Subject: syntax textbooks - - a summary

about a week ago , i asked readers to share experiences with the cowper and haegeman syntax textbooks . here 's what they said . = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = here 's a summary of responses about syntax textbooks : it was clear from the responses that cowper 's book is a bit too new to have been used by many people . i got one favorable evaluation from a respondant who had read the text in manuscript , but i did not hear from anyone who has used it in a class so far . responses on haegeman 's textbook were mixed . i have excerpted / paraphrased comments below . there were five generally positive evaluations : " . . . better than most texts . . well-received by the students , but it is full of annoying mistakes and misprints " " . . . quite happy with it . . . there were no complaints from the students " " . . . it was harder than radford , but most students preferred haegeman to radford , which they found long-winded , condescending , or just plain moronic " " . . . students found it lucid , funny , and well-organized " " . . . relatively happy with it . . . generally understandable and well - organized . criticisms : tends to introduce theoretical concepts first and the justification for them later . . . " and three mostly negative evaluations : " . . . tended to digress . . . chooses to focus on unclear examples , e . g . the theta-criterion and implicit arguments early on in the book ; . . . case-marking is frequently exemplified with ecm verbs , which the students found unconvinc - ing " " students unanimously despised it . . . incredibly unclear . . . poorly organized . . . i recommend against it . " " . . . on the positive side , it is well-organized and has good references . on the negative side , there is poor argumentation and data that does n't support the claims made in the text . . . there is also no mention of any non - gb syntax . . . . i found it useful for teaching students how to identify poor argumentation . " as a generalization , it seemed that gb practictioners tended to be significantly happier with the book than others . ( there were also votes for lasnik and uriagereka 's * a course in gb syntax * and for chomsky 's * managua lectures * . ) thanks to all who wrote .
