DISCLAIMER: I don’t think the following thoughts are particularly “revolutionary” – i.e., I imagine other people have thought (and maybe said) the same things before. But for what it’s worth, I’m a syntactician who has been in linguistics for years and I’ve only recently come to realize these things; so perhaps there are others like me out there who might still benefit from reading this. […]
There are several reasons why I started my own blog, after blogging over on Norbert Hornstein’s Faculty of Language (FoL) for a while. One of them is that I found the thematic content of my posts was actually not a terribly good fit for FoL. Norbert is very interested in big-picture cogsci and bio-cognitive themes. I love little morphemes and what makes them (syntactically) tick. These themes obviously make contact with one another, but I sometimes felt like an entomologist at a geophysicists convention. […]
Donkey Anaphora is a name for cases where covariance of an antecedent and (what looks like) a bound variable occurs in the absence of c-command, as in the classic (if not entirely pleasant) example in (1): […]
A large portion of my interests lately has centered around the proposition that syntactic theory has been overprivileging semantic argumentation. I’ve talked a lot, and in various forums, about why I think this is bad for syntax. Here, I’d like to say a bit about why I think this is bad for semantics. […]
I’ve written a new post over at Norbert Hornstein’s Faculty of Language blog. It’s titled: “Phi features, binding, and A-positions.” […]
I’ve written a few posts over the last few years on Norbert Hornstein’s Faculty of Language blog, and I realized recently that there is no reference to these posts from my own site. So, moving forward, I will cross-post here whenever I write something on FoL. But for now, here’s a list of my past writings on FoL (archived using the WayBack Machine internet archive): […]