Talk:Simpler Syntax
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Confusing
I've been asked to explain why I tagged the article as confusing. As I noted in my edit summary, I studied linguistics at MIT, and after reading this article, I still did not understand the point of the book. Recommendations to improve the article:
- Give some context about whether or not the authors are arguing in favor of an unnamed mainstream theory, if "minimalist syntax" is a mainstream theory, and whether or not their theory is different from the most common alternative to minimalist syntax.
- Explain a bit why "minimalist syntax" would produce more complex derivations. That seems contradictory.
- Are there other examples of overly strong assumptions about linguistic universals that the authors cite?
- I really do not understand the "asymmetric dependence" relationships among syntax, semantics, and phonology, which are described, nor the "flexible, constraint-based mapping" which is proposed as an alternative and not described at all. For the former, the use of the word "interpret" is particularly confusing. Giving examples for the two competing theories would help immensely.
-- Beland 19:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Minimalist syntax is Chomsky's latest development. It kicked off in the early 90s so if you were at MIT at any time since then you probably came into contact with it, if you studied any syntax. As the article says, the authors are arguing against Minimalist syntax, and in favor of their own theory (which is not particularly mainstream, I guess). I don't think there is any such thing as the most common alternative to Minimalist syntax, since there are many, but Head-driven phrase structure grammar and Lexical functional grammar probably come closest.
- Point taken on the rest of your comments, I'll try to make some improvements. Cadr 00:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
