Saria ([info]shootthecore) wrote in [info]linguistics,
@ 2008-02-14 15:48:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
help diagramming a coordinate sentence.
I understand that in a coordinate sentence such as y verbs and z verbs that the two sentence nodes are joined together along with the CC node to a dominating "super" sentence node.

But, what happens when there are more CCs like in:

w verbs and x verbs and y verbs and z verbs.

Is it like this? (My silly professor made up this sentence)


or this?



or

do all S's and CC's that are linked together form their own distinct dominating S nodes (3 in total in this case) which then join together at another S node that is higher than them?

Thanks.

(Post a new comment)


[info]postpunkjustin
2008-02-15 12:40 am UTC (link)
Hmm... this is some pretty old school syntax here. I think the story was that an S node has the structure (NP (Aux) VP), so you would be coordinating separate S nodes under one big S node.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]pgdudda
2008-02-15 04:43 am UTC (link)
I could just be missing something blazingly obvious, but his is where old-school trees always broke down for me in syntax. My own intuition says that coordinating conjunctions are daisy-chains, not parts of trees. Think of it like banyan trees --- each sentence is its own tree, and the CCs are the intertwined roots of the individual trees.

And of course, that analogy breaks down when CC1 is not identical to CC2, at which point you have to decide which is more important:

The tree except for the branch and the stem except for the root.

The question then arises of is the breakdown (in parenthetical format):

1. (The tree) except for (the branch and the stem) except for (the root).
2. (The tree except for the branch) and (the stem except for the root).

At which point pragmatics kicks in and my head really starts to hurt. ;-)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]gryphonavocatio
2008-02-15 06:37 am UTC (link)
I wrote a theory back in my first syntax class along the lines of you second tree. I was informed it was incorrect.

Having never looked at coordination outside of X-bar theory, I don't think I can help you...

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]shootthecore
2008-02-15 07:15 am UTC (link)
I should add that this is part of a semantics assignment. While I personally favor the second example I showed, my third proposal is probably more accurate for the assignment. However, the only part that bothers me is that S_1 and S_4 are never joined at a second level Sentence node, as entities would be in a proper lattice.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]eliah
2008-02-15 10:43 pm UTC (link)
There are varying ideas for this. I'm inclined towards binary trees, which posits a coordinating phrase "&P" (if you will). Thus for a simplified version of your example you'd have:
[&P [S [Cheney burps]] [&' [& and] [S Bush burps]]]
(if that bracketing notation makes sense to you)

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…