#generative syntax

[ducksarebloodthirstylittlebeasts]

Syntax hurts my brain so good

[allthingslinguistic]

3 Links for Second Year Syntax Video Lectures

YouTube videos from Caroline Heycock, Jeffrey Punske and Remi van Trij

Today’s 3 links are for second year syntax, a frequently-requested topic:

1. Generative Syntax with Prof Caroline Heycock

YouTube video series

11 videos ranging from 6 to 30 minutes, in a playlist that works best when watched in order. The class numbers (generally) follow the chapter numbers of the free online textbook Syntax of Natural Language (Santorini & Kroch), including topics on constituency, recursion, constituency tests, the X-bar schema, sentence structure, noun phrases, the DP hypothesis, and Wh- interrogatives. Professionally-filmed videos of Caroline Heycock with animated examples illustrated on screen. Closed captions available.

2. Jeffrey Punske’s Syntax Course - Intro Syntax First Half Review

YouTube video series

A review of first half of Jeffrey Punske’s Intro to Syntax at Southern Illinois University (video lengths 24-43 minutes). Course based primarily on Syntax: A Generative Introduction (3rd Edn. Andrew Carnie. Wiley), and topics so far include Binding Theory, Knowledge of Language, Phrase Structure Grammars, X'-Theory. Close captions appear to be generated by YouTube but function well. Jeffery sits in his office writing examples on a handheld blackboard. Further videos (e.g. theta theory) are actively being posted as the class is currently ongoing and has just moved online.

3. The Fillmore Criteria - Remi van Trijp

YouTube video

This 11 minute video introduces four basic criteria to determine how closely an analysis follows the original tenets of Construction Grammar, or how much constructional thinking has evolved. Has a transcript, it’s hard to see captions on the white background but you can open the transcript by clicking on the ellipsis (...) button. This video has background music and an animated Remi to talk you through the animated examples on screen. Further videos on this channel include a 3-minute Introduction to Constructions (Fillmore), and 13-17 min videos on Beyond the Saussurean Sign and Innovating One's Way out of Lexicalism

Read the rest of the Mutual Intelligibility newsletter here. 

[allthingslinguistic]

Syntax takes on the “is your child texting about” meme. (Previously, a phonetics version.)

[smileystudies]

I'm actually not confident with tree diagrams I've made so it would be really helpful if you could help me create syntax trees out of these sentences. Just to compare with mine. And it's okay if you don't want ^_^

- Standing outside the door, the stranger kept ringing the doorbell

- Alex does not like soft drinks, nor does he prefer fast food

Hey anon! I really hesitate to just draw you the diagrams because I know from experience personal experience with syntax (and from teaching my students) that it's not the best way to learn how to do this. Understanding a syntax tree by looking at it is one skill; being able to reproduce that logic on an exam is another entirely, and that's hardest to learn in a syntax class.

Let me give you some tips to help you. First, identify exactly what part of the tree you're not confident about. The answer shouldn't be "all of it"! Is it a particular projection or level? Or maybe you're not sure whether the pieces are put together correctly. Once you've figured out the gap in your knowledge or confidence, you can begin to address it.

Here are the two main problems you might have with your tree and ways you can solve them:

If you're not sure whether you've broken down the phrases correctly, try out some different constituency tests like coordination, substitution, deletion, or fronting. These will all help you identify whether your phrase is a VP, DP, AP, AdvP, PP, etc. I've attached a link to some slides that have a helpful explanation. If the placement of the commas in these sentences is throwing you off, try rearranging the sentence.

If you're working with X-bar theory and aren't sure whether you have a specifier, head, adjunct, or argument, here's a helpful review of how the projection should look like for each piece. Syntax is all about representing a complicated whole with simple pieces, so knowing what the pieces are and how they work is key.

Some more general tips:

Build and check your work from the bottom up. This is what my syntax professor said all the time! AKA instead of starting with an IP or CP, look for the arguments and adjuncts and assemble your DPs and PPs first. Next, figure out how they plug into your VP, and then you can go on to the CPs and IPs.

Still not confident at all? Reach out to your teacher/professor/TA and ask if you can meet with them to get some extra help. If the deadline for your assignment is coming up or has already passed, reach out anyway. They will likely be understanding and happy to give you support.

Hope this gives you some tools to check your work! I know some of my mutuals have experience with generative syntax, and I invite any of you to jump in with more tips.

[linguisten]

Hey, I’ve been looking for a good online source that can explain at least rudimentary German syntax in X-bar terms (I can’t afford to buy a book about it). In particular, the conjugation and position of German verbs within the TP/CP baffles me. Can you help me out? Danke!

Hi, I’m no syntactician, so I have no idea myself. Maybe one of our followers can help?

[reparrishcomics]

i have a degree in linguistics