Talk:Relational grammar
Add topicLatest comment: 7 months ago by Nlacara in topic Still a stub?
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Relational grammar article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Keep apart. Relational grammar was a very different framework, primarily attempting to deal with passivization through chômage. It is quite different from the umbrella of transformational grammar. mitcho/芳貴 (talk) 13:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- yes, there is no way these are same type of syntactic analysis. i'll remove the merger note now. – ishwar (speak) 19:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
status in the history of the study of syntax
[edit]Article should mention that while RG influenced some subsequent theories, there are probably very few linguists currently working who call what they do "RG"... AnonMoos (talk) 06:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Still a stub?
[edit]I've tried to flesh out this article a bit, with some sources available to me. Is it still a stub, or can I remove the stub header? And if it is, could anyone please recommend additional sources that I could use to flesh it out further? Thanks! --ZeegoTheDeer (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think this article is still a stub, to be honest. There is very little discussion or how RG works or its core concepts. The Other Features section is just three bullet points, with no explanation at all. I'm working on fleshing this part of the article out and reworking the part on hierarchies so it doesn't read like a background blurb from conference paper, but I'm not an expert on RG and this article would benefit a lot from somebody who is more familiar with the framework. Nlacara (talk) 07:16, 28 December 2025 (UTC)