Jan 28, 2017 · Tree #1. the founder of the church of England. The whole thing taken together is an NP (it starts with a definite article and can serve as the subject of a sentence, so it is something nominal, not prepositional), so the root of the tree should be labelled NP rather than PP. In general, an XP must always have an X as its head.

Jan 13, 2019 · By the way, that diagram comes from the Syntax Tree Generator by Miles Shang; you can just go to the web page, paste a bracket-notation tree, and it gives you the equivalent graphical tree. There are dozens of such programs, so I'm not specifically endorsing this one; you might, e.g., prefer one that lets you drag things around in the tree ...

Oct 10, 2014 · That can help factor linguistic descriptions of language structures, or factoring ambiguous analyses of a given sentence. Technically, though you seem uninterested by computational consideration, because binary trees give better factorization, parsing sentences with type 2 grammars (context-free) is faster with binary trees and also takes less ...

Dec 7, 2016 · Labelling the root of your syntax tree with an S doesn't fit into this scheme now, because you do have "S" as an abbreviation for "sentence" and thus a kind of category, but it doesn't tell us anything about the mentioned projection level and isn't build up of anything S-like either (a CP (= complementizer phrase) has a complementizer in it, an ...

Apr 10, 2018 · I'm looking for software for illustrating tree diagrams am wondering whether anyone knows which was used to create the one in the post linked below. I have tried messaging the author, but had no luck and was wondering whether someone recognized the application used or maybe has suggestions for others. Post: Analyzing negation with a syntactic tree

If you are looking for parse trees according to your grammar, the first tree seems correct, up to the missing N symbols, and a missing NOM above fleas. However your second diagram should look as follow, drawing only the relevant part that changes (i.e. under NOM_1):

Jun 17, 2020 · I'm not looking to make anything really special looking, I'd just like to make basic branches going down to draw a family tree. I tried Paint but that's difficult to edit, and Word wouldn't be easy to make into an image. I'm hoping to find out what those in linguistics who make historical trees normally use. (source: oocities.org)

Feb 6, 2020 · I have a question about this tree diagram in The Cambridge Grammar of The English Language (by Huddleston and Pullum): Please see the tree diagram in the red box of the nominal preposterous salary from Lloyds. (In CGEL, a nominal corresponds to N' in the X bar theory, and is written in the tree diagram as 'Nom'.) Question

Feb 2, 2015 · Since you treat the 'sentence' (the 'predication' component of a clause, rather) as a TP, I assume you are broadly subscribing a late version of the Chomskian P&P theory of syntax, and, if so, there are multiple reasons why your tree is completely unacceptable, but I would not say the way you have represented the infinitive is a particularly important one.

In early Chomskian GB/P&P analyses, that was a problem; in later 'minimalist' ones, however, any clause containing n verbs (i.e., a 'main' verb plus n-1 auxiliaries) also necessarily contains n 'Infl' heads, and, under such assumptions, there is no problem in categorizing "to" as an 'Infl[-Tense]' provided it is clear that it must be lower in ...