Feedback on Assignment 2 As became clear in class, Hypothesis B1.5 is equivalent to B1 in all essential respects, except that B1 posits an Asp projection that is not needed. I didn't quite get what you were talking about in that talk about agreement, but I am sure I didn't see any compelling motivation for the existence of an Asp projection. So, to summarize B1.5: 1. VPs are head-final 2. TPs may also be head-final, it's harder to tell 3. Subjects move to Spec TP, just like in English 4. In root clauses, *all* V -> T -> C 5. The silent -Q C in a root clause has a promiscuous EPP 6. The silent +Q C in a root clause has no EPP 7. Unless it's +WH, in which case it needs a WH phrase Notable observations: - Since subjects are in Spec TP (at the end of the A-syntax) agreement with whatever is in T happens in the normal fashion, whatever that is. - The subject is always adjacent to the C because (a) it *must* move to Spec TP and (b) it *may* then move to Spec CP So it's never anywhere else (except in your weird final example). - The fact that fronted WH phrases are incompatible with any other phrase before the V indicates both (a) that the V is in C and (b) that the landing site for the omnivorous XP fronting is Spec CP, not Spec TP. Your paper grappled with the issues raised by the data and our developing theory very well, and you can be proud of it. Since I am now about to criticize some aspects of it, let me say first that it is a significant accomplishment, the work on which, I hope, has put you in a position to fully understand the conclusions we have to come to. If you continue to work together like this, you will gradually become better at writing a paper that disagrees with itself -- which is not at all easy, and a skill worth acquiring, since sometimes that is exactly what you have to do. SPECIFICS: Section IIa (Hypothesis A) was essentially impossible for me to read because (a) none of the movements were stated explicitly; and (b) in the diagrams the movements are indicated by arrows that don't make any sense. Even if you are going to abandon a hypothesis you have to explain clearly what it is, and that didn't happen here. p.2 "The embedded verbs, auxiliaries, and modals ... likely begin in left-headed structures and undergo movement." Why is that likely? 2-3 "inclusion of an aspect-phrase, which creates the locality necessary for subject-verb agreement in terms of person and number." I need to see evidence of that. None is presented here. 4 In the tree for (2), I don't see how the embedded word order is accounted for. You have to *say* what the movements are (and say something explicit about what moves, and where to, and why). The same is true for all the remaining diagrams in this section. The whole section is badly flawed by an absence of clarity about the assumed movements. You must be clear about what you propose. IIbi Hypothesis B1 This section is better, in that there is some prose about the assumed structures and movements. The discussion of the difficulty posed by the position of the subject is illuminating. But again you talk about AspP, but don't give me any good reason to believe in it. You may have something in mind, but it's not in the text, at least not yet. IIbii Hypothesis B1.5 Interesting. Here you spend two pages outlining a hypothesis that is simpler and accounts for all the facts previously accounted for, and end by saying you will reject it. Actually, the elegant term "eschew" was used. "Eschew" means "avoid", or "shun". I didn't know that was a legitimate thing to do with theories. Among the reasons: 1) Doesn't hold with our current notion of what it means to have SpecC filled, or what T->C represents. But what are those notions? You didn't tell me. Seems to destroy a generalization,... What generalization? 2) It met early resistance in the group ... Is that a good reason? 3) This hypothesis was only quite recently considered ... It ain't over til it's over. III. A Combined Theory p 14 "Hyps B seem to lack in their ability to correctly generate structures with modifiers, and their ability to show morphological processes ... is less robust than that of their counterpart." You haven't shown that. What's the evidence? p 15 I don't follow this discussion of the two kinds of modals. You say "each cue different agreement on their following [I assume you mean preceding] verbs." But in examples (iii) and (iv), the form of the verb that the modal controls is the infinitive in both cases. So what is this talk about agreement? And if there's no difference there, what other difference is there? (What other difference that the syntax and the morphology need to capture?) p 19 It's true the subject has to move somewhere, but why not Spec TP, where subjects generally move to? p 24 "in regards to" -- that is a ghastly spelling error. p 26 Could it [the V] be moving to Spec C? Not likely. It's a Head. p 28 Again, there are movement arrows that I cannot interpret. The same on p. 29. p 32 The possibility that 'glauben', 'wissen', 'sagen' just take TP complements -- an idea worth considering. Let's think about what it would predict/account for. Prediction: no CP Spec position in these complements, so no V2 effect Subj will always be first in such clauses V will always be where T is This would give us an answer to the question where T is. p 33 "This extra phrase [AspP] helps explain agreement, as seen above." I still haven't seen that. Show me. p 34 "[Hyp B1.5] ... sacrifices the sense of universality that we would like to claim about, for instance, the C node controlling inquisitiveness, or about specifier of CP being reserved for wh-things." If you have a universal claim or generalization in mind, you should state it explicitly. The final examples: Somebody should write a squib about that.