An adpositional phrase, in linguistics, is a syntactic category that includes prepositional phrases, postpositional phrases, circumpositional phrases. Adpositional phrases contain an adposition as head and a complement such as a noun phrase. Language syntax treats adpositional phrases as units that act as adjuncts. Prepositional and postpositional phrases differ by the order of the words used. Languages that are head-initial such as English predominantly use prepositional phrases whereas head-final languages predominantly employ postpositional phrases. Many languages have both types, as well as circumpositional phrases. There are three types of adpositional phrases: prepositional phrases, postpositional phrases, circumpositional phrases; the underlined phrases in the following sentences are examples of prepositional phrases in English. The prepositions are in bold: a, she walked around his desk.b. Ryan could see her in the room.c. David walked on top of the building.d. They walked up the stairs.e.
Philip ate in the kitchen.f. Charlotte walked inside the house.g. As a student, I find that offensive. Prepositional phrases have a preposition as the central element of the phrase, i.e. as the head of the phrase. The remaining part of the phrase is followed by modifiers such as a noun, gerund, or clause. It's sometimes called the prepositional complement; the object of the preposition will have more than one modifier. The object of a prepositional phrase is to function as an adverb. Postpositional elements are frequent in head-final languages such as Basque, Finnish, Korean, Hindi, Urdu and Tamil; the word or other morpheme that corresponds to an English preposition occurs after its complement, hence the name postposition. The following examples are from Japanese, where the case markers perform a role similar to that of adpositions: a...mise ni store to ='to the store'b...ie kara house from ='from the house'c...hashi de chopsticks with ='with chopsticks'And from Finnish, where the case endings perform a role similar to that of adpositions: a...kauppaan store.to ='to the store'b...talosta house.from ='from the house'c...puikoilla chopsticks.with ='with chopsticks'While English is seen as lacking postpositions there are a couple of words that one can in fact view as postpositions, e.g. the crisis two years ago, sleep the whole night through.
Since a phrase like two years ago distributes just like a prepositional phrase, one can argue that ago should be classified as a postposition, as opposed to as an adjective or adverb. Circumpositional phrases involve both a preposition and a postposition, whereby the complement appears between the two. Circumpositions are common in Kurdish. English has at least one circumpositional construction, e.g. a. From now on, he won't help. German has more of them, e.g. b. Von mir aus kannst du das machen. From me out can you that do ='As far as I'm concerned, you can do it.'c. Um der Freundschaft willen sollst du es machen. Around the friendship sake should you it do ='For the sake of friendship, you should do it.' Like with all other types of phrases, theories of syntax render the syntactic structure of adpositional phrases using trees. The trees that follow represent adpositional phrases according to two modern conventions for rendering sentence structure, first in terms of the constituency relation of phrase structure grammars and in terms of the dependency relation of dependency grammars.
The following labels are used on the nodes in the trees: Adv = adverb, N = nominal, P = preposition/postposition, PP = pre/postpositional phrase: These phrases are identified as prepositional phrases by the placement of PP at the top of the constituency trees and of P at the top of the dependency trees. English has a number of two-part prepositional phrases, i.e. phrases that can be viewed as containing two prepositions, e.g. Assuming that ago in English is indeed a postposition as suggested above, a typical ago-phrase would receive the following structural analyses: The analysis of circumpositional phrases is not so clear, since it is not obvious which of the two adpositions should be viewed as the head of the phrase. However, the following analyses are more in line with the fact that English is a head-initial language: The distribution of prepositional phrases in English can be characterized in terms of heads and dependents. Prepositional phrases appear as postdependents of nouns and finite and non-finite verbs, although they can appear as predependents of finite verbs, for instance when they initiate clauses.
For ease of presentation, just dependency trees are now employed to illustrate these points. The following trees show prepositional phrases as postdependents of nouns and adjectives: And the following trees show prepositional phrases as postdependents of non-finite verbs and as predependents of finite verbs: Attempts to position a prepositional phrase in front of its head noun, adjective, or non-finite verb are bad, e.g. a. his departure on Tuesday b. *his on Tuesday departurea. Proud of his grade b. *of his grade prouda. He is leaving on Tuesday. B. *He is on Tuesday leaving. The b-examples demonstrate that prepositional phrases in English prefer to appear as postdependents of their heads; the fact, that they can at times appear as a predependent of their head is curious. More than not, a given adpositional phrase is an adjunct in the clause or noun phrase that it appears in; these phrases can however, function as arguments, in which case they are known as oblique: a. She ran under him. - Adjunct at the clause levelb.
The man from China was e
Phrase structure rules
Phrase structure rules are a type of rewrite rule used to describe a given language's syntax and are associated with the early stages of transformational grammar, being first proposed by Noam Chomsky in 1957. They are used to break down a natural language sentence into its constituent parts known as syntactic categories, including both lexical categories and phrasal categories. A grammar that uses phrase structure rules is a type of phrase structure grammar. Phrase structure rules as they are employed operate according to the constituency relation, a grammar that employs phrase structure rules is therefore a constituency grammar. Phrase structure rules are of the following form: A → B C meaning that the constituent A is separated into the two subconstituents B and C; some examples for English are as follows: S ⟶ NP VP NP ⟶ N 1 N 1 ⟶ N 1 The first rule reads: A S consists of a NP followed by a VP. The second rule reads: A noun phrase consists of an optional Det followed by a N; the third rule means that a N can be preceded by an optional AP and followed by an optional PP.
The round brackets indicate optional constituents. Beginning with the sentence symbol S, applying the phrase structure rules successively applying replacement rules to substitute actual words for the abstract symbols, it is possible to generate many proper sentences of English. If the rules are correct any sentence produced in this way ought to be grammatically correct, it is to be expected that the rules will generate syntactically correct but semantically nonsensical sentences, such as the following well-known example: Colorless green ideas sleep furiouslyThis sentence was constructed by Noam Chomsky as an illustration that phrase structure rules are capable of generating syntactically correct but semantically incorrect sentences. Phrase structure rules break sentences down into their constituent parts; these constituents are represented as tree structures. The tree for Chomsky's sentence can be rendered as follows: A constituent is any word or combination of words, dominated by a single node.
Thus each individual word is a constituent. Further, the subject NP Colorless green ideas, the minor NP green ideas, the VP sleep furiously are constituents. Phrase structure rules and the tree structures that are associated with them are a form of immediate constituent analysis. In transformational grammar, systems of phrase structure rules are supplemented by transformation rules, which act on an existing syntactic structure to produce a new one; these transformations are not required for generation, as the sentences they produce could be generated by a suitably expanded system of phrase structure rules alone, but transformations provide greater economy and enable significant relations between sentences to be reflected in the grammar. An important aspect of phrase structure rules is that they view sentence structure from the top down; the category on the left of the arrow is a greater constituent and the immediate constituents to the right of the arrow are lesser constituents. Constituents are successively broken down into their parts as one moves down a list of phrase structure rules for a given sentence.
This top-down view of sentence structure stands in contrast to much work done in modern theoretical syntax. In Minimalism for instance, sentence structure is generated from the bottom up; the operation Merge merges smaller constituents to create greater constituents until the greatest constituent is reached. In this regard, theoretical syntax abandoned phrase structure rules long ago, although their importance for computational linguistics seems to remain intact. Phrase structure rules as they are employed result in a view of sentence structure, constituency-based. Thus, grammars that employ phrase structure rules are constituency grammars, as opposed to dependency grammars, which view sentence structure as dependency-based. What this means is that for phrase structure rules to be applicable at all, one has to pursue a constituency-based understanding of sentence structure; the constituency relation is a one-to-one-or-more correspondence. For every word in a sentence, there is at least one node in the syntactic structure that corresponds to that word.
The dependency relation, in contrast, is a one-to-one relation. The distinction is illustrated with the following trees: The constituency tree on the left could be generated by phrase structure rules; the sentence S is broken down into smaller constituent parts. The dependency tree on the right could not, in contrast, be generated by phrase structure rules. A number of representational phrase structure theories of
A noun phrase or nominal phrase is a phrase that has a noun as its head or shows the same grammatical function as such a phrase. Noun phrases are common cross-linguistically, they may be the most occurring phrase type. Noun phrases function as verb subjects and objects, as predicative expressions, as the complements of prepositions. Noun phrases can be embedded inside each other. In some more modern theories of grammar, noun phrases with determiners are analyzed as having the determiner as the head of the phrase, see for instance Chomsky and Hudson; some examples of noun phrases are underlined in the sentences below. The head noun appears in bold; the election-year politics are annoying for many people. Every sentence contains at least one noun phrase. Current economic weakness may be a result of high energy prices. Noun phrases can be identified by the possibility of pronoun substitution, as is illustrated in the examples below. A; this sentence contains two noun phrases. B, it contains them. A; the subject noun phrase, present in this sentence is long.
B. It is long. A. Noun phrases can be embedded in other noun phrases. B, they can be embedded in them. A string of words that can be replaced by a single pronoun without rendering the sentence grammatically unacceptable is a noun phrase; as to whether the string must contain at least two words, see the following section. Traditionally, a phrase is understood to contain two or more words; the traditional progression in the size of syntactic units is word < phrase < clause, in this approach a single word would not be referred to as a phrase. However, many modern schools of syntax – those that have been influenced by X-bar theory – make no such restriction. Here many single words are judged to be phrases based on a desire for theory-internal consistency. A phrase is deemed to be a word or a combination of words that appears in a set syntactic position, for instance in subject position or object position. On this understanding of phrases, the nouns and pronouns in bold in the following sentences are noun phrases: He saw someone.
Milk is good. They spoke about corruption; the words in bold are called phrases since they appear in the syntactic positions where multiple-word phrases can appear. This practice takes the constellation to be primitive rather than the words themselves; the word he, for instance, functions as a pronoun, but within the sentence it functions as a noun phrase. The phrase structure grammars of the Chomskyan tradition are primary examples of theories that apply this understanding of phrases. Other grammars, for instance dependency grammars, are to reject this approach to phrases, since they take the words themselves to be primitive. For them, phrases must contain two or more words. A typical noun phrase consists of more dependents of various types; the chief types of these dependents are: determiners, such as the, this, my, Jane's attributive adjectives, such as large, sweeter adjective phrases and participial phrases, such as large, hard as nails, made of wood, sitting on the step noun adjuncts, such as college in the noun phrase a college student nouns in certain oblique cases, in languages which have them, such as German des Mannes prepositional phrases, such as in the drawing room, of his aunt adnominal adverbs and adverbials, such as there in the noun phrase the man there relative clauses, such as which we noticed other clauses serving as complements to the noun, such as that God exists in the noun phrase the belief that God exists infinitive phrases, such as to sing well and to beat in the noun phrases a desire to sing well and the man to beatThe allowability and position of these elements depend on the syntax of the language in question.
In English, determiners and noun modifiers precede the head noun, whereas the heavier units – phrases and clauses – follow it. This is part of a strong tendency in English to place heavier constituents to the right, making English more of a head-initial language. Head-final languages are more to place all modifiers before the head noun. Other languages, such as French place single-word adjectives after the noun. Noun phrases can take different forms than that described above, for example when the head is a pronoun rather than a noun, or when elements are linked with a coordinating conjunction such as and, or, but. For more information about the structure of noun phrases in English, see English grammar § Noun phrases. Noun phrases bear argument functions; that is, the syntactic functions that they fulfill are those of the arguments of the main clause predicate those of subject and predicative expression. They function as arguments in such constructs as participial phrases and prepositional phrases.
For example: For us the news is a concern. – the news is the subject argumentHave you heard the news? – the news is the object argumentThat is the news. -- the news is the predicative expression following the copula isThey. – the news is the argument in the prepositional phrase about the newsThe man reading the news is tall. – the news is the object argument in the participial phrase reading the newsSometimes a noun phrase can function as an adjunct of the main clause predic
Part of speech
In traditional grammar, a part of speech' is a category of words which have similar grammatical properties. Words that are assigned to the same part of speech display similar behavior in terms of syntax—they play similar roles within the grammatical structure of sentences—and sometimes in terms of morphology, in that they undergo inflection for similar properties. Listed English parts of speech are noun, adjective, pronoun, conjunction and sometimes numeral, article, or determiner. Other Indo-European languages have all these word classes. Beyond the Indo-European family, such other European languages as Hungarian and Finnish, both of which belong to the Uralic family lack prepositions or have only few of them. Other terms than part of speech—particularly in modern linguistic classifications, which make more precise distinctions than the traditional scheme does—include word class, lexical class, lexical category; some authors restrict the term lexical category to refer only to a particular type of syntactic category.
The term form class is used, although this has various conflicting definitions. Word classes may be classified as open or closed: open classes acquire new members while closed classes acquire new members infrequently, if at all. All languages have the word classes noun and verb, but beyond these two there are significant variations among different languages. For example, Japanese has as many as three classes of adjectives; because of such variation in the number of categories and their identifying properties, analysis of parts of speech must be done for each individual language. The labels for each category are assigned on the basis of universal criteria; the classification of words into lexical categories is found from the earliest moments in the history of linguistics. In the Nirukta, written in the 5th or 6th century BC, the Sanskrit grammarian Yāska defined four main categories of words: नाम nāma – noun आख्यात ākhyāta – verb उपसर्ग upasarga – pre-verb or prefix निपात nipāta – particle, invariant word These four were grouped into two larger classes: inflectable and uninflectable.
The ancient work on the grammar of the Tamil language, Tolkāppiyam, argued to have been written around 2,500 years ago, classifies Tamil words as peyar, vinai and uri. A century or two after the work of Nirukta, the Greek scholar Plato wrote in his Cratylus dialog that "... sentences are, I conceive, a combination of verbs and nouns ". Aristotle added another class, "conjunction", which included not only the words known today as conjunctions, but other parts. By the end of the 2nd century BC grammarians had expanded this classification scheme into eight categories, seen in the Art of Grammar, attributed to Dionysius Thrax: Noun: a part of speech inflected for case, signifying a concrete or abstract entity Verb: a part of speech without case inflection, but inflected for tense and number, signifying an activity or process performed or undergone Participle: a part of speech sharing features of the verb and the noun Article: a declinable part of speech, taken to include the definite article, but the basic relative pronoun Pronoun: a part of speech substitutable for a noun and marked for a person Preposition: a part of speech placed before other words in composition and in syntax Adverb: a part of speech without inflection, in modification of or in addition to a verb, clause, sentence, or other adverb Conjunction: a part of speech binding together the discourse and filling gaps in its interpretationIt can be seen that these parts of speech are defined by morphological and semantic criteria.
The Latin grammarian Priscian modified the above eightfold system, excluding "article", but adding "interjection". The Latin names for the parts of speech, from which the corresponding modern English terms derive, were nomen, participium, praepositio, adverbium and interjectio; the category nomen included substantives and numerals. This is reflected in the older English terminology noun substantive, noun adjective and noun numeral; the adjective became a separate class, as did the numerals, the English word noun came to be applied to substantives only. Works of English grammar follow the pattern of the European tradition as described above, except that participles are now regarded as forms of
A finite verb is a form of a verb that has a subject and can function as the root of an independent clause. In many languages, finite verbs are the locus of grammatical information of gender, number, aspect and voice. Finite verbs are distinguished from non-finite verbs, such as infinitives, gerunds etc. which mark these grammatical categories to a lesser degree or not at all, which appear below the finite verb in the hierarchy of syntactic structure. Verbs were said to be finite if their form limited the possible person and number of the subject. In some languages, such as English, this does not apply; the finite verbs are in bold in the following sentences, the non-finite verbs are underlined: Verbs appear in all sentences. This sentence is illustrating non-finite verbs; the dog will have to be trained well. Tom promised to try to do the work. In many languages, there can be one finite verb at the root of each clause, whereas the number of non-finite verbs can reach up to five or six, or more, e.g.
He was believed to have been told to have himself examined. Finite verbs can appear in dependent clauses as well as independent clauses: John said that he enjoyed reading. Something you make yourself seems better than something you buy. Most types of verbs can appear in finite or non-finite form: for example, the English verb go has the finite forms go, went, the non-finite forms go, going and gone; the English modal verbs lack non-finite forms. It might seem that clause must contain a finite verb. However, sentences lacking a finite verb were quite common in the old Indo-European languages, still occur in many present-day languages; the most important type of these are nominal sentences. Another type are sentence fragments described as minor sentences. In Latin and some Romance languages, there are a few words that can be used to form sentences without verbs, such as Latin ecce, Portuguese eis, French voici and voilà, Italian ecco, all of these translatable as here... is or here... are. Some interjections can play the same role.
In English, utterances that lack a finite verb are common, e.g. Yes. No. Bill!, Thanks. Etc. A finite verb is expected to have a subject, as it does in all the examples above, although null-subject languages allow the subject to be omitted. For example, in the Latin sentence cogito ergo sum the finite verbs cogito and sum appear without an explicit subject – the subject is understood to be the first-person personal pronoun, this information is marked by the way the verbs are inflected. In English, finite verbs lacking subjects are normal in imperative sentences: Come over here! Don't look at him! And occur in some fragmentary utterances: doesn't matter. Don't want to; the poor system of inflectional morphology in English makes the central role that finite verbs play be not so evident. In other languages, finite verbs are the locus of much grammatical information. Depending on the language, finite verbs can inflect for the following grammatical categories: Gender, i.e. masculine, feminine or neuter Person, e.g. 1st, 2nd, or 3rd Number, e.g. singular or plural Tense, i.e. present, past or future Aspect, e.g. perfect, progressive, etc.
Mood, e.g. indicative, imperative, etc. Voice, i.e. active, middle, or passiveThe first three categories represent agreement information that the finite verb gets from its subject. The other four categories serve to situate the clause content according to time in relation to the speaker, extent to which the action, occurrence, or state is complete, assessment of reality or desired reality, relation of the subject to the action or state. Modern English is an analytic language, which means it has limited ability to express the categories by verb inflection, it conveys such information periphrastically, using auxiliary verbs. In a sentence such as Sam laughs a lot,the verb form agrees in person and number with the subject, by means of the -s ending, this form indicates tense, aspect and voice. However, most combinations of the categories need to be expressed using auxiliaries: Sam will have been examined by this afternoon. Here the auxiliaries will and been express future time, perfect aspect and passive voice.
Highly-inflected languages like Latin and Russian, however express most or all of the categories in one finite verb. Finite verbs play a important role in syntactic analyses of sentence structure. In many phrase structure grammars for instance those that build on the X-bar schema, the finite verb is the head of the finite verb phrase and so it is the head of the entire sentence. In dependency grammars, the finite verb is the root of the entire clause and so is the most prominent structural unit in the clause; that is illustrated by the following trees: The phrase structure grammar trees are the a-trees on the left. The b-trees on the right are the dependency grammar trees. Many of the details of the trees are not important for the point at hand, but they show that the finite verb (in bold each t
In linguistics, a verb phrase is a syntactic unit composed of at least one verb and its dependents—objects and other modifiers—but not always including the subject. Thus in the sentence A fat man put the money in the box, the words put the money in the box are a verb phrase. A verb phrase is similar to. Verb phrases are divided among two types: finite, of which the head of the phrase is a finite verb. Phrase structure grammars acknowledge both types, but dependency grammars treat the subject as just another verbal dependent, they do not recognize the finite verbal phrase constituent. Understanding verb phrase analysis depends on knowing which theory applies in context. In phrase structure grammars such as generative grammar, the verb phrase is one headed by a verb, it may be composed of only a single verb, but it consists of combinations of main and auxiliary verbs, plus optional specifiers and adjuncts. For example: Yankee batters hit the ball well enough to win their first World Series since 2000.
Mary saw the man through the window. David gave Mary a book; the first example contains the long verb phrase hit the ball well enough to win their first World Series since 2000. The third example presents three elements, the main verb gave, the noun Mary, the noun phrase a book, all of which comprise the verb phrase. Note, the verb phrase described here corresponds to the predicate of traditional grammar. Current views vary on. Phrase structure grammars view both finite and nonfinite verb phrases as constituent phrases and do not draw any key distinction between them. Dependency grammars are much different in this regard. While phrase structure grammars acknowledge both finite and non-finite VPs as constituents, dependency grammars reject the former; that is, dependency grammars acknowledge only non-finite VPs as constituents. For example: John has finished the work. – Finite VP in bold John has finished the work. – Non-finite VP in boldSince has finished the work contains the finite verb has, it is a finite VP, since finished the work contains the non-finite verb finished but lacks a finite verb, it is a non-finite VP.
Similar examples: They do not want to try that. – Finite VP in bold They do not want to try that. – One non-finite VP in bold They do not want to try that. – Another non-finite VP in boldThese examples illustrate well that many clauses can contain more than one non-finite VP, but they contain only one finite VP. Starting with Lucien Tesnière 1959, dependency grammars challenge the validity of the initial binary division of the clause into subject and predicate, which means they reject the notion that the second half of this binary division, i.e. the finite VP, is a constituent. They do, however acknowledge the existence of non-finite VPs as constituents; the two competing views of verb phrases are visible in the following trees: The constituency tree on the left shows the finite VP has finished the work as a constituent, since it corresponds to a complete subtree. The dependency tree on the right, in contrast, does not acknowledge a finite VP constituent, since there is no complete subtree there that corresponds to has finished the work.
Note that the analyses agree concerning the non-finite VP finished the work. Dependency grammars point to the results of many standard constituency tests to back up their stance. For instance, topicalization and answer ellipsis suggest that non-finite VP does, but finite VP does not, exist as a constituent: *...and has finished the work, John. – Topicalization *What John has done is has finished the work. – Pseudoclefting What has John done? – *Has finished the work. -- Answer ellipsisThe * indicates. These data must be compared to the results for non-finite VP:...and finished the work, John has. – Topicalization What John has done is finished the work. – Pseudoclefting What has John done? – Finished the work. – Answer ellipsisThe strings in bold are the ones in focus. Attempts to in some sense isolate the finite VP fail, but the same attempts with the non-finite VP succeed. Verb phrases are sometimes defined more narrowly in scope, in effect counting only those elements considered verbal in verb phrases.
That would limit the definition to only main and auxiliary verbs, plus infinitive or participle constructions. For example, in the following sentences only the words in bold form the verb phrase: John has given Mary a book; the picnickers were being eaten alive by mosquitos. She kept screaming like a football maniac. Thou shalt not kill; this more narrow definition is applied in functionalist frameworks and traditional Euro
An adjective phrase is a phrase the head word of, an adjective, e.g. fond of steak happy, quite upset about it, etc. The adjective can conclude the phrase, or appear in a medial position; the dependents of the head adjective—i.e. The other words and phrases inside the adjective phrase—are adverb or prepositional phrases, but they can be clauses. Adjectives and adjective phrases function in two basic ways, attributively or predicatively. An attributive adjective precedes the noun of a noun phrase. A predicative adjective serves to describe the preceding subject, e.g.. The man is happy; the adjective phrases are underlined in the following example sentences. The head adjective in each of these phrases is in bold, how the adjective phrase is functioning—attributively or predicatively—is stated to the right of each example:. Sentences can contain tremendously long phrases. – Attributive adjective phrase. This sentence is not tremendously long. – Predicative adjective phrase. A player faster than you was on their team gaining weight.
– Attributive adjective phrase. He is faster than you. – Predicative adjective phrase. Sam ordered a spicy but quite small pizza. – Attributive adjective phrases. The pizza is spicy but quite small. – Predicative adjective phrases. People angry with the high prices were protesting. – Attributive adjective phrase. The people are angry with the high prices. – Predicative adjective phraseThe distinguishing characteristic of an attributive adjective phrase is that it appears inside the noun phrase that it modifies. An interesting trait of these phrases in English is that an attributive adjective alone precedes the noun, e.g. a proud man, whereas a head-initial or head-medial adjective phrase follows its noun, e.g. a man proud of his children. A predicative adjective, in contrast, appears outside of the noun phrase that it describes after a linking verb, e.g. The man is proud of his children. There is a tendency to call a phrase an adjectival phrase when that phrase is functioning like an adjective phrase, but is not headed by an adjective.
For example, in Mr Clinton is a man of wealth, the prepositional phrase of wealth modifies a man in a manner similar to how an adjective phrase would, it can be reworded with an adjective, e.g. Mr Clinton is a wealthy man. A more accurate term for such cases is phrasal attributive phrase. Constituency tests can be used to identify adjectives and adjective phrases. Here are the three constituency tests, according to X-bar theory, that prove the adjective phrase is both a constituent, an AP. Sentence = Sam ordered a spicy pizza. 1) Coordination tests can be used to confirm if spicy is an adjective phrase. Test 1: Sam ordered a spicy quite small pizza; this phrase passed the coordination test because it was grammatical, the adjective phrases were not creating ambiguous meanings when a conjunction is used. 2) Ellipsis tests can be be used to confirm if spicy is an adjective phrase. Test 2: Sam ordered a spicy pizza, but the pizza Betty ordered was not spicy; this phrase passed the Ellipsis test, because no ambiguity is created and the adjective phrase could be elided.
3) Movement test pseudoclefting, can be used to confirm if spicy is an adjective phrase. Test 3: Sam ordered a spicy pizza, spicy. Movement tests not only prove that the constituent moved is a stand-alone constituent, but proves that this phrase spicy is an AP if drawn in a syntax tree. Thus, because this adjective phrase could be moved to the right, it's sufficient proof that it is both a constituent and an adjective phrase. Although constituency tests can prove the existence of an AP in a sentence, the meanings of these AP may be ambiguous; this ambiguity must be considered. The following examples prove two things: Adjective phrases that are pre-nominal create ambiguous interpretations. Head adjectives. Note: This section can be added into the adjectives page, but ambiguity can apply to adjective phrases. Additionally, comma placements and intonations may have a role in figuring out ambiguity, but English has a written form of communication, more ambiguous than spoken communication; the following examples show the different interpretive properties of pre- and post-nominal adjectives which are inside adjective phrases.
1) Intersective versus non-intersective a. Ambiguous sentence: I’ve never met a more beautiful dancer than Mary Interpretation 1: I’ve never met a dancer, more beautiful than Mary Interpretation 2: I’ve never met anyone dancing more beautifully than Mary b. Unambiguous sentence: I’ve never met a dancer more beautiful than Mary Interpretation 1: I’ve never met a dancer, more beautiful than Mary *Interpretation 2: I’ve never met anyone dancing more beautifully than Mary This example showed entire adjective phrase moving, creating the same ambiguity as example 1. Therefore, the placement of the adjective relative to the subject is important for creating unambiguous statements. A. Ambiguous sentence: All the short blessed people were healed. Interpretation 1: All the short people were healed Interpretation 2: Only the people that were short and blessed were healed b. Unambiguous sen