I'm doing my first year of Linguistics at Cambridge, this is an absolute godsend - it's really clarified some key concepts that I've struggled with for learning X-Bar theory. Thank you so, so much for streamlining everything this masterfully when you teach, I am so looking forward to seeing the rest of your syntax videos :)
It's quite interesting to me, that the 'is' in "John is eating apples" is not part of the VP. Intuitively I would have said it is the verb of the VP and 'eating apples' would then be the NP in the VP. In a different example: In "Eating apples is not permitted" (in Garden Eden presumably) the abstract concept of 'eating apples' is the subject, so there it definitely has to be the NP. So then in my head , the 'is" in "John is eating apples" would be a verb that means "to be currently performing an action" and not an auxiliary verb or copula. Perhaps it's a bit of a stretch though, to let the word 'to be' do all the heavy lifting of the entire progressive aspect.
"eating apples" can definitely operate as a noun as in the example you gave, but having a verb operate as a noun doesn't necessarily mean that it is a noun elsewhere. words can always display behaviours of other categories, take for example how nouns can operate as adjectives like in "audience members" where audience, although a noun, modifies 'members.' the reason 'is' is seen as an auxiliary rather than a verb is because it isn't describing the action. the main verb of the sentence describes the action, thus 'eating' has to be the main verb. if you were to take 'eating apples' as an NP complement to 'is,' you would still nevertheless have to describe 'eating' as a verb at some point, it would just be a verb subsumed under an NP. The issue with that is that English is a right-branching language meaning that the head of the phrase goes on the left and the complement to the head goes on the right (compared to a language like Japanese, which is left-branching and therefore the inverse happens). If 'eating apples' is taken to be an NP, then the head would be 'apples' therefore on the right and the complement 'eating' would be on the left which contradicts that. if you get down to it, 'is' doesn't do all the heavy lifting for the progressive, it's also marked by the morphology on 'eating' (the -ing suffix) but having one verb be the displayer of aspect and tense is very common and not far fetched. in more complex analyses, the IP is treated like a cover name for a whole host of different phrases, such as AspP (aspect phrase), AgrP (agreement phrase), TP (tense phrase), but in English surface structures, these are all condensed down into the morphology of the auxiliary.
@@olivercooney Hey, thanks for the detailed reply. I suppose in my mind I put a lot of stress on the finite verb than thepart that describes the action. I'll keep an eye out for those you mention. Thanks for the videos and have a good day!
@@urinstein1864 no worries- always happy to chat about syntax! that's completely understandable tbh, when you're looking at grammar, you would want to look at the more grammatical aspect which would be the finiteness. have a great day too!
I'm doing my first year of Linguistics at Cambridge, this is an absolute godsend - it's really clarified some key concepts that I've struggled with for learning X-Bar theory. Thank you so, so much for streamlining everything this masterfully when you teach, I am so looking forward to seeing the rest of your syntax videos :)
aw i'm so glad it came in handy! hopefully when term calms down i'll be able to make more soon!
MORE SYNTAX
It's quite interesting to me, that the 'is' in "John is eating apples" is not part of the VP. Intuitively I would have said it is the verb of the VP and 'eating apples' would then be the NP in the VP.
In a different example: In "Eating apples is not permitted" (in Garden Eden presumably) the abstract concept of 'eating apples' is the subject, so there it definitely has to be the NP.
So then in my head , the 'is" in "John is eating apples" would be a verb that means "to be currently performing an action" and not an auxiliary verb or copula. Perhaps it's a bit of a stretch though, to let the word 'to be' do all the heavy lifting of the entire progressive aspect.
"eating apples" can definitely operate as a noun as in the example you gave, but having a verb operate as a noun doesn't necessarily mean that it is a noun elsewhere. words can always display behaviours of other categories, take for example how nouns can operate as adjectives like in "audience members" where audience, although a noun, modifies 'members.'
the reason 'is' is seen as an auxiliary rather than a verb is because it isn't describing the action. the main verb of the sentence describes the action, thus 'eating' has to be the main verb.
if you were to take 'eating apples' as an NP complement to 'is,' you would still nevertheless have to describe 'eating' as a verb at some point, it would just be a verb subsumed under an NP. The issue with that is that English is a right-branching language meaning that the head of the phrase goes on the left and the complement to the head goes on the right (compared to a language like Japanese, which is left-branching and therefore the inverse happens). If 'eating apples' is taken to be an NP, then the head would be 'apples' therefore on the right and the complement 'eating' would be on the left which contradicts that.
if you get down to it, 'is' doesn't do all the heavy lifting for the progressive, it's also marked by the morphology on 'eating' (the -ing suffix) but having one verb be the displayer of aspect and tense is very common and not far fetched. in more complex analyses, the IP is treated like a cover name for a whole host of different phrases, such as AspP (aspect phrase), AgrP (agreement phrase), TP (tense phrase), but in English surface structures, these are all condensed down into the morphology of the auxiliary.
@@olivercooney Hey, thanks for the detailed reply. I suppose in my mind I put a lot of stress on the finite verb than thepart that describes the action.
I'll keep an eye out for those you mention. Thanks for the videos and have a good day!
@@urinstein1864 no worries- always happy to chat about syntax! that's completely understandable tbh, when you're looking at grammar, you would want to look at the more grammatical aspect which would be the finiteness. have a great day too!