[Syntax] Tense Phrases (TPs) and Modals
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 06. 2024
- We expand on Tense Phrases (TPs) and introduce what goes in the specifier of TP as well as the information we put under T.
LIKE AND SHARE THE VIDEO IF IT HELPED!
Visit our website: bit.ly/1zBPlvm
Subscribe on CZcams: bit.ly/1vWiRxW
Like us on Facebook: on. 1vWwDRc
Submit your questions on Reddit: bit.ly/1GwZZrP
#Linguistics #Syntax #Language
-Playlists-
Introduction to Linguistics: • Introduction to Lingui...
Syntax: • Syntax
Phonology: • Phonology
-Recommended Textbooks-
Syntax: A Generative Introduction: amzn.to/3m2GUb7
Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach: amzn.to/37jFeWm
Language Files: Materials for an Introduction to Language and Linguistics: amzn.to/3nYrO89
Contemporary Linguistic Analysis (O'Grady and Archibald): amzn.to/2HibGxC
Understanding Phonology: amzn.to/2HdQcBM
Understanding Syntax: amzn.to/3k7777C
Understanding Morphology: amzn.to/3nZuX7G
The Sounds of Language: An Introduction to Phonetics and Phonology: amzn.to/3lT8kA3
Hello, welcome to TheTrevTutor. I'm here to help you learn your college courses in an easy, efficient manner. If you like what you see, feel free to subscribe and follow me for updates. If you have any questions, leave them below. I try to answer as many questions as possible. If something isn't quite clear or needs more explanation, I can easily make additional videos to satisfy your need for knowledge and understanding.
![[Syntax] Clauses, Subordination, and Infinitivals](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gd8B8RoZzKc/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Syntax] Clauses, Subordination, and Infinitivals](/img/tr.png)
![[Syntax] X-Bar Theory - Specifiers, Adjuncts, and Complements](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n8TYuq173N0/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Syntax] Theta Roles and Theta Grids](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/06MpE22sIPI/mqdefault.jpg)
Your videos are amazing! You teach better than my teacher!!! Thanks for everything man 🙏🏻🤧
Your explanation is awesome!!
Thank you so much 👌🏻
I have got some clarity on TPs looking forward to watch more videos b4 my exams 🥹
Thank you so much, You are an excellent Tutor
Thank you, you're saving my life :D
Great, great chunks of information. I watch these every night...i would ask, however, whether the V should really be "be," the uninflected basal infinitive
Yeah I think so it should not be "is"
How would you annotate nonstandard *"he bes something/someone"?
Very instructive
Thank u so much
Do you use a certain kind of software when you draw your trees ? Btw very good video, it’s interesting to see how a langage other than one’s mother tongue works since in french we don’t use TP but IP then VP (with VP as sister of I’). When we have a simple form of a verb, we put the conjugated verb under "I" and a trace under "V" and when there is a composed form, the auxiliary is under "I" and the participle is put under "V"
I was thinking the same thing, in portuguese we use IP for finite verbal inflections, we can use T to mark tense and Agr to mark the agreement, but both T and Agr are "inside" the IP, maybe (I think) I'm actually not really sure anymore lol
What a calm presentation! Nicely explained. Thank you.
THANK YOU
I really regret taking Linguistics now.
could you please explain the feature percolation?
Do you have videos about limitations of PSR sir. ?
thank uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu !
in the second example you simply write he as the dp of T,,whereas its dp of vp and after getting the trace it has to move up in the position of dp of Tp
Well I'm confused about the differences between TPs and CPs now... Can I generalise that CP is a sentence starting with 'that', 'if' 'whether' or 'null', and CP is usually on a higher level than a TP if they are both dominated by the same VP? (I got it wrong when I tried to draw a tree for [that James is wrong]).
Thank you in advance!
CPs dominate TPs, which in turn dominate VPs (a C-T-V order). C = complementizer, a closed set of head items that 1. turn the TPs they dominate into nominalised complements that are amenable to replacement tests (like the one- and so-replacements), which means they allow for embedding extra information inside a clause, and 2. 'modify' a whole clause from the outside e.g. turning a statement into a question. Examples of C would be: that, if, wh- items, the +Q feature. You're on the right track.
Can we have (+present) for the sentence "he walks" if not (-past)
Do all DPs now go under T even if they're not the subject?
Hello..how do I know when to use cp and tp
What is the reason that T and T and VP are not switched when the tense is indicated with a suffix? And what if the verb also indicates an aspect, like in Russian?
i believe if it were switched, the T would come all the way after the complements and adjuncts of the VP - try the sentence “he walked in the park” like this- if they were swapped “-ed” would come all the way after “in the park”
Can we put "S" as the top nod insteaf?
I don't know why did you write [+past] for the second tense but you wrote the verb be in the present form? Why didn't you write it in the past form?
Hello. can a TP portrays adjunct? if yes could you please assist with an example, thank you
A CP can as a subordinate clause [because I want to leave], I paid my bill. Not sure about a TP on its own given X-Bar theory.
@@Trevtutor thank you
Okay, I have 2 questions:
1. I am a native Turkish speaker and I don't think Turkish makes a difference between past/non-past or future/non-future tenses. We don't have any auxiliary verbs to indicate tenses, they are all morphemes. So, how do we give tense information under T?
2. Do we still need to write down "[-Q]" even if we already wrote "that" or "∅"?
Well turkish is one of the few languages that has both a past and a future tense form. And I came here to ask the same thing as well. Probably though we use + tense for whatever the tense is.
@@ninjasaga4703 It's been 2 years so I forgot that I asked this question haha. Right now (quite literally) I'm writing a thesis on Turkish verbal inflectional morphology and after reading countless papers written on the subject, I believe I can answer my own question:
Turkish seems to be a past/non-past language as well. What we call the "future tense" marker might actually be analyzed as an aspect/mood marker instead. Turkish has only two genuinely verbal simple forms: -DI and -sA, the definite past and the conditional respectively.
If you are interested in the subject, I suggest reading Kornfilt (specifically "On Copular Clitic Forms in Turkish", 1996) and Yavaş ("The Turkish Future Marker", 1980).
What abt future plus and minus example?
Just a little confusion. When is it [-Q] and when [+Q] for C? Why is it [-Q] here?
And in the last diagram for the sentence, should it not be "was" under V becaue the T is [+PAST]? Thank you.
+Q occurs if it's a question.
It is "was", just not necessarily written as "was". +past + "is" will be produce "was".
+TheTrevTutor Thanks Trev
There is a little confusion in the last V why there is "is" there should be base form of verb i.e. "be"
How we can draw a tree diagram for this sentence " they must have been driving their car very fast " THANK YOU
Yeah, same question I have too. How do you stack the auxiliaries?
Do you still want the answer?
@@omaimaarfan3467 I do want it
Omaima GR my book does it by adding V’ level for each and every auxiliary with the auxiliary verb being the head of each V’ projection. I hope this makes sense cuz I couldn’t upload a photo of the tree diagram here
How the adj (right) modifies the verb (was) ?
Khadijah Khalid it doesn’t modify it, it is its complement.
Is to a tense like i _to win_ ?
Can I replace the entire TPs with S ? Plz I need to know as soon as possible
Not in a syntax tree following x-bar theory. The tense information must be in something, and it would sound weird/wrong to say SP -> S', -> S. right? So in this theory every sentence begins as a CP, not a TP. The only thing is that CP's are silent on the main clauses, so you just begin drawing the TP, or the IP as it's also called.
Why we need TP and CP?
CP means complementizer phrase ( that - if - whether)
Verb phrases don't include CP... Buh you are including it
They can. Otherwise we wouldn’t have embedded clauses.