2nd Tutorial: Tree Terminology & Grammar Base

CTL 3209 Syntax

Instructor:
Office:
e-mail:
Web:
Assignment Locker:

Dr. Matthias GERNER

Room B 7606
mgerner@cityu.edu.hk
http://www3.ctl.cityu.edu.hk/~mgerner/
Q-8

Outline of session:
1
2

Exercise I: Accounting for the adverb ever (Radford 1988: 159-160)

Exercise II: C-COMMAND CONDITIONS ON ANAPHORS (Radford 1988: 158-159)

1. Exercise I: Accounting for the adverb ever (Radford 1988: 159)

Normally, the English word ever cannot occur in positive sentences, i.e. in sentences without
negative particle. The following type of sentences is thus ungrammatical:
(1) *I will ever forgive you for that
It can typically occur in negative sentences such as
(2) (a) Nobody will ever forgive you for that.
(b) I wont ever forgive you for that.
However, there are also restrictions on the usage of ever in negative sentences, as the following
negative sentences illustrate:
(3) (a) *I will ever forgive nobody for that
(b) *Someone who didnt like you would ever forgive you for that
The concept of c-command seems to account for the restriction of ever in these negative sentences.
We can describe the rules governing ever along the following lines:
C-COMMAND CONDITION ON EVER:

Ever is an adverbial phrase (ADVP), which occurs as an

immediate constituent of S. In negative sentences, ever must be preceded and c-commanded by a
negative constituent (e.g. by a negative Modal, or by a Noun Phrase containing the negative
Determiner no as one of its immediate constituents).
Departing from this c-commanding property of ever, we want to account for the grammaticality and
ungrammaticality of a number of sentences. Consider the following three sentences:
1

(4) (a) No Frenchman ever would help an Englishman.

(b) No Frenchman would ever help an Englishman.
(c) No Frenchman would help an Englishman ever.
(4a) No Frenchman ever would help an Englishman.
S

NP
D
No

ADVP
N

Frenchman

ADV

VP

would

ever

help

NP
D

an

Englishman

(4b) No Frenchman would ever help an Englishman.

S

NP
D
No

ADVP

would

ADV

ever

help

Frenchman

VP
NP
D
an

(4c) No Frenchman would help an Englishman ever.

S

NP
D
No

M
N

Frenchman

would

VP

ADVP

V
help

NP

ADV

an

Englishman
2

ever

N
Englishman

All three tree diagrams comply with the C-COMMAND CONDITION ON EVER. First, the three
different sentence slots in which ever may occur in (4a), (4b) and (4c) reveal that no Frenchman,
would, help an Englishman are direct constituents of the clause S. In addition, it shows that ever
itself is a direct constituent of S. The relative high number of sentence slots it may occur in shows
that it is not particularly attached to any direct constituent of the sentence, but rather to the whole
sentence S. Also, from a semantic perspective, ever has scope over the whole clause S.
Moreover, the negative constituent no Frenchman is placed at the beginning of (4a), (4b) and (4c)
preceding thus the adverbial ever. Furthermore, the negative constituent no Frenchman ccommands the adverbial ever in all three examples. No Frenchman is immediately dominated by S
which also immediately dominates ever. The C-COMMAND CONDITION ON EVER therefore predicts
correctly the grammaticality of (4a), (4b) and (4c). Lets account for the following three sentences:
(5) (a) *Some Frenchmen ever wouldnt help an Englishman.
(b) Some Frenchmen wouldnt ever help an Englishman.
(c) Some Frenchmen wouldnt help an Englishman ever.
First of all, the negative contracted adverb nt (extended form: not) is not a direct constituent of the
sentence S, but rather has only scope over the modal would. The negative (contracted) adverb
cannot occur in other sentence slots of the sentence (as it is obvious), the so-called movement test
cannot be applied to any of (5a), (5b) or (5c). It only modifies the modal. To start with, we may
present the structure of (5a) in the following tree diagram.
(5a) *Some Frenchmen ever wouldnt help an Englishman.
S

NP
D
Some

ADVP
N

ADV

Frenchmen ever

VP

ADV

would

nt

help

NP
D

an
Englishman
In this structure, the negative constituent c-commands the adverb ever, but it does not precede the
adverb ever, resulting thus in a violation of the C-COMMAND CONDITION ON EVER.
This problem is solved in the grammatical sentences (5b) and (5c), where the negative constituent
(wouldnt) precedes and c-commands the adverb ever.

(5b) Some Frenchmen wouldnt ever help an Englishman.

S

NP
D
Some

M
N

ADVP
ADV

Frenchmen would

VP

ADV

ever

help

nt

NP
D
an

N
Englishman

(5c) Some Frenchmen wouldnt help an Englishman ever.

S

NP
D
Some

M
N

Frenchmen would

VP
ADV
nt

V
help

ADVP
NP

an
Consider now the following three ungrammatical sentences:

ADV
N

ever

Englishman

(6) (a) *Some Frenchmen ever would help no Englishman.

(b) *Some Frenchmen would ever help no Englishman.
(c) *Some Frenchmen would help no Englishman ever.
In all three examples, the negative constituent is no Englishman. In (6a) and (6b), it does not
precede and does not c-command the adverb ever, thus resulting in a violation of the C-COMMAND
CONDITION ON EVER. This is obvious from the following two tree-diagrams.

(6a) *Some Frenchmen ever would help no Englishman.

S

NP
D
Some

ADVP
N

ADV

VP

would

Frenchmen ever

help

NP
D

no

Englishman

(6b) *Some Frenchmen would ever help no Englishman.

S

NP
D

Some

Frenchmen

ADVP

VP

would

ADV

ever

help

NP
D
no

N
Englishman

The sentence (6c) also violates the C-COMMAND CONDITION ON EVER, but its violation is less severe.
The negative constituent precedes the adverb ever, but it does not c-command it.
(6c) *Some Frenchmen would help no Englishman ever.
S

NP

would

Some

Frenchmen

VP

ADVP

V
help

NP
D

ADV
N

no

Englishman

ever

2. Exercise II: C-COMMAND CONDITIONS ON ANAPHORS (Radford 1988: 158-159)

Show that the C-COMMAND CONDITIONS ON ANAPHORS would account for data such as the following
(where any possible antecedent(s) of the reflexive are italicised):
(1) John will buy himself another car.
(2) John might show Harry pictures of himself.
This exercise was part of the first homework assignment last year. It is an adapted version of one
students homework.
(1) John will buy himself another car.
John can be shown as the possible antecedent of the reflexive.
The above sentence would yield the following P-marker:
S
NP1
John

M
will

VP
V

NP2

buy

himself

NP3
another car

As the first branching node dominating NP1 [John] is S, and S dominates NP2 [himself], [John] is
said to be c-commanding [himself]. Since both [John] and [himself] is a third person singular NP and
[John] c-commands [himself], [John] can thus function as an appropriate antecedent for the anaphor
given in (1).
Although NP3 [another car] also c-commands NP2 [himself] by virtue of the fact that the first
branching node of NP3 is VP and VP dominates NP2, [another car] is not an appropriate ccommanding antecedent of NP2 [himself], as it refers to an impersonal object (while NP2 [himself]
pointing to a person). It thus cannot function as an appropriate antecedent for [himself].
Hence, by the C-command Conditions on Anaphors, the sentence (1) can only have one possible
antecedent of the reflexive, which is John.

(2) John might show Harry pictures of himself.

The P-marker of sentence (2) would be as follows:
S
NP1

John

might

VP
V

NP2

show

Harry

NP4
N

PP

pictures P
of

NP3
himself

The above P-marker shows that the first branching node dominating NP1 [John] is S and S dominates
NP3 [himself], hence NP1 [John] c-commands NP3 [himself]. As both [John] and [himself] are third
person singular NPs, [John] appears to be an appropriate antecedent of [himself].
Moreover, as the first branching node dominating NP2 [Harry] is VP and VP dominates NP3
[himself], NP2 also c-commands NP3. Since both [Harry] and [himself] are third person singular NPs,
[Harry] can also be an appropriate antecedent of [himself]. Therefore, the anaphor in (3) can be said
to have two possible antecedents, which are [John] and [Harry].
Although N [pictures] also c-commands NP3 [himself] by the fact that the first branching node of N
is NP4 and NP4 dominates NP3, it cannot function as an appropriate antecedent of [himself], as it
refers to an impersonal object (while NP2 [himself] pointing to a person). Hence, by the Ccommand Condition on Anaphors, the possible antecedents for [himself] in sentence (3) can only be
[John] or [Harry].