Talk:Generative linguistics: Difference between revisions
imported>John Stephenson (article checklist) |
imported>Sandy Harris No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{subpages}} | ||
== Critiques? Attacks? == | |||
I think we need to add some information on critiques of generative linguistics. It has been extremely influential, but it is far from universally accepted. There are other styles of linguistic work; Halliday and company leap to my mind, but an expert could likely think of more. | |||
Also, there has been controversy between generativists and natural language AI workers. Dresher & Hornstein "On Some Supposed Contributions of Artificial Intelligence to the Scientific Study of Language". Cognition 4 (December):321-398 and the rebuttal by Terry Winograd, (1977), "On some contested suppositions of generative linguistics about the scientific study of language," Cognition 5, 1977, 151-179 are a fine example. There were several other papers in that debate, including one by Lakoff. [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 05:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 23:41, 19 October 2011
Critiques? Attacks?
I think we need to add some information on critiques of generative linguistics. It has been extremely influential, but it is far from universally accepted. There are other styles of linguistic work; Halliday and company leap to my mind, but an expert could likely think of more.
Also, there has been controversy between generativists and natural language AI workers. Dresher & Hornstein "On Some Supposed Contributions of Artificial Intelligence to the Scientific Study of Language". Cognition 4 (December):321-398 and the rebuttal by Terry Winograd, (1977), "On some contested suppositions of generative linguistics about the scientific study of language," Cognition 5, 1977, 151-179 are a fine example. There were several other papers in that debate, including one by Lakoff. Sandy Harris 05:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)