[Grammar] Constitency Test

[cescfabregas]

My professor told me in the final test of grammatical description
that look V + at the teacher PP which is quite weird
look at the teacher = Verb Phrase
at the teacher = Prepositional Phrase
to prove that it's a constituent I used several tests
Stand alone: What did Kim look? At the teacher
Clefting: It was at the teacher that Kim looked
Preposing: At the teacher was what Kim looked

Those seems strange, so does that 'at the teacher' is a PP
May I ask if these are really correct, as well as the statement that its a PP?
Thanks a lot!

 

[MikeNewYork]

My professor told me in the final test of grammatical description
that look V + at the teacher PP which is quite weird
to prove that it's a constituent I used several tests
Stand alone: What did Kim look? At the teacher
Clefting: It was at the teacher that Kim look
Preposing: At the teacher was what Kim look

Those seems strange, so does that 'at the teacher' is a PP
May I ask if these are really correct, as well as the statement that its a PP?
Thanks a lot!

If "PP" stands for prepositional phrase, that is correct. I don't understand your "tests". Why not use "Kim looked at the teacher"?

 

[cescfabregas]

If "PP" stands for prepositional phrase, that is correct. I don't understand your "tests". Why not use "Kim looked at the teacher"?

The professor required us to find out the constituents for the VP : looked at the teacher
So it has to be the PP 'at the teacher'
that's why I used the abovementioned tests to show that it's a constituent of the VP

 

[cescfabregas]

The professor required us to find out the constituents for the VP : looked at the teacher
So it has to be the PP 'at the teacher'
that's why I used the abovementioned tests to show that it's a constituent of the VP

Not sure if these tests are done correctly though

 

[Raymott]

It's polite and much more useful if you use the full term of any ambiguous abbreviation at least once.
PP = present perfect, past perfect, present participle, past participle, prepositional phrase (apparently), and who knows what else.

This is an example of the correct way to deal with ambiguous abbreviations:
"My question relates to prepositional phrases (PP). I need to know if V + PP is possible." V is probably understand as 'verb' by most, but 'verb' is unambiguous and the same rule should apply.
Of course, you've made other errors too, but I think it's important to point out that 'PP' should not be used without explanation.

 

[cescfabregas]

It's polite and much more useful if you use the full term of any ambiguous abbreviation at least once.
PP = present perfect, past perfect, present participle, past participle, prepositional phrase (apparently), and who knows what else.

This is an example of the correct way to deal with ambiguous abbreviations:
"My question relates to prepositional phrases (PP). I need to know if V + PP is possible." V is probably understand as 'verb' by most, but 'verb' is unambiguous and the same rule should apply.
Of course, you've made other errors too, but I think it's important to point out that 'PP' should not be used without explanation.

Thanks so much!
May I ask whether my tests are valid ?

 

[MikeNewYork]

Thanks so much!
May I ask whether my tests are valid ?

Even linguists argue about the validity of constituency tests. I will deal with your individual test sentences later in the post. First, I feel compelled to say that this is a useless exercise in a simple sentence like the original. "Kim looked at the teacher" is not difficult to parse: Subject (Kim) - intransitive verb (looked) - adverbial prepositional phrase (at the teacher). In addition, the preposition is correct for this use, and the sentence is logical and meaningful, with no ambiguity. Why anybody would need constituency testing for this sentence is a mystery to me.

Now I will discuss your sentences.

Stand alone: What did Kim look? At the teacher. [At whom did Kim look? At the teacher. Or, informally, Who did the Kim look at?]
Clefting: It was at the teacher that Kim look. [It was at the teacher that Kim looked. Very clumsy sentence.]
Preposing: At the teacher was what Kim look. [At the teacher was where Kim looked. Very clumsy sentence.]

 

[cescfabregas]

Even linguists argue about the validity of constituency tests. I will deal with your individual test sentences later in the post. First, I feel compelled to say that this is a useless exercise in a simple sentence like the original. "Kim looked at the teacher" is not difficult to parse: Subject (Kim) - intransitive verb (looked) - adverbial prepositional phrase (at the teacher). In addition, the preposition is correct for this use, and the sentence is logical and meaningful, with no ambiguity. Why anybody would need constituency testing for this sentence is a mystery to me.

Now I will discuss your sentences.

Stand alone: What did Kim look? At the teacher. [At whom did Kim look? At the teacher. Or, informally, Who did the Kim look at?]
Clefting: It was at the teacher that Kim look. [It was at the teacher that Kim looked. Very clumsy sentence.]
Preposing: At the teacher was what Kim look. [At the teacher was where Kim looked. Very clumsy sentence.]

Thanks!
It's because I'm required to use the tests to show whether they are the constituents of the Verb phrase.
But I used 'What did Kim look? At the teacher' As the answer which is not fully correct.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Thanks!
It's because I'm required to use the tests to show whether they are the constituents of the Verb phrase.
But I used 'What did Kim look? At the teacher' As the answer which is not fully correct.

"What did Kim look" is not correct. In my opinion, your teacher is hung up on meaningless details. But that's just me.

 

[cescfabregas]

"What did Kim look" is not correct. In my opinion, your teacher is hung up on meaningless details. But that's just me.

Ya.. Originally I wrote What did Kim look at, however after she said that 'at the teacher' is a PP then I dropped 'at'.

 

[emsr2d2]

It was incorrect to drop "at". The word has to appear in the question but it's optional in the answer.

Q. What did Kim look at?
A1. Kim looked at the teacher.
A2. At the teacher.
A3. The teacher.

One question and three possible answers.

 

[Tdol]

Ya.. Originally I wrote What did Kim look at, however after she said that 'at the teacher' is a PP then I dropped 'at'.

How about using Where did Kim look? if you want to avoid using at.