Thank you all for your comments on Sally's problem with her foot.  I
apologize for the semantic distraction even as I am somewhat puzzled....

Isn't one goal of a syntactic theory to account for semantics as well?
True, we use syntax to help disambiguate the semantic content of a
sentence, but we often turn to semantic information to make decisions about
the structures and functions of constituents (as Dick Veit did in his
initial response to the Sally sentence) as well as in basic classifications
of constituents (adverbials of time versus adverbials of location).
Shouldn't a grammar be able to account for metaphor (That car was
flying.) as well as states of the world that we have yet to encounter,
but which may, nonetheless, be the case, even if in the future
(That man gave birth to a healthy baby) or in the past (Some
dinosaurs had feathers).  I wonder, is there a semantic problem
with Sally's foot migraine in the following sentence:
  Sally thinks she has a migraine in her foot, but it is all in her head.

Rick Henry
SUNY Potsdam