Talk:minimalist

RFV discussion: January–February 2022
Rfv-senses "(sciences, linguistics) (usually of a model or theory) Involving a small/large number of features or parameters, perhaps fewer/more than necessary"

Is this common enough to be included as a separate sense? What kind of parameters? Is this for statistical models? – Jberkel 22:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * In linguistics there is the so-called, stemming from the title of Chomsky’s essay, “A minimalist program for linguistic theory”. When Chomsky penned down that title, I don’t think his intention was to introduce a new sense for an existing adjective, but currently the adjective is used by linguists to mean “conforming to the aspirations of the Minimalist program” (as, e.g., in “”; note that this article speaks of “the mainstream Minimalist literature” – which does definitely not refer to ). Used in this Chomskyan sense, the adjective is often written with a capital letter. I’m not aware of a more general use in such a restricted sense in other fields of science. --Lambiam 23:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Is the Chomskyan sense used with maximalist as well? The definitions added by the IP suggest they are used as a pair. – Jberkel 00:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Also, if I saw a reference to a "maximalist model" or "maximalist theory", I'd expect it not to mean to signify that the model or theory has a large number of features (not a good thing), but that it aims to cover a comprehensive range of phenomena (a good thing). So, not only should a “maximalist” theory of colour vision explain the usual in relation to the spectral sensitivity profiles of the types of s of the retina, but also  and the .  --Lambiam 09:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed – Jberkel 18:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)