New remarks

• The Blind Lexicalization may just be a normal consequence of the Exhaustive Principle
• The utterances must be composed by a cause or initiator in the sense of the init Ramchand (2008) and an eventuality or process (proc). The eventuality may have a result  (res) that can be achieved at the same time the eventuality is being developped or not
• The cause is going to occupy always the same position. This can explain contrasts like:
  
  (1) a. Los niños llegaron
        b. Llegaron los niños
        c. Los niños llegaron a la cima
        d. #Llegaron los niños hasta la cima
  
• Although we are reducing all the phrases to feature nodes, there seem to be other operations that are just used to explain disorders in the structure [cause[eventuality[complements]]. We are talking about the CASE, and maybe other possible elements like applicatives. This has to be well developped. We will have to explain ergative, quirky cases...
• Depending on the kind of eventuality (state or process, but not process in the sense that we have called it before as eventuality, this is a type of eventuality) there are going to be diferent elements in the eventuality: cause, undergoer or theme and result, for example. These elements are always going to be the same but they can be lexicalized by different elements: what have been called verb, verb + 1complement, verb + 2complements... This could explain the contrast between things like matar and hacer morir

First comments to the first attempt

• One of the first things that is necessary to say is that the order between the external argument, the action and the internal argument mustn't be the one in there. If that were like that we will have to assume an exocentric system and a priori we don't want to assume that. We will think that the features are in a line from top to down, being in the top the features corresponding to the external argument, then the features corresponding to the action and then the features of the different arguments
• Other important thing is that even though in the paper the features are phrases, it's almost sure that the system will not have a specifier position. The phrases will just have a head of the feature
• It's important to stand out that movement is necessary and that movement will only by the phases and to an interphase position. The ending order of the different elements will be ruled by certain conditions
• Of course nothing is definitive yet and there are a lot of things that must be carefully studied. By now, the most important thing is to try to eliminate the miscellaneous phrases that the generative system has with categorial, functional, lexical... types. We just want a universal, ordered, homogeneus set of phrases which in this system will correspond to different semantic features. Any comment, critic, suggestion will be fundamental to develop this system

First attempt

This is the link where you can find the first attempt to try to explain syntax with features and that way to try to explain agreement as the process in which the same feature is lexicalized by different lexical items.