I was reading Thomas’s notes on Math Method a couple of days back, and found the following worthing jotting down:
1 always think about the smallest object that satisfies the statement/definition, and ask how much this object can change before it no longer fites the discription
2 think about examples that fit the definition, and examples that do not
Today I witnessed how those were put in use, in real time, face-to-face, one-on-one style. We were discussing how TSL grammar could/could not capture scope interpretation. While I was occupied with how different sentence types differ among languages, he suggested the following:
3 set up a good base case, where nothing moves and see what the boundaries are (c.f 1)
4 think about QP-s that ordered in terms of interpretation, but shows a c-command relation within one domain (c.f 2), while the logic behind this is that, TSL cannot handle c-command, but if c-command is nevertheless needed, TSL cannot handle scope interpretation.