you to tell is if it would sound sort of weird to hear someone say today in the US that a child "creeps" before walking and running (see Synonyms ) rather than it crawls. Also, what's the story to those terms? How did "to crawl" come to prevail and supersede "to creep" to describe the way a baby moves around? As with a plant, so with a child. His mind grows by natural stages. A child creeps before he walks , sits before he stands, cries before he laughs, babbles before he talks, draws a circle before he draws a square, lies before he tells the truth, and is selfish before he
Read more

commas - Does this sentence have too many subjunctives?

Does this sentence have too many subjunctives? If it please the king, let it be decreed that they be destroyed, and I will pay 10,000 talents of silver into the hands of those who have charge of the king's business, that they may put it into the king's treasuries. I am stumped by this sentence construction. First, there is "Let it be," which is a common English idiomatic phrase, but then it follows another subjunctive. Is that to say you can actually have a subjunctive followed by another subjunctive? Also, why does the sentence use "please"? If that's the subjunctive tense there, then why is it followed by another subjunctive instead of a conditional, or maybe "Let it be" is the conditional? Lastly, I wish to know how the that is used in the sentence. Perhaps, the simplified sentence can be restated like so: Let it be decreed that they be destroyed and that they may put it into the king's treasuries. If not, maybe the simplified sent
Read more

time - English notation for hour, minutes and seconds

I often see English notation about time using the " and ' symbols. I have always mistaken about the two, and even their meaning. I'm more used to "01:05:56", for example. How do you represent the hour, minutes, and seconds using the apostrophe and quotes punctuations? Which is for the hour, which is for minutes, and which is for seconds? Is it the common way to write duration of time elapsed? Do they have a special pronunciation? Answer It's not particularly common for expressions of time. It's similar to degrees-minutes-seconds: instead of decimal degrees (38.897212°,-77.036519°) you write (38° 53′ 49.9632″, -77° 2′ 11.4678″). Both are derived from a sexagesimal counting system such as that devised in Ancient Babylon: the single prime represents the first sexagesimal division and the second the next, and so on. 17th-century astronomers used a third division of 1/60th of a second. The advantage of using minute and second symbols for time is that it o
Read more

grammatical number - Use of lone apostrophe for plural?

I've been reading William Manchester's book "American Caesar", which is about Douglas MacArthur, and I found that he uses a strange convention for pluralizing the family name. When talking about the MacArthurs as a whole, he writes MacArthur' with an apostrophe, as in "After the war, the MacArthur' lived in Tokyo while the general was proconsul" (yes, he uses that term to describe him). I have never seen or heard of a rule that would prescribe this. Manchester is a bit old-timey in his style: for example, he also writes "in behalf of" instead of "on behalf of", which is the only one I have ever seen. So perhaps this is similar. Where does he get this apostrophe from? Edit: There seems to be some difficulty finding examples, which is odd. Here is a direct link to a page from Google Books that shows the apostrophe.
Read more

etymology - Origin of "s--t eating grin"

What is the origin of the phrase shit eating grin ? How did it come to mean showing smugness or self-satisfaction of an individual's actions? Answer From the Urban Dictionary: ...these uses are documented in the Oxford English Dictionary no earlier than 1957 There have been similar expressions used quite far back: In Book XXI of his History of Rome, Livy describes a Carthaginian sect of coprophages, the risus faecivorus, or shit-eating grin, being commonly displayed by its adherents. Although, its origin is undetermined, they may have been incidents which caused the invention of this phrase. Below is an excerpt: "1944 Jrnl. Nerv. & Mental Dis. XCIX. 959 Among demented patients in advanced stages of their illness,..it is not rare to see some of them grasp their own feces, chew them and eat them often with great pleasure and satisfaction (coprophagia).
Read more

etymology - Where does the phrase "doctored" originate?

This is a phrase I’m particularly confused about, because it’s used often when something is manipulated or changed. For example, sometimes images surface online that are clearly Photoshopped, but people refer to them as “doctored” images. Why use the word “doctored” here? Answer The earliest Google Books match for an instance of doctored in a transitional (or perhaps post-transitional) sense between "amended" and "adulterated" appears in William Marshall, The Rural Economy of Glocestershire; Including Its Dairy: Together with the Dairy Management of North Wiltshire, and the Management of Orchards and Fruit Liquor, in Herefordshire , volume 2 (1789): Men in general, however, whose palates are set to rough cider, consider the common sweet sort as an effeminate beverage; and rough cider, properly manufactured, is probably the most generous liquor; being deemed more wholesome, to habits in general, than sweet cider:—even when genuine. That which is drank, in the kingd
Read more

word choice - Which is the correct spelling: “fairy” or “faerie”?

Fairy vs. faerie — which is the correct spelling? Answer As others have noted, fairy is the standard modern spelling, and faerie is a pseudo-archaism. However, in some contexts there is now a semantic distinction between the two spellings! In particular, fairy tales and the associated idea of fairies typically refer to the genre of folk stories printed by the Brothers Grimm, then sweetened and popularized for modern audiences by Disney et al. Faerie stories , on the other hand, are stories about the fae : otherworldly, unpredictable, and dangerous creatures who appear in the folk-tales and myths of England and Ireland. In origin, of course, the fairies and the fae are one and the same, but the connotations and usage of the words today are headed in opposite directions. A Google image search for fairy vs. faerie shows a lot of overlap, but some very significant differences in tone and content between the two terms. Note that the search for "fairy" turns up a number
Read more