Talk:Shifting (syntax)

Merge this entry with "Heavy NP Shift"

The standard term for this phenomenon is "Heavy NP Shift", so this should be merged with the "Heavy NP Shift" entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RM Dechaine (talk • contribs) 19:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. There is dative shift and particle shift, neither of which need involve a particularly heavy NP. If anything, the article on Heavy NP shift, since heave NP shift is one particular type of shifting, might be merged into this article on shifting. --Tjo3ya (talk) 11:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Editorial changes: stylistic

This entry is being edited as part of a class project; we will be standardizing the references by integration the notes with the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RM Dechaine (talk • contribs) 19:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Please share with me the nature of the class project. What class? At what university? What is the level of the students? --Tjo3ya (talk) 11:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I am the student who will be editing this page. I am an undergraduate student in upper level Syntax. I'd prefer not to give specific details of the school but I will say that it is a well known school in Canada. I will be focusing more on psycholinguistics side of Heavy NP shift and when talkers of English tend to use this strategy. I will be adding relevant information about other languages that use Heavy NP shifting as well. I will be editing this page until early December.

Why the secrecy? Why not be open about who you are and what you are doing and intending to accomplish? I must say that I am skeptical that students at your level can do a good job with such a task. Case in point, shifting of a heavy NP is just one type of shifting, yet your comment and the comment of RM Dechaine suggest that you are unaware of this fact. Please tell your instructor (RM Dechaine?) to respond here. He/she should not push that off on you. --Tjo3ya (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it is unfair of you to assume that I don't have the capability of doing research and to think critically about a subject. You were a student once too and I am sure you would have appreciated support from the linguistics community rather than your superiors doubting you. I am eager to learn, so instead of you casting doubt, maybe it would be nice if you reached out and were open to a collaboration with me to enhance this page. After all, Wikipedia is for public to engage and learn more, no? I am not trying to step over your work and I am aware that in the field of linguistics there are different theories that we all don't agree on. If we all agreed on the same things, how would anyone think critically about our interests and curiosities? So, I will be updating this page this week and I accept feedback from you as long as it is constructive. I am learning and I believe in my research capabilities to do a good job on updating this page.

I do not want to give you my name because of the way you are commenting on here and I think it is fair to keep at least my name private on the internet. It's not me being sneaky or secretive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaitlynMMartinson (talk • contribs) 23:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Your name appears to be Kaitlyn Martinson. You are likely a junior at the University of British Columbia. You are likely taking part in a project with many other juniors in a 300 level linguistics course. Your instructor may be Rosemary Dechaine. Note that I have asked Rosemary Dechaine to provide an overview of the Wikipedia articles her class is editing -- but as of yet, no response (that I am aware of).

My assumption is that you have had a class or two on standard mainstream syntax. You have therefore learned to do syntax in one way. What textbook have you used? My guess is that you've learned just standard Chomskyan GB/MP style syntax. You likely have little exposure to other ways of doing syntax. That is where the problem may lie. Note that I make these statements based on the experience of reading a couple of articles that were produced the last time Rosemary Dechaine had her students contribute to Wikipedia articles.

Concerning anonymity, Wikipedia of course does not require that editors reveal their identities. The difficulty with that, though, is that anonymity emboldens contributors, often in unhelpful ways. The number of trolls on the internet is indeed great.Tjo3ya (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

While I appreciate your feedback, I find it extremely disheartening and judgemental. Also, Rose Marie is a great professor and well known in her field. I wouldn't have taken on this project if I didn't think I would be able to or did not have the background to do so. I am not looking to CHANGE any theory or anything like that, I am just distributing information from articles I have read online from valuable sources. I will only be editing the Heavy NP shift page from now on and will no longer be editing this page since it seems you will make it impossible for me anyway. I encourage constructive criticism assuming you will now be watching the HNPS page like a hawk. Wikipedia is a great source for disseminating information in the public domain and Heavy NP shift is an area that needs to be improved upon in wikipedia. My goal is to put out information that is accessible and a starting ground for people who are interested in the subject like students. I highly doubt PhD linguists would come to wikipedia for their source, however it is a great starting ground for research, especially for students like myself. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaitlynMMartinson (talk • contribs) 01:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)