$1$ X$-$bar Theory

$-$ For English, syntax will be the iteration of the following X$-$bar structure.

$-$ We need to distinguish $4$ types of elements

$-$ Heads: Every phrase contains one and only one head, which is of the same category of the phrase;

$-$ Complements: Sister to X;

$-$ Specifiers: Sister to $\backslash (\backslash$mathrm$\{$X$\}^\{\backslash$prime$\}\backslash ),$ daughter of XP;

$-$ Adjuncts: Sister to XP$,$ daughter of XP$.$

$-$ How to draw an X$-$bar tree:

$-$ For every head there should be three layers;

$-$ If there is no specifier, you can omit the X$-$bar level;

$-$ Both the specifier and the complement are phrases.

$-$ Complements are sisters of the head that selects them.

$-$ Phrase types:

$($Phrases in parentheses are optional$)$

$2$ Subjects and VPISH

$-$ Heads syntactically select for constituents that represent their semantic arguments $($e$.$g$.$ Agent, Theme, Patient, etc.$),$ and the selection follows the principle of locality:

$(2)$ If an atom selects an element, it acts as a head. The head must have the selected element as its complement or its specifier. Selection is local in the sense that there is a maximal distance between a selector and what it selects: a head's argument are realized within its maximal projection.

$-$ An apparent counterexample: the subject of a sentence is an argument of the verb $($e$.$g$.$ its Agent$),$ but it is the specifier of TP

UT VP$-$internal Subject Hy pothesis $($VPISH$)$:

The subject of a sentence is selected for by the verb and merges internally $($moves$)$ to the VP as its specifier.

$-$ In addition to TPs and DPs$,$ VPs now have specifiers too; the verb selects for all its arguments, including the subject

$-$ We can see VP$-$internal subjects active in another type of construction:

$-$ VP$-$small clauses show directly that the subject merges in the VP

$-$ Other small clauses include AP small clauses and PP small clauses, which all have contain subjects

uT Small clauses show that in addition to TP$,$ DP$,$ and VP$,$ APs and PPs can have subjects $($specifiers$)$ too!

$*$ VP small clause:

e$.$g$.$ Peter heard $[$Mary leave$].$

Tree:

$*$ AP small clause:

e$.$g$.$ Fred saw $[$Sue drunk$].$

Tree:

$*$ PP small clause:

e$.$g$.$ Bill prefers $[$his soup in a mug$].$

Tree:

Practice: Draw a surface tree for the sentence below. Make sure to include VPISH.

$(3)$ Martin prefers his soup in a cup.

$(4)$ The skinny squirrel's nuts mysteriously disappeared.

$(5)$ Sue believed that the director was proud of her latest film.

$(6)$ It is likely that that the squirrels ate the berries surprised Ada.

$3$ Structural ambiguity

$-$ The following sentence is ambiguous between two readings. Identify and paraphrase the two readings, and then draw a tree corresponding to each of the meanings.

$(7)$ J$$rgen should feed the squirrel with an acorn.

a$.$ Reading A:

b$.$ Reeading B: