Seminar: Morphology as Syntax (Fall 2026)

Here is the syllabus for my seminar (co-taught with Richie Kayne) this semester (Fall 2026).

Seminar Syllabus (Fall 2026)

Guidelines on Grading Undergraduate Syntax Assignments

Grading assignments is an essential part of the teaching process. But professors and TAs are expected to figure out how to do it on their own. This post outlines some guidelines that I have found to be useful when grading undergraduate syntax assignments.

Comparison of COCA and Google for Syntactic Research

Inversion Seminar

March 10, 2026

Comparison of COCA and Google for Syntactic Research

In this blog post, I give a brief comparison of searching for syntactic data on COCA (Corpus of American English) and searching for syntactic data on the internet using Google (for a detailed discussion of the latter, see the appendix of Collins 2024).

Internet COCA

Size vast 1 billion words

Note: The difference in size means that that there are many more kinds of interesting examples that are accessible on the internet than on COCA. 

Punctuation not sensitive very sensitive

Note: Google ignores all punctuation in doing searches. COCA does searches of strings including punctuation (including the period and quotation marks). For certain syntactic topics, e.g., quotative inversion, this is a very useful feature.

Statistics very rough precise

Note: If I search for two variants of a construction (e.g., inversion versus no inversion in a quotative construction), I might want to compare the frequency of the two variants. COCA allows very precise comparison of numbers over the corpus. But for Google, the best one can do is zero versus few versus many. The exact numbers seem to be less meaningful for Google.

Tagged Data no yes

Note: The COCA corpus has a rich system of tagging for part of speech, so these categories can be used in syntactic searches. The internet is not tagged for part of search, so no such categories can be used.

Class Exercise on Using Online Tools in Syntactic Research

Class Exercise

Inversion Seminar

March 10, 2026

Class Exercise on Using Online Tools in Syntactic Research

In the first half of the class, I will present some data that I have gathered from COCA (Corpus of Contemporary American English) on quotative inversion. In the second half of the class (starting from around 10:30am), we will do the following exercise.

Objective: Using the internet, online corpora and chatbots have become important methodologies in syntactic research. The exercise below explores various aspects of these methodologies, using the topics discussed in the seminar as a test case.

Instructions: Choose some property of quotative inversion (or another inversion construction in English) that you would like to investigate. For example, you could study the transitivity constraint, or the distribution of particles, or any other property that interests you. Then choose one of the projects below (or design your own project). Take about 20-30 minutes to carry out the project in class. You can work in small groups, if you prefer. When you finish, we will have mini-presentations (around 5 minutes each) of the results. After class, please send me a very short summary of what you discovered, including the data that you obtained. I will put these summaries in a Google Drive folder. 

Possible Projects:

1. Use COCA (https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/, or one of the other English corpora) to investigate some property of quotative inversion (or another inversion construction). Can the corpus be used to find interesting new data? Can it be used to give accurate statistical information? What challenges does the corpus pose? What benefits does it bring? What prompts did you use?

2. Use Google (or another search engine) to investigate some property of quotative inversion (or another inversion construction). Can the search engine be used to find interesting new data? Can it be used to give accurate statistical information? What challenges does the search engine pose? What benefits does it bring? What prompts did you use?

3. Use a chatbot (such as ChatGPT, Claude or Gemini) to investigate some property of quotative inversion (or another inversion construction). Can the chatbot be used to find interesting new data? Can it be used to give accurate statistical information? What challenges does the chatbot pose? What benefits does it bring? What prompts did you use?

4. Compare two of the corpora on english-corpora.org for their use in syntactic research. What are the pros and cons of each corpus for syntactic research?

5. Compare two different search engines (e.g., Google versus Bing or others) for their use in syntactic research. What are the pros and cons of each search engine for syntactic research?

6. Compare two different chatbots for their use in syntactic research. What are the pros and cons of each chatbot for syntactic research?

7. Compare two of the three methodologies above (corpora, search engines, chatbots). What are the pros and cons of each method for syntactic research?

Tips on Answering Questions at a Talk

After giving an academic talk, there is usually a question period. At a conference, it can be as short as 10 minutes. At a departmental talk, it can be as long as 30 minutes. Many people, including both graduate students and faculty, find this period stressful and difficult. In this blog post, I outline some strategies for managing the question period successfully.

1. Practice makes perfect. The most important thing to realize is that answering questions is a skill (going beyond the knowledge you have of the topic), and that you can work on it. The more you give presentations at conferences and smaller workshops, and at invited talks and in the department, the better and more confident you will get. Just keep working on the skill!

2. If somebody asks a difficult question during the question period, and you do not know the answer, say “Thank you very much. I will have to think about that.” 

There is no shame in not knowing how to answer a question. Just be respectful and polite toward the person who asked the question. You might even want to bend down and write some notes on the handout, to show that you are taking the question seriously. 

3. If somebody asks a complicated multi-part question (difficult to understand and remember), say “Please, which part should I answer first? Could you break it down a bit?” The questioner will have to repeat their question in a simplified form. This process will allow you to focus on a single question.

4. If somebody asks a long complicated question outlining a complex data paradigm from a language that you are unfamiliar with, just thank the questioner, and say “That is really interesting, can you send me the data by e-mail so I can look at it more closely.”

Syntacticians are often deeply immersed in very complicated data from their favorite language, and they honestly do not understand how difficult it is for other people understand it. So without any thought, they will launch into a long tirade on some set of data, expecting you to comment on it. There is no way that you can do a decent analysis of that data (or even understand it) under the hot lights of a conference room, with 30 people looking on, and very limited time, so don’t even try. Just get the person to agree to correspond with you after the talk, and move on.

5. One of the most powerful tools is to turn the question on the questioner.

This allows you to understand the question more, and gives you time to sort out a response. For example, suppose the question is: 

Q: Can that phenomenon be handled with logophoricity?

You can then ask:

Q’: How would that work exactly? Can you please elaborate a bit?

Or you could ask:

Q’’: Why do you think logophoricity is relevant here?

There are lots and lots of such follow up questions. By asking them, you get clarification and a bit more time to answer. Once you get the hang of this, it is a very powerful tool. And it does not make you look weak. Rather it makes you look confident.

6. You may not be able to answer a question, but you may have interesting related ideas that you can speak confidently about. So you can deflect the question a tiny bit with a comment like, “I have not explored that yet, but a closely related issue is…” or “That issue is related to another that I have been thinking about…”.

7. Plant possible questions during the talk.

There are certain parts of your research that you will not have time to present in the talk. You could plant little flags here and there in the talk, encouraging people to ask questions in the question period. For example, you could say during the talk:

“If anybody wants to hear what happens with reflexives, I could address that during the question period.” 

This will prime the audience to ask questions which you have already prepared for.

8. Think ahead of time about possible questions and answers. 

You have been working on the material for a while. That is why you are giving a talk. What kinds of questions have come up before in talking with your advisor and your colleagues. You can even write down some of the most common ones, and plan out your answers to these questions. In other words, just like you give a practice talk to prepare, you can also entertain possible questions and answers ahead of time. In fact, if you give a practice talk to some linguist friends, you can have them ask a few questions just to get you going.

9. If you have the option, take minor clarificational questions during the talk, but all other questions should be reserved for the question period following the talk.

There is nothing worse than an over-zealous faculty member dominating your talk with questions concerning their own research program and how it relates to the talk you are giving. On many occasions, I have seen a question period talked ruined by this kind of person. This happens much more frequently than people are willing to acknowledge.

10. Often times, one person will insist on asking a lot of questions, taking up all the time in the question session. They ask a question, you answer it, then they ask a follow up, as if the whole question session were a discussion between the two of you. Just say the following: “Please, let’s talk later after the talk. I would like to give a few other people a chance to ask questions.” If you are polite and professional, nobody will take this as being rude (not even the questioner themselves).

11. It can also help to keep in mind why the question period is important to you, the researcher.

Here are some reasons: First, the questions asked at a talk can often give you important tips on how to deepen your analysis, bringing to light: further predictions, interesting examples, related generalizations about other languages, and important references. Second, sometimes after a talk you can strike up a great discussion with the question asker. This correspondence can lead in all kinds of interesting directions. Third, the question period is an additional way to help clarify your positions by going into the topic a little more deeply than was possible in the talk itself. 

So if you can learn to manage the question period successfully, it can be a great way to further your research objectives.

Undergraduate Introduction to Syntax (Lectures, Spring 2026)

I will use this blog post to distribute my lectures for 'Grammatical Analysis I' which is the undergraduate introduction to syntax at NYU. This course uses Merge as a pedagogical tool to teach students the basics of syntax. I will try to post all my weekly lectures here this year.

Syllabus

Lecture 1 (Syntactic Data)

Lecture 2 (UG and I-Language)

Lecture 3 (Syntactic Categories)

Assignment 1

Lecture 4 (Merge)

Lecture 5 (Constituent Structure Tests)

Lecture 6 (Functional Projections TP)

Lecture 6 (Supplementary Example)

Lecture 7 (Complementizers, CP and Recursion)

Assignment 2

Lecture 8 (DP Structure)

Lecture 8 (Pronominal Possessors)

Lecture 8 (Supplementary Exercises)

Lecture 9 (Complements versus Adjuncts)

Lecture 9 (Supplement on Coordination)

Lecture 10 (Theta-Roles)

Lecture 10 (Supplementary Exercises)

Assignment 3

Lecture 11 (Binding Theory)

Mid-Term Review

Lecture 12 (English Auxiliary Verbs)

Lecture 13 (V to T)

Lecture 13 (Supplement on Negation)

Lecture 14 (Do-Support)

Assignment 4

Lecture 15 (Structure Dependence)

Lecture 15 (T to C)

Lecture 15 (Supplementary Exercises)

Lecture 16 (Internal Merge)

Lecture 16 (Supplement on Relative Clauses)

Lecture 16 (Supplementary Exercises)

Lecture 17 (Passive and Case Theory)

Assignment 5

Lecture 18 (VP-Internal Subjects)

Lecture 19 (Raising versus Control)

Lecture 20 (DOCs and VP-Shells)

Assignment 6

Tree Drawing Contest

Lecture 21 (Principles and Parameters)

Final Review

Being a Syntactician (Some Preliminary Posts)

I am trying to convey to a non-linguist audience what it means to be a syntactician. The goal is to write something completely non-technical that nevertheless gives the reader with absolutely no background a pretty good idea of what we do when we do syntax. I have written several blog posts on this topic already, which I list below. But I am interested in writing something more substantive. So consider these posts as a kind of scratch pad with my notes. The first and the third posts are a bit redundant.

The Personality of a Syntactician (December 24, 2025)

Thinking Syntactically (for Non-Linguists) (September 18 2025)

You Know You are a Syntactician When (April 17, 2017)

What Kind of Syntactician are You? (March 25, 2017)

Basic Skills in Syntax (Part I): Working with Syntactic Data (April 30, 2026)

Some Challenging Issues in Teaching Graduate Level Syntax

1. Grad: Does X (a hypothesis) really work? My professor as an undergrad said it does not. I agree with them.

Implication: Everything I learned at previously as an undergraduate (or Masters student) needs to be rigorously and systematically disproven before I will accept anything else.

Response: I call this phenomenon ‘imprinting’. Whatever theory a student first learns, they take that is the right theory. As a graduate student, you should consider what you have already learned to be a preliminary step, not the final word set in stone. It is likely that most things that you have learned will need to be revised or replaced in some way. Try to have an open mind!

2. Grad: I do not agree with those acceptability judgments. So my English is not characterized by the relevant principle. 

Implication: If I do not agree with the data, I am not going to read any papers on the subject, or look into it. And if you bring up that principle again, I will not fail to remind you that my judgments do not conform to it. In my opinion, it is a total waste of time.

Response: Acceptability judgements are complicated. Even if you disagree with them, it is worthwhile finding out what the range of judgments is, and how that range can be accounted for. Nowadays, it is also possible to explore acceptability judgements experimentally.

3. Grad: Is X a consensus point of view? How many people adopt it?

Implication: Please, I just want to know the most popular theory, the one most people accept. That is the one I want to use to write my paper, so I can get abstracts accepted at conferences.

Response: Consensus has nothing to do with truth. If society in general believes the sun revolves around the earth, that does not thereby make it true. For many issues (e.g., obligatory control, head movement, case) there are several approaches, and understanding those approaches is an important part of learning the subject matter, and making scientific progress on the issues.

4. Grad: Do we really need syntax to explain X? It could just be semantics, right?

Implication: Even without formulating any alternative analysis, we should just take it as a null hypothesis that an explanation not involving any syntactic principle is preferable. 

Response: Neither a syntactic nor semantic analysis can be taken as the null hypothesis. Every hypothesis must be argued for with the same rigor. Disentangling alternative analyses can be quite difficult, and takes a lot of effort.

5. Grad: I thought of an interesting idea, but I already see a paper about that topic published in LI. Oh well, somebody has beaten me to it. I will look for a different topic.

Implication: What makes an idea interesting to me is that I thought of it first. If somebody else has also thought of it, I am no longer interested.

Response: Doing research is engaging in a process involving lots of different people looking at topics from different angles. Your contribution to a particular topic might be completely different from what is already out there. You should try to develop your own ideas, even if there are other papers published on the topic.

6. Grad: I just thought of some interesting data. Let me search the internet intensely for a few days (or even weeks) to see if anything interesting has been written on it.

Implication: I need to find a model in the syntax literature, and apply that to my data. That is the way to do research.

Response: You should get used to doing these things on your own, without always having the crutch of somebody else’s analysis. Sit down in front of a blank piece of paper, and write! Of course, at some step in the process of doing research you need to add references, and a discussion of other approaches.

Inversion Seminar: The Scope of Inversion in English (Spring 2026)

Inversion Seminar

January 20th, 2026

Lecture 1:

I. Overview of Inversion in English

II. Analyses of Quotative Inversion

III. Presentatives as Inversion (contra Wood and Zanuttini 2023)

Lecture (January 20th, 2026)

Syllabus: Inversion Seminar, Spring 2026 (near final draft)

Course Description

Collins and Branigan 1997 (see also Collins 1997) inaugurated the study of quotative inversion into generative syntax. In the interim, there have been many studies engaging with various aspects of their analysis in different languages, including Alexiadou and Anagnostopolou 2001, 2007, Branigan 2011, Bruening 2016, Gärtner and Gyuris 2014, Matos 2013, Murphy 2022, Richards 2010, Suñer 2000, Storment 2024, 2025a, de Vries 2006, amongst others.

This course will review the existing literature on quotative inversion, and explore a new analysis in the framework of Collins 2024 (‘Principles of Argument Structure’ MIT Press, Cambridge) taking into account the insights of previous work.

Along the way, we will discuss the relation of quotative inversion to other inversion constructions. The choice of topics will depend on the interests of the participants.  Some possible topics include (but are not limited to): predicate inversion in copular constructions, subject-object inversion in Bantu, locative inversion in Bantu, French stylistic inversion, presentatives (“Here comes John!”), Austronesian VSO and VOS word order, Austronesian voice systems, Heavy XP Shift, there-expletive constructions, the dative alternation, and related inversion phenomena from a cross-linguistic perspective.

Seminar Syllabus

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.

Case Theory (Class Exercise -- Graduate Syntax I)

Syntax I Fall 2025

Class Exercise: Case Theory

Objective: To evaluate and compare different theories of case.

Format: Students will break up into small groups of two or three, and take 15-20 minutes to brainstorm. They are allowed to look up references on their devices or on the internet. After this initial period, there will be a discussion in class about the different theories. Be prepared to discuss concrete data points from particular languages. 

You do not have to limit yourselves to the papers assigned for class. You can also use knowledge that you have of particular languages, and/or information that you have gotten from other papers, textbooks, colleagues, talks or other courses. If you have not done the assigned reading, make sure to do so before Wednesday (December 3, 2025). You should also look at Marantz 1991, if you have time (it is short).

One student will be the designated transcriber. They are responsible for transcribing the points made in class, typing them up, and sending them to the class afterwards (within a period of 48 hours). 

Assigned Reading (to read before exercise):

Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and Licensing. Proceedings of ESCOL, 234–253.

Cornell Linguistics Club. Republished in Reuland 2000, 11–30.

Pesetsky, David and Esther Torrego. 2011. Case. In Cedric Boeckx (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism, 52-72. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Schafer, Florian and Elena Anagnostopoulou. To Appear. Case and Agreement in Distributed Morphology. A. Alexiadou, R. Kramer, A. Marantz and I. Oltra-Massuet (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Distributed Morphology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Guiding Questions:

1. What assumptions define the various theories?

2. What assumptions distinguish the theories?

3. What assumptions do the theories have in common?

4. What are the strengths and weaknesses of each theory?

5. What are the standard core examples of each theory (and how are they accounted for)? 

6. What particular data points are of interest in deciding between the theories? 

7. What does each theory say about Burzio's generalization? 

8. What questions do you still have about the theories? 

9. Are there useful generalizations, concepts and principles that fall outside the theories we have looked at in class?

 

Verb Movement (Class Exercise -- Graduate Syntax I)

Syntax I Fall 2025

Classroom Exercise: Verb Movement in French

Objective: To learn how to draw tree diagrams of well-known examples from French in order to discuss theoretical issues involving head movement.

Instructions: Students take 20-25 minutes to draw the trees below. Students are not allowed to use any outside sources in drawing these trees. 

Topics to Discuss: head adjunction, Mirror Principle, HMC, Extension Condition, c-command.

Source: Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of

IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20.3: 365-424.

1. Jean (n’)     aime     pas   Marie.

Jean (NEG) likes   NEG Marie

‘Jean doesn’t like Marie.’

2. Aime-t-il        Marie?

like-t-3M.SG Marie

‘Does he like Marie?’

3. a. Jean embrasse souvent  Marie.

Jean kisses       often   Marie

‘Jean often kisses Marie.’

b. *Jean souvent embrasse Marie.

c. Jean a souvent embrassé Marie. (ChatGPT)

Jean has often  kissed     Marie.

“Jean has often kissed Marie.’

4. a. Mes amis  aiment tous Marie

my friends like    all    Marie

‘My friends all like Marie.’

b. *Mes amis tous aiment Marie

5. a. Pierre n      ’a       rien      mangé

Pierre NEG have nothing eaten

‘Pierre has eaten nothing.’

b. *Pierre n’a         mangé    rien

6. a. Pierre ne   mange       rien

Pierre NEG eats nothing

‘Pierre doesn’t eat anything.’

b. *Pierre ne rien mange

7. a. Ne    pas    regarder la   télévision… (subject infinitival clause)

NEG NEG watch    the television…

‘Not to watch TV…’

b. *Ne regarder pas la télévision…

Class Exercises for Graduate Level Syntax (pedagogy)

In my attempt to get away from lecture based learning, and get more into hands-on fieldwork based learning, I have written a few class exercises for graduate level Syntax and II. I will add more exercises as I write them up. I will also be happy to post exercises written by other people. The exercises are in chronological order.

Syntax I

Practice Tree Drawing (start of semester)

Unergatives versus Unaccusatives

Nominalizations and Implicit Arguments

Proposal Peer Review

Antisymmetry and Cinque 2005

Head Movement

Case Theory

Tree Drawing Contest (announcement)

Tree Drawing Contest (problems)

Tree Drawing Contest (solutions and notes)

Syntax II

A-Movement versus A'-Movement

Cinque 2005 (class exercise -- graduate Syntax I)

 Syntax I                 Fall 2025

Classroom Exercise: Cinque 2005

1. Read Cinque 2005:

Cinque, Guglielmo 2005. Deriving Greenberg’s Universal 20 and Its Exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 315-332.

2. Choose a language other than English for which you will investigate DP structure. You can use your own native language. If needed, you can do some fieldwork and consult a native speaker. Alternatively, you can find the relevant information in a good grammar. We have nine students in the class, there should be nine different languages chosen for the assignment. I want to see an interesting range of languages!

3. Provide some examples illustrating the order of the following elements (all appearing in the same phrase): Demonstrative (Dem), Numeral (Num), Adjective (Adj) and Noun (N). If possible, your set of examples should include both grammatical and ungrammatical orderings. Examples from English include: ‘those three new cars’, or ‘these four brown dogs’.

4. State the generalization governing the order of these elements in the DP. If there is flexibility in word order, describe the possible orders (and what triggers those alternative orders).

5. Using the theory in Cinque 2005, give the tree diagram for one of the examples that you found in (3). You will present your tree diagram in class on the white board on Wednesday, November 5, 2025.

6. Write up your results, including a discussion of any issues that came up in steps (4) and (5). The length of the write-up, including the tree diagram, should be about three pages double-spaced. It is due before class on Monday, November 10, 2025.

Note: Your language may involve classifiers, case markers and/or other elements internal to a DP in addition to Dem, Num, Adj and N.  Such additional elements are not the focus of this exercise, so just do your best to incorporate them into the tree.

Note: For part (3), your examples should be glossed and translated. Each example should have three lines (the example, the gloss and the translation, in that order). You should follow the Leipzig glossing conventions (which are standard for the field of linguistics): http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php. If you follow the Leipzig glossing rules, it will make it much easier for us to understand your data.

Guidelines for Final Papers in Syntax I (Graduate)

The students have written their proposals, and have gotten lots of feedback. Now it is time to write a final paper. These are very basic guidelines (the nuts and bolts) to help students write a research paper for Syntax I.

1. The paper should be around 15-20 pages (double-spaced) long, including references, trees and footnotes.

2. The paper is due on the last day of class, Wednesday, December 10, 2025.

3. Use Linguistic Inquiry style sheet (online). In other words, references, citations, margins and example numbering should all conform to the LI style sheet. No creative formatting allowed.

4. Your paper should be double-spaced, 12-point font, preferably Times New Roman. 

5. Avoid using footnotes. If some point is important, work it into the text. If it is not important, drop it. But if you must use footnotes, they should also be 12-point font (otherwise, I cannot read them when I print the papers off). 

6. Pages must be numbered, otherwise it is very hard to comment on the paper.

7. Your paper should have a title, author, date, institution (NYU).

8. It should also have an abstract and keywords. Writing an abstract is an excellent way to clear up your thinking on a complex topic, and to distill it into its most important points. Make it look as close as possible to a real paper that you would find posted on Lingbuzz.

9. For all non-English examples, use Leipzig glossing conventions:

https://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php

10. In particular, all examples in languages other than English should consist of three lines:

Line 1: Sentence in target language

Line 2: English gloss

Line 3: English translation

11. Your paper should include a paragraph on your source of data. It should be possible for me to know where every single sentence in your paper came from. You might say: The data in this paper are the native speaker acceptability judgments of the author.

12. Write your paper for an audience that has had basic syntax (e.g., a one semester graduate introduction to syntax, or a yearlong basic undergraduate course). All concepts, terminology and principles you use should be carefully defined. For example, if you invoke Principle A of the binding theory, you need to give the definition in the paper (and the source of the definition). Don’t just assume that we all know it.

13. The basic syntactic framework for your paper should be Principles and Parameters/Minimalist Syntax. Of course, it is possible to discuss innovations and additions to this theoretical framework.

14. Please try to write a syntax paper. You will have plenty of opportunity in other classes to write phonology, phonetics, semantics, pragmatics, sociolinguistic or morphology papers. For example, if your analysis crucially involves the phrase ‘post-syntactic’, then you are on the wrong track. In this class, I want to see you do some syntax!

15. Your paper should include at least one syntax tree diagram, more if needed. 

16.  If you give examples illustrating your data, make sure to give minimal pairs whenever possible (whenever the data is available and a minimal pair is relevant). For example, if you claim that a sentence is unacceptable because of X, and you give an example of the unacceptable sentence, then also give the minimal pair where X is not violated.

17. Is your argumentation sound? Does C follow from A and B, or is it just wishful thinking? No handwaving allowed.

18. Golden Rule: Do not assume we can read your mind! Explain your argumentation to us. Explain your background assumptions to us. Explain individual sentences to us. Make it cognitively easy on the reader to read your paper.

Reading Group: Foundations of Minimalist Syntax (Spring 2026) (near final draft)

Reading Group Announcement: Foundations of Minimalist Syntax

Spring 2026

Coordinator: Professor Chris Collins

Level: Graduate students and advanced undergraduate students.

Time: Thursday 2:00pm - 4:00pm

Place: 10 WP 103

Note: There is a credit optional available: directed reading for grads, independent study for undergrads.

Description:

The reading group will focus on reading and discussing as much of Marcolli et. al. 2025 (henceforth MSSM) as possible in one semester.

Marcolli, Matilde, Noam Chomsky and Robert Berwick. 2025.

Mathematical Structure of Syntactic Merge:An Algebraic Model for Generative Linguistics.

MIT Press, Cambridge. [389 pages]

MSSM proposes to formalize minimalist syntax using Hopf algebras. However, it is written in a framework that is unfamiliar and inaccessible to most generative syntacticians. The purpose of the reading group is to provide a space where we can help each other understand the formalism.

Some of the leading questions of the reading group will be the following (in part depending on the interests of the participants):

1. Which papers are important background for understanding MSSM?

2. How do the proposals in MSSM fit into the general evolution of the concept of Merge?

3. Are the proposals of MSSM an integral block, or are some of them better than others?

4. How can the theoretical proposals of MSSM be evaluated empirically?

5. What are the consequences of MSSM for the Ordinary Working Grammarian?

Contact me if you are interested in attending.

Selected Background Readings:

Andrews, Avery. 2025. Some Prerequisites for Hopf Algebras in Syntax. Ms., ANU.

Blasiak, Paswel. 2010. Combinatorial Route to Algebra: The Art of Composition and Decomposition. Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science 12, 381-400.

Chomsky, Noam. 2019. Some Puzzling Foundational Issues: The Reading Program. Catalan Journal of Linguistics Special Issue, 263-285.

Chomsky, Noam. 2019. The UCLA Lectures. (https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005485)

Chomsky, Noam. 2021. Minimalism: Where Are We Now, and Where Can We Hope to Go. Gengo Kenkyu 160, 1-41.

Chomsky, Noam. 2023. The Miracle Creed and the Strong Minimalist Thesis. In Matteo Greco and Davide Mocci (eds.), A Cartesian Dream: A Geometrical Account of Syntax. In Honor of Andrea Moro, 17-40. Lingbuzz Press.

Chomsky, Noam, T. Daniel Seely, Robert C. Berwick, Sandiway Fong, M.A.C. Huybregts, Histsugu Kitahara, Andrew McInnerney, Yushi Sugimoto. 2023. Merge and the Strong Minimalist Thesis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Collins, Chris. 2017. Merge(X,Y) = {X,Y}. In Leah Bauke, Andreas Blümel, and Erich Groat

(eds.), Labels and Roots, 47-68. De Gruyter Mouton.

Collins, Chris. 2002. Eliminating Labels. In Samuel Epstein and Daniel Seely (eds.), Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, 43-64. Blackwell.

Collins, Chris and Erich Groat. To Appear. Copies and Repetitions. The Cambridge Handbook of Minimalism. (http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003809)

Collins, Chris and Edward Stabler. 2016. A Formalization of Minimalist Syntax. Syntax 19, 43-78. 

 

NYU Syntax Seminar: Inversion (Spring 2026) (near final draft)

 Seminar Announcement: Inversion

Spring 2026

(Ling GA-3320)

Instructor: Professor Chris Collins

Level: Graduate students and advanced undergraduate students.

Time: T 9:30-12:15

Place: 10 WP 103

Course Description: 

Collins and Branigan 1997 (see also Collins 1997) inaugurated the study of quotative inversion into generative syntax. In the interim, there have been many studies engaging with various aspects of their analysis in different languages, including Alexiadou and Anagnostopolou 2001, 2007, Bruening 2016, Gärtner and Gyuris 2014, Murphy 2022, Richards 2010, Suñer 2000, Storment 2024, 2025a, amongst others.

This course will review the existing literature on quotative inversion, and explore a new analysis in the framework of Collins 2024 (‘Principles of Argument Structure’ MIT Press, Cambridge) taking into account the insights of previous work.

Along the way, we will discuss the relation of quotative inversion to other inversion constructions. The choice of topics will depend on the interests of the participants.  Some possible topics include (but are not limited to): predicate inversion in copular constructions, subject-object inversion in Bantu, locative inversion in Bantu, French stylistic inversion, presentational inversion (“Here comes John!”), Austronesian VSO and VOS word order, Austronesian voice systems, Heavy XP Shift, there-expletive constructions, word order variation in double object constructions, and related inversion phenomena from a cross-linguistic perspective.

General Theoretical Issues:

Some of the general theoretical issues that will take center stage during the seminar include:

a. Locality of movement (leapfrogging, smuggling, freezing),

b. The nature of Agree (optional Agree in inversion constructions, see Storment 2025),

c. Types of movement (beyond the trichotomy: A, A’, head movement),

d. Principles of argument structure,

e. The syntax of voice.

Students will be given the opportunity to do fieldwork with a consultant during the course of the semester in order to develop their final project. 

Auditors are welcome. Please contact me if you are interested in attending.

Selected References

Alexiadou, Artemis and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 2001. The Subject-in-Situ Generalization and the Role of Case in Driving Computations. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 193-231.

Alexiadou, Artemis and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 2007. The Subject-in-Situ Gener¬alization Revisited. In Uli Sauerland and Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language?: Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics, 31–59. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

Bruening, Benjamin. 2016. Alignment in Syntax: Quotative Inversion in English. Syntax 19, 111-155.

Collins, Chris and Phil Branigan. 1997. Quotative Inversion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15, 1-41. (https://ordinaryworkinggrammarian.blogspot.com/2020/12/quotative-inversion-collins-and.html#more)

Collins, Chris. 1997. Local Economy. MIT Press, Cambridge.

Collins, Chris. 2024. Principles of Argument Structure: A Merge-Based Approach. MIT Press, Cambridge.

Gartner, Hans-Martin and Beáta Gyuris. 2014. A Note on Quotative Inversion in Hungarian. Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics 3, 2-30.

Murphy, Andrew. 2022. Parasitic Gaps Diagnose A-Movement in Quotative and Locative Inversion. Snippets 43.

Richards, Norvin. 2010. Uttering Trees. MIT Press, Cambridge.

Storment, John David. 2024. Quotative Inversion as Smuggling: Evidence from Setswana and English. Presented May 3, 2024 at the 55th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, Montreal, Québec.

Storment, John David. 2025a. Predicate Nominals in Tshila. Linguistic Variation 25, 375-416.

Storment, John David. 2025b. Projecting (Your) Voice: A Theory of Inversion and Circumvention. Doctoral Dissertation, Stony Brook, New York.

Suñer, Margarita. 2000. The Syntax of Direct Quotes with Special Reference to Spanish and English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18, 525-578.

Unaccusatives versus Unergatives in English (Class Exercise -- graduate Syntax I)

Objective: To learn the syntax of unacusative and unergative verbs in English through a hands-on fieldwork activity, conducted during one class period. The material in this exercise comes from Levin and Rappaport 1995.

Methodology: To do this exercise, you should use Google to search the internet for example sentences. But you cannot consult any linguistic sources (e.g., papers, books, websites), nor can you search linguistic terms like “unaccusative” or “secondary predicate”, nor can you use Chatgpt to ask analytical questions. For background on the method, see:

https://ordinaryworkinggrammarian.blogspot.com/2023/03/internet-searches-as-tool-in-syntactic.html

Format: Students break up into small groups of three to four people. All groups will do part 1. Some groups will do parts 2-3, and other groups will do parts 4-6. Each group should designate a scribe to collect their example sentences, which they will send to me after class (include URLs for your examples). When the groups finish, they present their results to the class.

Part 1: Each small group should find three to five example sentences containing depictive secondary predicates and three to five example sentences containing resultative secondary predicates. Each example should have a different secondary predicate. What kinds of generalizations can be made about the secondary predicates found?

Part 2: Find at least one example sentence of each of the following types. What kinds of generalizations can be made?

a. depictive modifying object of transitive verb

b. depictive modifying subject of transitive verb

c. resultative modifying object of transitive verb

d. resultative modifying subject of transitive verb

Part 3: Draw tree diagrams for the sentences from part 2 (four sentences).

Part 4: Come up with a list of 5 unaccusative verbs and 5 unergative verbs. On what basis did you classify the verbs? What kinds of generalizations distinguish the two verb classes?

Part 5: Using some of the verbs from part 4, find at least one example sentence of each of the following types. What kinds of generalizations can be made?

a. depictive modifying subject of unergative verb

b. resultative modifying subject of unergative verb

c. depictive modifying subject of unaccusative verb

d. resultative modifying subject of unaccusative verb

Part 6: Draw a tree diagram for the sentences from part 5 (four sentences).

How to Syntax IV: Not that I know of

This is the fourth in a series of blog posts showing how I think about a syntax problem when I first notice it. It is not the purpose of this series to present polished answers. Rather the intention is to present the process at it very beginning to show the kinds of initial steps that a syntactician goes through. 

For these posts, I typically constrain myself to less than three hours of time to maintain the newness of the experience. Furthermore, I also try to restrain the amount of rewriting that I do, so the whole thing has a stream of consciousness feel to it.