This is a slightly altered version from a text I wrote for the Citizendium 147.88.200.144 11:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I modified this pair of sentences: "In 'Words and Rules'Steven Pinker shows this process at work with regular and irregular verbs: the former is collected and provides us with rules which can be applied to unknown words (for example, the –ed ending for past tense verbs allows us to decline the neologism “to google” into “googled”). Other patterns, the irregular verbs, are stored separately as unique items to be memorized." The new sentences: "In "Words and Rules", Steven Pinker shows this process at work with regular and irregular verbs: We collect the former, which provide us with rules we can apply to unknown words (for example, the ‑ed ending for past tense verbs allows us to decline the neologism “to google” into “googled”). Other patterns, the irregular verbs, we store separately as unique items to be memorized." fuper (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Headings as Questions

Does the Manual of Style say anything about this? It seems like an essay-type thing, but for an encyclopedia (or encyclopædia, whichever) is this proper?

Thanks!

Lunakeet —Preceding comment was added at 23:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biased Point of View

It seems to me that this article is biased in its point of view, addressing only functionalist/stochastic views of the lexicon. There are many reasonable views of the lexicon, and the principles that govern its construction in the formalist literature. Particularly among practitioners of HPSG and LFG. I'm not qualified to write anything about it here, but this article seems not to have a neutral POV. AndrewCarnie (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)