Comments on: Impossible is nothing! http://www.linglish.net/2008/06/25/impossible-is-nothing/ Where English meets Linguistics Tue, 06 Jan 2009 04:50:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: kalebeul » More inane language punditry from Amando de Miguel http://www.linglish.net/2008/06/25/impossible-is-nothing/comment-page-1/#comment-19 kalebeul » More inane language punditry from Amando de Miguel Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:20:18 +0000 http://www.linglish.net/?p=29#comment-19 [...] As Thomas Tsoi explains, the English is perfectly grammatical, although rather unusual. [...] [...] As Thomas Tsoi explains, the English is perfectly grammatical, although rather unusual. [...]

]]> By: Keanu http://www.linglish.net/2008/06/25/impossible-is-nothing/comment-page-1/#comment-18 Keanu Mon, 25 Aug 2008 01:50:04 +0000 http://www.linglish.net/?p=29#comment-18 Appreciate you post. My buddy advice to visit you. It’s very interesting. Subscribed! Want to visit your site again! Appreciate you post. My buddy advice to visit you. It’s very interesting. Subscribed! Want to visit your site again!

]]> By: Thomas Tsoi http://www.linglish.net/2008/06/25/impossible-is-nothing/comment-page-1/#comment-17 Thomas Tsoi Thu, 17 Jul 2008 04:04:39 +0000 http://www.linglish.net/?p=29#comment-17 Very true. There’s always something to appreciate in any respectable theory. Very true. There’s always something to appreciate in any respectable theory.

]]> By: Calvino http://www.linglish.net/2008/06/25/impossible-is-nothing/comment-page-1/#comment-16 Calvino Thu, 17 Jul 2008 03:12:22 +0000 http://www.linglish.net/?p=29#comment-16 Every theory has something right about it otherwise it won’t be called a theory. But unless one has enough knowledge of both grammars, one can hardly compare their limitations in deep. Most laymen are emotionally attached to what they specialize and not able to receive whatever comment against their belief. I truly believe you are open-mind, which is the most important quality when one seeks knowledge. Every theory has something right about it otherwise it won’t be called a theory. But unless one has enough knowledge of both grammars, one can hardly compare their limitations in deep.

Most laymen are emotionally attached to what they specialize and not able to receive whatever comment against their belief. I truly believe you are open-mind, which is the most important quality when one seeks knowledge.

]]> By: Thomas Tsoi http://www.linglish.net/2008/06/25/impossible-is-nothing/comment-page-1/#comment-15 Thomas Tsoi Thu, 17 Jul 2008 02:36:07 +0000 http://www.linglish.net/?p=29#comment-15 To be honest, I think generative grammar is a much more beautiful theory than functional grammar, scientifically speaking. I always feel that functional grammar has a lot of explanatory power but too little predicative power, which renders it a pseudoscientific theory (or maybe it didn’t intend to be a scientific theory in the beginning anyway, its applications are often pedagogic). On the other hand, generative grammar starts off from a few assumptions (universals and principles, language acquisition device, etc.), a set of tools (X-bar theory, case theory, etc.), and proceeds to demonstrate its power both in explaining existing structures as well as predicting possible structures. It’s simply marvellous! Admittedly there are some difficulties with the theory, but if a theory can explain so many phenomena across different languages, there has to be something right about it. That’s what I believe. Maybe I should mention that generative grammar is not only about drawing syntactic trees and analysing sentences into NPs and VPs. They are only tools to help us understand how the brain process language. Drawing trees is just like basic arithmetic, and generative grammar is like physics. While physics applies mathematics to understand our physical world, the beauty of generative grammar is in its application of these analytic tools to understand our mind. To be honest, I think generative grammar is a much more beautiful theory than functional grammar, scientifically speaking. I always feel that functional grammar has a lot of explanatory power but too little predicative power, which renders it a pseudoscientific theory (or maybe it didn’t intend to be a scientific theory in the beginning anyway, its applications are often pedagogic).

On the other hand, generative grammar starts off from a few assumptions (universals and principles, language acquisition device, etc.), a set of tools (X-bar theory, case theory, etc.), and proceeds to demonstrate its power both in explaining existing structures as well as predicting possible structures. It’s simply marvellous! Admittedly there are some difficulties with the theory, but if a theory can explain so many phenomena across different languages, there has to be something right about it. That’s what I believe.

Maybe I should mention that generative grammar is not only about drawing syntactic trees and analysing sentences into NPs and VPs. They are only tools to help us understand how the brain process language. Drawing trees is just like basic arithmetic, and generative grammar is like physics. While physics applies mathematics to understand our physical world, the beauty of generative grammar is in its application of these analytic tools to understand our mind.

]]>