Pre-head complements in nominals

[nschneid]

I was surprised to find that CGEL (starting on p. 439) regards some pre-head dependents in nominals as complements rather than attributive modifiers. I haven't seen computational linguists make this distinction as part of syntax and I assume we're not making it in CGELBank.

[BrettRey]

Yes, I have a feeling that John has backed off on that, but I'm not sure about it. I haven't been making the distinction. Do you think we should? I suppose if we don't we should mention it in the guidelines.

…

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 12:04 AM Nathan Schneider ***@***.***> wrote: I was surprised to find that CGEL (starting on p. 439) regards some pre-head dependents in nominals as complements rather than attributive modifiers. I haven't seen computational linguists make this distinction as part of syntax and I assume we're not making it in CGELBank. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#67>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAJWKJMLIGETANHMESJ26ODW37U4DANCNFSM6AAAAAAVZ5DB7E> . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[nschneid]

Yeah I think we should document it as something we're not attempting. SIEG2 p. 128: "Complements in NP structure are therefore virtually restricted to PPs and subordinate clauses in the head nominal."

[BrettRey]

I'll do that.

[BrettRey]

2.4.2 Modifier vs Complement
CGEL (starting on p. 439) regards some pre-head dependents in nominals as complements rather than attributive modifiers, as in a flower seller or an income tax adviser. In contrast, we analyze these pre-head dependents as modifiers.