 The LF driven picture of semantic interpretation is controversial for many reasons: some people don’t think that LFs are properly thought of as inputs to anything, never mind semantic interpretation. Culicover and Jackendoff (2005) argue for much less extensive syntactic structures coupled with very messy mappings to semantic (or ‘conceptual’) structures. Others think that most of the work done by LFs could be done by taking a notion of surface syntax seriously, trading in syntactic structure for very complicated semantic theories to account for the data. (Bittner 2007, Jacobson 1999).  Thus, the description of some of the ambiguities as syntactic or structural rather than semantic can be somewhat controversial. However, everyone in the game needs something to serve as the input to semantic interpretation and everyone needs some way to describe those structures (if you don’t, call me and let’s talk about it…) so hopefully similar points will hold in your preferred syntactic framework. We will highlight some of these controversies where necessary.