I wanted to have text wrapping around a figure, so I wrote the following (this uses pst-jtree.sty which is just a collection of macros over pstricks, very useful for linguists of my ilk, largely because it is unlikely to conflict with other stuff):

      \! = {CP}! ^<right>[branch=\blank,xunit=12em,yunit=.1em]{[Figure 2: a syntax for (\ref{ex:atb-baseline})]} .
      \! = <left>{}@D ^<right>!a .
      \!a = <left>[xunit=2em]{did} ^<right>{\&P}!b .
      \!b = <left>{TP$_1$}!tp1 ^<right>[xunit=4em]{\&'}!c .
      \!c = <vert>{and} ^<right>[xunit=4em]{TP$_2$}!tp2 .

      \!tp1 = : {Jack} {VP$_1$}@A !vp1 .
      \!vp1 = <left>{travel to} .

      \!tp2 = : {Sally} {VP$_2$}@B !vp2 .
      \!vp2 = <left>{talk to} ^<right>{\framebox{which city}}@C .

      \ncbar[angleA=-90,angleB=70,linearc=.6ex]{->}{C}{D}\ncput*{\small\textit{linearization-enabling movement}\normalsize}

\noindent \mbox{\hspace{.25in}}\citet{citko03,citko05,citko06,citko08} uses a multidominant syntax (Fig.\ 2 at right) to implement the idea that ATB extraction gaps stand in a many-to-one relation with their filler. Multidominated constituents (here, \textit{which city}) are known to conflict with the hypothesis that a successful linearization requires unambiguously determining the linear position of every terminal relative to every other terminal (\citealt{kayne94}, \citealt{nunes04}, \citealt{fox-pesetsky05}). \citeauthor{citko03} proposes that this conflict can be resolved by extracting the offending constituent to a position high enough that an unambiguous linearization site can be established. Note that here there is a genuine many-to-one relation between gaps and fillers (contrary to parasitic gaps, where the relation is strictly one-to-one). Again, this analysis derives many of inherent properties of ATB extractions: it cannot happen covertly, because if it did, the structure would remain unlinearizable; and as long as some overt movement to a high enough position takes place, it is irrelevant whether it is A-bar movement, A-movement, or head movement.

This produced the following:

enter image description here

Well, dang.

After mucking around with this for a bit, it occurred to me to write `\noindent' at the beginning of the paragraph, and suddenly everything works.

enter image description here

I want to emphasize that the only difference between the two images is the addition of \noindent, and I can force an indent (if I want to) by writing \noindent\mbox{\hspace{.25in}} or something to that effect. What I don't understand, and I want to understand, is why wrapfig conflicts with indentation like this.

  • \leavevmode should work as well (I haven't tested this hypothesis since your code fragment is not executable as is). – John Kormylo Feb 10 '16 at 15:05
  • you could make a test file to show the problem, since the content of the wrapfig is unlikely to be relevant you could omit the actual tree and just replace by \rule{3cm}{5cm} or whatever size is needed – David Carlisle Feb 10 '16 at 15:43
  • @JohnKormylo \mbox starts with \leavevmode – David Carlisle Feb 10 '16 at 15:43

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.