Exercises 1

1. Do exercises 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 of Haegeman 1994, p. 74f.



Exercises 2


1.   Consider the following rewrite rules:

(1) ZP ->  Z - YP - XP
(2) YP ->  (WP) - (UP) - Y - (XP)
(3) WP ->  W
(4) UP ->  U - XP
(5) XP ->  (QP) - X - (YP)
(6) QP ->  Q

a.   Convert the rules in (1)-(6) into a tree structure. Process
     all rules, and process the (bracketed) optional elements at
     least once. Proceed until the tree structure terminates in
     heads.
b.   Convert the tree you have drawn or the rules in (1)-(6) in
     a labeled bracketing structure. Proceed until the heads of
     all maximal projections have been included in the labeled
     bracketing structure.

2.   What would be the maximal expansion of the tree you had to
     draw in exercise 1? How come? What does that tell you about
     the maximal number of sentences in a language?



Exercises 3


NB, use these definitions.

1.  Consider the following X-bar structure:

(1)          XP
           /   \
         YP      X'
        / \     /  \
      UP   Y'  X     ZP
          / \        /  \
         Y   WP    TP      Z'
                   /\      /\
                 SP  T'  Z   RP 
                    /
                   T

   Answer the following questions about this structure.

a. Name all nodes dominated by X'.
b. Name all nodes immediately dominating a maximal projection.
c. Name all nodes (strictly) c-commanded by TP.
d. Name all nodes that are in a spec-head relation to Z.
e. Name all nodes governed by X.
f. Name all nodes governed by YP.

2. An important notion of modern phrase structure theory is that
   phrases are always built up asymmetrically. However, a
   phrase consisting of two coordinated NPs (like John and
   Mary) would appear to have a symmetric structure. Discuss the
   following examples from (spoken) English in this context.

(2) a.  [He and she] will go to the movies
    b.  [He and her] will go to the movies
    c. *[Him and she] will go to the movies

3. Haegeman, exercises 1, 3, and 4 (pp. 148f.).



Exercises 4

1. Haegeman, exercise 1 (p. 194)

2. Consider the following sentences:

(1) a.   Caesar destroyed Rome
    b. * Caesar's destruction Rome
    c.   Caesar's destruction of Rome
    d.   Rome's destruction

a. From the sentences in (1), what can you tell about the ability of
   nouns to assign Case?
b. List the strategies English employs to make sure complements of
   nouns receive Case.

3. Consider the following sentences:

(2) a.  Mary killed John
    b.  John was killed

a. What is the argument structure of kill, and what kind of
   argument to kill is John in the two sentences in (2)?
b. Discuss the relation between argument status and Case.
c. Try to find cases in English or in your own language where the
   external argument receives accusative Case.

4. Exercise 4 of Haegeman (p. 196).



Exercises 5


NB, coreferential NPs are printed in italics.


1. Consider the following sentences:

(1) a. * John's mother loves himself
    b.   John's mother loves him
    c.   John's father loves himself
    d. * John's father loves him

a. Draw tree structures for the sentences in (1).
b. Demonstrate the relevance of c-command to binding.
c. Compare the sentences in (1) with those in (2).

(2) a. * Himself, John's mother doesn't love
    b.   Him, John's mother doesn't love
    c.   Himself, John's father doesn't love
    d. * Him, John's father doesn't love

   Which problem do the sentences in (2) pose to the binding theory,
   and how is it solved?

2. On p. 208ff. Haegeman discusses the question of the local domain for
   binding. She considers three locality conditions for binding: the
   clause mate condition (p. 208), the condition stating that the
   local domain of the anaphor must contain the anaphor's governor
   (p. 213), and the condition stating that the local domain must
   contain a subject. Answer the following questions, using the
   examples in the book:

a. Which examples suggest the need for a clause-mate condition?
b. Which examples prove the clause mate condition wrong?
c. Which examples show that the local domain must contain the
   anaphor's governor?
d. Which examples show that the local domain must be the minimal
   domain containing a subject?

3. Explain the difference in grammaticality of (3) and (4):

(3) * Poirot believes himself is the best detective
(4)   Poirot believes himself to be the best detective

4. Consider the definition of the principle of reflexive interpretation 
   on p. 215. Then consider the sentences in (16). For each example, name

a. the local domain for binding, and
b. the element(s) determining the size of the local domain.

5. Exercise 8 of Haegeman (p. 246).



Exercises 6

1. We have seen that c-command is a necessary requirement for
   binding. Construe examples showing that the same is true of
   control.

2. Haegeman, exercises 1, 2, and 4 (p. 286f).

3. Consider the following sentences from Dutch:

(1) a. * Jan zag Marie elkaar fotograferen
         John saw Mary photograph each other
    b.   Jan zag Marie hun fotograferen
         John saw Mary photograph them
(2) a.   Jan stelde Marie voor [PRO elkaar te fotograferen]
         John proposed to Mary to photograph each other
    b. * Jan stelde Marie voor [PRO hun te fotograferen]
         John proposed to Mary to photograph them

These sentences illustrate the phenomenon of split antecedents. 
Answer the following questions:

a.  Why does binding of elkaar 'each other' by the split antecedents 
    John and Mary cause problems in (1) but not in (2)?
b.  Discuss the difference between control and binding w.r.t. the 
    acceptability of split antecedents.



Exercises 7

1.  Exercises 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 of Haegeman (p. 360f).

2.  On p. 320 Haegeman discusses Burzio's Generalization. Consider it once
    more, and then answer the following questions:

a.  What principle of the grammar would be violated if raising verbs were
    able to assign accusative Case?
b.  What principle of the grammar would be violated if raising verbs had
    an external argument?



Exercises 8


1.  Haegeman, exercises 1, 4, and 5.

2.  Consider the following examples:

(1) Why do you think John did that?
(2) Why do you wonder what John did?

Answer the following questions:

a. (1) has two interpretations. Paraphrase them.
b. Draw representations of (1) in each of its two readings, indicating
   the relevant traces.
c. One of the interpretations on (1) is lost in (2). Which one?
d. Explain on the basis of section 6.2 that why in (2) may not 
   be moved from out of the embedded clause.

3. Consider the following example from Dutch:

(3) Ik vraag me af [ met wie ofdat [ Jan gepraat heeft ]]
    I wonder         with who COMP   John spoken has

a. Discuss how this example shows that within CP we must distinguish 
   between a specifier position and a head position.
b. If you compare (3) and (4), what conclusion can you draw regarding
   the position of the finite verb in fronting constructions like (4)?

(4) Met wie heeft Jan gepraat?

4. Consider the example in (5):

(5) *[Who] didn't you believe [ the story that I hit [t] ] ?

Apparently, wh-movement out of noun phrases is impossible (cf. p. 404).
Now consider the next set of examples:

(6) *[This man] nobody wanted to believe [ the story that I hit [t] ]
(7) *This is the man [who] nobody wanted to believe [ the story that I hit [t] ]

Explain the ungrammaticality of (6)-(7) in the same way as with (5). State
as exactly as possible what goes wrong.