Word classes and syntactic constituency

This video lecture is a part of the course 'An Introduction to English Linguistics' at the University of Neuchâtel. This is session 6, in which I discuss syntactic categories and the notion of syntactic constituency.

[@mehdiiqballone-1st-358]

Great ! You are awesome. My name is Muhammad Iqbal and I m from Kashmir and I want to say that your way of delivering the things has developed in me a dramatic interest in learning English. ❤️

[@kmodtf4578]

Thank u I have been trying to understand this for months but u made it so clear that i understood it in half an hour

[@proximityconcord7259]

Thank you for an excellent lecture. I am designing a grammar course for the autumn semester at my college and have been viewing lots of lectures to see how other people are teaching this subject. Your approach is very thorough and at the same time very accessible for students.

[@MartinHilpert]

Many thanks, Gail! Great to hear that.

[@habbabezelihaselcuk4356]

starting to rain and your face expression..I laughed aloud in that part :)Thank you for the video :

[@chiaracarolin9079]

These videos are so so great! Thank you so much, it helps me a lot since my professors can't really explain or try it :/

[@ahmetguneri7308]

Hi sir! I am writing from Turkey and l am studying on Kurdish as a MA thesis. Before that, l read a thesis including these syntactic categories; namely, tree diagram or tree structure and things of the sort and unfortunately l didnt understand them. But, for the sake of your video, l got the point, Thanks a lot.

[@MartinHilpert]

+Ahmet GÜNERİ Thanks for watching!

[@sylvainnavarro5570]

Thanks a lot for this very informative lecture. I do have one remark: I personally feel like "the slithy toves the wabe gimbled in" is an acceptable structure (the filthy sewers the kid played in)... What do you think? And a million thanks again.

[@MartinHilpert]

You are right! That is an interpretation that I had not thought of, but it is definitely possible!

[@mattmcguire1577]

That is only true if it stands alone as a sentence, but it would make the original sentence "The slithy toves gimbled in the wabe" become "The filthy sewers played in the kid". This is not a meaningful rephrasing of the original sentence.

[@felicial.7387]

I have to say, as a Swede, regarding the syntax of the "large man's hat" I really wish English worked in the way Swedish does. if "man's hat" is a hat made for men, we would write that as manshatt as a type of hat. If the object or thing in focus is the "large man" the sentence would be "En stor mans hatt" vs "En stor manshatt". I find this very difficult when it comes to English and I feel it has slowed down my learning process of it all. But, interesting nontheless. And Swedish people do mix it up, aswell.

[@felicial.7387]

The way I memorise it in Swedish is this: Is the sentence about one unit in particular? Swedish is fun in that syntax sense, because we can create any word from compound words as they are always together (it can get creative as heck). "cookie dough" is kakdeg, not kak deg. Cookie dough ice cream would be "kakdegsglass", despite having 4 English "words" they all work together as one unit or one "thing/object". I may be wrong on the English there as it's difficult for me to know how to write things like that. But, you know what I mean.

[@h.4303]

Your session is great thanks

[@gullparosh5021]

Thanks Sir.

[@elenadob7715]

What about ambiguos sentences like "We found a large man's hat in the wardrobe"? The lines of the tree will cross. Or should I draw two trees for such a sentence?

[@MartinHilpert]

+Elena Dobrovoskaya Two trees!

[@mustaphaaichouri7750]

Thanks