I'm trying to draw the syntax tree for the TP "Kim wants John to stop" (in the setting of Carnie's first three chapters).

I guess it contains the NP "Kim" and the VP "wants John to stop". The VP consists of the V "wants", NP "John", and [something else] "to stop".

What is that [something else]? This piece "to stop" cannot be a PP because the only rule for PP is PP -> P (NP) and "stop" is not a NP, it's a VP (or am I wrong)? And the fact that "to stop" is a VP contained inside another VP ("wants John to stop") ruins the whole theory because there cannot be a VP inside a VP. Am I wrong in saying that "wants John to stop" is a VP then? If so, what is it?

  • 2
    I'm not aware of anything to prevent a VP from containing a VP. Is this part of the theory covered in the textbook? – Jetpack Sep 6 '19 at 2:37
  • Consider a sentence like "I told you that I wanted Bob to start considering proposing a committee to discuss implementing the changes." Looking at the output of an automated parser like nlp.stanford.edu:8080/parser/index.jsp might also be informative. – Peteris Sep 6 '19 at 11:40
  • 1
    @Jetpack The rule for VP in Carnie (3rd edition) is VP -> (AdjP+) V (NP) ({NP/CP}) (AdvP+) (PP+) (AdvP+). So a VP cannot contain another VP. – user22577 Sep 6 '19 at 16:12

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.