Syntactic phrase structures
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 มิ.ย. 2024
- This video lecture is a part of the course 'An Introduction to English Linguistics' at the University of Neuchâtel. This is session 7, in which I discuss phrase structure and grammatical relations.
- วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[4K] TREASURE(트레저) “KING KONG” Band LIVE Concert 킹콩은 라이브를 찢어🦍 [it’s KPOP LIVE 잇츠라이브]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/p8bLLOxPDD8/mqdefault.jpg)
This is great, I'm doing the whole course. You're an excellent teacher.
Thanks very much for sharing all of this.
I should watch your video before I got a test! You make it clear in this topic! I will keep watching! Thank you so much! :)
I am an ESOL teacher and I found that explanation quite helpful for my endorsement test, thanks a lot for uploading this video.
That's great to hear, thank you!
wish id found this at the start of my course not 7 weeks in after the first exams on grammar >
Thank you sir for this video. It's gonna help me tomorrow in my test.
Nice method of teaching. Thank you
A million thanks . I haven't checked its grammaticality but i just want to repeat a very big thank u
Thank u @martin, this video helped me allot...
Hello sir,
I have a question please. It is possible to derive a S (sentence) from a NP?
Hello! I love your way of teaching,please help me to learn more.thanks
Keep going and Thank you so much.
Dear Mr. Hilpert, thank you very much for that video. Your way of explaining things is easy to understand and sometimes even funny as well. Thanks for answering my remaining questions on that rather complex topic.
kind regards
+b00nshot Thanks for watching!
+Martin Hilpert You're welcome, I hope you also get to read my question since I'm slightly confused. I'm just going to copy it here again:
Is there any rerason for not splitting the words "sex" and "drugs" around the CONJ in two separate NP's (time: (26:15) )? Because in the explanation of conjunctions you were showing an example where "John" & "I" are indeed two separate NP's (time: (18:55) ). It would be great if you could answer this. :)
thank you so much you make the explicuty so clear
Excellent video with great explanation!!!~ Thank you so much, professor.
Thanks for watching!
+Martin Hilpert thanks foe explanation please your email; rfhamouz@gmail.com this my email i wanna your email for aske you about something
if possibe and thanks
You are my hero! I have an exam tomorrow and I was looking at my papers and course confused, but this video made everything so clear. Too bad we don't have teachers like you at university. ;)
Sinka Csilla Good luck with your exam!
Sinka Csilla we are same...
Best teacher ever thank you so much its so helpful...keep going :)
this was very helpful , thank you very much .
Wao u r great sr I m from pakistan I doing elt thnx v gud job
Aren't "the book" and "the blue couch" determiner phrases? Greetings from Hamburg University!
Excellent 🌹
Thank u a million!
sentence can be NP? if yes how can represent it in Phrase Marker? without use triangle
THANK YOU VERY MUCH
thank you your helpful phrase
thank you so much sir for this info..It helps me to have a deeper understanding about our topic..
Thanks for watching!
Thank you sooooo much ....your explanations made it so much easier to understand the tree diagram...I hope I am going to pass my Final Exam, tomorrow..Cheers from Canada, Vancouver
+Ellaine Fields Best of luck!
+Martin Hilpert Hello. Is there any rerason for not splitting the words "sex" and "drugs" around the CONJ in two separate NP's (time: (26:15) )? Because in the explanation of conjunctions you were showing an example where "John" & "I" are indeed two separate NP's (time: (18:55) ). It would be great if you could answer this. :)
!You mean "to take your final exam", right?. But, anyway, now after two years hopefully u could have passed it
Mr. Hilpert, I've got 3 questions:Can I start drawing trees from the top? (It always boils down to an S is a VP & a NP)Why do auxiliaries go independently, they are verbs & should join the VP?Why is a constituent with a pronoun is called a Noun phrase but not a Pronoun phrase? Thank You.
It is strange, I have the same class at the University of Amiens and we don't see half of it, we saw three type of ambuigity and the complementizers are not the same except for if and that. But you explain better the tree diagram here, thanks!
thanks a lot, sir
Thank you kindly, Dr. Hilpert, for your labour, the benefit of which is doubtless.
Now, may I ask you, what a 'tree' of the following inverted sentence woud be: "Little did the wizard know what awaited him in the dungeon." So far, I see that unless I let the lines cross, the NP (the wizard) is the part of the VP (Little did the wizard know...). Thus, the subject NP proves to be the part of the predicate VP, as it were. Is my thinking quite sound?
Well, I now see that my previous assumption is no good, for the auxiliary and the NP (the wizard) go seperately from the VP starting with "know". Yet, I still do not know what to do with the adverb "little" at the front without crossing the lines since it is supposed to be a part of the VP.
@@tarasrybin8410 That's a syntax gourmet question, thank you! The sentence is best analyzed as a so-called "inversion" construction, that is, it is part of the family of constructions in which the auxiliary and the subject trade places (the wizard did know - did the wizard know). So if you take the syntax of questions and apply it here, you're half the way there. Then we still need to take care of the "little". It makes sense to treat it like a negative particle (compare: Never did I imagine it would be so bad), also because it means something like "not at all" in this context. The syntactic position in which it appears is the "complementizer" position just above the sentence node. So in two words, what you have is a complementizer (little) and then a structure with question syntax (did the wizard know).
@@MartinHilpert Splendid! Thank you for being so kind as to answer my question. It was the knowledge that I lacked, not understanding. Now I have it and will remember it. Thank you again, Dr. Hilper.
I am in an Introductory Linguistics course and am having trouble with the examples paused on 16:51. I was wondering why we don't just skip the NP and label "on the blue couch" as PP right away? I guess I'm questioning that because using the substitution test, the question test, and movement test it answers using "on" with the response.
Rather than without the "on".
EX: Question test :
Who read the book on the blue couch? Sue
What did Maria read on the blue couch? the book
Where did Maria read the book? ON the blue couch
MyaMooLay AND isn't "Sue read" an embedded sentence? -so many questions sorry!
Hi there! By 'skip the NP', do you mean that "the blue couch" should not be a constituent of its own? You can substitute it (Sue read the book on this one), so I'd say it is a constituent. Also, you can say things like 'The blue couch Sue always read her books on was sold to the National Museum of Fine Couches.
MyaMooLay In these examples there is just a single predicate (read), so no embedding. You're thinking of something like 'John said that Mary read the book'.
This is very informative and useful. In the example @ 19:41, why is the auxiliary verb not considered part of the verb phrase?What would you do with "could have been good friends"? What role would "could have" play, and how would it be broken down?
Thanks for watching, Scott. In these phrase structure rules, 'could have' would go into the AUX slot together. But please note that there are other ways of doing it. The examples in the video are just meant to introduce students to the idea of syntactic constituency, and hence they simplify things a lot. Many 'serious' formalisms actually disallow tripartite branching and view the auxiliary as an element that modifies the verb phrase (and which hence is a part of the verb phrase). If you google 'x-bar theory', you will get a lot of examples.
Nice video. Are you German, by the way?
fantastic lesson
Thanks for watching!
Thank you so much sir
Thank you very much Mr Martin Hilpert. You way of teaching is very helpful I used to wach your videos and I got a lot of understanding from them. Plz I have one Question if it is possible. I watch the videos and I do some exercises but I don't know if my answers correct or not and their is nobody to correct my mistakes. So please I need you e-mail and thanks a lot again
Hello ı can understand this example: the girl who you met at the gym was Lily. Can u help pleasee
Thank you so much for this! Got a quiz tw and a final in a week.
You are an excellent teacher of grammar.
One thing! "to the touch" in your example, "Sand is hot to the touch", is attached to the Sentence not to the Adjective Phrase!
Think of it, please!
Thanks, Nawwaf. Why would you analyze it in this way?
Martin Hilpert
Dear Sir.
For me, "Sand is hot to the touch " is just like Sand is hot in the evening" where "in the evening" is attached to the sentence rather than to the adjective phrase "hot"
Think about this: In "The sand is hot to the touch and sparkling white", the conjunction "and" links two constituents that can be analyzed as adjective phrases. Conversely, in "The sand is sparkling white and hot to the touch", the prepositional phrase "to the touch" modifies only "hot", but not "sparkling white". All this strongly suggests that "to the touch" is not a sentence adverbial like "in the evening".
am I watching Netflix ?
apart from joke it's really proven helpful to me
can you give me a diagram tree for these please?
1-what you have said could be true.
2-We consider John to be a good student.
3-I can't accept excuses from lazy people.
4-Who is the boss in here?
5-My sister lives in a nice house.
6-That woman who is talking to my mother is my aunt.
I really need them as soon as you see them,cause I have a grammar exam next Sunday.Hasan from IRAQ.
Could you please draw a diagram on a dummy subject sentence, e.g
". There is .....
Thank you
shoush says hii
Nzha Al'Rwaished shosh in the house
2 she read a book about a couch or read a book sitting on a couch