It's the same sentence, actually. If "it" is there in the subject position, it prevents "Mary" from moving. However, in its absence, a DP needs to fill that empty constituent, so "Mary" moves up along the sentence tree.
Also, with words like "appear" and "seem" functioning as they do to reflect how the SPEAKER knows the information that they're stating, it's hard to imagine a situation in which someone would use "appear" quite like that. "Appear" very strongly connotes conclusions based on visual information when used in that kind of construction, and I'm not sure exactly how you would simply look at Mary and judge that she knows she's getting fired tomorrow without having other background information at your disposal as well. (For example, if you already happened to have heard a rumor about it yourself, and are judging that Mary has heard it as well based on her visibly agitated state in conjunction with that knowledge.) The literally visual aspect of the word tends to get reduced when it's put into more convoluted constructions like "it would appear that...", since then it's implied that you're assessing the situation as a whole rather than just Mary's outward appearance and mannerisms, but I simply don't think it's good English to use "appear" in this situation without that clear grammatical manifestation of that further abstraction. (Of course, different dialects may well vary wildly on this particular point.)
I miss syntax! Nice job with the movement! We'd usually triangle out DPs like "she" to save space. We never did deep structure for passives, and I was the only one in class who bothered to figure out transative vs. intransative with the same verb. (ie.: "The sun melted the ice," vs. "The ice melted," but it seems to share the deep structure with passive phrases, moving up to the empty subject position)
Thanks so much for this! I want more!
Ever do the trees upside-down? Like, you write out the sentence first, and then you tree it?
No, "tomorrow" being under a DP is my vain attempt at guessing how to treat it. I actually posted this to linguistics to ask for help, and they said that it should go under an AdvP. As for doing triangles, we're still being asked to do them completely on our homework assignments - I lost a couple half-points on my last assignment for being lazy with the DPs. Doing the trees how you described is considered to be the best way for beginners to do it, which isn't to say I'm doing it the other way because I've mastered this stuff - far from it. I mean, earlier this semester I was doing it top-down because I had actually mastered the material up through that point, but at this point I'm confused enough that that's not the reason. Instead I did it that way mainly because I've been using trees straight from the book as a template. Anyways, if you want I can scan in my graded trees so you can see them with corrections so I don't mess you up.
I wouldn't want you to go through all the trouble of scanning your stuff in, but *droooool*! I really do miss this stuff.
I agree that "tomorrow" should go under AdvP, but I don't know which rules you're working with, and I never knew whether or not AdvP had a specific place in deep structure. I'm assuming it's an adjunct of V':
V' / | V' AdvP / | V DP(t) fire
(sorry if that doesn't look too neat... this damned Japanese keyboard doesn't have the regular slash) It's just that you can move AdvP around almost anywhere, and I have no idea about the rules that govern that. "Mary appears to know that tomorrow she will be fired." ... and I appear to know that my brain will explode upon continued contemplation.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2008-04-21 03:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-21 03:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-21 05:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-21 05:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-21 05:27 am (UTC)Also, with words like "appear" and "seem" functioning as they do to reflect how the SPEAKER knows the information that they're stating, it's hard to imagine a situation in which someone would use "appear" quite like that. "Appear" very strongly connotes conclusions based on visual information when used in that kind of construction, and I'm not sure exactly how you would simply look at Mary and judge that she knows she's getting fired tomorrow without having other background information at your disposal as well. (For example, if you already happened to have heard a rumor about it yourself, and are judging that Mary has heard it as well based on her visibly agitated state in conjunction with that knowledge.) The literally visual aspect of the word tends to get reduced when it's put into more convoluted constructions like "it would appear that...", since then it's implied that you're assessing the situation as a whole rather than just Mary's outward appearance and mannerisms, but I simply don't think it's good English to use "appear" in this situation without that clear grammatical manifestation of that further abstraction. (Of course, different dialects may well vary wildly on this particular point.)
no subject
Date: 2008-04-21 03:57 am (UTC)Shush.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-21 03:57 am (UTC)I miss syntax! Nice job with the movement! We'd usually triangle out DPs like "she" to save space. We never did deep structure for passives, and I was the only one in class who bothered to figure out transative vs. intransative with the same verb. (ie.: "The sun melted the ice," vs. "The ice melted," but it seems to share the deep structure with passive phrases, moving up to the empty subject position)
Thanks so much for this! I want more!
Ever do the trees upside-down? Like, you write out the sentence first, and then you tree it?
no subject
Date: 2008-04-21 04:12 am (UTC)Doing the trees how you described is considered to be the best way for beginners to do it, which isn't to say I'm doing it the other way because I've mastered this stuff - far from it. I mean, earlier this semester I was doing it top-down because I had actually mastered the material up through that point, but at this point I'm confused enough that that's not the reason. Instead I did it that way mainly because I've been using trees straight from the book as a template.
Anyways, if you want I can scan in my graded trees so you can see them with corrections so I don't mess you up.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-21 04:39 am (UTC)I agree that "tomorrow" should go under AdvP, but I don't know which rules you're working with, and I never knew whether or not AdvP had a specific place in deep structure. I'm assuming it's an adjunct of V':
V'
/ |
V' AdvP
/ |
V DP(t)
fire
(sorry if that doesn't look too neat... this damned Japanese keyboard doesn't have the regular slash)
It's just that you can move AdvP around almost anywhere, and I have no idea about the rules that govern that. "Mary appears to know that tomorrow she will be fired."
... and I appear to know that my brain will explode upon continued contemplation.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-21 04:42 am (UTC)........V'
....../..|
.....V'..AdvP
..../.|
...V..DP(t)
.fire