Talk:Antisymmetry

Too technical, not enough context

I think this article needs to give more context. Why do syntacticians care about this? What motivates looking at language in this way? The article could also benefit from a less-technical introduction to the idea, so that non-syntacticians can make sense of it. That's not to say that the technical part should be "dumbed down", just that they should be presented in an intuitive non-technical sense first, to convey the general idea, then given in more detail for someone who wants to know more. Not trying to complain, just pointing out some improvements that I think would bring this to a wider audience, with fewer headaches. (If they want headaches, they can go get the original paper). joo-yoon (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I know a lot about linguistics but this article is completely incomprehensible to me, as are many other linguistics-related articles. I think it needs to be rewritten somewhat so that at least amateur linguists like me can understand it. You can't just jump into ever-more-obscure terms continuously without ever explaining at least what their basic idea is. I don't want to have to click every single concept. Vegfarandi (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Question

When defining c-command in the first section, the article says that AP does not exclude BP, but, from the definition of exclusion higher up it seems that AP should exclude BP. Will someone explain this to me?--SurrealWarrior 11:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Scientific context requested

Is this theory considered mainstream, experimental, kooky, or what? -- Beland 19:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It depends on who you ask. There are certainly a lot of people assume Antisymmetry, but there are more who don't. It has a large enough following to be taken seriously, even if it's not the commonly accepted doctrine on linearization. Note, though, that there still isn't really a generally agreed upon theory of linear order. 66.183.97.133 (talk) 08:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)