It was just an introductory syntax class paper, so definitely not that interesting theoretically. It started with an exploration of the data, showing that Yoda in the OT uses both significantly more “normal” sentences, and also significantly more varied word order patterns than in the PT, and then proceeded to the (generative, pre-Minimalist) syntactic analysis of the PT syntax (since that was the only data that was sensically analyzable).
That analysis was straightforward, and effectively what I’ve written here: VP-fronting, leaving TP/IP, NegP, and any AuxP stranded, and inserting and inflecting “do” when necessary so that the phi-features in T/I are expressed.
The paper concluded with some interesting/weird data and edge cases, such as the difficulty of creating imperatives in this system, and the oddness of questions for much the same reason as the imperatives (“More to say, have you?”, “Trained as a Jedi, you request for him?”).
Like I said, not too interesting theoretically, but a fun paper for a first-year grad student to write. :)
I don’t know what the most prestigious journal is in linguistics is (and I eill be disappointed if it is not called The Tongue), but I feel this paper deserves to be there.
Edit: apparently they are called:
Linguistics
Syntax and
Journal of Linguistics
The most prestigious journals for general theoretical linguistics are probably Language, Linguistic Inquiry, and maybe Glossa after the editorial pushback against Lingua about a decade ago for its opposition to open research availability (so you’re right that linguists often name their more prestigious journals after words for “tongue”!)
Either way, my first year paper’s analysis would be immediately obvious to any syntactician, and definitely doesn’t belong in a journal.
I would like to read that paper.
It was just an introductory syntax class paper, so definitely not that interesting theoretically. It started with an exploration of the data, showing that Yoda in the OT uses both significantly more “normal” sentences, and also significantly more varied word order patterns than in the PT, and then proceeded to the (generative, pre-Minimalist) syntactic analysis of the PT syntax (since that was the only data that was sensically analyzable).
That analysis was straightforward, and effectively what I’ve written here: VP-fronting, leaving TP/IP, NegP, and any AuxP stranded, and inserting and inflecting “do” when necessary so that the phi-features in T/I are expressed.
The paper concluded with some interesting/weird data and edge cases, such as the difficulty of creating imperatives in this system, and the oddness of questions for much the same reason as the imperatives (“More to say, have you?”, “Trained as a Jedi, you request for him?”).
Like I said, not too interesting theoretically, but a fun paper for a first-year grad student to write. :)
I don’t know what the most prestigious journal is in linguistics is (and I eill be disappointed if it is not called The Tongue), but I feel this paper deserves to be there.
Edit: apparently they are called: Linguistics Syntax and Journal of Linguistics
Imaginative bunch, this is.
The most prestigious journals for general theoretical linguistics are probably Language, Linguistic Inquiry, and maybe Glossa after the editorial pushback against Lingua about a decade ago for its opposition to open research availability (so you’re right that linguists often name their more prestigious journals after words for “tongue”!)
Either way, my first year paper’s analysis would be immediately obvious to any syntactician, and definitely doesn’t belong in a journal.
I appreciate the compliment though. :)
I love that idea. Props to your teachers for running with it.
I had an amazing prof for that class.