It’s a really important essay. The teacher is really strict with everything and is a grumpy lady.
The necessary informationnare in the CREDIT file and I am sending my last essay as well, her comment on that was:
E (which is F for her) Unmanaged non-native compilation of mostly irrelevant sources
Introduction: too long, but let’s say OK (but see Quotes below)
Ch. 2 – Rethinking: you didn’t justify the division of verbs into action and static. (Which group would Mod and Aux be in?) – meaning is not the point of the classification.
I didn’t even understand the division of pronouns: as if there were two word types, both called pronouns? And in which group would relative and interrogative pronouns belong?
What’s missing is a suggestion of how some groups could be combined (it was one of the requirements in the assignment), and it’s not here.
Chapter 3: in the text you are just repeating what Fillmore said – and what you suggest does not show that you have understood it.
And there’s something about combining prepositions and conjunctions – which belongs in the chapter preface. Except that after you’ve suggested splitting pronouns and verbs it would be (by Fillmore’s criteria) a very unfortunate idea. And this part of the text looks very (!!!) unoriginal. The rather sophisticated argumentation then directly contradicts what you wrote before. The conclusion is a word salad copied from who knows where.
CITATION: I have pointed out several times that in linguistics, bibliographies are NEVER footnoted! And certainly not repeatedly the same thing, just with different pages!!! Linguistics is not a historical science and has its own rules. Yours looks silly. Moreover, a reference using a footnote number obscures what actually belongs to the quote and what is your text – the whole paragraph? Just one sentence? Judging by vocabulary and syntax, quite a lot of the text is non-original.
Moreover: the authors you cite must be authorities in the field… I’m not sure Novak+Papcunova are among the current linguistic stars (plus it’s 27 years old) – some dictionary would be a better source for a historical overview. And Frawley is also not the person to reveal that verbs convey agency and aspect- that’s a trivial fact since Panini. I really didn’t understand the relevance of Doesksen’s analysis of deictics in Estonian to your essay.
Being able to cite relevant authors – in the right way is a significant sign of your competence, so try better next time. This way it looks like you didn’t feel like formulating it in English and so you copied it.
I just need it to pass and get credits and I’m getting desperate. I already paid someone before and it still didn’t fly.
