Ten Problems with Graduate Student Final Papers in Syntax

The list below is a set of common problems that I have found in reading graduate student papers. Writing about syntax is a skill, and the only way to get better at it is to practice. These comments are meant to be helpful tips in learning that skill.

1. Archeological Presentation

The student begins the paper by presenting a long list of alternative analysis, and their problems. At the end of the paper, in the final few pages, they give their own analysis briefly. The student is writing the paper in the order in which they thought about it, showing us their historical (archeological) progression in thinking. It is very difficult to read a paper written in this way.

2. Mind Reader Needed

The student states something that is crystal clear to them, but completely obscure to any other person who reads the paper. There are many forms of this ‘mind reader’ problem, which plagues most student papers:

(a) Stating something as a conclusion, without showing how the conclusion follows from the data and assumptions (but just assuming that it is obvious).

(b) Presenting a complicated argument, in a dense and unclear way. For such an issue, I usually just write: ‘I cannot follow this.’

(c) Stating a generalization, without giving any examples of that generalization.

(d) Giving an example sentence, without specifically commenting on the example sentence.

(e) Giving a tree, without explicitly commenting on that tree.

(f) Giving a tree, without presenting the corresponding example. 

3. Background Assumptions are Murky

The student fails to provide an adequate overview of their background assumptions. For example, if you invoke Agree, what are your assumptions about Agree? If you invoke Principle A, what is the definition of Principle A? If you invoke the PCC, define it and give an example, and walk through that example.

4. Starting Too Late in Semester

The student starts to write their paper at midnight on the day before it is due. As a consequence, the paper is not well developed, and there are lots of typos. 

5. Lack of Minimal Pairs

If the student gives an unacceptable sentence, they need to give the acceptable one, so I can see the difference. Otherwise, it is almost impossible to draw any conclusions from the data. Developing minimal pairs is a real skill in doing syntax.

6. Excursions

The student takes lengthy excursions into thoughts and data and footnotes not relevant to the thread of the argument. Please, just delete all of that, and write a crystal clear, easy to follow paper.

7. Attribution

All ideas, concepts and principles must be properly attributed. If the student summarizes somebody’s idea, I need to know where that idea comes from. All data must be properly attributed to some source. I cannot be forced to guess where the data in the paper is coming from.

8. Number of Stipulations

If the number of stipulations (new or revised principles, new or revised concepts) is equal to the number of facts that are being explained, then there is no real explanation. It is just repackaging the data.

9. Missing References

The paper is missing an obvious well-known reference for the point at hand. This issue is especially vexing if I have already told the student (in early conversations and comments) about the particular well-known reference, sometimes on multiple occasions.

10. Proofreading and Mechanics

Mostly this point arises from point 4 above (starting too late in the semester). It is manifested by the following (amongst many other similar issues): 

(a) problems in glossing, 

(b) excessive hedging (‘It might be the case….’),

(c) page numbers missing, 

(d) references cited but not listed, 

(e) inconsistent trees.

If there are more than a few of these minor issues, the paper becomes jarring and difficult to follow.