This video taught me more about Syntax than my lecturer did in 180 minutes. Thanks!

I love this lady, she explains things so clearly

@void2902

7 жыл бұрын

IKR XD

This is one of the most helpful videos I have seen in my university career. There should be more of those kind of videos, there's almost nothing online about those topics. Syntax can be quite complicated but she explained everything so cearly. Thank you very much, we need more of this!

Your voice is clearly that of a real teacher. There is a charm in your voice that attracts the students and encourages them to learn one of the driest branch of linguistics- The Syntax. Your voice has removed my worries and confusions about syntax. Thanks a lot ma'am. If possible, I would like you to lecture more on other topics of linguistics as well. Thanking you a lot.

Reading the how to write book “sense of style” by Steven Pinker and I really needed a crash course on this. Incredible, thank you.

Outstanding lectures! I cannot thank you enough Professor Heycook. I hope you address more advanced syntactic topics in the future.

Thank you so much for these awesome videos on Syntax. I really hope that you tackle more advanced issues within recent frameworks (Minimalism) Thank you.

@eminememinemful

9 жыл бұрын

*advance

She is amazing!!

Thank you for sharing this material.

Loving how simple this is to understand. Thank you!

Thanks for your lectures. I have some questions: - Why do you not allign the superficial structure? Is this important? - Why did you included each new modifier (PP) above the VP and not under it? - Is this analysis based on Chomysk's assumptions?

Brilliant! Thanks.

I found this lecture so helpful! Thank you for providing such high quality content!

It is pleasure for me to listen to her lecture from Thailand.... kindly give a special thank to the Department of Linguistics, the University of Edinburgh for providing me a very good opportunity..............

Thanks for your great tutorials, You make this complex matter more accesible. The more I listen to them, the more clear the concepts. Wonderful.

Your videos are brilliant.

Very good video, thank's for sharing.

Could you please explain wh-movement in minimalist program

I failed my previous exam for Syntax and this might actually save my life and help me pass the resit, amazing

Just brilliant!!!!

The "all" quantifier and "both" are the only words that can float like that (the workers may both come) but "some" "every" "each" "many" "few" cannot appear in those "trace" positions, there is no "the workers can many come"

This is really cool! Thank you.

Thank you so much for your great explanations on Grammar. It's really helpful to improve my knowledge :)

Thank you! Great explanation. It might help me to pass my exams :)

Thank you very much for these kind of videos.

Thank you so much. Do you have books on this topic?

Does this apply to english or all languages as such? English being one of the late-stage languages, adapted, simplified form of pre-existing languages and grammatical structures ...

Thanks so much. This was informative and easy to follow.

What a wonderful video. Thank you.

I wonder how I would mark a cumulation of different verbs in a tree structure. For example, a sentence containing multiple verbs classified in x-bar-theory as inflectional like "They would have been gone if [...]". Would we have to add multiple IPs in order to accommodate all the verbs? And what about subordinate clauses headed by to-infinitival VP- complements? Take for example a sentence like "John seems to love Mary." Because all sentences have to be IPs, I assume we'd have in the matrix clause alone a VP headed by "seem" embedded in an IP headed by "Present tense". Successively, we'd add another IP to the VP as complement (since the subordinate clause clearly is a complement of "seem"). This IP takes in the specifier-position a trace of the raised subject we now find in the superordinate clause. The complement position would then be filled by the inflectional "to" (since this seems to be what marks the tenseless subclause), to the I', then, we'd attach the last VP. Is that a correct analysis?

@JoeJoseGiuseppe

8 жыл бұрын

+Linguaphile I include Auxiliary Phrases (AuxP) to analyse different auxiliaries (for the imperfective, for the perfective). This is what Radford does. I think your analysis of "seem" is correct but I got lost. This is ana analysis that does not show everything: [IP seem [IP to John love Mary]]. John moves to spec-IP [IP John seems [IP to [VP trace love Mary]. I hope you find this useful. By the way, I'm not an expert.

2:32 modals only have finite forms Could one consider "have to" (for "must") and "be able to" (for "can") as modals?

Thank you very much.. Sentence structure - S has VP which intern has VP(with V and Pron) plus ADV(with ADV ADV)

Is it not somehow strange to call "Donald" an agent with respect to the main verb "forget" when the whole point of forgetting is that it happens unconsciously, while an agent implies intentionality?

thank you

I am looking for someone who can make videos like that. Does anyone know anyone?

Thank you very much. Can you please explain what's Ellipses? nominal ellipsis in specific ? can you advice a book for me to get it all about Ellipses?

I would like to follow up her vedios

Thank you very much dearProfessor. I could follow you until copying, but then no examples were provided, so I got lost.

Nice Debussy intro

Could we have sections 2 and 3 also?

Violent.

“Complementizer”? That’s... a word

@bergg2009

4 жыл бұрын

comes right after the appetizer. that's... a type a food. ;)

In many languages, modal verbs function just like any other verb.

Can anyone explain to me why Donald and Pauline's name are DPs and not NPs?

@somdyutimukherjee6044

7 жыл бұрын

Iacob Andreea NP-s fall under DP-s with empty or null heads under determiner nodes

how to make Tree Diagramming if there is no verb. for examples: 1. a film about pollution 2. the success of the program please...

❤🎉can l please have your email professor🙏