Cách Vẽ Tree Diagram Syntax

Substitution:

When you figure out that some string of words is a constituent, put square brackets around it and label what kind of constituent it is (NP., PPhường., VPhường, etc). I like to lớn do this by h& because I can make the square brackets of different sizes or colours khổng lồ keep traông xã of them all. If you find it helpful, you can also use underlining, highlighting, or circles to group other elements. (Here’s an example of particularly enthusiastic colour usage.)

If we have an extra modifier of some sort, we can use the same tests to figure out what it modifies. For example, we can add several different prepositional phrases beginning with “in” lớn the sentence above:

YouTube showed that the mèo played the piano in a blue shirt.YouTube showed that the cat played the piano in high definition.YouTube showed that the mèo played the piano in the living room.

But doesn’t necessarily modify the same thing each time, so we need khổng lồ ask questions about it:

What was in a xanh shirt? The cát (playing), not YouTube or the piano.What was in high definition? YouTube’s showing, not the cat or the piano.What was in the living room? The piano (or maybe the cat playing) but not YouTube.

And based on the answers khổng lồ these questions, we can mark up the sentence as follows:

YouTube showed that the cat < played the piano in a blue shirt >VP YouTube < showed < that the cát played the piano >CPhường. in high definition >VPYouTube showed that the mèo played < the piano in the living room >NP

Why are we doing this step? This step is where most of the thinking happens: the goal is to know exactly what you’re putting in your tree before any of the tree-drawing actually happens. Otherwise it’s tempting to lớn just draw a general shape that looks kind of lượt thích the trees you’ve sầu seen before without fully examining what each part is contributing, which will over up as a mess. No really. It will.

Xem thêm: Tái Sử Dụng Vật Liệu Tro Bay Là Gì, Tro Bay Là Gì

Proceed onlớn the next step when: all heads (N, V, P, Adj, Adv, C, và, if you’re using it, D) are inside their respective phrases (NPhường, VPhường., PP., AdjPhường., AdvP, CP và maybe DP). Make sure you know what the subject(s) & object(s) is/are. Also make sure that for any AdjPhường, AdvPhường, or PP that you know what it modifies và how khổng lồ indicate this in the structure.

As you get more practised at drawing trees, this step will take less time và you can skip over the easy parts if you want. For example, if parts of speech are 100% intuitive to you, you may be able khổng lồ go right khổng lồ labeling the constituents. Or you may not need to lớn draw brackets around all the AdjPs and NPs, you can just figure out the subject và object và any ambiguities. But even once you’re fairly good at tree-drawing, if you’re ever faced with an unexpectedly daunting sentence to lớn draw, you can always fall bachồng on step 1: label the words và step 2: label the constituents. Or, if you’re drawing a really high-stakes tree, for a demo or an assignment, you may still want khổng lồ proceed as methodically as possible to lớn reduce your chances of making a silly mistake.

Note that I have not gotten into sentence-màn chơi projections (i.e. S or IP. or TPhường, whichever you’re using). There’s a reason for that: first of all, that’s where there’s the most variance between course conventions. Secondly, this is the type of projection that may not have an obvious head (unless you have sầu an Aux & your course is treating Aux as an I head). And thirdly, you automatically need an S/IP/TP.. khổng lồ contain your entire sentence, so it’s not a particularly informative sầu constituent khổng lồ add since it will literally just contain the whole sentence. BUT, & this is important, you also need another S/IP/TP for every additional verb that you have sầu in your sentence, because any verb và associated words (subject, object, etc) could also be a sentence by itself.

For example:

YouTube showed that the cát played the piano.

Contains two verbs, “showed” and “played” & thus two clauses, each of which could be a sentence with minor modifications:

The main (or matrix) clause: “YouTube showed…”

The subordinate (or embedded) clause: “That the cát played the piano”

So we also need lớn split these up. We know that “that” is a complementizer ©, so it creates a CP (or S’ if you’re using it), but inside the CP is an S/IP/TPhường (directly inside every CPhường, in the position of sister to the C, is an S/IP/TP).

> >

However, if you only have sầu one verb in your sentence, then you also only have sầu one clause, the main clause, so you can skip this part.

Here’s a gif of step 1+2: I start by labelling the words as in step 1, và then add labels for various constituents (here I am using a strict X-bar theory with IPs). I worked bottom-up from smaller khổng lồ bigger groups, but you could also vì chưng a top-down approach, whatever works for you. Notice the brackets getting bigger and bigger, which is an advantage of handwriting. Leaving lots of space around the words will help fit in all the brackets, but you definitely don’t need to lớn be as pretty as I’m being here.

And here’s a static image of the final result (note that I’ve sầu labelled both sides of the brackets for extra clarity, but you don’t have sầu to):

Step 3: Draw tree

Now, finally, we get to lớn draw the tree!

A lot of people think that this is the step that you start at, but unless you’re dealing with a really, really easy sentence và you already have sầu practice drawing trees, jumping right into lớn drawing a tree will just leave sầu you confused and not sure what lớn put where. It’s a lot better to lớn be confused at the previous step, where you can pause & try a couple things và figure it out, rather than at this step, where you’ll be tempted to lớn just draw something that looks basically lượt thích a tree and think “eh, good enough”. Trust me, despite the fact that the rules may look confusing & arbitrary lớn you when you’re starting out, they make good sense lớn your prof or TA, & it will be very obvious to lớn them if you bởi vì that.

I’m going khổng lồ point out at this stage that syntax trees are not something you can bs. However, this is in fact a great và wonderful thing, because it means that you can, with enough effort, check your own work & prove sầu that your tree is correct (or fix it if it’s not), and you are not at the mercy of dubious judgement calls & whether or not the prof likes you. A correct syntax tree is correct, a wrong (portion of a) syntax tree is wrong, và although there are a few fudgey bits in the realm of “how much vày we care that this thing is wrong?”, it is entirely possible khổng lồ get a score of 100% in a syntax course or unit.

Syntax (và in fact linguistics in general, actually) is not one of those subjects where the prof artificially caps the maximum score at 80 or 85: if you draw a completely correct tree, or in general demonstrate a very thorough understanding of the topic, you will get full marks, và for every mark you chiến bại, there is something very specific that you should have done differently, & most profs and TAs will tell you exactly what answer they were looking for. It’s very satisfying. (I mean, until you get to high-màn chơi courses where you realize that what a syntax tree should even look like is still a matter of theoretical debate, but in an intro course there is definitely still a right answer.)

But enough with the pep talk: how vì you take your now-thoroughly-marked-up sentence and make it inlớn a tree?

You’re going lớn start at the top. As tempting as it may be to lớn draw your sentence along the bottom of the page and draw up from there, this is not how syntax trees are conventionally drawn. Why? Well, starting from the top gives you more symmetrically-sized branches rather than long branches on one side & cramped, tiny, hard-to-read ones on the other, as well as more space for movement arrows. It’s also how the vast majority of syntax trees are drawn, và it’s easier for everyone khổng lồ interpret each other’s trees if we follow a few basic formatting conventions.

If you’re worried about spacing, note that English trees will branch more on the right than on the left, so starting your S/IP/TPhường about a third of the way over on the left side of the page at the very top is generally better than starting it in the middle. Or just find an empty classroom and practise on a large whiteboard/chalkboard where you don’t need lớn worry about wasting paper. Thanks to the miracles of modern technology, you can even take a phokhổng lồ of your whiteboard tree when you’re finished, which was definitely not a thing when I was an undergraduate.

(Related: do not, for the love of Chomsky, draw your syntax trees upside-down. That is, bởi vì not write the sentence along the top of the page & draw branches down from it. I’ve gotten one or two of these in every stack of syntax assignments I’ve sầu marked, and while I bởi vì always try khổng lồ mark it as much as possible, it takes me about three times as long khổng lồ figure out what’s going on & hence makes me grumpy. And you don’t want a grumpy person marking your assignment. If you want to instead make your marker especially happy, I have gotten some delightfully entertaining drawings from students on tests và assignments over the years, so you know, feel không tính phí.)

So you’re going khổng lồ start at the top of the page with your maximal sentence projection, S or IP.. or TP (that’s S’ or CPhường if you’ve got a question), and proceed down from there.

If you’re using S, S will branch into an NPhường. (subject) and a VPhường (containing V, the object NP, và maybe more) plus maybe other things.

If you’re using IP or TPhường, IP. or TP.. will branch inlớn NP (subject) and I’ or T’, which will branch into I or T and VP (containing V, the object NP.., and maybe other things). (Or these NPs might all be DPs, if you’re using the DP. hypothesis. If you’ve sầu never seen a DP., just ignore everything I’m saying about them.)

Anyway, this first part is pretty much always the same for any sentence, which is why we didn’t really bother bản đồ out this top projection in the previous step.

Now you’re going lớn take the constituents that you figured out in the previous step và get them inkhổng lồ the tree:

What’s in your subject? Put it all under that subject position.

Make sure khổng lồ include bar levels if your course is using them.

Do you have sầu anything modifying your verb? Put it under the VP (V’ if you’re using them).

What’s in your object? Put it all directly sister khổng lồ your V.

Include bar levels again if relevant.

Do you have sầu any embedded clauses? You’ve sầu figured out what they’re embedded under in the previous step, now put them there. Be sure khổng lồ include a CPhường (S’) và S/IP/TP before going inkhổng lồ the subject, verb, etc of the embedded clause.

Is anything ambiguous? If you figured out an ambiguity in the previous step, there are a couple ways to proceed. If your course or assignment has mentioned ambiguity as an option, you should probably draw both trees & indicate which meaning each one corresponds to lớn. If there’s a technical ambiguity but one interpretation is way more plausible than the other, and you haven’t been told to find ambiguities, you may be able khổng lồ get away with just drawing the most plausible interpretation (although in that case, feel không tính tiền to include a note lớn the marker). Draw ambiguities on separate trees though, not the same one.

If you need to draw movement, make sure you represent the original position & the moved position using whatever conventions your course is using (arrows, traces, etc).

When you think you’ve finished your tree, here are a few comtháng errors that you can check:

Basic errors:

Did you include all the words from the target sentence in your tree?

Does the tree, left lớn right, read in the same order as your target sentence? (After any movement has happened.) If this is not the case, you need khổng lồ fix something.

Do all the words have their part of speech labels that you established at the beginning? (Double-kiểm tra the tests you used at the labelling step if you want to be really careful.)

Is each head inside its corresponding maximal projection? (N inside NP, V inside VPhường, etc.)

If you’re doing strict X’ theory, vì you have sầu at least one bar màn chơi between each head & its maximal projection? (N’ between N và NPhường., V’ between V & VP., etc.)

More specific errors:

If you have more than one verb, is each verb inside its own VP which is inside its own S/IP/TP? Is each non-matrix verb’s S/IP/TP inside its own S’/CP?

Is there any movement? If it’s a question, what would the statement version sound like? If there are multiple verbs, what would each mini clause sound like separately? If there is passive, what would the active sầu version sound like?

What complements vị you have, if any? Especially complements of PPs (generally NPs/DPs), or NPs & AdjPs (often PPs beginning with “of”). Are they in the right positions? (In X’ theory, a complement is sister to lớn the head, so complement of a noun → sister to lớn N, complement of an adjective sầu → sister lớn Adj, etc. In a theory without bar levels, a complement is simply inside the phrasal cấp độ, so complement of a noun → inside its NP, complement of a verb → inside its VP, etc.)

What modifiers vị you have sầu, if any? AdjPs, AdvPs, PPs…what does each modifier modify? Is it in the right position khổng lồ vì chưng so? (In X’ theory, a modifier is sister khổng lồ the bar màn chơi of the modified element, so modifying a noun → sister khổng lồ its N’, modifying a verb → sister to its V’, etc. In a theory without bar levels, a modifier is simply inside the phrasal level of the modified element, so modifying a noun → inside its NP., modifying a verb → inside its VP., etc. Note that if you don’t have bar levels, there is no difference between a complement & a modifier.)

If you’re in X’ theory, another way of phrasing the previous two questions is: for every PP.., is it a complement or a modifier? Is it in the appropriate position for which one it is? (AdjPs are almost always modifiers, unless they’re after a verb: “the xanh shirt” = modifier; “the shirt is blue” = complement. I can’t think of any examples where an AdvP. would be a complement & not a modifier, but you may want to double kiểm tra just in case. And an AdvP might modify several different things, so especially kiểm tra that part.)

What’s the subject (including modifiers và complements) of each verb? Is it in the appropriate subject position that your course is using? (Under S or sister to I’ are the most likely.)

What’s the object (including modifiers & complements) of each verb? Is it sister to the verb?

Do you have sầu any ambiguity? If so, have sầu you represented it clearly?

Here’s a gif of drawing the tree, again assuming you’re using a strict X-bar theory with IPs (note that the colours correspond khổng lồ the colours of the brackets I used at the previous step – this is for your ease in following, it’s not a thing you need lớn vì in drawing your own trees, as switching ink colours this often will probably make it harder).

And here’s the final tree as a still image:

Lastly, here are the brackets và the tree side-by-side, just for fun.

Notice that subjects are in spec, IP (sister to I’) of their respective sầu IPs, & objects are in complement position of their respective verbs (sister to lớn V). These trees assume you’re doing a strict X’ theory structure: if you’re using TPs or DPs, feel không tính phí lớn substitute them instead, & if you’re doing basic phrase structure rules, substitute S for IP.. và delete all the bar levels (just move sầu everything up khổng lồ attach directly khổng lồ the phrase).

This is part 8 of a series on how to lớn draw syntax trees. If you’re confused about why I keep referring lớn different course conventions rather than giving a specific answer, kiểm tra out the remainder of the series below.