Chomsky's concern now is mostly with politics. It's true that language is universal but it does not mean that any language should be explained by a so called "universal" theory. Diversity is spice for language study,too.以下是引用 xuyi 在 2006-3-23 14:06:56 的发言：
'Chinese language study should not be restrained and polluted by blindly following the imported theory and theories' ==i disagree. Language is universal. You should read Chomsky. It's just not convincing to say that only Chinese is different. Whether it is called relative clause or not, something in essence is the same. Hsiao & Gibson's article is a famous one, and the PhD thesis makes sense to me. Only, shouldn't they give an example of the non-existence of the "gap"? I'm lost in that part.
以下是引用 xuyi 在 2006-4-16 8:55:54 的发言：
Dr. Xiao, i have a question:
I feel they are all different. Why do you say that 1) and 2) have the same function? I feel 1) is genitive and 2) is the relative marker.
以下是引用 xuyi 在 2006-4-16 9:26:57 的发言：
Dr.Xiao I also couldn't find this dissertation Wong, May Lai-Yin (2005) "Adverbial Clauses in Mandarin Chinese: A Corpus-based Study" in our library's database. Where can i get it? Many thanks in advance!