2

I would really appreciate if somebody could help me and provide a short explanation. The sentence is as follows:

The latest research on dieting always warns people about the dangers of too much cholesterol.

"The dangers of too much cholesterol" should be a constituent, but I'm having trouble showing that while drawing the tree (using x-bar theory) as I'm unsure where to add the last PP.

Any help would be much appreciated!

Improve this question
3
  • It's a PP complement to the NP "the dangers". Inside that NP, the structure is the same as in any N'/PP constituent.
    – Natalie Clarius
    Commented Nov 27, 2016 at 18:45
  • Thank you! By the way are 'too' and 'much' both adverbs in this sentence? How should be this AdvP represented?
    – Julia
    Commented Nov 27, 2016 at 19:03
  • Probably 'much' is a quantifier in [Spec, NP], modified by an AdvP headed by 'too'. The whole thing is an AP. (Some recent theorists propose a NumP between NP and DP, but this probably isn't assumed in introductory syntax classes.)
    – WavesWashSands
    Commented Nov 27, 2016 at 19:07

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

Assuming that you're unsure as to whether it's a complement or an adjunct, standard tests can be applied:

(1) Optionality: #The latest research on dieting always warns people about the dangers. (Not possible except when the PP is elided)

Compare: I tied my shoelaces (at noon).

(2) Restrictions on type: *The latest research on dieting always warns people about the dangers at sleeping late. ('Dangers' requires 'of', not 'at')

Compare: I tied my shoelaces in the washroom/at school/during recess.

(3) Restrictions on number: *The latest research on dieting always warns people about the dangers of too much cholesterol of too little sleep. (Can't have more than one complement)

Compare: I tied my shoelaces in the washroom at school during recess.

(4) Restrictions on position: *Of too little sleep, the latest research on dieting always warns people about the dangers.

Compare: At school, I tied my shoelaces.

All these point to the PP being a complement, so it should be the daughter of N' and the sister of N.

Improve this answer
2
  • 1
    I agree with the conclusion, but the reasons (1)-(4) are not good. You'd need to show that these diagnostics give different results for adjuncts. The example in (2) is not ungrammatical.
    – Greg Lee
    Commented Nov 28, 2016 at 7:00
  • Point taken; I've adjusted accordingly.
    – WavesWashSands
    Commented Nov 30, 2016 at 4:47

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.