Regarding trying underspecify PP attachment:
oe: Only PPs in VPs can be a directional complement. Once an adjunct is there, then any following PP can't be a directional complement. => supports the analysis of directional PPs as complements.
I threw the boxes into the basement in the summer house.
I threw the boxes in the basement into the summer house.
I threw the model road into Rome into the basement.
Dan: I threw those boxes already last Thursday into the basement. : can get the interleaving, but it's intonationally marked.
oe: Might be able to recognize which adjuncts can do that.
He slipped quietly into the room.
?He slipped on tiptoes into the room.
??He slipped on Tuesday into the most heavily guarded room in the palace.
He slipped quietly into the most heavily guarded room in the palace.
Woodley: Any more marked than the blue big dog barked
Dan: I don't think we're doing science anymore if we're talking about degrees of markedness and strangeness.
oe: Main point of these examples is that they are interactions where the syntax constrains the range of interpretations; one of the things we put on the design principles.
Interface representation should include all information that is constrained by the grammar
Woodley: You were hinting at another design principle a few minutes ago … but not remembering it now.
Editor's note: This topic comes up again and is basically dismissed in [TheAbbey/Chrysais2014Arity|the arity discussion].