Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Chinese
      • Home Country:
      • Hong Kong
      • Current Location:
      • Hong Kong

    • Join Date: Dec 2013
    • Posts: 6
    #1

    Constitency Test

    My professor told me in the final test of grammatical description
    that look V + at the teacher PP which is quite weird
    look at the teacher = Verb Phrase
    at the teacher = Prepositional Phrase
    to prove that it's a constituent I used several tests
    Stand alone: What did Kim look? At the teacher
    Clefting: It was at the teacher that Kim looked
    Preposing: At the teacher was what Kim looked

    Those seems strange, so does that 'at the teacher' is a PP
    May I ask if these are really correct, as well as the statement that its a PP?
    Thanks a lot!
    Last edited by cescfabregas; 01-Dec-2013 at 04:31. Reason: elaboration

  1. MikeNewYork's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • American English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States

    • Join Date: Nov 2002
    • Posts: 24,983
    #2

    Re: Constitency Test

    Quote Originally Posted by cescfabregas View Post
    My professor told me in the final test of grammatical description
    that look V + at the teacher PP which is quite weird
    to prove that it's a constituent I used several tests
    Stand alone: What did Kim look? At the teacher
    Clefting: It was at the teacher that Kim look
    Preposing: At the teacher was what Kim look

    Those seems strange, so does that 'at the teacher' is a PP
    May I ask if these are really correct, as well as the statement that its a PP?
    Thanks a lot!
    If "PP" stands for prepositional phrase, that is correct. I don't understand your "tests". Why not use "Kim looked at the teacher"?

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Chinese
      • Home Country:
      • Hong Kong
      • Current Location:
      • Hong Kong

    • Join Date: Dec 2013
    • Posts: 6
    #3

    Re: Constitency Test

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeNewYork View Post
    If "PP" stands for prepositional phrase, that is correct. I don't understand your "tests". Why not use "Kim looked at the teacher"?
    The professor required us to find out the constituents for the VP : looked at the teacher
    So it has to be the PP 'at the teacher'
    that's why I used the abovementioned tests to show that it's a constituent of the VP

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Chinese
      • Home Country:
      • Hong Kong
      • Current Location:
      • Hong Kong

    • Join Date: Dec 2013
    • Posts: 6
    #4

    Re: Constitency Test

    Quote Originally Posted by cescfabregas View Post
    The professor required us to find out the constituents for the VP : looked at the teacher
    So it has to be the PP 'at the teacher'
    that's why I used the abovementioned tests to show that it's a constituent of the VP
    Not sure if these tests are done correctly though

  2. Raymott's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Australia
      • Current Location:
      • Australia

    • Join Date: Jun 2008
    • Posts: 24,091
    #5

    Re: Constitency Test

    It's polite and much more useful if you use the full term of any ambiguous abbreviation at least once.
    PP = present perfect, past perfect, present participle, past participle, prepositional phrase (apparently), and who knows what else.

    This is an example of the correct way to deal with ambiguous abbreviations:
    "My question relates to prepositional phrases (PP). I need to know if V + PP is possible." V is probably understand as 'verb' by most, but 'verb' is unambiguous and the same rule should apply.
    Of course, you've made other errors too, but I think it's important to point out that 'PP' should not be used without explanation.

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Chinese
      • Home Country:
      • Hong Kong
      • Current Location:
      • Hong Kong

    • Join Date: Dec 2013
    • Posts: 6
    #6

    Re: Constitency Test

    Quote Originally Posted by Raymott View Post
    It's polite and much more useful if you use the full term of any ambiguous abbreviation at least once.
    PP = present perfect, past perfect, present participle, past participle, prepositional phrase (apparently), and who knows what else.

    This is an example of the correct way to deal with ambiguous abbreviations:
    "My question relates to prepositional phrases (PP). I need to know if V + PP is possible." V is probably understand as 'verb' by most, but 'verb' is unambiguous and the same rule should apply.
    Of course, you've made other errors too, but I think it's important to point out that 'PP' should not be used without explanation.
    Thanks so much!
    May I ask whether my tests are valid ?

  3. MikeNewYork's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • American English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States

    • Join Date: Nov 2002
    • Posts: 24,983
    #7

    Re: Constitency Test

    Quote Originally Posted by cescfabregas View Post
    Thanks so much!
    May I ask whether my tests are valid ?
    Even linguists argue about the validity of constituency tests. I will deal with your individual test sentences later in the post. First, I feel compelled to say that this is a useless exercise in a simple sentence like the original. "Kim looked at the teacher" is not difficult to parse: Subject (Kim) - intransitive verb (looked) - adverbial prepositional phrase (at the teacher). In addition, the preposition is correct for this use, and the sentence is logical and meaningful, with no ambiguity. Why anybody would need constituency testing for this sentence is a mystery to me.

    Now I will discuss your sentences.

    Stand alone: What did Kim look? At the teacher. [At whom did Kim look? At the teacher. Or, informally, Who did the Kim look at?]
    Clefting: It was at the teacher that Kim look. [It was at the teacher that Kim looked. Very clumsy sentence.]
    Preposing: At the teacher was what Kim look. [At the teacher was where Kim looked. Very clumsy sentence.]

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Chinese
      • Home Country:
      • Hong Kong
      • Current Location:
      • Hong Kong

    • Join Date: Dec 2013
    • Posts: 6
    #8

    Re: Constitency Test

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeNewYork View Post
    Even linguists argue about the validity of constituency tests. I will deal with your individual test sentences later in the post. First, I feel compelled to say that this is a useless exercise in a simple sentence like the original. "Kim looked at the teacher" is not difficult to parse: Subject (Kim) - intransitive verb (looked) - adverbial prepositional phrase (at the teacher). In addition, the preposition is correct for this use, and the sentence is logical and meaningful, with no ambiguity. Why anybody would need constituency testing for this sentence is a mystery to me.

    Now I will discuss your sentences.

    Stand alone: What did Kim look? At the teacher. [At whom did Kim look? At the teacher. Or, informally, Who did the Kim look at?]
    Clefting: It was at the teacher that Kim look. [It was at the teacher that Kim looked. Very clumsy sentence.]
    Preposing: At the teacher was what Kim look. [At the teacher was where Kim looked. Very clumsy sentence.]
    Thanks!
    It's because I'm required to use the tests to show whether they are the constituents of the Verb phrase.
    But I used 'What did Kim look? At the teacher' As the answer which is not fully correct.

  4. MikeNewYork's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • American English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States

    • Join Date: Nov 2002
    • Posts: 24,983
    #9

    Re: Constitency Test

    Quote Originally Posted by cescfabregas View Post
    Thanks!
    It's because I'm required to use the tests to show whether they are the constituents of the Verb phrase.
    But I used 'What did Kim look? At the teacher' As the answer which is not fully correct.
    "What did Kim look" is not correct. In my opinion, your teacher is hung up on meaningless details. But that's just me.

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Chinese
      • Home Country:
      • Hong Kong
      • Current Location:
      • Hong Kong

    • Join Date: Dec 2013
    • Posts: 6
    #10

    Re: Constitency Test

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeNewYork View Post
    "What did Kim look" is not correct. In my opinion, your teacher is hung up on meaningless details. But that's just me.
    Ya.. Originally I wrote What did Kim look at, however after she said that 'at the teacher' is a PP then I dropped 'at'.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. pre test post test
    By skystar30097 in forum Teaching English
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 16-Jul-2013, 08:19
  2. [Vocabulary] Verificatin Test and Demonstration Test
    By Snappy in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 20-Jun-2013, 17:25
  3. Pre-test/Post-test
    By nickyshumack in forum Teaching English
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-Feb-2012, 23:14
  4. i need some hints for my final test (ENGLISH TEST)
    By fantomboy in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 15-Jan-2005, 15:48

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •