PROBLEM 3.1:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUESTION: 

We are asked to formulate a lexical entry for the word "defendants".



I am confused as to the value in the SPR field.  "defendants" does not necessarily need a specifier, i.e.



"Defendants sit next to the lawyers"

or

"Defendants are usually nervous before trials"

but certainly can be used with a specifier



"The defendants are nervous"



Does this leave us with a + or - in the SPR field?  The text leaves the issue unclear.



thanks for your help



chris





ANSWER:

Hi Chris,



pls post question on the newsgroup (if you haven't already) ... I will post yours and answer it. For now:



SPEC +



does not mean "needs a specifier" but more something like "is/has a specifier".

For features that are not specified, we have introduced underspecification ...

So, what to do?



Lexical entries are descriptions, and therefore don't 

have to be fully resolved. If the facts show the word 

to be compatible with two different values, make sure 

the lexical entry is compatible with both values. 

(You might go back and have a look at the discussion of 

"you" on page 77.)





Hope that helps ...





Florian



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROBLEM 3.4:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUESTION:

I got the following question about problem 3.4:



I had a question about part B) of problem 4.  I guess I kind of see where

the ambiguity of the PP placement exists, depending on if it modifies and S

or NP and a VP or NOM but I don't really see why we need to use coordinate

conjunctions to answer the question.



ANSWER:

So far, we provided rules that allow PPs to modify NOMs and VPs (see the

grammar fragment in ch. 3 or your last week's homework):



In short, the rules say:



NOM --> NOM PP

VP --> VP PP



In Problem 3.4 we ask you to provide an argument that these two rules are

not enough and that we need rules that allow for modification of S and/or NP

by a PP. For this, consider examples of coordination of NPs and PPs and look

at the different meanings that intuitively would arise depending on where

you attach the PP to the tree (i.e. whether you modify NOM vs. NP or VP vs.

S by a PP). You will see that those coordinated structures actually have

different meanings.





By coordinated structure, we man something like (to give examples of nominal

coordination)





(a) the dog and a cat

(b) dogs and the cat

(c) Peter and a bunch of kids





(verbal coordination)





(d) ran and jumped

(e) read the book and left





Florian