Talk:Syntax

message: A classic example of English syntax.error
:If you really think about adding this to the article, please explain why it is a 'classic' and also why it is relevant; in other words, give the example some context. I pulled it out for now because it lacked it. — mark ✎ 13:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulldogs bulldogs fight fight. 

message: The "Syntax In Computer Science" section should be moved since it is extremely off the topic of linguistics.  If this could be done by someone with a Wikipedia username (seeing that I'm not), that would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.11.0.254 (talk) 
ih-
I don't think it should be merged - I do think it should be completely rewritten though, especially as a significant proportion of the formal study of syntax in CS is derived from work like that of Noam Chomsky. Keywords're a minor issue at best! It's possible it should also be extended to include relevant issues in mathematics and logic, and (speaking from the CS side) I'd be rather surprised if there were no notion equivalent to that of abstract syntax in CS.
--86.17.110.80 02:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge "Syntax In Computer Science" 

message: There is a statement about Systemic Functional Grammar that seems to me out of place. Could somebody either explain what Systemic Functional Grammar has to do with a general article on Syntax or else remove it? If I don't hear any arguments to the contrary, I'll remove it myself. --Svenonius 11:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systemic Functional Grammar 

message: :Monotonic approaches to syntax, such as Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Lexical Functional Grammar, Construction Grammar, and cognitive grammar generally do not operate with rules of syntactic combination but rather with the notion of syntactic schemata which license or block the occurrence of sequences of words in discourse.
This strikes me as inaccurate. For example, the principle/rule in HPSG which licenses sisters of a head which match that head's SUBCAT list would seem to be a fairly clear instance of a rule of syntactic combination. Perhaps schemata-based grammars are more common in construction grammar than in HPSG/LFG. In any case, the difference between grammars using "rules of syntactic combinatiion" and schematic grammars is mostly just notational. (People mostly seem to be interested in schematic grammars because they want to hang some kind of noncompositional semantics off them, but you can do that with a non-schematic grammar too.)
Anyway, I don't want to change this too hastily, any comments? Cadr 11:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syntactic combination 

message: I would tend to regard the following as primarily morphological or semantic terms, not syntactic: FilipeS 20:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Syntactic terms?

message: I notice that this statement:
:From a biological and neurobiological perspective syntax has recently played a crucial role. On the one hand, it has been proven that syntax (in that it involves recursion rules) is a specific characteristic of all and only human language; on the other, experiments in neuroimaging have shown that a dedicated network in the human brain (crucially involving Broca's area, a portion of the left inferior frontal gyrus), is selectively activated by those languages that meet the Universal Grammar requirements characterizing all and only human languages as shown by generative grammar in the pioneering work of Noam Chomsky.
Is marked as "citation needed."  However, I wonder if it should be there at all, particularly in the introductory paragraphs.  For ome, it's bringing up an issue relatively advanced and (despite what some will argue) disconnected from the meat-and-potatoes of what a treatment of linguistic syntax should deal with.  Is it really necessary to discuss purported (and rather controversial) connections between linguistic theory and neurobiology in the first part of an introduction to a major area of the field--in particular ones that large amounts of professionals would dispute?
I don't mean to say that this shouldn't be mentioned at all.  But in this paragraph, something that is a major claim of only one albeit somewhat dominant school of linguistics should not be dressed up as if it were undisputed fact; this would be misleading.  I take particular issue with strong and misleading phrases such as "it has been proven" and "specific characteristic of all and only human language," particularly when the two are combined.  While I might have personal issues with Chomsky and associates' "results" indicating that recursion is the defining characteristic of language, I think anyone can agree that a claim that such a disputed claim is "proven" is problematic. For those interested, consider LanguageLog post for an effective and easily understandable criticism of this recursion claim.
It's also a bit unnecessary, I think, to make reference to a very specific part of the brain's anatomy in this context, as it's very disjoint from the body of the article in subject matter and is only there to reinforce the strength of the already dubious claim.
:Space Dracula 01:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right that it shouldn't be in the introductory section, and that it needs to be cited, with its claims softened. For the moment, shall I comment it out? --Śiva 03:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'll go ahead and comment it out.  If it gets reverted for my lack of experience here or similar, I'll defer the situation to someone else.  Thanks though! Space Dracula 19:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary Chomsky bias? 

message: My previous comment was based entirely on that paragraph in the introduction. Reading the entire article more closely, however, indicates that the person who wrote most of it is working from a heavily Chomsky- or at the very least generative-biased view of linguistic syntax.  Possibly more problematically, the article is also highly technical, a facet exacerbated by its brevity, and makes reference to things that those seeking a simple, readable introduction to syntax will be put off by, such as several different branches of linguistic theory, and describes some of their formal properties.  I would be willing to help fix the article, but I honestly suspect much of it will require a complete rewrite.
:Space Dracula 19:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's quite clear from the way the article in split into sections that generative syntax is only one branch of syntax. I think the best solution would be for others to add information about other kinds of syntax in separate sections. Cadr 21:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's probably true, and the lack of non-generative theories should definitely be addressed, but I maintain that it's too technical and doesn't cover enough of the guts of syntax, e.g. the problems it faces, and reads too much like a laundry list of theories and ideas.  This is an area of the article I would like to address and may attend to it when time allows. Space Dracula 01:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Having said that, I've edited the intro to try and make it more neutral. Cadr 21:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too technical? 

message: This article was a weird mix of very specific technical information and a general outline of what syntax is. I did three major pieces of surgery. The long discussion on substitution tests was removed. This properly belonged in the entry on constituent structure, which already has a discussion of substitution tests. I moved the very technical (and pretty biased) discussion of stochastic vs. rule based syntax to the article on Stochastic context-free grammar where it is more appropriate. Finally I changed the discussion of Modern Theories to be a more general discussion of each type of syntax (from a wide variety of perspectives) followed by links to specific articles on specific theories.  71.226.49.134 (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fairly big changes Dec 07 

message: The stmt:
:Many linguists[who?] see syntax as a branch of biology, since they conceive of syntax as the study of linguistic knowledge as embodied in the human mind[citation needed].
looks like  ********  to me, based on a hasty conclusion drawn from the fact that a few linguists (Chomsky, some more?) theorizes that there is a biologically hardcoded syntax. But that does not imply that linguistics is a field of study within biology. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 17:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's preposterous.  Maybe I'm not reading the statement the same way you are, but it seems quite accurate to me.  Chomsky isn't by any means the only advocate of the ‘linguistics is ultimately part of biology’ position; I think it's actually a pretty common view especially among linguists working in the Minimalist Program.  But even aside from that, the statement doesn't imply that linguistics is part of biology (just that many linguists feel that way; it entails nothing about what biologists think).  Also, I think it's a completely separate issue from the idea of syntax being biologically hard-coded.  You could assume that no part of language is innate, and that wouldn't be incompatible with thinking of language as a product of the human brain (and therefore seeing linguistics as the study of one organ of one species – a biological endeavour).  WmGB (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, functionalists like Talmy Givón have argued for that as well. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Preposterous stmt

message: It's fairly standard to include major journals as "See also" links in articles. So I'm a little baffled about why the link to the Journal _Syntax_ is being described as a "Spam Link" and being deleted. If I'm referring students to this article, I'd want them to follow up and go and look at major journals like Syntax, Linguistic Inquiry, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. (And just to be clear I have absolutely no affiliation with the publishers or editors of these journals; I just think that links to them are appropriate). Can we find consensus about the inclusion of the link?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comhreir (talk • contribs) 13:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for putting in a good linkComhreir (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Journal Syntax

message: I can give you another source saying "linguistics is also a rather belligerent discipline. In this corner, we have formal linguistics, with its deductive method, fierce pretenses to intellectual superiority, and often remarkable blindness."  It seems to apply to linguists that edit Wikipedia as well. (Don't you think the reader might wonder why there are so many syntax frameworks listed in this article with virtually no text discussing them?) Let's not transform the Linguistics wars into Edit wars here, but just report them. The quote from van Benthem is quite mild, there are more critical ones in that source. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding recent revert 

message: there should be a section or at least a mention of ASL here. Many people assume that it simply involves signing out english words but it uses a syntax unique from spoken english that would be difficult for a hearing person to follow if it were ever translated verbatim. Court cases has good to mistrial when deaf witnesses are not provided with an interpreter and instead are asked to just type out their responses. The result made so little sense that the case was thrown out until a proper interpreter was found  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.217.206 (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Sign Language 

message: There's a section on modern theories, but should there also be a section on comparative syntax, mentioning  SVO, SOV, etc.? Also, would it help to put the phrase "word order" somewhere in the lead? Maybe these additions would help to meet the objection made a couple of times on this talk page that the article is too technical and not helpful for non-linguists. Loraof (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The SVO, SVO categorizations of basic constituent order are not particularly central to the field of syntax, or even to the field of syntactic typology as it is practiced today. But as you say it might be good to use it as an example for the lay reader of one of the salient ways that word order varies systematically between languages.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

text: I agree the svo ordering part could be expanded to discuss other aspects of work order that are important in syntax and free word order languages Lauriesara (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  SVO etc. 

message: I added a pronunciation key for pronunciation purposes. The reason is that it may have ambiguous pronunciation, such as my pronouncing as "SIGN-tax" instead of "SIN-tax". You may change the pronunciation key if you'd like. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 00:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation key 

message: :I was surprised to see no mention of x-bar theory, LFG, HPSG, or any other syntactic theories. This is a good basic start but I would like to see more added as the current Modern Theories section is quite short and vague. It might also be helpful to show an example of a syntactic tree or at least discuss this method as it is so integral to syntax. Lauriesara (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page should be expanded 

message: Although Pāṇini is mentioned no URL link exists to his Wikipedia page, however, links to the Europeans that later came along and expounded on his work are made.  Racism leads to only the promotion of European thinkers.    I would have corrected the mistake, but when I do, certain racist editors block my account and remove my edits. All my life I've suffered at the hands of bigots for standing up against their sexism, racism and other dangerous mindsets that lead to blocking innocent poster, and on a more physical plane, world wars, etc.  Humanity can we just live in peace and spread love and end bigotry that leads to so much pain in our world?  2604:2000:DDD1:4900:A82F:4085:31AA:4834 (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Early history" section has a link to Pāṇini, and given that the article has not been edited since 1 August 2016, the link was there when you made your comment. Even if that were not the case, there's no need to make accusations of racism unless you have incontrovertible proof of it. Aside: making assumptions about how others (whom you don't know) will act is inappropriate. Mindmatrix 13:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ignoring the Indian Pāṇini link 

message: The section titled "Sequencing of subject, verb, and object" seems out of place. Should not such information be written in the framework of another section? For instance, the section might work well in the introduction of "Modern Theories" as many of the sections within talk about sequencing directly. The section begins with "A basic feature of a language's syntax...." A section containing a few basic syntactic features would solve the displacement issue and might be the appropriate response to those saying that this page is not novice-friendly. It, also, makes claims that leave citation to be desired. oh yeah, 85%? Where did you come from and why are you relevant when introducing someone to such a specific detail within syntax?Awcrawford (talk) 06:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easy fix 

message: The article currently states in the introduction: "In Arabian, there is not any rule to declare the order of the sentences."
I am not a specialist of Arabic, but know enough to believe that this statement is unsupported. In Arabic, the negator "la" comes before the verb it modifies, not after-- that is a rule of syntax.
I would suggest removing this statement.
Compared to English, some languages have a more flexible word order; but this does not mean less "syntax". Where in English "man bites dog" and "dog bites man" must be distinguished by word order, inflected languages (including Arabic) use morphemes (e.g. endings) for this purpose. That is part of their syntax, just as much as word order is part of English syntax.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjenvreugd (talk • contribs) 02:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, this sentence (and the preceding one) was utter nonsense, and it was added only a couple of days ago . I've removed it now. – Uanfala 11:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syntax-free language? 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Syntactics. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Hildeoc (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syntactics listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Bhnn
Jmhk
Hmm
Hhh
Hmm krt
Bb.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4063:228B:9EA5:0:0:9F0:60A5 (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  AsaAa 

message: This page has a strong introductory sentence that I believe is effect at communicating the purpose of the page. Keep up the great work! ~~~~ KauiLeFuJie (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory sentence 

message: — Assignment last updated by Sromero03 (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Human Cognition SP23