Teaching Portfolio - Naga Selvanathan · Teaching Portfolio ... I myself am a student of linguistics and as such I place importance on student evaluations ... This is an in depth

1

Teaching Portfolio Nagarajan Selvanathan

This is my teaching portfolio and has information related to my teaching philosophy, the classes I have taught, my teaching interests, my student evaluations as well as samples of lesson materials that I have created.

Teaching Philosophy

Courses Taught

Representative Evaluations and Reviews

Courses that I am able to teach

Other linguistics experience

Sample Syllabi/ Sample handout/ Sample exam Full observation reports/ evaluations

2

Teaching Philosophy I have been teaching young adults for almost a decade now with just under half of those years dedicated to teaching in linguistics. Based on my experience, I have developed the four core principles that form my teaching philosophy. A) Freedom to Err It is my responsibility to develop an environment where students are free to air opinions, questions, and comments without fear of rejection, even if they happen to be objectively wrong. In a technical field like linguistics, correcting a student outright is sometimes necessary. So when a student is wrong about a particular solution, I always try to weave in their initial attempt as a first step towards arriving at a better solution. B) Engaged Learning When students have a vested interest in what they learn, students are more motivated. In order to give students a stake in what they learn, I always elicit judgments about sentence data (instead of just using the judgments given in textbooks) in order to impress upon students that the analysis they are coming up with pertains to how language works in their daily lives. C) Imparting Life Skills Not all my students are going to become linguistic majors and thus it is important to me that what students learn in a linguistics lesson is the modes of reasoning and analytical skills that linguists often employ. These skills are independent of linguistic research and have wide applicability in students' academic and personal lives. D) Self-Improvement I myself am a student of linguistics and as such I place importance on student evaluations and faculty observation reports which indicate the aspects of my teaching that I can improve on. For example, from one observation report, I learnt that I had a habit of not always allowing enough time for students to respond to questions. This is a habit that I have since corrected.

3

Courses Taught INTRODUCTION TO LINGUISTICS Spring 2014 Fall 2013 This is an in depth introduction to the topics of phonetics/ phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics and pragmatics. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF LANGUAGE Spring 2017 Fall 2016 Fall 2015 This is a general introduction to the topics of generative linguistics, and applied linguistics such as language acquisition, psycholinguistics, historical linguistics and sociolinguistics. SYNTAX Spring 2017 Fall 2016 Fall 2015 This course is a detailed discussion of current syntactic theory. Topics taught include X-bar theory, Movement, Raising vs. Control, Binding Theory and Ellipsis. In all of these courses, except the Fall 2013 class, I was the instructor in charge. This means that I had to choose the textbooks, create the syllabi, form lesson plans, create assignments/ exams, be present for consultation hours and do all the grading. I place importance on student evaluations and peer feedback as this is an important avenue through which I can improve the various aspects of my teaching. This includes how my handouts look, how I deliver the material in class, the ease at which the lessons can be followed, and so on.

4

Representative Evaluations and Report The following is a snapshot view of my evaluations. The survey is based on a 5 point scale (0 for strong disagree/ poor to 5 for strong agree/ excellent). The numbers in parentheses shown under the course title is: (no. of respondents/ total enrolled in class).

Fall 2013 Intro to Linguistics (11/ 29)

Spring 2014 Intro to Linguistics (9/ 29)

Fall 2015 Intro to Language (20/ 31)

Fall 2015 Syntax (10/ 16)

Fall 2016 Intro to Language (11/22)

Fall 2016 Syntax (10/26)

1. The instructor was prepared for class and presented the material in an organized manner. 4.73 5.00 4.45 4.50 4.55 3.89

2. The instructor responded effectively to student comments and questions. 4.55 4.88 4.35 4.00 4.64 3.56

3. The instructor generated interest in the course material. 4.36 4.75 4.00 3.80 4.55 3.67

4. The instructor had a positive attitude towards assisting all students in understanding course material.

4.55 4.86 4.35 4.10 4.55 3.78

5. The instructor assigned grades fairly. 4.09 4.50 4.40 4.10 4.64 3.80 6. The instructional methods encouraged student learning. 4.00 4.63 4.20 4.00 4.55 3.60

7. I learned a great deal in this course. 4.09 4.63 4.05 4.10 4.55 4.20 8. I had a strong prior interest in this subject matter and wanted to take this course. 4.18 3.63 3.20 4.30 4.00 3.90

9. I rate the teaching effectiveness of the instructor as 4.45 4.75 4.35 4.00 4.64 3.60 10. I rate the overall quality of the course as 4.27 4.50 4.15 3.90 4.82 3.70 The numbers that are bolded reflect evaluations that are higher than the average for all equivalent courses in the department that term. Note that my evaluations are mostly positive. I am always actively trying to improve on the aspects of my teaching that are below the average. I am particularly looking into my Fall 2016 Syntax class in order to rectify the issues that arose in that class.

5

The following shows a representative sample of comments from students and peer observations. Introduction to Linguistics (Fall 2013, Spring 2014) "Extraordinarily helpful.. Very clear and organized, seemed to put a lot of though (sic) into each class. The best recitation I ever had." "Naga was a great teacher and the structure of each lesson was very clear. He provided excellent examples for everything and always took students' input into consideration. He was nice and could relate to students, and always encouraged students' learning and thinking." "Professor is very knowledgeable in this subject. He explains very clearly. He is very kind to stay extra minutes to help me and other students if we have questions. Besides he has a very good attitude. He is an excellent professor." Introduction to the Study of Language (Fall 2015, Fall 2016) "Everything about the course was great. The lectures and outlines where (sic) well set up. The content questions work very well for this type of class. The HW assignments (which most students hate) where (sic) actually very useful in creating greater understanding of material." "The material is very interesting and is presented in an organized and engaging manner." "He encourages audience participation and encourages the reasoning and forecasting of concepts before introducing them. Professor was very friendly and informative when asking him about linguistic concepts directly or indirectly related to the material." Syntax (Fall 2015, Fall 2016) "I would do nothing to change this course because I feel that as a professor, Naga knows what a student needs to be able to learn the material to the best of their ability and successfully implements that in his teaching style." "Professor Naga has made me much more interested in Syntax. As a Linguistics major I obviously had an interest in the subject before taking his class however, the subject intimidated me. But after this course, I no longer feel intimidated because I feel that my learning experiences from Professor Naga has helped me understand this area of Linguistics better. I hope Professor Naga goes on to teach more Rutgers linguistics courses because I think students will benefit greatly from his instruction." "How organized the professor was when presenting his material"

6

The following is a selected paragraph from a faculty observation (Dr. Kristen Syrett) that was done in one of my Syntax classes in Fall 2016. This observation was carried out while I was still a graduate student.

It is my opinion that the paragraph above shows my capability as a teacher who has a keen affinity for the subject matter. This is what, I believe, transfers to my students as well. Full evaluations with comments as well as the full observation report from Dr. Syrett can be found at the end of this document.

Quote from Observation Report, Syntax, Fall 2015 When a graduate student is placed in front of a 300-level Linguistics class, one never knows if they will have the wherewithal to take on this pedagogical responsibility with ease or not. In Naga’s case, there is no question that he does. I am quite pleased that I had the opportunity to observe Naga, because he is a true natural at teaching syntax. His knowledge of the subject matter is complemented by an ability to communicate the fundamentals and finer points to students in a way that invites them to become astute observers of patterns in language. There were a number of moments where students made discoveries, and shared them aloud spontaneously: “Oh, I think I understand!”, “I think that agreement has something to do with the number marking in the predicate.” and “Wait, so does this means we all know X’ theory without really knowing it?” An instructor wants their students to be eager to learn, at the same time that they’re challenged. Naga is creating the right kind of learning environment to foster this balance. I wish that all of our graduate students had this kind of presence in the classroom! – Dr. Syrett

7

Courses that I am able to teach I am constantly seeking to expand the topics that I am able to teach. I do this by creating new syllabi and refining them. The following is a sample of the courses that I am currently able to teach. Introduction to Language/ Linguistics This is an overview course which introduces undergraduates to the field of linguistics and covers topics in generative linguistics as well as topics in applied linguistics. I am also able to teach separate introductory courses on theoretical linguistics and applied linguistics. Syntax This is a course in which basic syntactic concepts are covered such as X-bar theory, Binding Theory, Case and Theta theory, Raising/ Control etc. Semantics This is a course in which basic semantic concepts are covered. This includes lexical semantics, propositional logic, extensions and intensions, compositional semantics, quantifiers and presuppositions. Morphology This course covers basic morphological concepts. This includes topics such as morphological processes, polysemy, typology, and morphology at the interfaces. Quantitative Reasoning (Hypothesis testing in linguistics) This course teaches the basics of hypothesis testing in linguistics. Topics include forming experimental questions, experiment design, collecting data, and data analysis. The basics of the programming language R are also be taught. Academic Writing This course teaches the basics of academic writing. This is a writing intensive course which require students to submit weekly written work which will be evaluated and returned with feedback. Students are also taught how to dissect arguments as well as structure their own arguments effectively. Please feel free to ask me for full syllabi for any of these courses. Note that this is also not an exhaustive list of linguistics/ communications courses that I can teach.

8

Other forms of linguistic instruction Guest Lecture – National University of Singapore, 2007 Lecture on Universal Grammar to a hall of about 100 students Course Grading – For Professor Viviane Deprez, Syntax Course, Spring 2012 Responsible for grading all the assignments and exams of the Syntax course conducted by Professor Viviane Deprez in Spring 2012. This included handling student queries. Study Guide Creation – Singapore Institute of Management, 2013 Co-developed the course and study guide currently in regular rotation at the Singapore Institute of Management for their introductory linguistics course. I was primarily responsible for the syntax and morphology chapters of this course.

9

Sample Syllabi Course Name: Syntax Course Number: 01:615: 305 Course Section: 01 Semester: Fall 2016 Lectures (Time/ Location) Monday and Wednesday, 4.30pm - 5.50pm Hardenbergh Hall Room B3 Lecturer Naga Selvanathan [email protected] Office Hours and Location Monday and Wednesday, 3.00pm - 4.00pm You still need to email me to make an appointment to ensure that I am not overbooked. Linguistics Department Basement Map: http://maps.rutgers.edu/building.aspx?id=189 URL: http://ling.rutgers.edu 18 Seminary Place, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 Department Administrator: Marilyn Reyes, Room 102 (ph. (732) 932 7289). Course Goals The basic objectives of this course are:

to familiarize students with the basic goals and assumptions of generative grammar

to train students in the rudiments of syntactic analysis and syntactic theorizing and argumentation

to familiarize students with the major syntactic structures of English and their relevance to linguistic theory.

Required Reading A. Carnie Syntax: A Generative Introduction, 3rd edition. (Wiley) You have to read the designated readings BEFORE class. See the schedule below. Course Webpage You will be provided with access to the course website on Sakai by your instructor.

mailto:[email protected]

http://maps.rutgers.edu/building.aspx?id=189

http://ling.rutgers.edu

10

If you are not familiar with Sakai, go to http://sakai.rutgers.edu and read the help documentation. You must be enrolled in the course to have access. For lecture materials, click on Resources. For homework assignments, click on Tests and Quizzes. Assignments will be made visible as the course progresses. If you have trouble understanding how to use Sakai, please. contact the IT people. Course Requirements Grade Calculation: Summary 10 Homework Assignments (5% each): 45 5 Sets of Content Questions (1% each): 5 Term exam 1: 20 Term exam 2: 20 Class Participation: 10 100 % We will follow the following score to grade conversion used by the University. A = 90 -100 B+ = 84.5-89.99 B = 79.5-84.49 C+ = 74.5-79.49 C = 69.5-74.49 D = 59.5-69.49 F = 0-59.49 Term Exams This course has two exams that are take-home. The first will cover the topics discussed in the first half of classes. The second will focus on issues covered in the second half of the course. These exams are worth 20% each. There is no final exam. Homework assignments There will be ten homework assignments that you will have to take on Sakai throughout the course. You are given about 5 days to complete each assignment. Each assignment is worth 5% of your final grade. The lowest one will not be counted towards your final grade. You may choose to not attempt one if you so wish but I recommend attempting all to the best of your ability.

Content Questions (CQs) At 5 distinct points in the term, you are required to upload to Sakai at least 3 questions and/ or comments about the material. This is an important part of the class that is designed to let me know where the knowledge gaps are so that I can address them.

http://sakai.rutgers.edu

11

Participation All students are expected to attend both lectures (see Attendance Policy below). Your participation grade will be based on attendance as well as participation in class. Class Schedule This schedule may change. You will be notified of any changes. # Day Date Reading: Topic Deadlines 1 Wed 9/7 Introduction I 2 Mon 9/12 Introduction II HW1 - 9/17

3 Wed 9/14 The Basics I: Parts of Speech and Constituency

4 Mon 9/19 The Basics II: Structural Relations HW2 - 9/24

CQ1 - 9/20 5 Wed 9/21 X-bar Theory I: NP, VP, PP etc

6 Mon 9/26 X-bar Theory II: NP, VP, PP etc HW3 - 10/1

7 Wed 9/28 X-bar Theory III: DP, IP, CP

8 Mon 10/3 X-bar Theory IV:DP, IP, CP

9 Wed 10/5 X-bar Theory V: Parameters, Theta theory HW4 - 10/10

CQ2 - 10/6 10 Mon 10/10 Auxiliaries and Functional Categories I

11 Wed 10/12 Auxiliaries and Functional Categories II

12 Mon 10/17 Binding Theory I HW5 - 10/22

13 Wed 10/19 Binding Theory II CQ3 - 10/20

14 Mon 10/24 Review Lesson (Take Home Exam 1 due - 10/31)

15 Wed 10/26 Movement I: Head Movement

16 Mon 10/31 Movement II: Head/ DP Movement HW6 - 11/ 6 17 Wed 11/2 Movement III: DP-Movenent

18 Mon 11/7 Movement IV: DP/ Wh-movement

19 Wed 11/9 Movement V: Wh-Movement/ Unifying Movement

20 Mon 11/14 Movement VI: Unifying Movement HW7 - 11/19

CQ4 - 11/15

12

21 Wed 11/16 Expanded VPs I

22 Mon 11/21 Expanded VPs II HW8 - 11/26

23 Wed 11/23 No Class due to Rutgers schedule reshuffle

24 Mon 11/28 Raising and Control I

25 Wed 11/30 Raising and Control II HW9 - 12/5

26 Mon 12/5 More on Binding Theory I

27 Wed 12/7 More on Binding Theory II HW10 - 12/11 CQ5 - 12/8

28 Mon 12/12 Review Lesson (Take home exam 2 due - 12/19)

29 Wed 12/14 Review Lesson

Policy on Religiously Observant Students It is University policy (University Regulation on Attendance, Book 2, 2.4.7B, formerly 60.14f) to excuse without penalty students who are absent from class because of religious observances, and to allow the make-up of work missed because of such absence. Examinations and special required out-of-class activities shall ordinarily not be scheduled on those days when religiously observant students refrain from participating in secular activities. Absences for reasons of religious obligation shall not be counted for purposes of reporting. In the printed schedule of classes, students are advised that they should provide timely notification to instructors about necessary absences, and that they are responsible for making up the work or exams according to an agreed-upon schedule. The published schedule of classes contains a reminder for students who are unable to participate in secular activities because of a religious observance to notify their instructor as early in the semester as possible. Reasonable common sense, judgment, and the pursuit of mutual goodwill should result in the positive resolution of scheduling conflicts. Students with Disabilities Full disability policies and procedures are at http://disabilityservices.rutgers.edu/ Students with disabilities requesting accommodations must follow the procedures outlined at http://disabilityservices.rutgers.edu/request.html

http://disabilityservices.rutgers.edu/

http://disabilityservices.rutgers.edu/request.html

13

Attendance Policy In accordance with Rutgers University regulations, attendance is expected at all regularly scheduled meetings of this course.

Students who miss an occasional class for unverifiable illness or personal circumstances do not require written documentation or verification from the dean. In these circumstances, it is the responsibility of the student to notify instructors directly in a timely manner, via email or the procedure established by the instructor. It is up to the instructor to determine if accommodations are warranted to allow students to make up work that counts toward their semester grade.

Absences due to religious observance, participation in university-sponsored events or activities such as intercollegiate athletics, are treated as authenticated absences and do not require written verification from the dean. Absences due to chronic illness or documented disability are treated as authenticated absences when students present a note of authentication from the Dean of Students office or the Office of Disability Services. Authenticated absences do not waive the overall policy for attendance. Students who must, for any reason, miss more than an occasional class should consult with their instructors directly and with the Dean of Students office.

It is the policy of the Rutgers University not to cancel classes on religious holidays. In the case of inclement weather, the President of the University may cancel classes.

Late Assignment Policy Assignments must be handed in on the due date before the due time (see Assignments above). Assignments must be submitted via the course Sakai site. Click on “Tests and Quizzes” and follow the instructions to submit it. Late assignments will not be accepted, except: If you are ill and missed the deadline, contact your instructor. You will be asked to provide proof of illness (usually a doctor’s note). If you know you will miss a deadline due to religious observance, it is your responsibility to contact your instructor early in the semester. You should arrange to take an alternative assessment, or to submit the assignment on another date. There is no extra credit in this class.

14

Sample Handout 01:615:305 Syntax Binding Theory (and other structural phenomena) (Assigned Reading: Chapter 5)

Lesson Objectives We will explore how structural relations in a tree enable us to explain linguistic

phenomena, such as Binding Theory, and NPI licensing

1. A Brief Review and Introduction to Binding Theory Let's start by reviewing something we discussed in the previous lesson. 1a. Johni likes himselfi. 1b. *Johni's sister likes himselfi. Why is (1a) a good sentence and why is (1b) a bad sentence? This is part of a popular linguistic phenomenon called Binding Theory. Binding Theory is concerned with determining the meanings of: i) r-expressions: An element that gets its meaning by referring to an entity in the world. ii) anaphors: an element that gets its meaning from some other element in the sentence (can be reflexives or reciprocals). iii) pronouns: an element that can get its meaning from some other element in the sentence (but need not). When we talk about Binding Theory, it is important to know the terms Coindex and Antecedent. When we represent anaphoric dependencies, we use an index to show where these dependencies lie: 2. Johni likes himselfi/ *j. Johni likes him*i/ j. In (2), John is coindexed with himself, which means that John gives its meaning to himself. John is known as the antecedent.

15

The * next to the j index tells us that himself can only be coindexed with John. Practice: Based on your native speaker intuitions, place indices that represent where indices are and are not possible. Determine where the antecedents are for each possible coindexation. a) He likes John's book. b) Sally said that she hates Susan's guts. c) Paul expected to see himself on the large screen. d) The dog saw its image in the mirror. e) His mother saw John in the mall with his friends. We also need to know the notion of binding. Binding: A binds B, if and only if, A-c-commands B and A and B are coindexed. Where are the binding relations in the practice above? 2. The Binding Theory In this section, we are going to deduce Binding Theory from data. You get to put yourselves in the shoes of some very important linguists who first made these discoveries. How exciting! 2.1 Anaphors We are first going to determine where anaphors can occur. Let's keep this as simple as possible. So we will start with data that has only a single clause. First, come up with the judgments. In your hypotheses, remember to use the notions we have explored above. 3a) Johni likes himselfi. 3b) [Johni's sister]j likes himself*i/ *j. 3c) [Johni's brother]j likes himself*i/ j. Hypothesis 1: 4a) *Himself likes John. 4b) Johni sent the parcel to himselfi. Does (4) require you to revise your hypothesis 1? In either case, write down the hypothesis.

16

Hypothesis 2: 5a) *Johni said that Sallyj likes himselfi/j. 5b) John said that he likes himself. Does (5) require you to revise your hypothesis? Hypothesis 3: 7) Johni expected [CP to see himselfi on the large screen]. Does (7) require you to revise your hypothesis? Hypothesis 4: We call the principle governing the distribution of anaphors, Principle A. Write it down below. Principle A: 2.2 Pronouns To determine the principle governing the distribution of pronouns, reproduce every sentence from (3-7) above below. But replace the reflexive with a pronoun, him or he. 3a') John likes him. 3b') John's brother likes him. 4a') He likes John. 4b') John sent the parcel to him. 5a') John said that he likes Tom. 5b') John said that he likes him. 6') John said that Tom likes him. 7') John expected to see him on the large screen. We call the principle governing the distribution of anaphors, Principle B. Based on the data from (3' - 7'), write it down below. Principle B:

17

2.3 R-expressions 8a) Heidi kissed Miriam. 8b) Art kissed Geoff. 8c) She kissed Heidi. 8d) She said that Heidi was a disco queen. 8e) She said that Heidi's mother likes Susan. We call the principle governing the distribution of r-expressions, Principle C. Based on the data in (8), write it down below. Principle C: Challenging Practice: Determine the distribution of the Tamil tan. a) Balani tan-ne i/*j adici-kit-aan Balan tan-acc beat-koL-3sm Balan beat himself. b) [CP Balani tan-ne i/*j/*k adici-kit-aan ni ] Somuj conn-aan Balan tan-acc beat-koL-3sm that Somu said-3sm Somu said that Balan beat himself. What does the data above show about tan? Is it a reflexive or a pronoun? Why? Now consider the following sentences. c) Balani Somu-ve adi-caan Balan Somu-acc beat-3sm 'Balan beat Somu.' d) [CP Balani tan-ne*i/ j/*k adic-aan ni ] Somuj conn-aan Balan self-acc beat-3sm that Somu said-3sm Somu said that Balan beat himself. Is (d) expected in light of what you said in (a-b)? How does the presence/ absence of koL affect how tan is interpreted? e) Balani tan-ne*i/*j adi-caan Balan self-acc beat-3sm What does (e) tell you about whether tan is an anaphor or pronoun?

18

Challenging Practice: Other structurally licensed elements. Consider the following. 1a) *John broke anything. 1b) John did not break anything. ‘Anything’ is what we call a negative polarity item (NPI). Draw the structures for (1a) and (1b) and identify what the licensing condition for an NPI is. Now consider the following. For each statement, indicate how you would modify your condition above if you need to at all. 2) John never breaks anything. 3) Few people break anything. 4) Did John break anything? (Assume ‘did’ is in the C node) Can you come up with a uniform principle for when ‘anything’ is licensed based on 1-4? Is (5) a counter-example to your principle? Why or why not? 5) John broke anything with a red cover.

19

Sample Exam Exam Instructions (20 points total) You can use any of the course materials (lecture slides, textbook, assignment feedback, personal notes) as reference when answering these questions. However, you must work alone. Do not collaborate with your classmates. And no help from the internet! Use blank paper to write your answers down. You must indicate clearly each question number. 1. Parts-of-Speech (2 points) Consider the word many in the following sentences: 1) Many people called yesterday. 2) The problems that arose were many, the solutions were few. 3) All the many adventures of our hero had a happy ending. Based on the three sentences above, propose a category, i.e part of speech, for many. Justify your answer. (Hint: 'Many' only has one POS in all three sentences, not a different one in each sentence) 2. Constituency (3 points) The following sentence is structurally ambiguous and some of its structure common to both possible structures is shown below. (1) The hunters [VP killed the poachers [PP with knives]]. The structural ambiguity arises because of two possible structures- Structure (A): the PP is a sister of an N' node, and Structure (B): the PP is a sister of a V' node. On Structure A, we get meaning A for the sentence. On Structure B, we get meaning B for the sentence. i) Identify Meaning A and give a paraphrase of sentence (1) on this meaning. (0.5 point) ii) Identify Meaning B and give a paraphrase of sentence (1) on this meaning. (0.5 point) iii) Describe at least two constituency tests that show that 'killed the poachers with knives' is a constituent. (1 point)

20

iv) Describe at least two constituency tests that shows that 'the poachers with knives' is a constituent. (1 point) 3. Structural Relations (3 points) The following sentences illustrate how negation works in Quechua. Two elements are required in this language to express negation (manam and –chu). Observe the following. 1) Mariya manam chay-ta yacha-n-chu Maria neg that-ACC know-3sg-CHU 'Maria does not know that.'

2) Mariya manam chay-ta-chu yacha-n Maria neg that-ACC-CHU know-3sg 'Marioa does not know that.' 3) *Mariya-chu manam chay-ta yacha-n. Maria-CHU neg that-ACC know-3sg “It is not MARIA who knows that” 4) *Mariya manam chay-ta yacha-n. Maria neg that-ACC know-3sg “Maria does not know that” Make the following assumptions for this question: i) Quechua is an SOV language. The following shows the structure for the sentence without manam and chu. ii) Assume that manam is an adjunct within the VP. iii) Assume that chu is a suffix of the element it occurs next to. 1) Draw the trees for (1), (2), (3) and (4). You need not show the internal structures of the DPs. (2 points)

21

2) What determines whether manam is allowed in a sentence? Refer to your textbook/ notes and choose one structural relation which can best capture this pattern. Justify your answer. (1 point)

4. Thematic Roles and Theta Grids (3 points) Observe the following sentences. 1) John broke the window. A) Give the Theta grid for the verb break based on (1). (0.5 point) Now consider the following sentence. 2) The window broke. B) Give the Theta grid of the verb break in (2). (0.5 point) C) What kind of relationship does the verb in (2) have with (1)? Be as specific as possible. (1 point) D) Now consider the following two verbs: ‘open’, ‘hit’. Which of these two verbs would you categorize together with ‘break’ based on the pattern you see in (1) and (2). Why? (1 point) 5. X-bar Trees (3 points) Draw complete X-bar trees for the following sentences. You must show in full X-bar structure every DP, CP, TP, VP, PP and any other phrases you encounter. Be careful about whether a given phrase is an adjunct or complement. Be mindful of where you attach PPs. 1. The news of the horrible accident must not have been released to the public without proper vetting. (1.5 points) 2. This century's smartest detective has deduced that the killer did not kill his victims in this city at midnight. (1.5 points)

22

6. X-bar Parameters (2 points) In this question, you are going to analyze a language with the same vocabulary as English but one that has a different structure. We will call this language Ling305-ese. The following shows two potential TP structures of this language. Structure A Structure B A) Both structures have the same meaning as the English sentence 'John loves Mary'. Based on what you know about X-bar theory and parameters, argue which structure is the correct one for Ling305-ese. (1 point) (Hint: See section 5 in Chapter 6 of the Carnie text) B) Now observe the following TP in English (1 point): i) John kicked the boy's ball. Write out what the Ling-305-ese version of (i) would look like. Draw a detailed X-bar structure for this TP in Ling305-ese.

23

7. Binding Theory (2 points) Observe the following pair of sentences in Italian. 1a) Questi pettegolezzi su di sei preoccupano Giannii These gossips about himself worries Gianni 'Gianni worries about these gossips about himself.' 1b) *Questi pettegolezzi su di sei descrivono Giannii These gossips about himself described Gianni 'Gianni is described by these gossips about himself.' A) Draw trees for (1a) and (1b). You can use triangles to represent the DP Questi pettegolezzi su di se. Assume that Italian has an SVO order and the same X’-rules as English. (1 point) B) Based on your trees, which sentence, (1a) or (1b), behaves as expected given Principle A of Binding Theory? Justify your answer. (1 point) 8. Auxiliaries and Functional Categories (2 points) In English, complementizers can differ depending on whether the embedded clause is finite, non-finite or interrogative. (See section 1, Chapter 9 of Carnie text). Now consider the following Irish data. Irish has VSO order. The complementizer is abbreviated as Comp. 1a) Ceapaim go mbuaileann se le Sean inniu think.1s Comp. meets he with Sean today 'I think that he meets with Sean today.' 1b) Ceapaim gur bhuail se le Sean inne think.1s Comp. met he with Sean yesterday 'I think that he met with Sean today.' A) Assuming that (1a) and (1b) are representative of all occurrences of the complementizers go and gur, explain what determines whether go or gur is used. Now consider the following. 2) Ceapaim go mbuailfidh se le Sean inniu think.1s Comp. meet.FUT he with Sean today 'I think that he will meet with Sean today.' B) Does the rule for the use of go you formulated in (A) account for (2). How would you modify your rule? (1 point)

24

Observation Reports and Student Evaluations

25

26

1/5/2017 Student Instructional Rating Survey, Fall 2013 Selvanathan N.

file:///C:/Users/Naga%20Laptop/Google%20Drive/Teaching/1.%20Teaching%20Fall%202013/Student%20Instructional%20Rating%20Survey,%20Fall%202013%20%20Selvanathan%20N..htm 2/5

Rutgers University Student Instructional Rating (Online Survey)

Selvanathan N. Fall 2013, 01:615:201:04 —Intro To Ling Theory (index#29708) Enrollment= 29, Responses=11

Part A: UniversitywideQuestions:

Student Responses Weighted Means

Strong

Disagree

1

Strong

Agree

5

No

response

Section Course Level Dept

1. The instructor wasprepared for class andpresented the material inan organized manner

0 0 0 3 8 0 4.73 4.37 4.37 4.45

2. The instructor respondedeffectively to studentcomments and questions

0 0 0 5 6 0 4.55 4.34 4.34 4.34

3. The instructor generatedinterest in the coursematerial

0 1 0 4 6 0 4.36 4.33 4.33 4.31

4. The instructor had apositive attitude towardassisting all students inunderstanding coursematerial

0 0 0 5 6 0 4.55 4.48 4.48 4.49

5. The instructor assignedgrades fairly

0 1 2 3 5 0 4.09 4.53 4.53 4.48



Selvanathan N. Fall 2013, 01:615:201:04 —Intro To Ling Theory (index#29708) Enrollment= 29, Responses=11

Part A: UniversitywideQuestions:


Strong

Disagree

1

Strong

Agree

5

No

response


6. The instructional methodsencouraged studentlearning

0 1 2 4 4 0 4.00 4.11 4.11 4.17

7. I learned a great deal inthis course

0 1 3 1 6 0 4.09 4.22 4.22 4.31

8. I had a strong priorinterest in the subjectmatter and wanted to takethis course

0 1 2 2 6 0 4.18 3.93 3.93 3.91

Poor Excellent

9. I rate the teachingeffectiveness of theinstructor as

0 0 2 2 7 0 4.45 4.16 4.16 4.21

10. I rate the overall qualityof the course as

0 0 3 2 6 0 4.27 4.13 4.13 4.20

What do you like best about this course?:

“The handouts ”

“recitations ”



“Printouts were incredibly useful for assignments and studying.”

“The instructor was so kind and funny and his classes were EXTREMELY helpful with understanding course material.”

“Followalong packets allowed for greater understanding of topics”

“Syntax was my favorite subject about this course.”

“Extraordinarily helpful, especially when the lectures were not. Very clear and organized, seemed to put a lot of though intoeach class. The best recitation I have ever had”

If you were teaching this course, what would you do differently?:

“more help with certain material”

“More inclass exercises for students. They were useful, but few.”

“A bit more exercises. More explanation as to how to approach different problems in linguistics.”

“Nothing. Perfectly done. ”

In what ways, if any, has this course or the instructor encouraged your intellectual growth and progress?:

“pushed to study for exams”

“N/A”

“He was always kind and funny and he has a strong and evident passion for what he teaches. He treats all fairly and nevermakes anyone feel stupid.”

“PollEv allowed for asking and answering of questions with easesomething that I'm sometimes too nervous to do”

“Always helped with any question I had. ”

Other comments or suggestions::

“He's great. ”



“n/a”

“Best recitation leader out there. ”

1/5/2017 Student Instructional Rating Survey, Spring 2014 Selvanathan N

file:///C:/Users/NAGALA~1/AppData/Local/Temp/SIRS_Spring2014_01_615_201_01Selvanathan_N.html 1/2


Selvanathan N Spring 2014, 01:615:201:01 — Intro To Ling Theory (index #31040) Enrollment= 29, Responses= 9 Part A: Universitywide Questions:


Strong

Disagree

1

Strong

Agree

5

No

response


1. The instructor was prepared for class and presented the material in an organizedmanner

0 0 0 0 8 1 5.00 4.42 4.44 4.49

2. The instructor responded effectively to student comments and questions 0 0 0 1 7 1 4.88 4.28 4.29 4.40

3. The instructor generated interest in the course material 0 0 0 2 6 1 4.75 4.18 4.15 4.35

4. The instructor had a positive attitude toward assisting all students in understandingcourse material

0 0 0 1 6 2 4.86 4.55 4.56 4.56

5. The instructor assigned grades fairly 0 0 1 2 5 1 4.50 4.54 4.35 4.47

6. The instructional methods encouraged student learning 0 0 0 3 5 1 4.63 4.04 4.02 4.21

7. I learned a great deal in this course 0 0 0 3 5 1 4.63 4.21 4.19 4.33

8. I had a strong prior interest in the subject matter and wanted to take this course 0 1 3 2 2 1 3.63 3.64 3.67 3.89

Poor Excellent

9. I rate the teaching effectiveness of the instructor as 0 0 0 2 6 1 4.75 4.20 4.12 4.24

10. I rate the overall quality of the course as 0 0 0 4 4 1 4.50 4.01 3.97 4.13

1/5/2017 Student Instructional Rating Survey, Spring 2014 Selvanathan N

file:///C:/Users/NAGALA~1/AppData/Local/Temp/SIRS_Spring2014_01_615_201_01Selvanathan_N.html 2/2


“Naga was a great teacher and the structure of each of the lessons was very clear. He provided excellent examples for everything and always took students' input into consideration. He was nice andcould relate to students, and always encouraged students' learning and thinking. ”

“I like the online assignments”

“I liked the way the instructor presented the material. Having the packet of that week's lesson in front of me while the instructor went over the material was very helpful and helped me understandthe material. Also the review days after we submitted our questions were very useful. ”

“I liked the small classroom atmosphere.”

“I liked learning about the subject.”

“I like when he assigned his students each ending chapter come up with 3 questions before our actual assignment due.”


“I would perhaps have the students do a little more independent practice in class and then go over the examples before the at home assignments were due. ”

“I would do more activities to help the students learn more instead of just going through the notes. ”

“I will not do anything. I will assign my students to do the same. It really helps in many way. For example, before I can come up with a question I realized that I have read more than 7 pages. It helpus read without our knowledge. Once I read I understand it already, it is hard to come up with a question that I don't understand. It really gets me to read the book. ”


“At first I was really only taking this class for an SAS requirement but Naga was such an awesome teacher it became one of my favorite classes. ”

“I feel I am not able to think more logically because of this class and I can deduce things better than I previously did. ”

“I learned more about linguistics.”

“As I mentioned in question # 12. The way Professor assigned me to come up with 3 questions each ending chapter. It gets me to read, and once I read I understand the subject better.”


“I thought the course went well, and I don't mind taking a final. I really think that if the students put in the work during the semester then the final won't be difficult. I could redo all the practiceproblems with no problem in class. You teach well, and I learned a lot. Thank you!”

“very good professor”

“Professor is very knowledgeable in this subject. He explains very clearly. He is very kind to stay extra minutes to help me and others students if we have questions. Besides, he has a very goodattitude. He is an excellent professor.”

1/5/2017 Student Instructional Rating Survey, Fall 2015 Selvanathan Nagarajan

file:///C:/Users/NAGALA~1/AppData/Local/Temp/SIRS_Fall2015_01_615_101_02Selvanathan_Nagarajan.html 1/3


Selvanathan Nagarajan Fall 2015, 01:615:101:02 — Intro Study Of Lang (index #08065) Enrollment= 31, Responses= 20 Part A: Universitywide Questions:


Strong

Disagree

1

Strong

Agree

5

No

response


1. The instructor was prepared for class and presented the material in an organizedmanner.

1 0 1 5 13 0 4.45 4.32 4.32 4.45

2. The instructor responded effectively to student comments and questions. 1 1 1 4 13 0 4.35 4.26 4.26 4.28

3. The instructor generated interest in the course material. 1 1 2 9 7 0 4.00 4.12 4.12 4.18

4. The instructor had a positive attitude toward assisting all students in understandingcourse material.

1 1 0 6 12 0 4.35 4.43 4.43 4.46

5. The instructor assigned grades fairly. 1 0 3 2 14 0 4.40 4.41 4.41 4.42

6. The instructional methods encouraged student learning. 1 0 3 6 10 0 4.20 4.14 4.14 4.02

7. I learned a great deal in this course. 1 2 2 5 10 0 4.05 4.07 4.07 4.18

8. I had a strong prior interest in the subject matter and wanted to take this course. 2 4 5 6 3 0 3.20 3.45 3.45 3.81

Poor Excellent

9. I rate the teaching effectiveness of the instructor as: 0 1 1 8 10 0 4.35 4.09 4.09 4.13

10. I rate the overall quality of the course as: 0 1 3 8 8 0 4.15 4.01 4.01 4.11




“the handouts were quite helpful and he was understanding”

“I was able to realize that the IPA chart was something I always encountered but never really knew what it was.”

“He was a good teacher and he was very knowledgable.”

“The professor was the best part”

“The professor did a good job generating interest. ”

“I especially liked when we learned about the topics in different ways (ex the group presentation we did). ”

“Everything about the course was great. The lectures and outlines where well set up. The content questions work very well for this type of class. The HW assignments (which most students hate)where actually very useful in creating a greater understanding of material. ”

“How different this course is from any other I have taken.”

“Learning something entirely new and different”

“it is something i have never thought about before or had the chance to learn”

“The applications of linguistics shown to us through videos and material”

“It was simple, straightforward, and interesting to learn.”

“The material is very interesting and is presented in an organized and engaging manner.”


“Different modes of teaching”

“Spend a great deal of time in Phonology (fricative, alveolar, etc), since it can be a little confusing.”

“I enjoyed the course, but during the last few weeks of the course, he decided to give an assignment (that was not on the syllabus) that had to be due rather quickly. It was a group assignment that hadto be due in 10 days and had to be at least ten minutes long. I feel that is too short of time, especially when it is due Sunday of Thanksgiving weekend. Someone from my group went back home forthe holidays and I live rather far from campus, about fourty five minutes. I wish we had at least two weeks.”

“Nothing”

“I would not give surprise assignments ”

“Provide more variety to teaching the topics. It was really fun and educational to do the group project and I think that it would be great to do more things like that.”

“None.”

“Break things down a bit more easier, since it's an intro course ”

“incorporate more group work”



“set better date for homework like due by midnight rather than by 6 or some other time ”

“make it more interesting, organize the handouts better”

“nothing”

“I might make the lessons a little more interactive with the class. ”


“It made me decide to learn a new language.”

“He was great in every way”

“I learned about linguistics ”

“I had a slight interest in linguistics prior to this course but didn't really know anything about it. This course is set up as in intro to many topics in linguistics and I think it was great to get to see allthe different ones. The instructor made lectures interesting and for me it has created a greater interest. ”

“This course challenged me to explore different aspects of lanaguages ”

“i learned something that most people do not know about”

“Taught me a lot about Linguistics”

“i was doing poorly and the professor personally emailed me to come to his office hours. if it wasn't for that i might not have done as well.”

“I am much more knowledgable and interested in language.”


“It was a decent class. ”

“Have other instructors, maybe even professors be given hints on how to teach and lecture from this instructor. ”

“None.”

“none”

“this is a great course for anyone whether you have an interest in linguistics or not.”

“Very knowledgable teacher; grading is very fair as long as you do the work”




Selvanathan Nagarajan Fall 2015, 01:615:305:01 — Syntax (index #12719) Enrollment= 16, Responses= 10 Part A: Universitywide Questions:


Strong

Disagree

1

Strong

Agree

5

No

response



0 1 1 0 8 0 4.50 4.65 4.48 4.45




1 1 0 2 6 0 4.10 4.45 4.33 4.46





Poor Excellent






“The handouts and CQ's for every lecture are so helpful!”

“Mainly the size of the class, and since the major itself is small, I am able to communicate to other students about what is happening in the class. I also began to like syntax, and respected howdifficult it is.”

“I liked the subject matter.”

“the material”

“I liked the CQs. They counted as homework but gave us an opportunity to ask questions.”

“Learning how to create the trees for those really long sentences.”

“I felt comfortable in this class, and enjoyed and understood the material. I am left wanting more.”


“I would do nothing to change this course because I feel that as a professor, Naga knows what a student needs to be able to learn the material to the best of their ability and successfully implementsthat in his teaching style.”

“A slightly better attitude, and a little bit more fun in the class as a whole.”

“Nothing.”

“nothing”

“I would make the homework submission system more comprehensive, basically just handing in paper in class would be better than the online submissions. Also, no content questions, these are a badidea, and shouldn't be graded”

“I would leave more time at the end for review and make the exams easier. ”

“have more exercises in drawing trees in class, where all the types of transformations and configurations can be exemplified.”

“I would find it helpful to generate more trees together in class.”

“felt stupid asking questions in class. Didn't know”


“Professor Naga has made me much more interested in Syntax. As a Linguistics major I obviously had an interest in the subject before taking his class however, the subject intimidated me. But afterthis course I no longer feel intimidated because I feel that my learning experience from Professor Naga has helped me understand this area of Linguistics better. I hope Professor Naga goes on toteach more Rutgers linguistics courses because I think students would benefit greatly from his instruction.”

“This is an extremely challenging class, so it made me work towards understanding the material. I learned a lot about the history of linguistics, the effectiveness of the branch of syntax, Rutgers'linguistic department, and how intense the discipline of syntax is.”

“It has taught me about a subject that I have interest in, which I enjoyed.”



“it made me more interested in linguistics, specifically syntax”

“I was encouraged not just to accept theories but to question them at every turn. Looking back this was tiring but worth it.”

“This course has engouraged me to explore the knowledge field and find my own answers for my questions.”

“I felt like the professor was talking with us, not at us. For this reason, I believe I learned a lot and became more comfortable in the class. I really wanted to learn from this professor.”


“I would LOVE to see the handout/CQ teaching model implemented in all Linguistics courses. It helps me understand the material a lot better and helps the professor understand where students arestruggling. Thank you for an excellent semester, professor! Please consider teaching other Linguistics classes, I'd love to have you as a professor again.”

“Naga is a good teacher, and I enjoyed the class; however, there were many days where I really did not want to go because I knew the material would be too confusing and fast to follow; and Iwasn't alone. I think the course should flow slower, and go a bit more in depth, or at least more explanatory, compared to what it is now. Naga also seemed aggravated at times that the class wasn'tfollowing what was going on at times. I need to emphasize Naga is a good teacher, teaching an extremely difficult subject, I just think some small minute details really cause a delay and maybe amisunderstanding that causes a disinterest in the subject.”

“good job”

“This class goes into some very complex things. It is great to have a light atmosphere in the room. ”

“Although we did enjoy ourselves in class, the professor was always able to control us easily while not being overly strict. It was a pleasure to have Prof Selvanathan.”

“felt stupid asking questions in class. It was hard to keep up with his thought process because he would stop mid sentence and restart multiple times throughout the lecture. didn't thoroughly go overtopics and had a negative attitude towards reexplaining the material.”




Selvanathan Nagarajan Fall 2016, 01:615:101:03 — Intro Study Of Lang (index #02722) Enrollment= 22, Responses= 11 Part A: Universitywide Questions:


Strong

Disagree

1

Strong

Agree

5

No

response



0 0 1 3 7 0 4.55 4.57 4.65 4.57




0 0 0 5 6 0 4.55 4.63 4.68 4.52





Poor Excellent






“He is very nice and great teacher. ”

“The structure was organized and easy to follow.”

“I liked the grading scale of the class”

“I like the preparedness of the teacher and his ability to do more than just read out what he gave out before the lecture. There was also a nice bit of humor that added some fun to the lectures. WhenI actually read the material in the book, I felt like I'd had many things clarified. ”

“He encourages audience participation and encourages the reasoning and forecasting of concepts before introducing them. Professor was very friendly and informative when asking him aboutlinguistic concepts directly or indirectly related to the material.”

“I liked that this course helped me understand language and language variation better.”

“How interesting it was, and the workload wasn't that bad, which didn't diminish my interest in learning the course. ”

“He's great!”

“He takes his time to know who you are and he related everything to real life examples so that we understand.”


“nothing”

“Not much.”

“the course was ran pretty fairly ”

“I would probably not include the content questions. They were pretty much useless and didn't need to be something that was graded.”

“Be a little more prepared when posting tests/homework online (I expand in other comments/suggestions).”

“Nothing.”

“Not spend as much time on particular topics that are pretty easy to understand. ”

“n/a”


“Taught me more about languages”

“Professor Selvanathan is a great guy. He does an effective job of explaining material and gives a fair amount of homework. His exams are fair and he's always willing to help a student in need withthe course material.”

“the material was not as engaging as I would have liked it ”

“It has given me a primer to Linguistics to explore it further. ”



“As stated above, he encourages audience participation and encourages the reasoning and forecasting of concepts before introducing them. Explored a wide range of concepts in linguistics, and theclass was very relaxed and manageable. Content questions forced people to make questions about the content which helped solidify understanding of the concepts.”

“N/A.”

“Opened me up to the world of linguistics. I want to major in it now. ”

“Now i know way more about structures of words as well as sentences”


“na”

“For some reason, whenever we were to perform homework/tests online, the questions or answers weren't reviewed by the instructor prior to granting access to the students. As a result, very often,the instructor only noticed the formatting mistakes following the tests, and reciprocated the students with the points afterwards. I just feel like he was a little unprepared or disorganized. Simplesuggestion for improvement, besides this, he was arguably one of my favorite instructors and I enjoyed the class.”

“Thanks for a good semester!”




Selvanathan Nagarajan Fall 2016, 01:615:305:01 — Syntax (index #11526) Enrollment= 26, Responses= 10 Part A: Universitywide Questions:


Strong

Disagree

1

Strong

Agree

5

No

response



0 1 0 7 1 1 3.89 3.89 4.34 4.57




0 1 1 6 1 1 3.78 3.78 4.28 4.52





Poor Excellent






“I liked that we have take home exams because this helps take off some pressure and to have a chance to spend a great deal of time on it was helpful. ”

“The exams are takehome and the review sessions are helpful.”

“How organized the professor was when presenting his materal”

“All of the material was extremely interesting to me, as I find Syntax to be the fascinating area in linguistic theory. ”


“I would go over the homework differently and not half fast going through the assignment so that we can understand what we got right and wrong. ”

“Give us more examples of trees, and help us work through the more advanced trees in class. Also, if assigning trees to do for hw, put on line the correct trees.”

“Provide more examples for complex tree drawing for each section. Also having power points in class would be helpfully for students being able to take notes. It was not always easy to understandwhat the professor put on the board because It was sometimes messy or hidden behind things. If we got questions wrong on the homework, I wish the professor could have given more comments as towhy we got the question wrong. ”


“Yes he helped me like Syntax a lot more. ”

“This course has proven to me that I love syntax, and has encouraged me to take more advanced and detailed versions of the class so that I can really understand why and how certain rules andtheories can to be what they are today. Also, there seems to be so much that we still do not know and understand about how form sentences, so I look forward to doing research to see how languagecan be studied with real test subjects. ”


“The instructor is difficult to understand and goes at a very quick pace, too quick for most students to understand the material. He assigns grades for the homework without even giving studentsspecific feedback on what they did wrong. Many times he could explain a concept fully but doesn't because he does not want to draw it all out on the board. This class was not a great experience. ”

“I found at times that because the teacher was not a native english speaker, he did not have the same interpretation of what seemed grammatical to the rest of the students. However he was open toour interpretations for the most part. ”

Documents

Teaching Portfolio - Naga Selvanathan · Teaching Portfolio ... I myself am a student of linguistics and as such I place importance on student evaluations ... This is an in depth