Talk:Linguistic minimalism

Making this a redirect page
OK. As promised, I did major changes to this page, for the reasons discussed in my previous comment. What I did is essentially this:

(1) I took "Bare Phrase Structure", "Phases", "Economy" and "Criticism" to Minimalist program, to which I add lots of things (see talk page on that article for a summary). (2) I made this a redirect page. Please, if you disagree, discuss here. Miguel (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

About academic insults
The "circularity" insulting comment is precisely what we DO NOT need when we are talking about any academic discipline. If you have your own academic prejudices, let them outside Wikipedia. Chomskyans do not insult people, but they receive lots of free insults from almost everybody who has just heared the name "Chomksy" or "Generative Grammar", without actually having read anything about it. This page has been vandalized, even deleted; the name "Minimalist Program" has been changed, and now it redirects here, which is an obvious attempt to block people from knowing a bit about a major theoretical framework. Please, refrain from doing this. Wikipedians deserve a bit more of respect.Miguel (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Circularity
Currently, Linguistic minimalism contains a link to Bare phrase structure, which justs redirects back to Linguistic minimalism. I think we should leave it that way, as an iconic representation of the logical structure of Chomskyan linguistic though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.236.38 (talk) 11:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Structure
I think it might be a better idea to start with Merge and Bare Phrase Structure before getting into phases. Further, the section on Phases doesn't really provide any motivation for their existence. It might be best to give a brief motivation from Chomsky's Three Factors paper and possibly work in Epstein and Seely's response to some of the criticism. Azurefox (talk) 06:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

General comments (April 2009)
I think the article shows signs of being a spin-off from an earlier, larger article. It should be rewritten as a stand-alone article, moving from a general definition via central issues to questions of detail. Also the relevance of minimalism to cognitive science should be highlighted (as in Hauser, Chomsky and Fitch in Science 2002). Zwart (talk) 09:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Curly brackets
Could these be avoided somehow, or are they an inegral part of the notation? If they are, could they be wrapped up in some fashion? They don't play nice just sitting there, alas. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Crucial part of the notation, alas... (Set theory...)AndrewCarnie (talk) 06:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Biolinguistics
The ref to biolinguistics got taken out by Rjanag, I disagree. Almost all the work in MP these days is being done within the context of biolinguistics. I think it really needs to go back in.Comhreir (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I also changed Phrase structure grammar to Transformational Grammar. TG (actually EST, but there is no article on EST only on the misnomer TG) was the theory that preceded GB. TG *used* phrase structure grammars as a device, but the theory wasn't based exclusively on them.Comhreir (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)