Inconsistent analysis of "quality work"

[lgessler]

Three occurrences in EWT:

(1) Very reasonable prices and quality/NN work/NN compound(work, quality) (2) Excellent customer service and quality/JJ work/NN amod(work, quality) (3) Excellent customer service and quality/JJ work/NN amod(work, quality) (again)

The analysis in (1) is to be preferred, IMO, since quality as used in quality work doesn't tolerate adverbial modification well:

(4a) really famous work (4b) ? really quality work (5a) marginally famous work (5b) ?? marginally quality work (6a) strikingly famous work (6b) ?? strikingly quality work

[nschneid]

Agreed, I don't see any reason to say "quality" is an ADJ as well as a NOUN.

[rueter]

Confused by the idea of amod(quality, work), which as far as I knew was supposed to indicate that "work" was an adjective, I'm not sure we are on the same wave lengths for understands the archs in compound(quality, work). Are you setting the arrow tip of the arch on the word "work"?

[nschneid]

Oh it should have been notated compound(work, quality). "Work" remains the head.

[lgessler]

yes, my bad--forgot what the UD conventions were for that. Corrected OP

[arademaker]

IMO, since quality as used in quality work doesn't tolerate adverbial modification

What about strong quality work or high quality work? Sorry, I may have misunderstood the argument, not a native speaker.

[nschneid]

That would be [high quality] work = work of high quality, i.e. amod(quality, high). No need to say that "high" is an adverb.

"Strong quality work" is a bit less idiomatic but "strong" is more clearly an adjective, as opposed to *strongly quality work.