Syntax 3 F11
Feedback on Assignment 1

Overall, both parts present an excellent, clear, and well presented
overview of the corresponding parts of the grammar of English, with
appropriate attention to issues of general theory and plenty of
incisive questioning and commentary along the way.  Parts of this
read like a (good) textbook, and the whole piece of work is impressive.

Part I (Phrase Structure) presents an excellent exposition of
(our version of) X-bar theory, followed by fairly detailed treatments
of five or six particular issues that are of general and/or current
interest: the lexicon, subcategorization, and Theta-roles; head-head
adjunction (exemplified by N-N compounds); the structure of coordinate
structures; DegPs; Adverbs; and the placement of adverbial phrases.
These are all excellent choices for particular attention, and in
some cases say just about everything that can confidently be said
on the basis of our current knowledge about the particular construction.

Part II (Transformational Component) similarly does an excellent job
of laying out the theoretical framework and overall architecture
of the theory of transformations, and then delving into several
particular issues in depth.  The relation between A-syntax, Morphology,
and A-bar syntax is carefully delineated, and the various versions of
Control and Raising are efficiently exemplified.  One thing missing is
a discussion of expletives and dummy constructions in general.  The
survey of A-bar movements, while not exhaustive, is extensive.  The
discussion of islands is complete and fairly sophisticated, as is the
discussion of feature percolation and the successive cyclic hypothesis.
The discussion of the +WH feature and what it does is quite penetrating.

Here are a few more specific comments and observations:

PART I:

p1	The first diagram really shows *two* local subtrees.
p2 l7	And > An
p2	To understand the PSRs, we need a few examples.
p2	Shouldn't the form rules for pns include Genitive case?
p3	and >> an, in >> is
p4	This is one of the places where it looks like you've written
	a textbook.
p4	"types phrases" >> "types of phrases"
p6	You say the VP "has four complements".  I see two complements.
p7	Punctuation error on next to last line.
p8	Where you say noun phrase, it looks like you mean NN compound.
p9	Same thing.
p11	"neither XP c-commands the other": Think about that.
p11	"There is also head to head coordination ..." -- Interesting
	point.  Give an example.
p13	Binary branching: we can hope that this is an empirical issue.
p14	"we don't see any instances of Degs agreeing with their APs"
	This is a *very interesting* observation.  This line of thought
	should be pursued.
p14	(5) I am so very tired: is that [so[very tired]] or [[so very] tired]?
	Could the tree at the bottom be [[extremely unreasonably] A]]?
	These are extremely interesting questions.
p15	"between two verbs" -- could this just be left-adjoined to VP?
p16	Nice observation about the similarity in patterning between
	adverbs and topics.


Part II	Transformations

p2	'endeavour' -- is there a Brit among us?
p2	What do "subj" and "obj" mean?
p3	Somebody needs to say more about how the "can't seem to"
	construction bears on the constituent movement restriction.
	Also more about particle movement and how it bears on the
	structure preserving hypothesis.

p4	Perhaps you could *define* A-syntax?
p7	What's "focus"?
p8	"Is 'regarding' a preposition?" -- You tell me.
p9	"some question about the validity (of the VP-internal subject
	hypothesis)" -- Well the subject certainly *surfaces* in Spec TP.
	The reason for assuming it starts out inside the VP is just the
	assumption of locality of Theta-role assignment.
p9	Pronoun Form Rules: how about the Genitive?
p10	*For I, the apartment was too cold -- But isn't that pronoun
	still the object of a P?  We need some different examples
	to make this point.

	Perhaps the reflexive rule could be collapsed with the case
	form rules above.

	then > than, Superlatives > Comparatives

	Good questions about morphology and its relation to syntax.

p11	"islands .. created by A syntax" ?? -> A-bar syntax?
	"commands" > "contains"?

p12	(4)  It might be more instructive to give an example where the
	WH element is not in top-level subject position in the relative
	clause.

p13	Topicalization: Doesn't essentially the same thing happen to PPs?
	And to the objects of Ps?
	And to the subjects of embedded clauses?
	You might want a more general statement of the Xn.

p14	(5) does not seem to exemplify the rule as stated.
p14	Comparatives: think about your use of the term co-referent.

p15	It Cleft Xn:  Show me a case of NP becoming the focus in an It Cleft.
p15	Could the dummy *it* actually be inserted into the DS-empty Spec TP?
p16	Does the Topicalization Xn really require a TP with an object?
	Interesting questions about the It Cleft construction.
p16	"Islands are known to be a universal" --  Well, it's probably 
	universal that there are islands; which ones are universal is
	a somewhat open question.
p17	Why are complements the only non-islands?  Excellent question.
p18	*What did the leg of was old and splintered > *What was the leg of ...
p18	In general, very nice illustrations of islands.
p19	Questions about islands:  Many good questions.  These very questions
	have occupied the discipline for about four decades, and there has 
	been some progress.  We'll see what light we can shed on them.

p20	"movement of features in transformation" (where a feature simply
	sticks with the phrase it belongs to when that phrase moves) and
	"movement of a feature from a head to a maximal projection"
	are very different things.

p22	effect > affect

p25	successive cyclic movement found anywhere other than WH questions?
	Well, how about WH Relatives? that relatives? clefts? comparatives?