Talk:Government and binding theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theoretical Linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. I've made some minor changes. I'm not sure my new definition of R-expressions is entirely rigorous, but I think it may be a little clearer.--Nid Flocken 05:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
It was difficult to find a "government" deffinition. I suggest a link from this page <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_and_binding_theory> to that page <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_%28linguistics%29> dont know how to do it...
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.203.70.53 (talk) 13:44, August 21, 2007 (UTC)
Why is the "b" in the title capital? If it's the title of Chomsky's book, it should be capitalized, but if it's a common noun, it should not. Wikipedia article titles do not usually capitalize common nouns. Michael Hardy 02:25, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
--- The above comment (re: capitalization in the title of the article) is, as I understand it, both misguided and mistaken. First, I think that the standards for capitalization are certainly satisfied by the properties of the usage of "binding" used here; i.e. i think it is perfectly acceptable to capitalize it, e.g. "Binding." But moreover, I think it atraditional and antiquated to say anything about whether a word "should not" be capitalized; perhaps Wikipedia article titles are usually not capitalized, but I think it strikingly presriptivist (cf. prescriptive) to assume that fact to entail that this one should not be. --snwright
---
I should really learn not to worry about these things. I had a read of the Naming conventions (capitalization), and had a look at usage on the internet. It appears anything goes. So, if you want to change the article back, I promise to leave the title alone. I'm still hoping to add to the content - it's on my mental to-do list. Regards Dduck 12:31, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Making this article coherent
This page needs to show the various parse trees it discusses so readers can follow along. Instead of giving the four examples up front and then running through the binding principles, it should devote a subsection to each principle, and illustrate each with one or more examples.
Even while writing it, I felt the explantion of the c-command in "John saw his mother" was hand-wavy, so I'm not sure it's entirely correct. -- Beland 02:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Removal clean up tag
Have got rid of the above as I can not see the reason for it. The article may not be the clearest explanation ever of GB theory but its not bad enough to deserve the tag. Marcus22 17:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tree Diagram
The tree is kind of weird. The "ming vase" DP should be a sister to V, and the PP an adjunct to V. Also, as it stands, with PP as a complement to DP, the reading must be something like, "He smashed the ming vase, and this ming vase owned a hammer." This looks like a botched double VP shell or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.170.183 (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
