Human Language Sentences - Basic Parse Trees, X-Bar Theory & Ambiguity -- Linguistics 101
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 พ.ค. 2024
- A short introduction to modern grammars of natural language. Use the fundamentals of generative grammar to learn about syntax (the grammar & rules of sentences). Follow along as I work through the structure of a simple sentence, building a parse tree for that sentence with X-Bar Theory. Learn to walk through the tree, compare types of structures and identify ambiguities. Basic but helpful for nonspecialists interested in computational grammars, the syntax of native & foreign languages, and natural language processing.
Online text version of this lesson:
www.nativlang.com/linguistics/...
To learn more about word classes and word formation (nouns, verbs, morphemes, affixes), please visit:
www.nativlang.com/linguistics/...
If you're rusty on the grammar of sentences (clauses, phrases, rules), please visit:
www.nativlang.com/linguistics/...
I mention two previous lessons during the video ("Introduction to the Grammar of Sentences" and "The Verb & Its Arguments"):
www.nativlang.com/linguistics/...
www.nativlang.com/linguistics/...
![[Syntax] X-Bar Theory - Specifiers, Adjuncts, and Complements](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n8TYuq173N0/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Syntax] X-Bar Theory - Specifiers, Adjuncts, and Complements](/img/tr.png)
![Syntax II: Intro to linguistics [Video 6]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3CaX6MIzbZw/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm south korean student. i learning syntax in univ. it's so difficult to me. so finally i tried to search some useful video for syntax and found your video. thank you thank you so much😢 i understand it now^^ if i get a good grade after this semester, i will pray for your happiness😄
If you still need help, take a look at this:
filolohika.blogspot.com/2018/09/why-are-languages-different.html
Nativlang's early days wow. I was pleasantly surprised to see your channel pop up when I was looking for explanations for this!! I'm not sure if you'll ever see this but your videos were one of the things which inspired me to study linguistics :)
Awesome to hear. It could use a tune up, especially compared to my more recent videos, but I'm happy it's a keeper!
Thanks for a very good video!
I'm studying for my exam and I seem to have not understood phrase structure rules as best I could from my teacher's explanation, so this really helps.
Thanks!
Thank you for the video and for simplifying the theory! This is realy helpful.
Thank you infinitely as always ! Greetings from Morocco.
No, thank you! Your greetings and gratitude mean a lot to me.
Great video! Really helpful!
I'm a little confused about the difference of X and X'... Does the ' on the X' stand for X plus complement?
Great video! Great help for final exams!
Oh, those time flies, how they like their arrows.
Linguists have the best jokes!
Do you understand the tree? If so, you can compare the rewrite rules: a verb phrase branches out into an intermediate verb node, and an intermediate verb node branches off into a verb.
This is just:
VP
|
V'
|
V
give
Since the same applies to prepositions, etc., call them all X phrases (XP), intermediate X-bar projections (X'), and just the category X.
This is just a simple application of Backus-Naur Form or BNF.
Let me know if that helps!
Thank you very much you helped me understand and I was struggling for years with this idea.
Sir, Is there an easy manual or easy book to help me be able to draw the tree for any sentence? Please please help.
Can't respond to Toka Soliman directly.
There isn't one answer here. It depends. It depends on the grammatical framework you're using. It depends on your reasoning - students are expected to make a good case for why the tree they draw is consistent with that framework.
What are your thoughts so far? How are you diagramming these sentences?
Nice. I will recommend this to my Syntax students
Hmm, that comment didn't post the way it looked in the input box. The example with VP, V', V and "give" has them all stacked above each other in a tree, if that helps.
I have a syntax exam tomorrow, thank you so fing much
Hello,
Since you broke dawn that sentence using the X-bar theory, I would like you to tell me what are the drawbacks of Phrase Structure Rule that the X-bar came for to remedy...
Thank you for the video :) It's very helpful!!
The X-Bar Theory suggests that each part of speech has a binary relationship with the other when drawn as tree diagrams. However, in your "....ate soup" sentence, we could obviously see you have branched an NP using three branches!
Waiting your reply. :)
I know this comments kind of old but just in case you are still curious, some verbs can actually take two complements, like gave for example: I gave [np] something [pp]to someone. When you have a verb like this, you will see the three split instead of the binary split. Afaik this is the only time in the X' structure where you see this three way instead of two split.
Great video and well explained, Can you please do a video on statistical parsing.
Hi! your vid is really helpful. Thanks for uploading quality content
Thank you so much for the X-Bar explanationǃ Really needed thatǃ
+Bonnie McLean You're very welcome!
Thank you for the video.
very interesting video. could you please explain more about x-bar theory
The video is good, although perhaps a bit dense. I stumbled upon it by doing a basic search, so I am not familiar with any of your other videos. The question that comes to mind for me is whether you cover dependency grammar and dependency-based parse trees in any of these videos. If you do not, why not?
Very nicely set up and narrated. Reminds me of my college days. : )
thank you sooooooo much!!!!!
Adoro assistir a seus vídeos
can passive verb be an specifier? Such as "the given toy" or "given toy" given is the specifier. ?
Oh ok. Yes, I got it now!
Thanks again! :)
This sort of Tree Diagramming works for some languages but nto for all. For English it works quite well. Van Valin in RRG has shown how it doesn't work for all languages. Also, I think that writing in Phrase Structure
Rules might make it clearer: especially for Computational Linguistics.
Thank you very much!
Thank you for this lecture
+Julia Ong You're welcome!
I am Arab and this is very well-known in Arabic from 7th century known as
الاعراب ، النحو
Very helpful, a little muddled around the part with the head, complements and specifiers, but great video!
Hmm ... I'm used to doing this differently. :) Why are objects and adverbials included in the verb phrase? Yes, that way the model shown in the video may be used to show the idiomatic word order, but is that really the purpose of phrasal analysis? And shouldn't the phrases coincide with the clause elements of the sentence?
Hey, I have a aquestion, I fail to see the ungrammaticality of the following sentence: The result must have not been found by the candidate.
Great lec sir but give one lecture on the tree diagram of transitive, intransitive and transitive verb sentences with examples
thank you i have question what is difference between x bar theory and stander theory? they talk about the same thing syntax structure
lama Abdulaziz Thank you!
As I understand the history, X-Bar built on Standard TG. Extended Theory saw transformations operating on trees instead of through rewrite rules. The transformations were also interpreted more generally (move DP) instead of specific (turn this sentence into a yes/no question), as in Principles & Parameters.
From a theoretical perspective, there's a deeper contrast between constituency theories (like TG and Principles and Parameters) and dependency grammars.
Thank you so much :)
The problem is, the professor tought us syntax in 2 hours and jumped directly to Xbar and TP..we don't know wahat is it about, we are still confused..
Thank you really, it was very helpful :)
Doesn't it build a construction like `at(ate, home)(the(boss), soup)`?
Question 1: By including the object NP in the V (rather than "VP", sorry), you illustrate a syntactic rule by showing how the sentence gets disrupted by separating the verb from the object with a adverbial that doesn't usually take that place. I should have said "grammatical" rather than "idiomatic", but the two tend to coincide.
...
Gostei do vídeo
Sir I'm a linguistics student from India pls make the video syntax 2 thank you so much sir
Correct me if I am wrong, but "happy" and "from Rome" are not complements; they are modifiers. This is an important consideration when constructing syntax trees.
Aren't those 'modifiers' and not 'complements'? Doesn't the complement have to come after the article it's complementing???
Strictly speaking, isn't what you call a noun phrase called a determiner phrase these days, and the noun phrase (containing the noun, its modifiers and its complements) considered to be a complement of the determiner phrase?
In German the phrase „The boss ate at home soup“ actually works (Der Boss aß Zuhause Suppe).Is it a case thing?
Uranus 2 not to mention what might work in Spanish...
It has to do with the order of the direct and indirect object
Vídeo incrível
Yes. Using "one" to substitute in for an NP shows that there is an NP containing man (but not from Rome), which would mean that from Rome is a modifier of the NP man. The opposite can be shown to be true with "of physics", because there is no NP "teacher", only the NP "teacher of physics". So yes, my analysis is that "from XP" is the kind of PP that prefers being a modifier, and "of XP" is the kind of PP that prefers being a complement.
Question 2: But when I have studied grammar, we have thought of the language as being structured in levels: Phonemes, morphemes, words, phrases, clauses, sentences, texts. The levels are consistently interconnected throughout the analysis, so my phrasal analysis would thus be [NP: The boss] [VP: ate] [NP: soup] [PP: at home], because that is how the analysis looks like on the next level of analysis as well, clause elements (in this case: S P V dO Adv).
how about the boss at home ate soup.
Chinese put 在家 before verb.
Hi , I am very interesting to the suject
When do you join a phrase to the VP instead of the V'. and when do we have to add another IP to to the tree?
+Kristian B When it's the specifier for that VP. For example, if you're a fan of the VP Internal Subject Hypothesis, your subject starts out at [Spec, VP].
Your second part's complex, but here's a heuristic: any time the VP brings a new clause with it. In a phrase structure analysis of 'Juan said that you run marathons', you might add an IP under a CP under a VP for the complementizer phrase (where 'that' is a complementizer):
[ IP John [ VP said [ CP that [ IP you run marathons ]]]]
If I understand your response, you are in fact aware of DG. The thing about DG is that the syntactic structures are much simpler than the X-bar theoretic notion of syntax. A beginner can understand the DG structures with little effort, since they speak to intuition. My view is that basic introductions to syntax should start with the DG approach (since its simpler), and then move on to constituency-based analyses. Just my two cents! Again, the video is good (but perhaps too dense).
I don't understand the rewrite rules :(
very good！ c-command got it
i need more explanation in this
"SBAR - Clause introduced by a (possibly empty) subordinating conjunction."
Not really sure without context, but it sounds like it's telling you that S' is for a subordinate clause? Subordinate clauses are often introduced by "empty conjunctions", like "0 she was there" in "I knew she was there."
Schönes Video
Hello, I received a proposal for a course that ensures fluency in six months. I really need to learn English (conversation) and the proposal is good, but it's too high, I can not afford.
The course has good feedback, so I think to be honest.
Submissions are to be taught explicit "5 logical structures" (to form phrases), vocabulary, exercises to apply logic structures and conversation with a native speaker.
My question is, what should these 5 logical structures? Is there any method to teach English to adults based on logic?
It depends. Logic is an important "harness" for the learning process. But I am suspicious that courses explicitly use terms like "logic" as a sales/marketing gimmick, even when they are somewhat applicable.
I don't recommend specific courses unless I've tried them. I find that paying attention to good examples and practicing consistently helps, no matter the method. All the best to you as you learn!
***** Thanks bro. You´re helping a lot. Take care!
I have a doubt, this kind of well-formed sentences diagrams are from minimalist theory??
The tree diagrams are not themselves specific to a theory. However, some of the specific examples in this video fit with Government & Binding.
At home it can be an adjunct not a complement
So finally what is the x-bar theory ? Can you give a me clear definition of x-bar theory ?
+LD PRODUCTIONS I think 2:12 to 2:30 works as a basic definition. The theory breaks language into chunks of words grouped by the kinds of words that get used in those chunks.
Hm, sorry to jump in here and start questioning things again, but how exactly is "from Rome" a noun complement? At least to me it's fairly trivial that a sentence like "The man from Rome was pretty nice, but the one from Oslo was a bastard" works (showing "The man" to be a constituent in its own right) unlike something like "The teacher of physics is nice, but the one of astronomy is evil", which doesn't work to me. So at least to me there's a phrase containing only "the man" and not "from Rome"
They used to teach Syntax and meta language skills to humans in schools...
THANKS!! linguistics is interesting, and i have an exam hehehe =]
However, I am not saying that either way of looking at it is better. It's actually a good sign that there are several ways of looking at the same thing -- that's how it's supposed to be. :)
"The boss ate at home soup" seems not to be a mangle of the grammar, at least when I hear it the sentance while sounding a bit odd, would not cause me to stop and think if I heard it in public surrounded with other sentences.
excellent thanks again for your time to do with the following link unsubscribe if I can do it is a very
Holy fuck, NativLang actually used to make videos about this.
NativLang is like the Simpsons of linguistics.
Man, that makes me wish I'd gone and become a linguist.
I guess what I'm unclear about is why there are things such as N' (N bar), V' (V bar), and in some cases, why a tree may have several consecutive N' in one branch.
For example NP----N'-----N'-------N'------N--house
The short answer: "binary branching hypothesis".
Basically, those intermediate nodes allow phrases to grow and grow. If you take away the intermediates, the tree only allows phrases (cohesive constituent chunks) and terminals (the actual nouns, verbs, etc.). Added material (like adjuncts) doesn't behave like the phrase or the terminal, so proponents use X' to add extra levels inside the phrase.
I'm confused at 6:05, couldn't you just add the rule: vp -> vp, pp ?
+Noah Williams Do you mean instead of adding an intermediate V'? Or instead of abstracting the whole model to XP, X', X?
*****
The first one, I think.
+Noah Williams This makes the tree a "binary branching" one. Say we wanted to add a bunch of PPs next to that verb. Using V' -> V', V, PP lets us stack them nicely inside a single phrase with a single verb.
Also, it keeps the small-but-important specifier material branching from the VP: VP -> Spec, V'.
Now phrases have a single specifier and a single terminal (verb, preposition, ...), but lots of other phrases can fall in between.
I tried to simplify the jargon here but still keep my answer honest to X-Bar Theory. Does it work for you?
*****
I think I'm having some trouble with that first paragraph, so you're saying it could look like this when collapsed upward: V'->V, PP, PP, PP. But it looks like it would collapse to
V'->V,PP,V,PP,V,PP.
V' could expand to one V' and one (just one!) PP. Then that second V' would expand to another V' and PP. Repeat as necessary.
See it in action! Visit the Syntax Tree Generator and type in this syntax for an example tree.
mshang.ca/syntree/
[S [DP the bear] [VP [V' [V' [V' [V' [V dined] ] [PP in the rain] ] [PP with friends] ] [PP for hours] ] ] ]
In German, „the Boss ate at Home soup“ works
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.
Are you still alive?
Are you still alive?
I am from Bangladesh at JU.
y
your voice was deeper
This is too hard core forvme!! :-/
I get that. I go easier (and have more fun) in my newer videos.
Thanks for watching at least!
@@NativLang hello is it possible if I send you a private message you could help me with 3 sentences with a x bar structure?
This is so hard to understand :'(
Oh this is old... Me like
Chomskyan formalism is overrated, man. I'm a functionalist through-and-through. Good video though.
syntax trees are so hard
Ericka Gilliland ...but easier with practice, right?
re record if you have this many errors presenting. way too hard to follow
I am taking a Chinese course for back credit, I don’t understand anything he say. I am truly sorry what is x Bar theory, OT, or wtf is generative phonology. My instructor just does not care in class.
1. Why did grammar evolve?
God is a mechanism that automatically interlinks and solves all problems of life simultaneously.
2. Grammar evolved to de-link activities from each other. This enables us to solve problems manually and one at a time.
3. In scriptures individual sentences don't make complete sense as do modern sentences.
4. Grammar makes us reasonable but illogical. Grammar and reasoning makes our life paradoxical. It gives us an illusion of control over everything. However, actually we are losing control over everything.
5. A verse of a scripture is a means to understand god. It is not an end in itself. Verses of a scripture are like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. If we solve this puzzle we will have god in a virtual form. Thus, no sentence will contain any part of god.
6. It is for these reasons that Non believers easily prove that god doesn't exist and any one who wants to understand god must stop using languages and start feeling the meanings of verses of scriptures.
Which scriptures are you referring to, though? Christian scriptures? Hindu scriptures? Or any scriptures?
Both Christian and Hindu scriptures.
This is too hard core forvme!! :-/