The Introduction to Human Language course exam results are out. In general, the results are VERY positive.

A few points about the questions.

Almost everybody got full marks for the minimal pair question, but I think there is a bit of confusion on how the method works. Some people gave cases like (1) or (2) as examples of minimal pairs.

(1) a. John likes to talk. 
    b. John likes to talk with Mary.

(2) a. John has talked to Mary 
    b. John has to Mary

In (1) "with Mary" changes the meaning. In (2), removing "talked" makes the sentence ungrammatical. This is true, but it is utterly trivial. Normally, then we change something we are interested in changes that are not so immediately and obviously connected with the element inserted. One example one gave me is:

John is sick 
John is sick of Mary

Her the suprising fact is that the appearence of "of Mary" changes the meaning of "sick". Other example is

John allowed Bill to leave.
John promised Bill to leave.

Where changing the verb changes the understood subject of "leave".

Few people got the question on Type 3 grammar right, and indeed, it required some thinking on what counted as a termina element. P, N, Comp, Adj, Det, V where terminals: as you can see they where not specified by any rule in the left column. If you included the Lexicon, then no rule was Type 3 (but then no grammar with abstract terminal symbols ever is). Some people wrote that every rule had to have the form A --> cB where c is terminal and B is non-terminal. Note however that a grammar of this form can only produce infinitely long sequences. The rule S --> DP VP was definitely non-Type 3, and so was DP --> NP, though as some observed one could get this effect in Type 3 by choosing an empty terminal.

There was some confusion in the overgeneration task as well, and probably I wasn't clear enough in stating the question. Many gave as an example of overgeneration sentences that were perfectly grammatical in English but nonsensical (the "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" type). This is a bit cheating, because if you do this any grammar overgenerates: grammar does not exhausts semantic constraints, or world knowledge (I cannot claim that my grammar overgenerates if it produces "Barak Obama is a panda", which is unacceptable given what I know of BO). Better answers had sentences which violated some grammatical constraints: bare singulars (*"integer is sum") or verb selectional restrictions (*"Goldbach was that the integers is prime"). Nobody thought of modifiers ordering (*"Prime two numbers"), which is clearly a grammatical fact in many cases.

Most people did not break down "entangling" down to en+tangle (cf. enliven, embrace, enlight, encase, enclose ... and Italian "a+nod+are"). "Tangle" is primarily a noun, but can also be a verb. Likewise few reduced "grammatical" to "grammar" (possibly via "grammatic", cf. "program/programmatic"). Again, pairs like "adjective/adjectival", "verb/verbal", can be helpful.

Some people applies "dis" at the end of the derivation: [dis [entangle+ing]] but added that "-ing" is an inflectional suffix (go/going). But then this order must be wrong, since as you have studied derivational affixes never apply outside inflectional ones. One could argue that "-ing" is derivational, since some "-ing" forms are nouns ("He took a beating"). Yes, "dis-" applies to other verbal forms: "to dis-entangle" "he dis-entangl-ed/-s", so a route via a nous to get back a verb is highly unlikely.
Moral: morphology IS difficult.

There was also a lot of confusion in the question on content vs. grammatical morphology. Many confused it with the distinction between inflectional and derivational morphology. But "inflectional/derivational" is a distinction which only applies to affixes (there are no "inflectional/derivational" roots). All inflectional affixes are grammatical, but so are most (probably all) derivational ones (e.g. "X-able" means "which can be Xed", but "can" is a modal, hence part of the grammatical lexicon; "anti-" means "against", which is a preposition, so again grammatical).

Agents are volitional entities. When an agent does an action you can always append the adverb "deliberately/involuntarily". You cannot do that with "the ice" beaking the bottle. It is a natural clause. Likewise "The ice" cannot be an 'experiencer' when it melts, unless you are talking of Olaf in the film Frozen. I will bring the exams in my office, in case you want to take a look.