 Hello, welcome to the second e-lecture about constituents, which is a direct continuation of More on Constituents 1, where we presented the main structure of the central constituents. We showed that according to the X-bar syntax scheme, all sentence internal constituents such as, for example, adjectival phrases, adverb phrases, noun phrases, and so on have the same structure. They all consist of a head whose categorical label is used for the phrasal label and an optional specifier, as the daughter category dominated by the phrasal category. Specifiers are not what class is in their own right, but constitute a functional collective term for those categories that can fill the specifier slot, for example degree adverbs that introduce adverb phrases and adjectival phrases, determiners that introduce noun phrases and so on. The constituent structure of these five central sentence internal phrases can be generalized to the X-bar syntax scheme, where X stands for the phrasal head and its respective mother-nodes X-bar and XP. The central question that we have to solve now is, how do the constituents discussed thus far combine into sentences? Well, to do this, I will look at the structure of the sentential constituents' inflectional phrase and complementizer phrase. As usual, I will only provide you with snapshots of the respective constituent structures in an e-lecture like this. In the additional series of short video scribes, these are those scribbles I produce on my tablet, I will show the individual steps of building these constituents in a more dynamic fashion. Let us now look at the structure of the main constituents and let's start with the clause. Let's take the following sentence, Mary will never read the books at home. I wrote down this sentence at the very bottom of my screen because I'm going to build a tree on top of it. Let's perform a rough categorical analysis first. By rough, I mean a categorical analysis where I present some of the phrasal categories by means of triangles indicating that the internal structure is not relevant here. Mary is of course a noun phrase, will is an auxiliary verb, never is an adverb, read is a verb and then we have the noun phrase, the books and the prepositional phrase at home. Well, at the string, never read the books at home is of course a verb phrase. We analyze that already in Moron constituents 1. The verb phrase has a specifier never and two internal verb bars which have the noun phrase and the prepositional phrase as daughters respectively. So this is our starting point. But how do we combine the three constituents noun phrase auxiliary verb and verb phrase into a sentence? Hmm, well in the early days of generative grammar, this flat structure was used to represent these three categories. They were all daughter to a common mother node S which stood for sentence. However, this analysis was shown to be inadequate for various reasons. First such a constituent would violate the binary branching, the binary branching principles of X bar syntax and the strict head modifier organization. But more importantly, there are arguments suggesting that the auxiliary verb and the verb phrase have to be treated as one constituent, a constituent that is independent from the subject noun phrase in this case, Mary. Take for example the sentence fragment test. Who will never read the books at home? Well, and your answer could be Mary leaving out the entire rest indicating that this is a constituent or take the coordination test. We can build structures where the auxiliary in the verb phrase will never read the books at home, can be coordinated with typical other auxiliary verb phrase structures thus supporting their constituent status. Take our example, Mary will never read the books at home and now we coordinate never read the books at home with and has always left them in the library. So Mary will have never read the books at home and has always left them in the library indicates that we have two constituents of the same type and has always left them in the library includes the auxiliary verb too. Furthermore, auxiliaries appear to be heads of the whole sentence. They determine the properties of the verb. For example, will, like in our example, requires the bare infinitive has as an auxiliary requires the past participle and so on and so forth. So the auxiliary not only determines the type of verb but influences the entire verb phrase. So the suggestion is the auxiliary and the verb phrase must be sister of a common phrasal category. So we have to revise this flat structure. First of all, we replace the label auxiliary by infill, where infill stands for inflection. Indicating that in many languages and in English too, this note contains the inflection information that dominates somehow the entire phrase. The mother note of infill and VP is now consequently I bar or infill bar. Well, in the whole sentence now, the whole clause to be precise is now represented as an IP as an inflectional phrase with the subject noun phrase functioning as its specifier. Thus an inflectional phrase is essentially the same as a clause. But it now strictly follows the X bar syntax scheme having ahead the inflection, a complement the verb phrase and a specifier like all other constituents. We're not ready yet. What happens if a complementizer introduces the clause as in, I think that Mary will never read the books at home? Well, the simplest solution is we make the complementizer and the inflectional phrase daughters of a common mother note, indicated by a question mark here because we still have to decide what is the label for this mother note. However, there is cross linguistic evidence that such an analysis is too simple. For example, there are languages with sentence initial WH elements that can stand before the complementizer even. So here is a WH element like who, which, why, how, which can even introduce a full clause such as that Mary will never read the books at home. Take for example this Middle English sentence taken from Jeffrey Chaucer's Canterbury Tales where the complementizer that is preceded by whom. Whom that we wall that shall be in Uri Justiz. So here we have two such elements at the beginning of a sentence. Or look at some German dialects like Bavarian German where you have constructions such as Wien, Das Er Einge Laden hat, literal translation, who that he invited has again, two such constructions, two such elements at the beginning of a clause. In other words, we can build a constituent where the complementizer, which is widely held to be the syntactic head of a full clause, and the inflectional phrase have a common mother note that consequently has to be called C bar or comp bar. The top level note is now complementizer phrase with an optional specifier as its initial daughter. And the specifier is a typical position for WH elements such as who, how, which and so on. Now this complementizer phrase analysis which is the equivalent of a full clause originally labeled S. Now strictly follows the X bar syntax scheme where all constituents have a head, an optional specifier, and are strictly binary branching. So this is how sentences can be represented using the X bar syntax scheme. In our two E lectures, more on constituents one and two, we have now discussed the basic constituents from adjectival phrase to complementizer phrase. To find out further details about these constituents, please consult my supplementary video scribes. In further E lectures about constituents and video scribes about the same topic, we will deal with specific problems such as coordination, complex noun phrases, and phenomena from other languages such as nominal classifiers or specific aspects of verbal inflection. So thanks for your attention. Hopefully we will meet again in another E lecture about constituents. Until then, have a nice time.