Syntax - Trees: Crash Course Linguistics #4

There are many theories of syntax and different ways to represent grammatical structures, but one of the simplest is tree structure diagrams! In this episode of Crash Course Linguistics, we’ll use tree structure diagrams to keep track of words and groups of words within sentences, and we’ll break down what roles different types of words and phrases play within a sentence.

Acknowledgements: Elizabeth Allyn Smith (Categorical Grammar/Logical Notation), Emily M. Bender (Dependency Grammar), Ellen Jovin (Reed-Kellogg Diagrams), Peter Hurst (LFG), Jamie Findlay (LFG), Francis Bond (Dependency Grammar)

***
Watch our videos and review your learning with the Crash Course App!

Thanks to the following patrons for their generous monthly contributions that help keep Crash Course free for everyone forever:

Catherine Conroy, Patty Laqua, Leonora Rossé Muñoz, Stephen Saar, John Lee, Phil Simmons, Alexander Thomson, Mark & Susan Billian, Junrong Eric Zhu, Alan Bridgeman, Jennifer Smith, Matt Curls, Tim Kwist, Ron Lin, Jonathan Zbikowski. Jennifer Killen, Sarah & Nathan Catchings, Brandon Westmoreland, team dorsey, Trevin Beattie, Eric Prestemon, Sam Ferguson, Yasenia Cruz, Eric Koslow, Indika Siriwardena, Khaled El Shalakany, Shawn Arnold, Tom Trval, Siobhán, Ken Penttinen, Nathan Taylor, William McGraw, Justin Zingsheim, Andrei Krishkevich, Jirat, Brian Thomas Gossett, SR Foxley, Ian Dundore, Jason A Saslow, Jessica Wode, Mark, Caleb Weeks, Sam Buck
--

Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?

[masterofthelines]

As a programmer, I'm really fascinated by the parallels linguistics has with various concepts in computer science. It makes sense since programming languages are indeed languages with their own syntax and semantics rules, but also other concepts like recursion exist in both.

[MrNicoJac]

You explained in 10 minutes what my linguistics professor explained in a 2 hour lecture.
And your explanation made more sense and was better structured!

This episode was *really* well-written, even though that only becomes self-evident when contrasted with a university class.
Great job!!

[AudreyDiggs]

the way this series is coming out perfectly timed with my intro ling class... ty crash course gods

[jasmeenmalhotra]

So the funny thing is, kids in India are taught a lot of this stuff as part of their regular primary school education in English grammar, but when I studied English as a primary school student in Australia, we didn't even cover half of it. The point being, I guess, that understanding the nuts and bolts and technicalities can be a useful substitute for the intuitive understanding that you pick up from learning a language as a native speaker... So these concepts could be useful for anybody trying to learn a second language.

[nickhight]

This reminds me a lot of garden path sentences! You basically think they have one syntactic structure until the very end of the sentence, before the rug gets pulled out from under you and you have to go back and reparse everything. It's interesting, because it shows that the structure contributes just as much to the meaning as the words themselves do, maybe more. I have a couple favourites:

"The cotton clothing is made of grows in Mississippi."
"The horse raced past the barn fell."
"Fat people eat accumulates."
"The complex houses married and single soldiers and their families."

[wodzimierzabramow]

I like how the rabbit from the first episode became a recurring character in this series.
Little things like this really MAKE a crash course. Like the center of the world opening during crash course history, those were fun.

[alicepow]

the "one-eyed one-horned giant purple people eater" problem has bothered me since I was a kid! Great video.

[gelgamath_]

It's "thought bubbles" all the way down

[violet_broregarde]

I AM THE SYNTAX
YOU SPEAK WITH MY TREES

[haisesasaki]

Thanks, CrashCourse. Linguistics is very interesting ❤

[Nikanike]

It's great that you mentioned other grammars by the end of the video but I think it should be underlined that constituent-based syntax (with the trees and movements) comes from one theory of language, that is Universal Grammar (UG). A component of UG is Generative Grammar, which postulates that grammatical sentences are generated in the brain (in a designated region of the brain) according to specific rules. This is the theory which sees a human brain as a computer with a pre-programmed software.

Usage-based language theories take different positions to Chomskyan UG/GG. Usage-based linguistics looks at such things as frequency or entrenchment and does not postulate 'rules' generating sentences. It is interested in the whole human cognition and treats language as interconnected with the general knowledge in the mind. That means that grammar will be bound with the meaning (UG separates syntax and semantics), and also with non-linguistics perceps, like visual or motosensor ones (see also: embodied cognition).

There is no tangible evidence for Generative Grammar postulates and many languages, also many grammatical instances in English do not 'fit' the theory (linguistics is generally extremely English-centred, btw). Psycholinguistics, for example, does not follow their postulates, as experimental evidence is not in line with UG. They still use GG terminology, though, unfortunately (probably from the lack of the alternative), which leads many linguistic students into thinking that Chomskyan theories are the only ones that we have.

Other grammars might not be so neat and mathematically pleasing (the horror of Word Grammar dependencies!) and they do not claim to have a ready-to-go formulas (like the omnipotent movement in GG) to explain syntactic 'structures'/syntax. But they offer a great insight into the complexity of cognition.

I hope your Semantics class will not be only about logic. Context matters! Plus, it would be good to mentioned Lakoff & Johnson's 'Metaphors We Live By', which is a milestone in cognitive linguistics and really makes you think about meaning construction.

[jasmeenmalhotra]

"Some of these beasts are a lot more dangerous than others" hehe cute

[vanessamaia]

I have a syntax midterm next week so thank you for summarizing these basic concepts this so clearly! As a 3rd year Linguistics major, this series could not have come at a better time 🙌🏼

[firenter]

I have a fun recursive story

It was night, midnight specifically. There were many bandits in the forest. While they were sitting around the campfire they asked their amazing leader Peter to tell them a story. And so Peter began:
It was night, midnight specifically. There were many bandits in the forest. While they were sitting around the campfire they asked their amazing leader Peter to tell them a story. And so Peter began:
It was night, midnight specifically. There were many bandits in the forest. While they were sitting around the campfire they asked their amazing leader Peter to tell them a story. And so Peter began:
It was night, midnight specifically. There were many bandits in the forest. While they were sitting around the campfire they asked their amazing leader Peter to tell them a story. And so Peter began:
...

[StoryToGo]

Fully confirmed my membership in the science nerd club when I got super excited at seeing a dichotomous key in your video on linguistics.

[QemeH]

It's interesting that with all the ambiguity over the "one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eater" there is still such thing as a "correct" order of adjectives in english. Most native speakers do this without even knowing the rule or noticing, but I had to learn it and it's still a dead giveaway when I mess up the order. But for adjectives referring to the same noun, the order absolutely positively has to be:

*Opinion > size > physical quality > shape > age > colour > origin > material > type > purpose*

That's why "She was a beautiful, tall, thin, young, black-haired, Scottish woman." sounds like a good sentence to native speakers, but as age comes before origin no "Scottish young woman" can exist...

[rxstingdevils]

this will. help me pass the class lol tysm crash course! <3

[TheCheck]

8:58 That drawing is clearly of a chom-chom not a 'banana'.

[AkankshaSingh-hxdb]

Your series is awesome!
Especially the fact that you use my native tongue hindi in so many

[Great_Olaf]

You may have wanted to specify that tree diagrams *initially* struck a nice balance between being understandable and taking up a reasonable amount of space. Later developments in syntax ended up creating tree diagrams that would take multiple full size sheets of paper to display all the elements the syntacticians felt were necessary, at least, if done by hand. I would know, I've had to draw some of those. X-bar theory was the worst part of intro syntax...