Generative Syntax 5.2 - The DP Hypothesis
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ต.ค. 2014
- Prof Caroline Heycock looks at the idea that what are traditionally thought of as noun phrases are actually phrases headed by determiners.
The class numbers follow the chapter numbers of the free online textbook “Syntax of Natural Language” by Santorini and Kroch at www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/s....
CC BY-NC-SA (3.0)
creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA W2D2 | Summer | โหดจัด ซัดไม่เลี้ยง](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TJa9d7tpSP4/mqdefault.jpg)
Wow.. It's amazing, and I love how the video shows the tree. It's a beautiful video.
Very clear explanatation!!
Thank you for making these! I have an exam on generative syntax on Wednesday next week and so far these videos have been a great help!
Here, I saw the power and the beauty of the structure and abstraction that hidden in the daily-speak of us.
Well this is nothing short of amazing.
Very clear explanation. Can anyone recommend me any video that show the same explanation in languages with no overt determiners?
Thank's
Thanks for sharing the lecture. I really liked the observation that determiners and possessive constructions are in complementary distribution.
Can the phrase pattern in this generative transformation also work for protoaustronesian languages?
I'm programming something related, and this hypothesis makes perfect sense.
Saying that it is not an NP but a DP means affirming that our brain first picks the determiner and then the noun - which doesn't seem to be the case... articles are definite or indefinite depending on the status of the noun, that means that we 1) first have a noun and depending on its informative status we decide for it to be definite or indefinite and then 2) pick a definite article (the), or an indefinite one (an). But it depends on the semantics of the noun. You do not choose a type of article and then a noun that informatively fits into that determiner category.
I completely agree. Different theories, different points of view.
I like to think that this theory (DP theory) is based, among other premises, on the fact that according to distributional criteria any word will be nominalized with a determiner, therefore depending on it.
baldorigami on 'dependency' terms it might very well be true (determiners and functional elements in general are the ones that convey informational traits in information structure), but on the other hand, if we take into account determiners with features such as gender and number like it happens for romance languages (not only), we know that they share the same features as the noun they determine, and probably thus means that the noun should be generated first?
They used to say that it is enough for the formalism to work on paper, and to not worry our pretty little heads about psychological reality which is inaccessible to us. You assume that the NP generates the DP, but it could just as easily be the other way around: a transitive V could select a DP, which in turn selects an NP, i.e. a feminine singular determiner could select for a feminine singular noun.
Technically, DP could be selected first and, if it's marked for -spec (i.e. the noun isn't specific) a D will be generated first. If the DP is +spec (such as "Mary"), then noun will generate without a D.
I don't seem to understand the movement of a lower DP to a higher DP since there is no VP internal subject hypothesis because we are dealing with a DP and not a VP. Something definitely escapes me; I would kindly need Dr Heycock' assistance here.
Excelent explanation, my only question is why we have 's deletion in "the boys' bicycle" whilest there is no deletion with proper names as in "Carlos's bicycle."
KARIM MERNIZ Generative grammar claims to reach explanatiory adequacy, practitioners of this theory try to come up with rules in the sense to explain (and not only describe as structuralists like de Saussure would do) why, for example, English native speakers say "I love you" and not "I you love", rules that capture native speakers' intuitions about the language and I guess that because "Carlos" is not plural does not explain it way. reformulating my question, why native speakers pronounce "Carlo[iz] bicycle" and" not the boys[iz] bike", if the -s morpheme (verbal and nominal) is attached and a word that already ends in a "-s like sound" let's say, when it comes to verbs (I ki[s] ~ she kiss[iz]) and nouns (one len[z]~two lens[iz]), why that is not the case for -s genetive?
By the way: [] is meant to represent pronunciation and not orthography.
+José Zambon the omission of 's is to be omitted in proper or common, and singular or plural noun depending on the grammar book you are consulting. Orthography rules have nothing to do with syntax.
Proper names are determiners, and you can't have a double-filled D.
How do you explain *complementary distribution* of Ds in: _The world's most wanted fugitives_ where _the_ and _world's_ occupy the same DP in subject position?
She means either/or not together. The book vs. His book or John's book. The world is a linguistic chunk--you need to import the whole thing into the possessive slot because you can't say in English *World's most wanted fugitives. The noun world takes the possessive marking just as with John's book. *The* is just along for the ride to make a well-formed NP functioning as a possessive.
I could not understand why she is saying that 'you cannot have both the 'the' and the possessor like 'girl's' . There is no problem saying ' the girl's book' . Can sb explain me ?
I think she means you can only have one determiner in D--the. "Girl's" is assigned a slot on the N-bar. Thus you have -- DP : D' : D : the -- and hanging from the right branch on the D' you get -- NP : N' : girl's : N : book. I don't know how girl's gets the apostrophe inflection. I would imagine there's an IP posited in there somewhere and it moves upward. Whenever you run into difficulty in generative grammar, you can always sprout new branches and then move bits around until everything fits right. Bit of ad hoc rescue there.
irfan rama I think you are getting the wrong point of hers. The girl's admiration is the fine sentence. But "the" and " 's " can't occur in the same position like her example " The Michele's book" or "Michael's the book".
Proper names, however, don't require determiners of their own. In English grammar you can't use either the or 's at the same slot to modify the same noun. The girl's book, on the other hand, there are two nouns that can have two determiners: the girl and 's book. Thus, this sentence is OK.
Hope my explanation helps you understand better.
Proper names are determiners that don't select for a complement.