it really helps! i'm an english literature student and just now I learned about syntax in class but I didn't really get it. You did a great job in explaining it
This is similarly to how I learned Japanese with cure dolly on structure thats why I found that even though my Japanese sucks I can still remember the structure and the contents and reconstruct the sentence again that way
So i have a question. Identify a constiutent in the sentence His son bought a beautiful car for him last year. A- bought a B -Car for C-him last year D-his son E-a beatiful I think his son is a constituent. By the way can say that aside from the options above Last year Bought Car Beautiful Can they be a constituent? ( i believe yes inasmuch as i can replace them with something else.
I got a question. In the second example with the old man, we tried to insert [died] instead of [ate his delicious] when we're trying to see if we could group [ate his delicious] together and it didn't work. But we choose the verb "to die", which is an intransitive verb, whereas "to eat" is a transitive one. Isn't it one of the reasons we couldn't group them together? Let's say, for example, if we put sth like "cooked" broccoli, then wouldn't the sentence kinda make sense? I mean at this point it might need a "the" or "some" in front of the broccoli but still, not as weird as dying broccoli. Then is the problem here is that there's no other identifier such as "a" or "some" or does it work that way, by choosing a transitive verb instead.
You made the point brought by him that we need other constituency tests to see the best explanation or solution, in this case, I think fragment test could help to solve your question.
Awesome.. thank you for.. your way of explaination is clear and fruitfull I have a request would you explaine the maximum and the minimum bracketing in functional grammar?
04:23 This is quite unfair, because you used a non-transitive verb "die", which obviously couldn't take "broccoli" as a parameter. But "ate his delicious" could be replaced by just "ate" or "cooked" which _can_ take a direct object, and the resulting sentence _would_ make sense :q BTW there's a nice way to see how constituents work with replacements in Mandarin Chinese: they have certain question words that they put in place of constituents in a sentence when they want to ask about that particular thing, kinda "making a slot" for that particular constituent to go there in the answer.
ATE would change the semantics of the sentence, so it doesnt work. It wasnt mentioned but the key to all of these is the sentence must be preserved. So, the old man ate means he ate past tense. So, ate his brocoli would need to be replaced with something stating what was eaten.
So how exactly does it change the meaning? Both are about eating the broccoli. My point is that the test, in the form it's been stated in the video, doesn't seem to be a very good test, because sometimes you can substitute what was _not_ a constituent, and yet obtain a grammatically correct sentence. The example in the video didn't work indeed, but it didn't work from a different reason than stated - not because this part was _not_ a constituent, but because he replaced it with a verb that was not transitive.
My understanding is that "ate his delicious" is not a proper phrase which could be replaced in the first place. It needs to contain a noun to be a verb phrase, right?
Hi, a quick question, about whether the bracketed string is a constituent or not a. The wellness blogger bumped [into the life coach]. b. The wellness blogger strolled [into the yoga retreat].
At 4.20 I'm looking at replacing "ate his delicious" and it can be replaced with transitive verbs (The old man cooked broccoli, The old man loves broccoli. etc.) How do we deal with phrases that are not constituents but sometimes pass these tests anyway? I know a lot of linguists debate about syntactic theory and I'm also wondering at what point do linguists decide they have found a weakness or challenge in a theory and when we do say "Use discretion, it usually works but maybe not all the time and that's OK." ? (Thanks for the video! I'm reviewing some linguistics because I'm thinking about going back to school. :) )
Is "last night" not the adjunct to the sentence? It is optional information, where as "ran a marathon" is not. You could just cut it out of the sentence without removing any important information as to what happened.
Thank you it realy clear but i have question you say in the last of the video every words can be constituent but in the begnning of the video you say that the constituent is agroup of words so how every words in its own can be constituent can you explan to me , please ?
In 13:00 if we form the question Which boy did slowly eat his pancakes? Can we get as answer “a small”? Furthermore, I see that we may replace “a small” by “which” and form a wh-question. So, is the combination “a small” really a constituent?
Syntactically, "small" is a constituent "a small" is not. We can't say "a small" because English, unlike many other languages, generally prohibits Article + Adjective without a following noun and we usually use a word like "one" to fill in for the noun: Which boy? → A small one. The fact that we can replace "a small" with "which" doesn't mean that "a small" is a consitituent. We can also simply drop "small" to say "a boy". We can regard "which" as a replacement for "a" a boy → which boy a small boy → which small boy So we also wouldn't expect that you could answer "which boy" simply with "small" because we essentially need an equivalent of "which" and an equivalent of "boy". "Which" can be replaced by "a" or "the" and "boy" could be replaced by "small boy" or "small one"
hiya; but then? ran a marathon last night is what James did? how so? ran and did together? is it not supposed to be "to run / did" dunno though, not sure
just wanna clarify something :) isn't the whole sentence itself function as a construction since it is the maximal unit in syntax? and not as a constituent?
A constituent is just a grouping of words that is dominated by a single node. So all sentences are constituents by definition. It's apparent in sentences with complementizers. [Jane killed Mary] is a sentence and a constituent. [I believe that [Jane killed Mary]] contains the previous sentence and acts as a constituent. It would be weird to say that in the first case, it is not a constituent, but it is only a constituent when it is a complement of a complementizer.
professor i wanna ask y a question about this clause JOHN WANTS ADAM TO LEAVE , I wanna know why we have here 2 subjects and 2 verbs even to leave here is a non finite verb.thank you
You may want to look way ahead at the “control” verbs. Basically there’s an actor of wanting and an actor of leaving, so there’s criteria (semantics) says we need two actors (subjects)
So how about a phrase like this one: "the beautiful country of Canada" - let's say I want to decompose it further into its constituent parts. Is "country of Canada" a constituent? Or maybe it's "the beautiful country"?
"Canada" is a proper noun and refers to the specific country. "Country of Canada" is a noun phrase, where "country" functions as the head noun and "of Canada" is a prepositional phrase that acts as an attributive phrase, describing the country. This can be considered a constituent because "country of Canada" functions as a single unit to describe the noun "Canada." "The beautiful country" is another noun phrase, where "country" is the head noun, and "the beautiful" is an adjective phrase modifying "country." This can also be considered a constituent because "the beautiful country" functions as a single unit to describe the noun "Canada." So, both "the beautiful country" and "country of Canada" are constituents within the larger phrase "the beautiful country of Canada."
Thank you for your videos! It has been useful in helping me understand some of the concepts better. Just wondering if you did any videos on crossover effects? I have a problem understanding the difference between strong and weak crossover effects.
Thanks so much for the series! Struggling with the final. One question pls: "Ran a marathon last night is what James did."--I doubt if this is grammatical? Thx!
based on the second example "Jeff slept in an expensive hotel", the fact that he said that just "slept" works and is a constituent kinda shows that the first example is a constituent too :/ pretty sure you can say "The old man *ate* broccoli", "ate" acting as the replacement for "ate his delicious". long story short, I think he just made a mistake with that one (hope this made sense)
I don't really understand whats the point of learning all these topics 😐 I have a whole course on linguistics & the exam is knocking at the door, now I am all fucked up 😭
Could u plz help me with these sentences: 1.The book I'm trying to read is very interesting. 2.She will definitely win each and every contests. 3. We can try to understand their problems and solve them. 4. I want to buy the red car you showed me last night. Heeeelllppp plz I couldn't answer it
They can be similar, but constituents are any group of words that function as a unit, including individual words. So, depending on your theory, you may have constituents that are individual words and not phrases. Generally, they are the same.
But by definition, all phrases are constituents. This is pretty much just by definition. In a given framework, you may have constituents that are not phrases, but all phrases are definitely constituents. Otherwise, it would not be a phrase.
They don't have to pass ALL the tests (I don't even think this would be possible). Sometimes it's enough if they pass just ONE test. And every single word can be replaced by another word of the same type, so they're definitely constituents (or constituent parts of some greater whole). There's no whole without parts, to there will always be some constituent parts if there's a whole.
Yeah, it fails here because the whole VP isn't being replaced. In both cases, the object N remains so [ate his] and [ate his delicious] would provide grammatically correct sentences. That's why we use multiple tests!
@@Trevtutor I still do not understand. If the [ate his delicious] can be replaced by a single word (grew) then why is it still not considered a constituent? Must one try out many different tests before concluding that it is or is not a constituent?
This is why multiple tests are used. Although it passes the substitution test, it does not pass any of the others. *It was [slowly ate] that a small boy his pancakes. *A small boy slowly ate his pancakes and did so his eggs. What did a small boy do to his pancakes? *Slowly ate
![[Syntax] Tree Structure Relations and C-Command](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YlflE0flai0/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Syntax] Tree Structure Relations and C-Command](/img/tr.png)
![[Syntax] X-Bar Theory - Specifiers, Adjuncts, and Complements](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n8TYuq173N0/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Introduction to Linguistics] Constituency Tests](/img/n.gif)
Unfortunately our professor doesn't know how to explain as good as you did so, THANK YOU 🤓
I feel you
Moroccan?? hHa
Hhhh yes Maroccan
Moroccans HERE!
All around the world we feel the same, i guess :)
it really helps! i'm an english literature student and just now I learned about syntax in class but I didn't really get it. You did a great job in explaining it
I love the way you explain grammar in the English Language
This is exactly what I need.Many thanks to you,man.Carry on!!
Thank you very much! Kindly, keep these videos coming. They are truly helpful.
This is similarly to how I learned Japanese with cure dolly on structure thats why I found that even though my Japanese sucks I can still remember the structure and the contents and reconstruct the sentence again that way
Poetically, the enchanting confirmation of your Sales Incentive payment has gracefully danced its way through the process.
This video is what I need, thanks 🎉
omg, thank you. This is a super simple and clear explanation!
So i have a question.
Identify a constiutent in the sentence
His son bought a beautiful car for him last year.
A- bought a
B -Car for
C-him last year
D-his son
E-a beatiful
I think his son is a constituent.
By the way can say that aside from the options above
Last year
Bought
Car
Beautiful
Can they be a constituent? ( i believe yes inasmuch as i can replace them with something else.
Yes,
D - his son
Yes, those options u quoted are constintuints
Ugh thanks for this! This was going to be my report and this made it much simpler to understand 👏
I got a question. In the second example with the old man, we tried to insert [died] instead of [ate his delicious] when we're trying to see if we could group [ate his delicious] together and it didn't work. But we choose the verb "to die", which is an intransitive verb, whereas "to eat" is a transitive one. Isn't it one of the reasons we couldn't group them together? Let's say, for example, if we put sth like "cooked" broccoli, then wouldn't the sentence kinda make sense? I mean at this point it might need a "the" or "some" in front of the broccoli but still, not as weird as dying broccoli. Then is the problem here is that there's no other identifier such as "a" or "some" or does it work that way, by choosing a transitive verb instead.
You made the point brought by him that we need other constituency tests to see the best explanation or solution, in this case, I think fragment test could help to solve your question.
"run a marathon last night, did James"
it's in a really high social register and pulls the tense out of 'ran', but it's doable
Awesome.. thank you for.. your way of explaination is clear and fruitfull
I have a request
would you explaine the maximum and the minimum bracketing in functional grammar?
04:23 This is quite unfair, because you used a non-transitive verb "die", which obviously couldn't take "broccoli" as a parameter. But "ate his delicious" could be replaced by just "ate" or "cooked" which _can_ take a direct object, and the resulting sentence _would_ make sense :q
BTW there's a nice way to see how constituents work with replacements in Mandarin Chinese: they have certain question words that they put in place of constituents in a sentence when they want to ask about that particular thing, kinda "making a slot" for that particular constituent to go there in the answer.
ATE would change the semantics of the sentence, so it doesnt work. It wasnt mentioned but the key to all of these is the sentence must be preserved. So, the old man ate means he ate past tense. So, ate his brocoli would need to be replaced with something stating what was eaten.
So how exactly does it change the meaning? Both are about eating the broccoli.
My point is that the test, in the form it's been stated in the video, doesn't seem to be a very good test, because sometimes you can substitute what was _not_ a constituent, and yet obtain a grammatically correct sentence. The example in the video didn't work indeed, but it didn't work from a different reason than stated - not because this part was _not_ a constituent, but because he replaced it with a verb that was not transitive.
My understanding is that "ate his delicious" is not a proper phrase which could be replaced in the first place. It needs to contain a noun to be a verb phrase, right?
Hi, a quick question, about whether the bracketed string is a constituent or not
a. The wellness blogger bumped [into the life coach].
b. The wellness blogger strolled [into the yoga retreat].
Thank u for good explaination
Do these test have different names ? I'm confused because I've learned them as wh-test, pro-form, movement, and coordination .
Yeah, they sometimes have different names depending on the textbook or professor.
At 4.20 I'm looking at replacing "ate his delicious" and it can be replaced with transitive verbs (The old man cooked broccoli, The old man loves broccoli. etc.) How do we deal with phrases that are not constituents but sometimes pass these tests anyway?
I know a lot of linguists debate about syntactic theory and I'm also wondering at what point do linguists decide they have found a weakness or challenge in a theory and when we do say "Use discretion, it usually works but maybe not all the time and that's OK." ?
(Thanks for the video! I'm reviewing some linguistics because I'm thinking about going back to school. :) )
Is "last night" not the adjunct to the sentence? It is optional information, where as "ran a marathon" is not. You could just cut it out of the sentence without removing any important information as to what happened.
Thank you it realy clear but i have question you say in the last of the video every words can be constituent but in the begnning of the video you say that the constituent is agroup of words so how every words in its own can be constituent can you explan to me , please ?
Thank you so much for this ❤️
question, for the example of: ate his broccoli, can't we replace that with sow/saw broccoli. Since it is a verb
or replace sow, see, planted, chopped
I hope you make a video of exercices. Thank you
Thank you so much ... you really helped me
In 4.24 , you used the verb "died" yet, if you used bought, was it going to make sense ?
Died works because it’s intransitive and closes off a VP. Bought is a transitive verb so it still needs something to close off the VP.
Very nicely explained 👍❤️
Can't slowly ate fit the replacmentb constituent test? Obviously you can replace slowly ate with only one word, ate?
Thank you so much!
4:52, what if we simply use "ate" to replace "ate his delicious", seems that the sentence still makes sense?
In 13:00 if we form the question
Which boy did slowly eat his pancakes?
Can we get as answer “a small”? Furthermore, I see that we may replace “a small” by “which” and form a wh-question. So, is the combination “a small” really a constituent?
Syntactically, "small" is a constituent "a small" is not. We can't say "a small" because English, unlike many other languages, generally prohibits Article + Adjective without a following noun and we usually use a word like "one" to fill in for the noun: Which boy? → A small one.
The fact that we can replace "a small" with "which" doesn't mean that "a small" is a consitituent. We can also simply drop "small" to say "a boy". We can regard "which" as a replacement for "a"
a boy → which boy
a small boy → which small boy
So we also wouldn't expect that you could answer "which boy" simply with "small" because we essentially need an equivalent of "which" and an equivalent of "boy". "Which" can be replaced by "a" or "the" and "boy" could be replaced by "small boy" or "small one"
Thank you, that was very helpful. So do the constituency tests of substitution and questioning work with NP? And the (so) test for VP??
hiya; but then? ran a marathon last night is what James did? how so? ran and did together? is it not supposed to be "to run / did" dunno though, not sure
just wanna clarify something :) isn't the whole sentence itself function as a construction since it is the maximal unit in syntax? and not as a constituent?
A constituent is just a grouping of words that is dominated by a single node. So all sentences are constituents by definition. It's apparent in sentences with complementizers.
[Jane killed Mary] is a sentence and a constituent.
[I believe that [Jane killed Mary]] contains the previous sentence and acts as a constituent.
It would be weird to say that in the first case, it is not a constituent, but it is only a constituent when it is a complement of a complementizer.
Thanks for the video! I would like to share this video with my stduents :)
Thank you for your explanation , but the part of movement is not clear for me
professor i wanna ask y a question about this clause JOHN WANTS ADAM TO LEAVE , I wanna know why we have here 2 subjects and 2 verbs even to leave here is a non finite verb.thank you
You may want to look way ahead at the “control” verbs. Basically there’s an actor of wanting and an actor of leaving, so there’s criteria (semantics) says we need two actors (subjects)
So how about a phrase like this one: "the beautiful country of Canada" - let's say I want to decompose it further into its constituent parts. Is "country of Canada" a constituent? Or maybe it's "the beautiful country"?
"Canada" is a proper noun and refers to the specific country.
"Country of Canada" is a noun phrase, where "country" functions as the head noun and "of Canada" is a prepositional phrase that acts as an attributive phrase, describing the country. This can be considered a constituent because "country of Canada" functions as a single unit to describe the noun "Canada."
"The beautiful country" is another noun phrase, where "country" is the head noun, and "the beautiful" is an adjective phrase modifying "country." This can also be considered a constituent because "the beautiful country" functions as a single unit to describe the noun "Canada."
So, both "the beautiful country" and "country of Canada" are constituents within the larger phrase "the beautiful country of Canada."
is (a marathon last night) also a constituent?
Thanks
Thanks alot The TrevTutor... I enjoyed ur vid.
What about the old man loved broccoli?
Thank you for your videos! It has been useful in helping me understand some of the concepts better. Just wondering if you did any videos on crossover effects? I have a problem understanding the difference between strong and weak crossover effects.
Thanks so much for the series! Struggling with the final. One question pls: "Ran a marathon last night is what James did."--I doubt if this is grammatical? Thx!
It's grammatical
Yeah!
He should have written 'Running a marathon last night is what James did' instead.
Thank you for your efforts!
yes, it is grammatical, but it the meaning isn't appropriate.
I don't understand what you mean, "the meaning isn't appropriate".
Which would be better to start with a simple tense verb 'ran', or a gerund 'running'?
or both of them are correct?
Cant we replace "ate his delicious" by the word "cooked"? I am kinda confused
I was literally thinking the same thing lol
based on the second example "Jeff slept in an expensive hotel", the fact that he said that just "slept" works and is a constituent kinda shows that the first example is a constituent too :/
pretty sure you can say "The old man *ate* broccoli", "ate" acting as the replacement for "ate his delicious".
long story short, I think he just made a mistake with that one (hope this made sense)
I don't really understand whats the point of learning all these topics 😐 I have a whole course on linguistics & the exam is knocking at the door, now I am all fucked up 😭
I have a question how many contituents of this sentence (When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceedingly great joy)?
Is every single word in that sentence is a constituent?
Could u plz help me with these sentences:
1.The book I'm trying to read is very interesting.
2.She will definitely win each and every contests.
3. We can try to understand their problems and solve them.
4. I want to buy the red car you showed me last night.
Heeeelllppp plz I couldn't answer it
My emotional wish: may you smile always.
Thank You Sir !
thank you so muchhh
You so helping me thankyou so muuucchhhhhh
I want to ask is it about the meaning ?
What is coordination
What's on the horizon? Exclusive interview with Binance's CEO reveals future insights
Wish you were more famous...
Where is coordination test and deletion test?? 🥺
Thank you!
thank you very much！
Just to be sure : is the TP the same as a FinP (finite phrase)?
I have never seen FinP used before. I would say no, since that means that TPs could not be InfPs, but T can host INF markers.
are all constituent phrases ?
thanks a lot
Sir , I would like to know the difference between a phrase and a constituent , because they seem similar .
They can be similar, but constituents are any group of words that function as a unit, including individual words. So, depending on your theory, you may have constituents that are individual words and not phrases. Generally, they are the same.
I roughly understood what you said , but I would like you to give me an example for both if you don't mind.
My point of view is phrases can be constituents , but not all the time . If you notice some phrases cannot go under the tests of constituents.
But by definition, all phrases are constituents. This is pretty much just by definition. In a given framework, you may have constituents that are not phrases, but all phrases are definitely constituents. Otherwise, it would not be a phrase.
I understoond now . Thank you so much sir .
Plz can u answer my question, what is the displacement of :I like chocolate
I dont understand why EVERY individual word is a constituent? When many singular words wont pass any of these tests?
They don't have to pass ALL the tests (I don't even think this would be possible). Sometimes it's enough if they pass just ONE test. And every single word can be replaced by another word of the same type, so they're definitely constituents (or constituent parts of some greater whole). There's no whole without parts, to there will always be some constituent parts if there's a whole.
What does TP means?
Tense Phrase
Hey ..is these words are a constituent
She is
In Latin, but not in English.
So is "A Marathon last night" a constituent?
It can be if "last night" is a modifier of "marathon", but not if it's a modifier of "ran".
5.08 why ate his is not constituent we can say the old man cooks delicious broccoli
replacement test fail? [ate his delicious]--> grew...
Yeah, it fails here because the whole VP isn't being replaced. In both cases, the object N remains so [ate his] and [ate his delicious] would provide grammatically correct sentences. That's why we use multiple tests!
@@Trevtutor I still do not understand. If the [ate his delicious] can be replaced by a single word (grew) then why is it still not considered a constituent? Must one try out many different tests before concluding that it is or is not a constituent?
Mi loco eso está jevi, pero no te pregunté
Why is [slowly ate] not a constituent? You can say: ‘A small boy devoured his pancakes.’
This is why multiple tests are used. Although it passes the substitution test, it does not pass any of the others.
*It was [slowly ate] that a small boy his pancakes.
*A small boy slowly ate his pancakes and did so his eggs.
What did a small boy do to his pancakes?
*Slowly ate
@@Trevtutor Thank you very much! I think I get it now.
Brace yourself, important refund info coming through!
wow i still have no idea what is going on
I guess I'm just straight stupid because I still don't understand XO
خبلتني ام الكرمر😣😣😣😣
i know who you are
my professor doesnt explain shit!
Thank you so much!
thank you so much!