Talk:Merge (linguistics)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Merge (linguistics) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Linguistics: Theoretical Linguistics Mid‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Theoretical Linguistics Task Force.

Untitled

In his blog: crashing minimalism the Moroccan linguistYoussef Romadi attacked the merge in minimalist program and he has given three proofs for his claim against bottom up merge source crashing minimalism blog —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.248.230.198 (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge-tag

Please tell me someone sees the humor in this merge request.

LOL Russky1802 —Preceding comment was added at 16:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Merge-tag

The topic of the article is an important part of Generative Transformational Grammar, thus it deserves its own article and specialized literature section. Since noone has ever discussed the issue besides the original proposer during the last thirteen months, I've removed the merge-tag. Omnipaedista (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generative Grammar

As chomsky and his followrers proceeeds in a bottom -up fashion ie the sentence is built up in the language faculty bottom upwardly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.243.108 (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible revisions and additions

To reflect the rapidly moving advances in this area, possible addition to and revision of this article include: (i) exemplification of Internal Merge versus External Merge; (ii) contrast of Set Merger with Pair Merger; (iii) discussion of Low Merge; (iv) discussion of the Extension Condition; (v) exemplification of Recursive Merge; (vi) discussion of Narrow Syntax; (v) discussion of mathematical "Minimalist Grammars" (along the lines of Ed Stabler at UCLA).RM Dechaine (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other aspects of Merge that it would be useful to discuss include (i) projection, (ii) labelling, and (iii) and an expansion concerning the debate regarding binary branching vs. n-nary branching structures.Mebhuijs (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should possibly add a simpler initial definition of feature checking, since it features heavily in the initial description here. Asbosurgi (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article should include a definition of 'syntactic object' and 'uninterpretable feature'.Sallesros (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (syntax)?

Should this article be moved to Merge (syntax)? I don't think the topic of this article has obvious primacy over phonological merger as the main referent of the word "merge" in linguistics. AJD (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]