Graduate Student Handbook (Linguistics)

I put together some blog posts that I have written in the last few years

which are relevant to graduate education in linguistics. In some cases,

the posts lean more toward syntax than other subfields. If there is

interest, I will continue to add links to this list in the coming years.

Many other topics need to be covered, for example, advice on writing

a doctoral dissertation. 

1. Top Likes and Dislikes of Working in Academics (Revised)

2. Writing a Statement of Purpose for Linguistics Graduate School

3. Advice for Surviving Linguistics Graduate School

4. Writing a Conference Abstract in Syntax – Some Practical Advice

5. Giving a Talk -- Some Practical Advice

6. How to Review a Syntax Paper

7. Responding to Reviewers: 10 Pieces of Advice

8. Collaboration in Syntax

9. Required Documents during a Career in Linguistics

Remembering Haj Ross

When I was an undergraduate at MIT (1982-1985), I took Ken Hale’s graduate introduction to syntax. I remember a large guy in the back of the room asking difficult questions throughout the semester. I thought to myself, “How could I think of such questions to ask?” He turned out to be Haj Ross, another professor at MIT. He was taking Ken’s course to catch up on the so-called Government and Binding (GB) framework. 

After that, while still an undergraduate, I signed up for Haj’s seminar on Islands. There were very few people in the class (only 2 or 3 as I recall). He could go on about any syntax topic, bringing up endless interesting examples and counter-examples from English and other languages. He was one of my earliest models for what a syntactician is supposed to be like.

One day, as we were heading to the soda machine during break, he called the cans of soda “industrial sludge” and he told me an anecdote about the Navajo: when they make rugs, they intentionally leave a small error in the rug. I may be mistaken, but I think he wanted to tell me that no work is perfect, and that the imperfections are part of the beauty of the work. That little piece of wisdom has helped me finish writing many papers.

Later in my student days, I heard one professor refer to Haj (somewhat derisively) as ‘a walking counter-example’. But to me his facility with language and English syntax was something of a miracle.

I tried to stay in contact with him, especially later when I got to NYU (2005) and started collaborating with Paul Postal. I would send Haj papers from time to time, and he would send me observations. I was looking forward to learning all kinds of things from him. I had been asking him questions about what it was like to study with Zellig Harris, and he would answer. Now, there is nobody left to ask about that. Here is an excerpt:

“After his syntax class (there were about 25 of us, crunched into a small room, with not enough chairs for us all, none of us cared, we were in the Holy Presence, we knew our great good luck).   At the end of class, some of us would come up to him, with suggestions, questions, requests for a time to see him, the usual. And some questions about syntax. Nothing interesting to report on all of the above, except the questions about syntax. Most of those he would answer immediately, vocally.  But sometimes, rarely, the questioner would have hit something which pierced through to a higher level. He would reach into his righthand pocket of the decrepit jacket he always wore, and pull out a 3X5 yellow pad, and wrote down something that had caught his fancy. After writing it, the pad would go back to its invisible home. Of course, I longed to have a pocketable, 3X5-paddable question to go into the sacred pocket…I can still hope that maybe something that I had asked made it into the sacred pocket.”

Lastly, here is a great syntax observation from Haj, that I just dug up from e-mail today. As far as I know, nobody has ever pursued this observation, which is like a golden nugget.

Fellow negationists –

Just when you thought nothing else could possibly raise:

From an old folk song:

Oh the Erie was a-rising

And the gin was a-gettin’ low

And I scarcely think

We’ll get a drink

Till we get to Buffalo

Till we get to Buffalo.

NB:  *We’ll get a drink till we get to Buffalo.

Peace and Happy New Year!

Haj

Outline: Introduction to Syntax for Undergraduates (NYU)

Here are the lecture titles for my introduction to syntax at the undergraduate level:

Table of Contents

1. Syntactic Data

2. UG and I-Langauge

3. Syntactic Categories

4. Merge

5. Constituent Structure Tests

6. Functional Projections: TP

7. Complementizers, CP and Recursion

8. DP Structure

9. Complements versus Adjuncts

10. Lexicon: Theta-Roles

11. Introduction to the Binding Theory

12. English Auxiliary Verbs

13. Head Movement (V to T)

14. Head Movement: Do-Support and Affix Hopping

15. Head Movement: Structure Dependence

16. Movement (Internal Merge)

17. Passive and Case Theory

18. VP Internal Subject Hypothesis

19. Raising and Control (Subjects)

20. VP-Shells: Double Object Constructions

21. Raising and Control (Objects)

22. Principles and Parameters

A Scope Freezing Effect with Inverse Linking

Abstract: In this squib, I will discuss a scope freezing effect found with inverse linking. I will explain the freezing effect in terms of the theory of negation of Collins and Postal (2012). Then I will discuss the consequences of the scope freezing effect for the theory of inverse linking. 

Paper

On the Syntactic Status of Implicit Arguments: Greek as a Case Study (WCCFL 2023)

 In this paper, we investigated the behavior of implicit arguments with respect to diagnostics such as control, binding, and secondary predication, in the Greek verbal passive and nominals, comparing them to their English counterparts. Some diagnostics might at first sight suggest that the implicit argument is not projected in the Greek verbal passive, but we provide evidence to the contrary.

Paper

It can also be found here:

https://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/41/index.html

2025 NYU Doctoral Convocation

On Thursday May 8th, 2025, I attended the NYU Doctoral Convocation. The reason I was there was that my student, Selikem, requested that I attend so that I could ‘hood’ him. This was my first time to attend a college graduation ceremony during my time at NYU, and during my whole life. 

I arrived at Silver Center (Heights Alumni Lounge) at 9:00am Thursday, carrying my robe, hood and cap in a bag. Soon after, the other professors started filing in, most of them already wearing their ‘regalia’. You are supposed to wear regalia that matches the institution where you got your graduate degree. So I should have worn MIT colors. But when I ordered the robe from Herff, they just sent me black (which does not look like the MIT colors, which are red and silver-grey and really nice looking). The hat was also too small. The did agree to send me a larger hat, but I was not able to get MIT colors.

Once everybody was assembled, at around 11:00am, we filed out of the Silver Center, into Washington Square Park, which is in effect, a park owned by NYU. We went around the fountain in the center of the park, and then took a left to go into the Skirball Center across the street. 

As we were going to the auditorium, a security person asked me (but nobody else in the faculty line) if I had a ticket. I barely comprehended the question and said ‘what?’. Then they said ‘never mind’ and let me through. This is the curse of being a tall heavy person, you always attract attention.

Upon entering the auditorium, the faculty where seated on the stage. My number in the line was 50, and my chair was labeled with my name. Every faculty member on the stage was responsible for ‘hooding’ some graduate student. In the audience were the students (200-300 hundred) and then hundreds of other guests, mostly the families of the students, I imagine.

After several speeches, the hooding started. The students filed into the stage one-by-one, each holding their hoods. Then their designated faculty member took the hood from them, and the student turned and faced the audience. The faculty member fit the hood over the head of the student, and they either hugged or shook hands. After that, the student went back to sit in the audience.

Wearing the robe, hood and cap made me hot and thirsty. In addition, we were all sitting on a well-lighted stage facing an audience of hundreds of people. The organizers provided a little bottle of water for each of us, under the chairs, but I was afraid to drink it, because there did not seem like any way to use the restroom (once on the stage).

In our department this year, there were three graduates getting hooded. So after the ceremony we all went over to Washington Square Park and took some group photos. After taking pictures, I left the park at around 1:00pm. 

The ceremony provides a formal way for the student to gain closure and to transition from one period to the other. It also provides a nice context for the whole family to recognize the student’s achievements, and for the student to implicitly thank the family for always being there for him or her. In my case, it was a pleasure to be able to hood my student Selikem. I have greatly enjoyed working with him these last few years, advising him and watching his progress.  I include a picture of us below, taken by his wife Mawusi.

Congratulations to John David Storment on successful dissertation defense.

 Congratulations to John David Storment on his successful doctoral dissertation defense at  Stony Brook University. John David was one of our undergrads in the Department of Linguistics at NYU.  See the picture below.

Projecting (your) voice: A theory of inversion and defective circumvention

This dissertation revolves around a colloquial agreement alternation observed in several classes of English sentences with postverbal thematic subjects.

(1) a. There {was/were} no seats left c. What I love most {are/is} your outfits

b. “Moo!” {go/goes} the cows” d. In{walk/walks} several bad pirates

Using a maximally simple formulation of Agree that effectively reduces to minimal Search, I show that the aforementioned agreement alternations are derivable from a single set of syntactic operations through an optional process which I dub defective circumvention, in which a probe can conditionally Agree past a featurally deficient goal and undergo sequential multiple Agree with more than one goal, given that the features of the two goals are featurally compatible with one another.

The sentences in (1) involve A-movement of an internal argument over an argument that was externally merged in a higher position, as evidenced by the effect that the internal argument in this position has on agreement. Given the understood uniformity of the projection of arguments, as well as the locality and strict minimality of this formulation of Agree, a mechanism is needed to affect the accessibility of arguments for the creation of A-dependencies such as Agree.

As such, I demonstrate that these constructions necessarily involve inversion via smuggling, in which the internal argument is smuggled to a position above the higher argument, facilitated by phrasal movement of a verbal projection containing the internal argument, which is empirically supported by the distribution of non-argument VP internal elements in these inversion constructions. An operation such as smuggling is necessary to obviate the minimality violation that would normally occur in A-moving an internal argument over an external argument. I further show that VP smuggling of arguments is characteristic of voice constructions. Voice, then, is what allows for inversion to take place and ultimately what allows for the agreement alternation facilitated by defective circumvention.

My Y-DNA Haplogroup

 My Y-DNA Haplogroup is I-FT2223. Some information is given in the file pasted below.  If you share my haplogroup or any haplogroup downstream from I-M223, please let me know.

A partial I-FT2223 ancestral path is:

I-M223 > P222 > CTS616 > CTS10057 > Z161 > CTS4348 > L801 > Z178

> Z165 > CTS6433 > S2364 > ZS3 > Y4924 > Y4928 > L1272 > Y5715

> FT112201 > Y5718 > Y5717 > FT2223