Ling1032: write a review of the following paper: transitive expletive constructions and the object shift parameter

Harvard referencing, it should also have an explanation with similar trees as it has in the article.LING1032 Autumn Term Assessment 2024-25: Assessment Brief Your assignment is to write a review of the following paper: Transitive expletive constructions and the object shift parameter (Koster & Zwart 2000) Instructions on submission Your review should consist of 2000-2500 words in prose, and include at appropriate positions within this at least three formal, digital tree diagrams. You may discount the title, bibliography, examples, etc., from the word count. The submission deadline is Tuesday the 27th of January 2025, at 23:30. Submit in pdf format via moodle in the usual way. Structure of the Review A simple structure for the review is to divide the task into two main sections: a summary and a criticism. Then, accompany these with a brief introduction and conclusion: 1. Introduction State the aims of your review, briefly. If you are feeling confident, you may discuss the theoretical and research context that your review is based in (ie. early to contemporary Minimalism), but this is not obligatory. 2. Summary In around 1000 words, you should evidence understanding of: The phenomenon that the paper is about. The paper’s proposed analysis and the major points of the argument that support it. The relevance and importance of the examples given to support the analysis. 3. Criticism In around 1000 words again, respond to Koster & Zwart’s analysis showing evidence of critical and independent thinking, and your own knowledge of language, languages, and linguistic theory. There is at least one significant issue with K&Z’s analysis. There are a number of points you may bring up in relation to this. You can expect a good score for the criticism if you discuss these points comprehensively. You do not need to be entirely negative in your criticism. You will also receive points for identifying any positives in K&Z’s paper, or equally for providing simplifications to any parts of the analysis. 4. Conclusion Recommended to be very brief. May include comments on questions that remain open either from K&Z’s analysis or your response. 1