[Syntax] DP Hypothesis and Possessive Structure
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 เม.ย. 2017
- We reformulate our understanding of NPs into DPs and talk about how we represent possession and possessive structure in X-Bar Theory.
LIKE AND SHARE THE VIDEO IF IT HELPED!
Visit our website: bit.ly/1zBPlvm
Subscribe on TH-cam: bit.ly/1vWiRxW
Like us on Facebook: on. 1vWwDRc
Submit your questions on Reddit: bit.ly/1GwZZrP
#Linguistics #Syntax #Language
-Playlists-
Introduction to Linguistics: • Introduction to Lingui...
Syntax: • Syntax
Phonology: • Phonology
-Recommended Textbooks-
Syntax: A Generative Introduction: amzn.to/3m2GUb7
Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach: amzn.to/37jFeWm
Language Files: Materials for an Introduction to Language and Linguistics: amzn.to/3nYrO89
Contemporary Linguistic Analysis (O'Grady and Archibald): amzn.to/2HibGxC
Understanding Phonology: amzn.to/2HdQcBM
Understanding Syntax: amzn.to/3k7777C
Understanding Morphology: amzn.to/3nZuX7G
The Sounds of Language: An Introduction to Phonetics and Phonology: amzn.to/3lT8kA3
Hello, welcome to TheTrevTutor. I'm here to help you learn your college courses in an easy, efficient manner. If you like what you see, feel free to subscribe and follow me for updates. If you have any questions, leave them below. I try to answer as many questions as possible. If something isn't quite clear or needs more explanation, I can easily make additional videos to satisfy your need for knowledge and understanding.
![[Syntax] Complementizer Phrases (CPs)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8GQ6cjITFQo/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Syntax] Complementizer Phrases (CPs)](/img/tr.png)
![ถ้าพี่วุ้นท้อง แป้งจะท้องไปด้วยกัน !!!! [ดูคลิปเต็มหน้าช่อง] #Short | PANG ORNHIRA](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FeyEnVMwitA/mqdefault.jpg)
![4BANG - NOT LIKE US (REMIX) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HO22cYkha1s/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Syntax] X-Bar Theory - Specifiers, Adjuncts, and Complements](/img/n.gif)
I love your syntax videos! They helped me out a lot. Thank you so much!!
What a great lesson. I listen to this lecture before taking my syntax final term exam. Gracias!
Good to see you back man. Your discrete maths has helped me a lot!
I learned this theory in a syntax course at Memorial's University. I absolutely fell in love with it! It got quite tricky at some point with very complex structures.
감사합니다
이해하는데 많은 도움이 됐어요
YOU SAVED MY LIFE
I finally understand X-bar theory!!!
very quick and helpful, hope your stuff can be pushed out more
Thank you a lot
amazing. thanks!
I dont know how to thank you ! Thank a lot
thank you so much!
Ammaazzziiinngg.Thank you sir
thank u so much
In a previous video, you used NP for 'the pier' in the example 'Dan ate fresh lobsters at the pier' so after getting to DP hypothesis we should modify it to DP instead of NP or both choices are correct?
Thank you for all the Syntax playlist!! You're extraordinary!
thanks
Can we say a little bit like for TPs that the CP holds information like [+Plural]?
in the example 7:54 you have the man in the boat with two N bars on top of “man” is there a reason for this, could i just put one in this instance?
First off thanks for the posts! And... hi all, my question is, if you look at the tree diagram of the man in the boat's hat, (man in the boat) is a set of terminal nodes dominated by an NP. Does it hold then that (man in the boat) is a constituent? (which is not valid). Many thanks!
how do we know that the owner is the specifier, and not the complement? (vice versa for the owned)? consider the case of "john's and mary's car"; conjunctions shouldn't generally allow for this anomalous missing complement in "john's". Is there some other way we achieve this particular structure?
Okey thanks
In the example "the man in the boat's hat...' doesn't the boat function as possession, why is it NP in the diagram? TKs
Hello...the man's visit...here man is being given theta role
..so will there be any change in its structure if any , kindly help
Hello! Sir i want to ask a question. If we are to draw a tree for the phrase like Adam's bicycle, is it fair enough to put Adam under the DP?
If I understand it correctly, it should be like this: [DP[DP['D[D][NP[N'[N Adam]]]]][D'[D 's][NP[N'[N bicycle]]]]] (Past that into a syntax tree generator to see it. I recommend the one at ironcreek.) I've included the empty determiner node just to show where there would be one, but we generally don't use any determiners with proper nouns in most cases.
Since "Adam's" counts as one word, you could arguably be lazy and just put "Adam's" where the "'s" is and drop the entire specifier DP (which you can do with the possessive articles, e.g. "my"), but it's not really very thorough as you can also modify "Adam", such as "Adam Senior's bicycle", "Adam from work's bicycle" or "the Adam who I know's bicycle" and you need other points of attachment to account for those extra words.
What do you do with words like "my' for example "my favorite book in the library"
Some might say that you have "me" as the first DP, and the possessive 's as the second D head. So it would have the "me's book" structure, that would be said as "my" out loud. Others would just consider "my" to be a D that takes NP "book" as its complement.
So if you hold the new DP replacing NP rule true, in a tree for a sentence such as [Eloise wants you to study a new language] will you still draw DP-D'-D-NP for 'Eloise' and leave the D blank? or will you only use this rule only when a determiner is present?
The D is null in "Eloise."
I think so. The D is probably null or empty in "Eloise". Funny thing is, there are determinerless NPs (Alexiadou, Haegeman and Stavrou 2007) but no bare DPs, but that's more a semantic than a syntactic issue.
We should leave the D chair empty, at least that's what I would do.
I agree with 'LePradator1
so there could be possessive articles/determiners?
Yeah, e.g. "my hat": [DP[D'[D my][NP[N'[N hat]]]]]
Question (exam tomorrow and prof doesn't answer his emails): If the subject (or object) is a pronoun such as I, would you take DP straight into D' and then D, or would you need to embed the subject DP in DP1 to reserve a space for another D? I know English generally doesn't use DPs on pronouns, but I can see a situation where it could be possible, such as "the me from last year," and it seems likely that there's a language out there that does use this construction, so I'm wondering if you would have to leave room for that in your tree structures. For example, for the sentence "I like you," which tree would be correct? [CP [C' [C] [TP [DP [D' [D I]]] [T' [T] [VP [V' [V like] [DP [D' [D you]]]]]]]]] or [CP [C' [C] [TP [DP [D' [D] [DP [D' [D I]]]]] [T' [T] [VP [V' [V like] [DP [D' [D] [DP [D' [D you]]]]]]]]]]]
Generally you can go straight to D. We use Spec-DP for the possession construction, so without it there’s no reason to require another D head.
@@Trevtutor thank you so much!
Pardon me if I'm wrong (non-native speaker), but isn't the phrase "a man in the boat's hat" ungrammatical? Or is "a hat of a man in the boat" more grammatical and preferred in most cases?
Totally grammatical. Your alternative is definitely more formal and may be preferred in writing, but it sounds too formal for most speaking situations.
I have a question, but it's not related to syntax. It's just an English question. How would you write "[The man in the boat]'s hat." as a sentence {fragment}? (as opposed to "The man in the boat's hat." - which would imply a hat is a structure on a boat.)
{edited}
"The man in the boat's hat" would be understood as "[The man in the boat]'s hat" when being read. If you wanted to state the other reading, you'd probably have to paraphrase or provide context to make it clear that the man is in the hat which the boat is wearing.
TheTrevTutor Is that because it (in the boat) is a prepositional phrase?
Principles of Late Closure/Minimal Attachment in sentence processing might help. It's also semantically weird to think of a man being inside a boat's hat.
Consider "The man on the boat's deck". That's more likely to be a man standing on a boat's deck, because it makes more sense semantically. We usually default to the interpretation that makes the most sense.
"In the boat" is a PP, which in turn is a reduced relative clause (CP) "...that's in the boat". I'm not sure that in English one can add a 's to such a heavy constituent.
I did not understand why "in the boat" is adjunct. if so you can change an order of it like In the boat the man"s hat.
Because "in the boat" is modifying the NP. It specifies where the NP is, but it is optional information.
The constituent 'In the boat' is an adjunct because the semantic predicate 'man' is a one- place predicate, that is to say, it selects no complement after it. All nouns are usually one place predicates. Some prepositions, for example, are two -place predicates because they select two arguments such as 'behind in the example: 'the book is behind the door ('the book' is the first argument and 'the door' the second) Hope it helps
How come the DP hypothesis is needed? What is a problem before?
Possessive 's shown here is a motivation. The fact that you can say `him', but not `*a him' suggests that `him' should be a DP, not an NP without a determiner. DPs also have a fixed left-headed position, much like every other category in English. NP would be a violation, being the only right-headed XP.
Thanks I want to know more about Syntax. Is there any recommendation for me?
@@user-wl6yx3dw5k in french there is a great introduction to the Minimalist program written by G. Puskas
Wait... how can be constituents 😭 Shouldn't
I've had the same question for a long time. It feels like the notion of constituency kinda gets lost once you start introducing grammatical elements like possession, agreement, and everything else all over the trees.