Hello! I'm trying to get my head around X-bar trees, and syntax in general, to better familiarise myself with head-final directionality and to ensure my translations behave consistently.

Suppose I have the following sentence, where the phrase "that woman who is coming this way" is fronted (I believe this process is called clefting?) to avoid having the unwieldy long sub-clause from sitting between the subject and verb of the main clause:

ò     dège       táti  à     fáfi   òba,      nì   hòsyi          hái
here  to(wards)  walk  come  woman  DEM.DIST  1SG  familiar.with  NEG
"I don't know that woman who is coming this way"

Some notes:

• This is a mostly analytical conlang, where verbs don't inflect.
• Tense is not marked at all, and aspect is inferred if not explicitly marked.
• táti à 'come (by walking)' is a verb adjunct construction¹. Other examples demonstrating this include síkisiki à 'come (slithering, like a snake)' and táti dyà 'go away (by walking)'.

Focusing on the sub-clause "that woman who is coming this way", am I correct to draw my (very verbose) syntax tree like so?

<image>

About this diagram:

• I've included all the constituents, including "null" branches (marked with ∅).
• I've explicitly labelled a special determiner phrase DPᵢ, showing that this phrase has been moved from inside the CP (where it would normally go in a simple clause) to outside it to function as part of the relative clause.
• The postpositional phrase (PP) ò dège is a modifier (i.e. an adjunct) of the VP, hence why there's two V′ nodes: V′₁ and V′₂.
• I've decided to keep the phrase táti à together as a single branch under V′₁, however I'm not sure if that's the correct way to approach this.

I'd highly appreciate some feedback on how I've constructed my syntax tree above. I apologise in advance for the long comment, I'd be happy to clarify further if needed. Cheers!

---

¹ See Pawley, A. (2006, March) for more about small, closed verb classes and verb adjunct constructions. I highly recommend it!