SYN107 - Constituent Analysis, First Steps
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 май 2024
- In this e-lecture about constituent analysis, Prof. Handke discusses and exemplifies the main steps of constituent analysis and introduces the central vocabulary. The content of this lecture is thus a pre-requisite for further work in constituent analysis and should be mastered beforehand.
To all those who are interested in syntax:
With two fundamental e-lectures ("First steps" - below, and "Constituent Tests"), I think I have now set a solid basis for further discussions of constituent structure.
From here, I will now proceed as follows: First, I will argue for "intermediate categories" and will introduce them. So the next video will be about these intermediate catgories (e.g. N', V', P', A', Adv').
Then I will continue with the higher constituents: IP/TP, and CP. I am not sure where I will integrate the specifier, either directly in the previous two videos or separately. Don't know yet. The last videos of the series will be
a) about recent developments, for example, the DP and other functional categories
b) about special cases, for example, the DP in languages with classifiers (Chinese, Vietnamese etc.).
And once I am ready, I will provide a series of short exemplification videos using the videoscribe option, i.e. short videos where selected syntactic problems, one per video, will be analyzed.
I hope you like this approach, if you have any opinions about that, just let me know.
First Steps: ruclips.net/video/Tq-oviV5hK8/видео.html
Constituent Tests: ruclips.net/video/pF0RgB1dZTU/видео.html
I love the lecture and I'm learning so easily and fast. Thumbs up to the virtual Linguistics campus
Beautiful teachings! God bless you and the education!
You make complex concepts so simple, Prof.Handke! And humorously too!
I am from India. A very useful class Thank you sir
I really like your videos. You things so simple. Thanks
Sir your method of describing is excellent...Thanks for the videos....it will help me to understand the tree diagram
You are great help sir 👍 I really love the way you teach... thanks ton
That's amazing...the explanation made it seem easy ....thank you
Thanks a lot Sir for your helpful video......
Thanks for your excellent videos!
What is the difference between immediate constituent and intermediate one? I just know that in immediate constituents one one dominates them directly without any other node between them.
OMG! You save my whole dissertion sir :)
+Michelle Escriba Good to hear that we can help. Here is the whole playlist on X'-Syntax: ruclips.net/p/PLRIMXVU7SGRIxzPHMO-2Qe8t2u8lhLpru
Thank you, this is very useful!
Great presentaion! Keep them coming and thank you so much. :)
Well done
LISANICS is also helpful for the learners of Linguistics.plz Subscribe ruclips.net/video/hhBaa27bWno/видео.html
This was excellent!!
Hola profesor muy buen video me gusto mucho x mas exitos saludos y un cordial habraso desde gran argentina se le quiere gran profe !!!!!!
Very lucid presentation!
Why is "will speak" not a constituent? Shouldn't the auxiliary be part of the verb? Then it would be: will-speak + very-slowly as two constituents of the verb phrase, with the prepositional phrase separate.
It would be analysed like this in systemic functional grammar (Hallidayan model).
QUESTION: is this the "objective" structure of language, or the brain's internal processing?
Very instructive thank u.
why did we put the aux will in another branch?
Hi Jürgen, I was wondering about German on the topic of constituents, specifically about gender. If you to begin a constituent knowing its case, but not gender - what happens? For example one may be speaking and say something like:
"So then he picked up his... Um... Er..." And the word referring to what the man picked up escapes you. In German, I would render it as something like this -
"Und dann hat er sein(e(n)).... Ähm.. Ähh"
What happens in terms of gender? What would a native speaker do naturally if no word is in their mind? Would the whole constituent have to be repeated from the beginning? And if they had started it without knowing the head of the phrase where does the decision for the declension come from?
Thanks in advance!
Sorry I saw your question too late. This is a question that psycholinguists seek to solve with models of speech production, see my E-Lecture "Psycholinguistics - Articulation and Control II" (ruclips.net/video/IEwoNvy7e8A/видео.html). The idea is that the plan is ready befiore you start speaking. In the case of syntax, this means that you have an idea about the head noun in advance: its case, its gender, its number etc.
Thank you very much sir
and analysis with upright line please
wow. you help me a lot to do my linguistic study! GREAT JOB
awesome thx so much :)
You made everything crystal clear...want to learn complete linguistics from you🌟🌟🌟
Create your (free) account on oer-vlc.de and become a member of the Virtual Linguistics Campus where you have free access to all courses, to the largest language data collection and huge multimedial glossaries. See you there!
could you please analyze 2 sentences on a syntax tree ? if yes, so I will send them.
01:52 "To WHOM will he speak?" :q
02:52 Or you could simply grow the tree downwards, to make it look like an _actual_ tree, with its root at the bottom :J
I'm studying for a test from syntax and morphology right now and I saw that too haha Who will he speak to?
Immediate constituent analysis was introduced by
salamat po
THAT'S LIFE HAHA AND THAT'S A GREAT TEACHER THANK YOU
I don't quite see why the AUX verb ist not another sister of the daughter "speak" and form together the VP. Even the given test sentences would not disqualify this, and this would make much more sense than singling out will as something separated from the VP, wouldn't it?
Naturally, I'm not a linguist, but if we agree that sentences are made up of clauses, then "if" could be something like a clause-type marker. An envelope for an entire clause, just like "when" in temporal clauses.
2:35
Isn't "the boy" a determiner phrase with the head being "the"? The same thing with that girl.
There is no such thing as a "determiner phrase". Determiners are subordinated (i.e. plural if the head is plural).
@@mephistopheles1975 Provided that we already know that the noun is the head in such phrases, not the determiner. But suppose you're a machine and you don't know such things: how can you tell which one of those words is the head? (If it were the determiner, then obviously we _could_ have a "determiner phrase"; we don't have only because determiners are not used for heads of phrases.) I don't think it's enough to say that the nouns is "obviously more important", because it's not a rigorous definition :q
@@bonbonpony I think it is wise to look at phrase trees as the systematic order for which phrases in syntax are used (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrase#Phrase_trees) - both principles for phrase trees (constituency and dependency) put the determiner where it belongs. Moreover, a determiner belongs either to a noun or a gerund for which phrases are known. What do we learn about the syntax of a given sentence by stucturing it according to its determiners? We couldn't even differentiate if it was a noun or gerund phrase. Your theory is in conflict with other established models making it unlikely your idea is any useful...
@@mephistopheles1975 What "my theory" are you talking about? I was merely stating the observation that the definitions stated in the video are not precise enough; that we, humans, can usually fill up the gaps with our experience with the language, but it becomes less obvious when you try to convert these rules into a program for a machine, because the machine can't possibly know which word is "more important" to make it a head of a phrase.
You don't have to send me to trees (a.k.a. Wikipedia), I already know that stuff (and Wikipedia is usually the _last_ place where I would go to find comprehensible knowledge :q ).
Oh, and by the way, watch other videos on this playlist. I've seen prof. Jürgen mentioning "determiner phrases" in one of his later videos, so it seems that there _is_ such a thing after all :q
@@bonbonpony Well, Jürgen - and I know him personally - is wrong then (not the first time), as you are wrong regarding your concept of theory. A theoretical conception of linguistics (antagonismfree so to say) is not Jürgen's strongest suit, I am afraid to let you know. The proper academic definition of the concept of theory is the generalization of observations to the extent of a falsifiable statement.
After all, wikipedia is not too bad when it comes to general information. The reason why you are not allowed to quote it in academic papers has nothing to do with the quality but with its changeability.
This makes me realize how incompetent my teacher is