Talk:Generative semantics

history section

Unfortunately I had to delete the "history" section because it was (except for a few clauses) word-for-word plagiarized from Bagha et al.'s "Generative Semantics (2011). --Loadedonloaded (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

should include a note about "General Semantics"

I think there should be a brief note, perhaps in italics, immediately under the heading which says something to the effect "Not to be confused with General Semantics (Korzybski)", because many readers might not realize the distinction between the two, especially if quickly skimming (i.e., they may very easily confuse the two terms by blurring together the words "General" and "Generative" [when each is followed by the same word, "Semantics"], as I often have). I'd do it now but I'm not sure how and I don't want to screw it up.--Shanoman (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. Done. Ludling (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is only about the interpretive meaning of the term: "Generative Semantics"

It seems this article only concerns with the research programme called: "Generative Semantics". The term has a much wider use. Please do not stop my attemts to describe the words meanings as other than a name for some research program. Like the generative meaning of the term.--- [unsigned comment by 84.208.186.192]

It's not clear what you mean. Who uses this term? For what purpose? Can you provide some citations for where this usage occurs? Your use of the terms "interpretive" and "generative" are confusing in this context, because they are already used in the article to mean something quite different from what you apparently mean (this article explicitly states that generative semantics is generative, not interpretative, exactly the opposite of what you're saying). Can you restate your position using different (non-jargon) terminology?

Also, your formatting of the talk page was broken. You should spend some time learning proper Wikipedia markup before you start editing pages.

Finally, please sign your talk page comments with four tildes.Ludling (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Science?

Why is this called a science? It cannot be proved or disproved, it has no testable predictions. Like all pseudoscience, it is hidden behind a wall of jargon and esoteric language. It's on a similar level to David Icke.--Cuthbert Bargepole (talk) 06:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your rant would appear to have more relevance to the field of academic linguistics as a whole than to this particular theory, which was strongest in the 1970s, and doesn't exist as an active research program anymore (though it influenced several sub-fields). Read in Steven Pinker's The Language Instinct starting at chapter 9 for facts about the real world discovered with help from academic linguistics... AnonMoos (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]