Talk:Linguistics/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Censorship @ Wikipedian Linguistics?

Ah! What is this? Let's rename this article as 'The Art of Censorship'. What say? /me calls for a poll. Alvinpoe (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing irrelevant links is not censorship, it's improving the encyclopedia. —Angr 14:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? Alvinpoe (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Foucault etc. are not linguists, not even remotely linguists. Linguistics is a science. Post-structuralism and semiotics are not. So I agree with the deletion. AndrewCarnie (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, post-structuralism is a philosophical movement, while semiotics is indeed a science. This, of course, does not give credence to the original research currently being pushed. And of course, Foucault was not a linguist, he was a philosopher. He wrote about language, but that doesn't make you a linguist any more than keeping a bug collection makes you an entomologist. A linguist is a person who practices the academic discipline of linguistics, not just anyone who likes to talk or think about language. szyslak (t) 10:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Greetings.

There is a grammatical mistake with this sentence:

"Linguistics is a science."

I'll explain why. Linguistics is not a "science" and nor is it a "philosophy", just as it is not a "history". Or an "anthropology". Now, now. Would you ever utter the sentence, "Linguistics is a mathematics"? You might say that linguistics is mathematical, or that linguistics employs a mathematical approach. Right? I don't think I need to draw any trees to explain this. (Sorry, couldn't resist.) Linguistics is a subject that employs the scientific, philosophical, anthropological, mathematical, literary, semiotic[...] approaches to enquire about language. Now if you are saying that people who are linguists ONLY employ the scientific approach and the mathematical one and none of the rest, atleast you might sound grammatically correct. However, there are thousands of people in this world, who whether you like it or not, will approach it in whatever way they like, and your disapproval, or Mr Chomsky's disapproval, or even Mr Chomsky's Chomsky's disapproval, may not really count. Supriya 18:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, so not only do you misunderstand what linguistics is, you misunderstand what the word science means too. Linguistics is a subject that employs the scientific method to analyze language, just like biology is a subject that employs the scientific method to analyze living creatures and astronomy is a subject that employs the scientific method to study the stars, planets, etc. Studies that use the scientific method are called "sciences"; the word "science" can grammatically be used as a count noun in this sense. —Angr 18:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you missed the satire in my words about what "grammar" means, let's pretend it never happened and move on. FYI, anything can use the scientific method: not just biology or zoology or linguistics. To be scientific in one's approach, is to take natural laws into account, and not as final ends - the way you do. Language is the end in linguistics, and not society, or biology or neurology, or even "literature". These are only means to understand language. What do I care about the shape of the larynx when it is only a means to speech, and admiration of its structure or form, rather than that of words themselves a pointless waste of my time? That's one example. Yes, I have a larynx and so I speak; yes I have toungue with muscles that move on it; yes two and two is four and not five - but get stuck on these vacuumed pieces of information and voila, like magic, you have no language left in you. Supriya 18:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

comment deleted by its author

Sorry I had to peep at the history, curious that I am about responses to my ignorance.

Since when did wikipedia start endorsing qualifications and allowing people "to speak" based on their degrees? I'll put up my CV here if that's the case, sure, but wow, I never knew it was supposed to be relevant on a public encyclopedia. Even my niece who just finished her 10th standard has the right to log onto wikipedia and exercize her opinions, not PhD holders alone. The Linguistic Society of America, is an institution, and no single institution's word on any discipline is final, correct or incorrect that it might be. There are millions of sources in the world, you know: David Crystal, for one, who is a "linguist" has challenged the rather--simplistic--definition of linguistics (as a "science") in his introductory book. There are millions of such sources out there, but then if we are into censorship, what can I say. Supriya 09:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You and your niece and the rest of us all have the right to read and edit Wikipedia (the first cannot be revoked, the second can) – but to "exercise our opinions"? No, Wikipedia isn't the place for opinions. —Angr 10:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Supriya, please allow me to clear up your rather grave misunderstandings of how Wikipedia works. (I think your grave misunderstandings of what linguistics is have been more than adequately addressed by others.) Yes, we're the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. However, "anyone can edit" doesn't mean "anything goes". We are not an experiment in anarchy. In particular, it is not the case that anyone "has he right to log onto [Wikipedia] and [exercise] his or her opinions". Adding "your own opinion" to articles is known as original research, which is prohibited by official policy. Talk pages can contain our own opinions, but only to the end of building a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia free of original research. If you or your niece want to share your personal opinions with the world, you're free to take advantage of the many free blog and webhosting services out there. szyslak (t) 10:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

And the article in its current form, or your statements on linguistics, is supposed to be "fact"? Ha! I'd ask you to prove it, but I'm sure you have some excuse ready about why it should be considered so. Supriya 10:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Unlike Supriya's original theories, my statements on linguistics are verifiable. The website of any university linguistics department will say, on its front page, "Linguistics is the scientific study of language". Within this field, it's as basic a fact as "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" is in the field of history. Please remember, the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. szyslak (t) 20:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The claim that linguistics is a science dates back at least to Sapir: Sapir, Edward (1929) The Status of Linguistics as a Science. Language 5.4: 207-214. And this is the dominant methodology in the field. AndrewCarnie (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

So, the argument is about whether or not Foucault or Derrida were linguists? No. They were philosophers. Philosophers with an interest in the philosophy of language, but that is also not the same thing as linguistics. It would be appropriate to mention them on a philosophy of language page, but not directly from the linguistics page with no other introduction to their methodology or works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.76.63 (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This will change. I promise you. Nothing lasts. Romanticism didn't; enlightenment didn't. Nor did the age of reason. Grammaticality won't either. Everything comes with an expiry date. Good luck, "linguists"! Alvinpoe (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, we need to do something about the censorship... Alvinpoe (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a massive difference between censorship and just removing irrelevant content from an article. You may not be surprised to learn that the archives of the Evolution talk page are littered with cries of "censorship" from creationists. Now, if you're interested in improving Wikipedia's coverage of Foucault and Derrida's work on language, you might like to focus your attention on this section. I have to add, though, that I am troubled by something you say on your user page: "Watch out for my new theories on language; they'll be up shortly." Please read this page: WP:No original research. Wikipedia is not the place for new theories of any sort, except what is published in peer reviewed journals. And even then, please bear in mind WP:undue. garik (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC) modified by garik (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear fellow, I wonder why you jump to make assumptions. When I say up shortly, they can be up shortly anywhere, not just on wikipedia. As for them being up on wikipedia, it won't be me who will put them up here, though, that I can assure you. (It might just be you.) Alvinpoe (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Demand

I demand that we have more writing on Derrida, Foucault, Barthes, Crystal and the other guys. -- Alvinpoe (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You demand? Wikipedia articles don't get changed because someone makes demands, but through discussion and consensus-building. Derrida, Foucault, and Barthes aren't linguists, so they're irrelevant to this article. David Crystal is famous for making linguistics accessible to non-linguists, not for his contributions to the study of linguistics itself. —Angr 19:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Angr. Derrida, Foucault and Barthes are no more linguists than Claude Lévi-strauss. Certainly, they all drew inspiration and ideas from the structural-linguistics of Ferdinand de Saussure, but calling them linguists would be like calling Gilles Deleuze a botanist because of his extensive metaphorical/theoretical use of plants. What's more, I think that the claims you are making in this page you have made are either highly contentious or out of place and ought to be put in other articles. --Le vin blanc (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have sent the article listed above, now at Linguistics (poststructural), for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linguistics (poststructural). szyslak (t) 22:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling that Alvinpoe is smearing wikipedia here and here? --Le vin blanc (talk) 12:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What he does off-wiki is his business. —Angr 13:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Why this article is not NPOV in its current form

"The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly."

"None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one."

"As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints."

Supriya 08:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Also from the policy:

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Now, what is it specifically that you think is NPOV about this article? Your complaint is meaningless without specifics. -- Donald Albury 14:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I am going by what is written in the policy guidelines on wikipedia. Mailing list points? Where does that come from? If you compare your points versus the ones I've quoted above. They contradict each other. I don't see how they can both go under wikipedia's name. As far as specifics, the discussion archives should explain that to you. Supriya 16:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we please give this discussion a rest - it's getting us nowhere! Supriya, your repeated edits have been rejected by the consensus of other editors on this page, so please just give in with good grace. --Pfold (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Pfold, I do not wish to shut up. Supriya 18:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And Donald Albury, I'm still waiting for an answer - where did these points pop up from? And what about the fact that they contradict? I'll wait for you to answer that question. Ok? Supriya 18:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Donald Albury is quoting WP:UNDUE, the idea that a topic of minority interest should not overwhelm the main subject or viewpoint of an article. Earth should not mention Flat Earth, and Flat Earth should certainly not dominate Earth. Jimbo Wales, also known as User:Jimbo Wales, is the founder of wikipedia, the last word on its policies and guidelines and has the power to over-rule the arbitration committee's otherwise ultimate authority on wikipedia. Undue is the answer to people who assert that the NPOV policy means X tiny minority theory deserves equal space; in order to be signficant enough to get substantial text, interest in the theory should be easily demonstrable through reliable sources. POV and UNDUE issues are complicated and rely on judgement, and it may be appropriate to bring this up at WP:NPOVN; note that persisitant POV-pushing can get you blocked, so if an argument has consistently failed to garner consensus, continuing to bring it up on talk pages is rather dangerous.

I'm assuming this is about poststructural linguistics? Based on the sources I saw and the debate of the AFD discussion, it's dubious to even call poststructural linguistics a minority position, and I think it would be undue weight to have any mention of it in the main article. I must agree with DA - the page is not tagged as POV, there's no indication of what is POV in the discussion, ergo no changes can or should be made. The non-neutral points should be clearly raised for discussion if an actual discussion should take place. Without discussion of specifics, this looks pointy, and like a fight is being picked. Perhaps the POV issues should be re-stated, backed up with sources.

However, if they are exactly the same as previous points raised and there are no new sources, this very much would look like POV-pushing and may warrant a posting at the adminstrator's noticeboard. The last AN discussion I was involved in resulted in a topic ban for the editor in question, something to think about Supriya. The community's patience is not unlimited and continuing to fight consensus is a great way to get an enforced vacation from editing. WLU (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit, that I agree, that this article is heavily biased towards Chomskyan styled linguistics. While it is true that Chomsky flavour of language theory is overwhelmingly dominant in the US, it is far from the case in the rest of the world, especially among European linguists who often adhere to functionalist theories of grammar. The argument between the structuralist and functionalist schools has been going on for ages, and I think it's a shame that this article only presents the view of one side in this argument. --Eculeus (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see that this article is particularly pro-Chomsky. There's not much info about theoretical linguistics here anyway; most of this article is general and descriptive enough that it doesn't take a stance on the various approaches. Still, adding more info on non-Chomskyan linguistics is fine, as long as the info is still about linguistics (the scientific study of grammar-based human language), and doesn't veer off into discussion of things unrelated to the topic at hand. —Angr 19:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed a shame, Eculeus, and it is even more shameful, that in spite of there having been rigorous debates, many people opposing to the above censorship, as well as a lot of protest, some people continue to have the power to misuse this medium. Supriya 18:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between "this majority position is not expressed on the page" and "refusing to post a section about this tiny minority position is censorship". The failure to find sources to that adequately back the idea of poststructural linguistics has nothing to do with the failure of the current page to discuss structuralism or structural linguistics. The latter should certiainly be addressed; Eculeus, if you have reliable sources discussing structuralism, please add them to the page to the degree that structuralism is prominent in the field of linguistics. Note that even if European, the sources are still valid and non-English sources are perfectly acceptable (though if challenged, you'll have to defend the translation or seek a neutral third-party).

Supriyya - the problem with post-structural linguistics was one of sources, not censorship. Please stop soapboxing; either find the sources or drop it. WLU (talk) Wikipedia's rules^(simplified) 19:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree to an extent with Eculeus, there isn't enough about functionalism on this page. The main theoretical divide in linguistics is between functionalism and formalism. But it is NOT about structuralism vs. post structuralism. (There are plenty of functionalist theories (Prague School, Cognitive Grammar, Firthian linguistics, Word Grammar, Construction Grammar, Kuno's Functional Grammar, Dik's Functional Grammar, Role and Reference Grammar) which are structuralist.) I think there is a confusion, because linguistics of the 1950s and 1960s was often called "Structural Linguistics", but this brand of linguistics evolved into several brands of functionalism (and NOT (!!!) into Generative grammar). So I'd encourage Eculeus (or someone else) to expand the discussion of Functionalism.AndrewCarnie (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I second that. garik (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure the article is pro-Chomsky, but is certainly centered around him. The second paragraph reads: "Over the twentieth century, following the work of Noam Chomsky, linguistics came to be dominated by the Generativist school, which is chiefly concerned with explaining how human beings acquire language and the biological constraints on this acquisition". Generativism has indeed proven to be a breakthrough in the field, but I think "dominated" is hardly the right word to use here. As it has alredy being said, the european tradition has followed a completly different path and I can't really see it's being represented in the article. It's also problematic the segretaion of different linguistic schools. The debate shouldn't be over functionalism, structuralism, post-structuralism or whatever people are fan of. There are small mentions on how sapir, bloomfield, founded the US structuralism, but not on how it's different from European structuralism. Furthermore, there is no historical POV on how these two school of thought had an impact in later theories. European structuralism and functionalism are heavily influenced by Saussure, on the other hand, Generativsm is descendant of US structuralism, and each of these schools, while different, share some fundamental concepts such as "Structure". Also, while is a small mention of the relationship between linguistics and semiotics, Peirce's sign is another relevant view on what a sign is, that should not be discarded up front when discussing linguistics. While it's easy to think of Foucault & Derrida as philosophers, they have made significant contributions (with Barthes, Deleuze, etc.) on a linguistic theory funded on the relation between the individual and the social aspects of language, as opposed to the biologism found in generativism.

I'm just quickly writing what comes to my head here, but I think this piece deserves a deeper review of it's contents; we should work towards displaying the variety of a field inherently complex, discarding unuseful notions as "domination". While this may serve to the purpose of an article that displays the history of linguistics, does not serve well to show major & minor theories within the field. As for the discussion over science and linguistics, we should move on as it is unresolved now (and it will be unresolved for a long time) how we define "social sciences" (and forcing scientific method in social sciences straight out from the natural sciences has proved to be artificial). Orson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.138.14.100 (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Orson, sigh - I wish this place could have been a platform for a more genuine article. If you read the discussion archives, you'll see that I've been screaming myself hoarse over exactly what you are saying in your comment above. However, until censorship ends here, and the rest of us grow up, I don't see any hope of improving this article. Supriya 07:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Functionalists and introspection

The article says about functionalists "They reject Chomskyan intuitive introspection as a scientific method, relying instead on typological evidence." I have a few problems with this sentence but since I am not a functionalist linguist, and know not a lot about functionalists, I am very hesitant to change it. For a start it seems to suggest typological evidence and introspection are mutually exclusive. But typological evidence is generated by comparing different languages with eah other. The information about these languages comes (usually) from grammar books and articles. These grammar books and articles could very well be based on introspection, either by the writer who is a native speaker or by the informants. So a lot of typlogical evidence is ultimately based on introspection. Introspection and typological evidence refer to different kinds of things, typological evidence is a kind of evidence, introspection is a kind of gathering evidence. My second problem is that it seems to me that many functionalists don't regret introspection, but reject it as the only or primary source of data, and would rather use it along with corpus data for example, but then again, I am not a functionalist so my impression could be wrong. --Merijn2 (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Literary Linguistics

Would this just fall under "Stylistic linguistics" or would it be it's own category? Languageleon (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a general problem with "prefixing" linguistics with these "adjectives", although I did start a page called "post-structural linguistics" myself out of desperation, which alas, too, was deleted on "popular consensus". The reason is that I think linguistics is - and was always meant to be - an "infinite" discipline. If there is a section called "literary linguistics" then there should also be (oh, wait, I think almost the entire article might fall under it!) a section called biological linguistics. Linguistics, like any other discipline, must be open to the whole world, not the interests of just one herd of academicians following some idea or perspective blindly. Stylistics is an entire field of study in itself, which is part of, and related to linguistics deeply. Besides, grammatically, it sounds weird, 'coz the activity of linguistics in itself cannot be literary or non-literary, stylistic or non-stylistic! Literature is a resource to study language, just as society is another resource, people is a third resource, the human brain (ahem) is a fourth one, and so on and so forth. Do sociologists who take literature into account indulge in "literary sociology"?! My "suggestion" remains as earlier: stop the censorship of topics and make the article wider in its scope and reflecting of a more realistic picture of what the study of language (which is what linguists do) really is about - whether you are talking about functionalist perspectives to linguistics, post-structuralist perspectives to linguistics, or Universal Grammar. Supriya 12:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Request

That editors who contribute to and watch this article check out this Article for Deletion nomination and comment. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've also added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Language, which is the usual way of letting people know about a deletion discussion related to language and linguistics. —Angr 14:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Natural?

Haha! So since when did linguistics become a study of only "natural" language? Is this supposed to be a signal for computer language and animal language to be shoved out of the door of any "linguistic understanding"? (Note: Please ignore the fact that computer language is being written by human beings)

This page gets more interesting every week. Watch out, I'd say! Supriya 07:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As ever, Supriyya, just because you don't like what linguistics is, that doesn't mean the Wikipedia article has to say what you wish linguistics were. Animal languages and computer languages are not part of the jurisdiction of linguistics and never have been. —Angr 10:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and could we please discuss in detail, again, what linguistics is, and also, if you don't mind, allow me to be audience to a longish explanation on who it is who says it is in fact so, and not to forget including a paragraph on why I, personally, should be forced to believe that? Pray, could we? Supriya 10:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

From what I've read on this page and its most recent archive, a sizeable majority of those weighing in on this subject seem to oppose the wordings persistently forwarded by Supriyya. To be specific, there are at least seven editors that support calling linguistics a science limited to natural language (Lingboy, garik, Angr, AndrewCarnie, dab, szyslak, WLU). These same people seem to oppose expanding coverage on post-structuralist linguistics per Foucault and Derrida, though here there seem to be at least two users (Alvinpoe and Orson) supporting Supriyya on this specific point.

Since there are reliable sources supporting the idea that linguistics is a science (e.g. Sapir, Edward (1929) The Status of Linguistics as a Science. Language 5.4: 207-214), perhaps we could discuss the reliability of sources which say otherwise? I recall Sapriyya noting David Crystal's introductory textbook challenges the notion of considering linguistics a science. Could we get a name for which of Crystal's books that suggestion is being made in, and perhaps a short excerpt showing the claim? Emw2012 (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to have much problem with calling it a science in his "What is linguistics?" blurb for the Bangor University website garik (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has a problem calling it a science, so much as with what is being called a science.

I could get the details of Crystal's book with the exact quotation about the debate he brings up on the issue of linguistics being called a science, and post them here - not before the 14th of this month, though. I'll be able to get my hands on it that time. Supriya 18:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you remember what the book was called? I happen to have three books by him here. The most obvious one to look at see,med to be What is linguistics? (1968/1985; London:Edward Arnold). On page 27 of this, he says: "Put simply, Linguistics is the scientific way of studying language". In Linguistics, Language and Religion (1965; London:Burns and Oates) he says, "The primary function of linguistics, it may be said, is to study scientifically all manifestations of human speech" (p.64) "Linguistics has been traditionally classified as one of the humanities, but this is insufficient for two reasons: it deals with problems that are fundamental to all sciences (problems of expression and terminology, for example), and its techniques and principles have themselves largely derived from the physical and natural sciences" (ibid.). In Linguistics (1975; London:Penguin) he goes into more detail, with a chapter entitled "Linguistic science". This may be what you're referring to. He says: "Linguistics, indeed, usually defines itself with reference to this criterion [that it be scientific]: it is the scientific study of language." (p.77) He then goes into a relatively lengthy discussion of what this means (pointing out that it is a "deceptively simple statement" [ibid.]). This lasts 50 pages, but he summarises it thus: "Looking back on this chapter, and reflecting on the current research in progress in linguistics, it must be admitted that the high ideals of scientific inquiry are by no means always lived up to by linguists [...] still, I fall back upon some such truism as 'Bad drivers do not invalidate the Highway Code.'" Is this what you mean? It seems to me to confirm that he views linguistics as a science, and that even though some work by linguists falls short of this mark, their work should not stop us considering the discipline to be a science. garik (talk)18:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Could I just point out that whether linguistics 'is' a science is quite a different question from whether some of its practitioners regard it as such. When a linguist claims what (s)he is doing is a science, that can be construed as just a self-interested attempt to raise the status of his/her specialism (and, incidentally, to deny any charge of subjectivity). Also, some areas of the subject are clearly more scientific than others - phonetics is manifestly more 'scientific' than semantics or historical linguistics.

I would rather see this issue decided by views from philosophers or historians of science, who are not subject this sort of self-interested bias. Where linguistics departments sit within university structures, which funding bodies do they get their money from - these would be other objective ways of deciding the matter. My own view is that the mere fact that this is a matter of debate within the subject means linguistics cannot be - or not yet, at least - a science. And for that reason I think it would more NPOV to say that linguists 'is regarded by some of its practitioners as a science'. --Pfold (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a reasonable point. However, I'm not sure that the two measures you suggest would much resolve the question. Universities vary in where they place linguistics; in some, it's in with language departments. In Edinburgh, on the other hand, it's in a school with Psychology and Philosophy, and has very little contact with language departments. Moreover, the placement of departments in a university structure depends to a great deal on historical perceptions of the discipline (as David Crystal points out). As for research councils: there's a fair amount of variation here too. Most British linguists, it seems to me, are funded by either the AHRC (Arts and Humanities) or the ESRC (Economics and Social Science); but I know at least one Canadian linguist who's funded by the NSERC (Natural Science and Engineering). I may be wrong, but I'd also be surprised if there was a much debate within the subject at all. There is a fair degree of debate as to what it means to say that linguistics is a science, but I suspect most linguists consider that it is a science in some sense. However, as you say, it would be good to have a citation from some disinterested philosopher or historian of science. garik (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I do believe that this whole issue of calling linguistics (and many other disciplines) a science, is partly economical. I recently found it hilarious to discover that central universities in India allocate "research" funds of Rs 4 lakhs per faculty each year, to departments that fall under Humanities, and Rs 10 lakhs per faculty each year, to departments that fall under the Sciences. I sympathize with the monetary greed of those of us who take up the noble profession of teaching, but I still think it would be much smarter to fight for equality than for money. Supriya 13:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Crystal's book that I have is simply called Linguistics. Give me time till the 14th, it's lying back at home. I'll post the exact details and quote chunks of it here on the talk page - from ISBN number to its date of publication. Supriya 13:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That kind of funding discrepancy does seem unfair, but it's not clear to me that calling linguistics a science is based mainly on a desire to attract more money (although doubtless some individuals see it that way). I suppose we have to be clear what we mean by science first. But it seems to me reasonable that a discipline be described as a science if it aims to uncover empirical facts about the world, and if uncovering these facts involves making testable hypotheses with falsifiable predictions. These, at least, seem to be the criteria most often cited in discussions of whether Intelligent Design constitutes a science (for example). And according to these criteria, it seems clear to me that linguistics is a science, although (as Crystal implies) there may be work done in linguistics departments that falls short of it. But all science departments have individuals within them whose work falls short of being properly scientific. Of course, there may be definitions of science that exclude linguistics; but I suspect that some definitions of science would exclude such fields as evolutionary biology — I've heard some that seem to exclude practically everything but pure mathematics, and others that might include such disciplines as history. I've also heard doctors debate whether medicine is a science. However, the criteria of empiricism, testability, and falsifiability seem to the most frequently cited criteria in most modern discussions of what constitutes science (as far as I can tell). As Pfold says, we could do with a nice citation from a suitable philosopher of science. garik (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC) modified by garik (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean that this is the only reason why linguistics is being termed as a science, but I do feel that the bias inherent in the government and our own minds has affected the mindset of those individuals teaching and vice versa. In a setup where the sciences have a higher status (hence the higher funds allocated) than the arts, humanist inquiry will but naturally die. For most people, poetry, literature, philosophy and art history have no real use or value; these are just for "fun". What is considered serious "work" is the dealing with physical sciences, mathematics, engineering. I remember someone back in my university who told me, when I discussed the problem of linguistics with them and the tragedy that it should be considered different to literature and philosophy, that the latter will bring no concrete results, when I think that is only far from the truth.

As far as the views on Science and Humanities are concerned, I do agree that there are there are many departments whose work falls short of being "scientific", and I feel most linguistics departments today suffer from that very problem -- but not because they associate with literature and philosophy, but simply because they choose to believe that by ignoring these they are in fact being scientific. Again, I don't think that Crystal meant that linguistics is not a science as much as I don't believe so either: a subject or a discipline only inculcates a scientific methodology just as it does with a humanist methodology. Dividing the two approaches too much only means trouble. However, coming back: if we agree that we need to find out what we mean by science, then we are agreeing that the word is not as simple as it sounds. This is good news. Supriya 18:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with much of that:) Part of the problem with the funding issue, of course, is that governments and companies tend to prefer to fund whatever research they think is going to be of use to them; and that tends not to include much philosophy or literature (although I do know at least two philosophers with industrial funding — they're somewhat exceptional, however). I suppose you can't blame them really, but it is certainly unfortunate (and often short-sighted). Philosophy and literature are of enormous importance. And I agree that it's dangerous if researchers in any discipline, be that physics, history or linguistics, feel that they can't associate with other disciplines. Of course philosophy is important to linguistics; just as a large proportion of research in acoustic phonetics is as much physics as linguistics, much research into semantics is as much philosophy as linguistics. So the boundaries are blurred; but that's not to say that there are no boundaries. It makes sense for a discipline to mark out a territory for itself, and the territory for linguistics is the scientific study of a particular subset of human communication called language. Of course there is more to human communication than language, and of course there is more to communication than human communication, and of course all forms of communication are equally worthy of study, and of course they're relevant to linguistic research. But that's not the same as saying that they are the object of study of linguistics, or should be. So I suppose my point is that I don't consider that the study of literature (for example) falls under linguistics; that is to over-extend the remit of linguistics, and to denigrate the study of literature. Neither is subordinate to the other; the two disciplines are equals, and have much to learn from each other. As you say, ignoring philosophy and literature does not make one scientific; it makes one narrow-minded. But the point is not that research in literature and philosophy are linguistics; the point is that they (often) have something to contribute to linguistics, just as (one hopes) linguistics has something to contribute to them.

On scientific methodology: it seems to me that linguists, primarily, are asking two questions (broadly speaking): What is language like? And why is it like that? And it seems to me that these are empirical questions about the world, and that they are (for the most part) best answered by applying scientific methodology. This is not to reject philosophy. I think evolutionary biology is a good analogue: biologists want to know what biological organisms are like and how they got to be like that. And they answer these questions by applying the scientific method. At the same time philosophers of biology help develop our understanding of what of what it means to say, for example, that genes 'code' for traits, and question whether or not this is the right way to think of it. Both approaches are valuable and complement each other well. But I don't think we'd want to say that biology wasn't a science. garik (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for the length of that! It's worth adding (since I've peppered it with lots of "it seems to me"s and the like) that I think the above is pretty mainstream, and that most linguists would be of similar mind. I also suspect, Supriyya, that we may agree on more than we realise. garik (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we do seem to agree on many things. We might actually be saying the same thing in different ways, but there are still some issues. What you say about boundaries throws up questions on what is a boundary after all. Does a boundary mean shutting yourself out or constructing a new reality? For you, philosophy seems very much related to linguistics whereas literature does not; for someone else history may be more relevant to linguistics than say, perhaps, sociology may be. I still can't see how literature cannot fall under linguistics, because literature is the only record that we have of the written word. There is nothing other than language that makes literature what it is. The word literature comes from the word letters, and from literacy, which is about reading and writing. What other source to study language from if not from there? There can be no end to that debate about what falls under linguistics, what doesn't, what should, what shouldn't. But yes, I do not support the view of "no boundaries" either - one does have to be specific rather than vague and over generic, as much as they have to be inclusive of various perspectives. I think the problem with many post structuralists turning up their nose at mathematics (which I think is fascinating and equally relevant to linguistics as is literature) is as problematic.

Secondly, about questions like what is linguistics, and why is it like that -- the answers that you get are infinite! The problem is not with these questions, it is with the fact that the answer is being imposed. The answer to why is language the way it is cannot merely be biological or structural, it is political, social, historical, related to our sensibilities and what we find aesthetic, what our motives are, what we are used to seeing and hearing, what we want and at once these are things both political as well as personal, related to our natural biologies as well as to our man made surroundings... are these aspects not important or real? Is it only because we have certain body parts that we are able to speak and write? The physical act of writing and speaking and making gestures may be possible because of those, but then our brain itself functions beyond the wires it has. Like I said, there can be no end to this discussion. But the fact that there is a different view than the "traditional" biological and structural one, must be represented in this article equally. Supriya 07:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, to add anyway to what Pfold said, I don't know about some subjects being less subjective than others, or less objective, because everything is both subjective and objective, both. Science is as subjective as it is objective, and art is objective as it is subjective. The opposite of scientific is unscientific. The opposite of scientific is not artistic. Art and science were never acronyms. They are two different realities that sometimes compliment each other, sometimes have nothing to do with each other. Supriya 08:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"I still can't see how literature cannot fall under linguistics, because literature is the only record that we have of the written word".

Well, obviously the data for linguistic study comes from writing, as well as recordings of speech and signing (in the case of sign language). So in that sense linguists do need to study literature. I never said they didn't. The point is that not all study of literature counts as an example of linguistics. Perhaps an analogy will help. Consider the study of paint (its chemical composition etc.) and the study of paintings (their artistic composition and meaning etc). I would not say that the latter falls under the former. Both people might find it useful to study Van Gogh's Sunflowers (to take a random, familiar example), but they would be looking at different things. It is presumably useful for some people who study paintings to know something about the chemical composition of paint, and it is presumably useful for some people who study paints to know something about how paints have been used by particular artists in particular paintings, but that doesn't mean that both disciplines are the same, or that one is subordinate to the other. The aims are very different. I think this is very similar to the difference between linguistics and literature. garik (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"The answer to why is language the way it is cannot merely be biological or structural, it is political, social, historical, related to our sensibilities and what we find aesthetic, what our motives are, what we are used to seeing and hearing, what we want and at once these are things both political as well as personal, related to our natural biologies as well as to our man made surroundings..."

Of course. Linguists most certainly have to take into account the political, sociological (etc.) pressures on language. This is what historical linguists and sociolinguists (in particular) do every day. garik (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Also, some areas of the subject are clearly more scientific than others - phonetics is manifestly more 'scientific' than semantics or historical linguistics." Pfold makes a good point here. Some areas of linguistics are closer to the "hard sciences" than others; other areas are perhaps better described as social science; others, like semantics, overlap with humanities subjects like philosophy. So if it means anything to ask whether linguistics is a science or not, one needs to be clear about what is meant by science. Depending on what is meant by science, the answer might be yes, no, "on the whole yes/no", or "depends on what area of linguistics you're talking about". So maybe systematic is indeed a nice compromise for now. Maybe it's time for someone else to join this discussion? garik (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the paint analogy :-) But the study of linguistics, like the study of literature, can be both about both of these two things, their boundaries defined and redefined depending on each individual question that occurs each time. Just as the study of aesthetics must take into account both the chemical properties and physical properties of paint as well as the ideas and thoughts that emerge out of the study of painting, the study of literature must take into account both the study of the way for instance, the physical form of the script has changed, as well as the ideas that have emerged through these scripts or writing, and in relation to each other because they affect each other. Likewise, linguistics, which deals with language, has to look at the physical properties of the toungue and the larynx as much as the meanings and ideas that are generated through it, and again in relation to each other, because they affect each other. Besides, if I were to put my self into the position of a worker who was sacked for constantly pouring paint from one container to the other and admiring it between time to time and saying 'ah, how pretty!' while making the very paint, from a chemical company that made paint, I would still be rather displeased :-) Supriya 14:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

And the word "systematic" does sound appropriate because I agree that vagueness and generic-ness is not at all scientific, and that is absolutely not what linguistics is about. Looking back, I agree with garik and Pfold to the extent that some areas of study in linguistics are perhaps different from the others. Phonetics is about the physical properties of speech whereas phonology is about the study of speech systems, and I personally would believe that while there might be some specific physical properties of sound that we are all capable of and can't argue over, speech systems are subjective because different communities create different accents, tones and styles of speaking. However, since these two things--phonetics and phonology--affect each other, one can't say that the study of speech is either entirely scientific, or entirely subjective. It has to be both. The only way to understand speech would be to take into account both, just as to understand linguistics would be to take into account subjective possibilities as well as objective possibilities. Supriya 14:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, to add, painting might be about paint, but one can use chalk, crayon, sand, ink, and a zillion other physical things to draw and create the images that they have in their mind as well. Just as one might use a larynx, toungue, CPU, and whatever other parallel parts animals and non-humans possess, to communicate, as well. Supriya 14:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I completely reject the notion that semantics and historical linguistics are "less scientific" than phonetics. All areas of linguistics are scientific in the sense that researchers propose hypotheses and test them against the data. Hypotheses that are supported by the data are developed into theories; those that are not supported by the data are rejected. The only way that fields like semantics and historical linguistics (and phonology and syntax for that matter) differ from fields like phonetics and chemistry is that it is not possible to create new data by means of controlled experiments; rather, you have to make do with with naturally occurring data. (The same is true of paleontology, but that doesn't stop it being a science!) Another difference, especially relevant to syntax, is that data isn't measurable on a precise, calibrated scale: grammaticality judgments are based on gut feelings rather than hard numbers. But none of that changes the fact that linguistics is scientific. There's nothing particularly wrong with using the word "systematic", since it's that too, but there is no way in which linguistics is systematic without being scientific, so there's no reason at all not to use the more specific term. And making it clear that only natural language (or at least human language, since some linguists do research conlangs like Esperanto) is the subject of linguistic study is nonnegotiable. Suggesting that computer languages and animal forms of communication are part of the purview of linguistics is as ridiculous as suggesting that the "life of water" or the "life of rocks" or the "life of bridges" is part of the purview of biology. —Angr 23:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Angr, I do partly agree with you when you say that all the other fields in linguistics - semantics, historical linguistics, semiotics, stylistics and others are scientific too. Because to be scientific is not to say "this is A" and "this is B" but more to ask "what is A" and "what is B", and the meaning of science eventually is subjective, because science deals with "facts" as much as it asks questions for answers that cannot be answered in one line. So I will not argue there. But my agreement with the point Pfold and garik made is on a different note: I made a comparison between phonetics and phonology to explain the issue of objectivity and subjecitivity. I guess the right words are not "scientific" and "unscientific", but "objective" and "subjective". To be artistic is not to be unscientific. Art and science are not acronyms or opposite words. They are just two realities and do not contradict each other. So I would say that there are some factors that might be objective and there are some factors that are subjective, and as a science as a whole, you need to take into account both these factors: the real, physical properties or physicalities of sound, and the changing patterns of speech. What I'm saying here applies to various other areas in linguistics as well. Also, I agree with Angr that the difference cannot be made between say, phonology and semantics, or historical linguistics and syntax, so much as with physical properties of speech / writing, and the patterns or multiple structures of the same. Supriya 08:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

But who are you to say that linguistics studies only natural or human language, and not computer and animal language? I thought we needed a proper citation for each claim we made. As far as I know, computational linguistics is taught in almost all universities worldwide and the issue of whether animals communicate or not is very much part of the syllabus everywhere. So who are we to decide that it is "non negotiable"? By the way, I think it looks a little messy to have those absurd citation marks on all the words in the paragraph. So let's please remove them. Supriya 08:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I wonder how you refuse to accept that linguistics falls under humanities, when on the other hand you say that the "only" thing we study in it is human language! Isn't this a rather strange contradiction? Supriya 08:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess there is an inherent difference in these two statements: "Linguistics is the humanist study of language" and "linguistics is the study of human language." I support the first one, which is the more realistic one.Supriya 08:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well this is starting to sound as if we have a consensus to say "scientific":) "Systematic" is a compromise, but as Angr says, "in the sense that researchers propose hypotheses and test them against the data" (which, as I suggested myself above, is a pretty reasonable description of what it means to be scientific), then linguistics is clearly a science. I'd disagree with Angr on one thing. He says "The only way that fields like semantics and historical linguistics (and phonology and syntax for that matter) differ from fields like phonetics and chemistry is that it is not possible to create new data by means of controlled experiments". As work currently being carried out at Edinburgh (and elsewhere) shows, it is possible to at least create new historical-linguistic data (albeit artificial) by means of controlled experiment — and there's a reasonably long history of using computational simulations to do something similar. So in that sense, historical linguistics is no different — in fact, it's scientific in the same way that evolutionary biology is (the two fields have a long history of interaction; nineteenth-century work in historical linguistics actually influenced early Darwinian thought).

And I'm sorry, Supriyya, but you persist in interpreting "language" as if it's synonymous with "communication". This just isn't helpful. To say that other animals don't have language is NOT the same as saying other animals don't communicate. All animals obviously communicate; it's just not very helpful to use the word language for the communication systems of other animals; it's useful to restrict it to a subset of human communicative behaviour. As for Computational linguistics: this is about natural language! It just uses computers as a tool to study it. garik (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

'As an aside, I wonder how you refuse to accept that linguistics falls under humanities, when on the other hand you say that the "only" thing we study in it is human language! Isn't this a rather strange contradiction?'

Well, if you define the humanities as including all research into human behaviour, then linguistics clearly is a humanities subject. But I don't think this is the way "humanities" is normally understood today. As the Wikipedia article suggests, to say that a subject is one of the humanities implies "using methods that are primarily analytic, critical, or speculative, as distinguished from the mainly empirical approaches of the natural and social sciences". Under that understanding, linguistics fits better into the natural and social sciences. garik (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Language is the abstract tool that we use to communicate isn't it? So how is it possible that animals communicate without language? That's like saying John cooks but does not deal with food. Food and cooking is not "synonymous" per se, but without food what is cooking and you can't eat uncooked food. As for the issue of empiricism, I agree that facts are important, but you can' stop at those - you have to go beyond those: science or humanities. Supriya 09:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I also think we need to understand what we mean when we say "language", and what we mean when we say "communication". I am not saying they are the same things at all, but they aren't different per se either in the sense that they do not contradict each other. They are interdependent, aren't they? And if we use them interdependently, why wouldn't animals also do so? I still haven't been able to put my thoughts into perspective about the difference and relationship between these two words, but I do feel there is an issue here. Supriya 09:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Language is a tool that human beings use to communicate. Human beings use other means to communicate that are not language — these are often called "paralinguistic" (winks, nods etc.) — and other animals have their own communication systems. If you want, you can use the term "language" for all possible forms of communication. And people often do describe things as language that linguists would not call language. But then people call tomatoes vegetables. They have a perfect right to, but they shouldn't expect botanists to do likewise. garik (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"If you want, you can use the term 'language' for all possible forms of communication." Yes, but what you cannot do is claim that all such possible forms of communication are the object of study of linguistics. The ambiguity of the term "language" is precisely why the article needs to say that linguistics is the scientific study of natural language, because natural language is the only kind of language studied in linguistics. (Incidentally, not only is not all communication linguistic, but not all use of language is communicative, either. So while communication is a major goal of language, language is neither the only means of communication, nor is communication the only goal of language.) —Angr 11:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite so. garik (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That may be how one university teaches linguistics -- through a study of only natural language, but others do study stuff under linguistics that is outside natural language. As far as I know, a number of universities teach computational linguistics, semiotics and stylistics under a linguistics course, and a number of these studies also make inquiries on animal language and communication. I also disagree that all language is not communicative, because it is. A gesture that is meaningless to one person, is meaningful to another, and vice versa. So it depends on who the "audience" is. The study of linguistics, does not, in effect study only the human "audience", it also studies the animal "audience". Even inanimate objects communicate stuff to some of us--atleast to those who are actually listening. There is a study called the "semiotics of things" that I stumbled upon - I'll quote some of the thinkers who refer to it, if you may be interested to read about it. (Feel free to disagree, but I talk to my walls. I know many others who talk to their dolls, and other things too. And we are studied about in linguistics! As the madmen!) And, everything that is used for communication, by default is indeed language. Maybe it's not a bad idea for both sides--Angr and garik, for one, and me for another, to cite sources who agree with each of us, respectively. What say. Supriya 11:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Supriyya, did you completely ignore what I said about computational linguistics? Computational linguistics is a way of studying natural language (using computers). But this is beside the point; just because a linguistics course involves classes on something, it does not mean that that something falls under linguistics. Most linguistics courses (at least at postgraduate level) involve some element of statistics. This does not mean that statistics is a subfield of linguistics; it means that statistics is useful for linguists to know about.

And you're still treating communication and language as if they're synonymous. They're not. And I'm sorry, but in talking to our dolls, we may be communicating with ourselves in some way, but we're not communicating with the doll. And when we see a dark cloud and decide that it's going to rain, the cloud is not communicating with us in the technical sense of the word, and it is not an example of language; it is a cue from which we infer something. Just because some people would call this communication (or even language) does not mean that linguists should, or that this article should reflect that usage.

I'm afraid that your arguments have the tenor of someone arguing on the talk page of the Evolution article that it should discuss change in general, and that not enough space is being given to discussions of literature, since it is the product of evolved organisms, and something which itself evolves. garik (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you again, and I would love to applaud whoever that is on the evolution page. I stand by the fact that our views differ, and that the one I am holding up or representing here on the talkpage that has been extensively been written about, be represented in the article as well. What, pray, is behind the cloud that is holding it up to you as a cue for rain? Answer: language. And I never said computers is a study of linguistics, obviously, it is computational linguistics that is. Just as animals are not, but animal language is, and humans are not, but human language is. Supriya 13:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"What, pray, is behind the cloud that is holding it up to you as a cue for rain? Answer: language."

I'm sorry, but no it's not.

"And I never said computers is a study of linguistics, obviously, it is computational linguistics that is."

Yes, computational linguistics is part of linguistics, but it's not about computer language (as you seem to be implying); it's about natural language.

garik (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

True; the study of computer languages is subsumed into the more general field of formal languages. And while it's often considered a related field to linguistics, most of the people in that field would self-identify as computer scientists or mathematicians, not linguists. Indeterminate (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Wow, this thread is a huge challenge to my innate TLDR response. Does it have a point? I'm just trying to catch up a bit; pass the popcorn etc... Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 10:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Supriya, I reverted you on principal without reading this discussion or much of what you wrote, as you need to resolve your issues here rather than just edit warring.

I still haven't read much of the discussion, as it seems a bit tedious. Linguists do look at animal communication for clues as to what lies behind human language, but wouldn't call it "language". Others have tried teaching human language to animals. So far, although there have been claims that non-human animal communication can be grammatical, none of them have withstood scrutiny. That could change, of course, and "avian linguistics" might develop as a subfield of linguistics, but so far that hasn't happened.

Computer "languages" aren't languages in the linguistic sense any more than mathematics is. You can speak of the "language of mathematics", or the "language of music", but they are not fields of linguistics. I know people who study the interactions between (grammatical) language and music, but even they consider themselves interdisciplinary.

I personally don't like the term "natural language", but here we're just playing semantics. After all, you could argue Esperanto isn't a natural language, but its study would still be linguistic. On the other, birdsong is natural, but not language (in the linguistic sense, I mean). So it would be nice to have a more intuitive label, but that's difficult due to the very broad use of the word "language" outside linguistics.

As for linguistics being scientific, you're right, much of it isn't. Chomsky and Pinker are pseudoscience, IMO. But that's true of a lot of sciences. Some physics isn't much better—string theory, for instance, which IMO isn't much better than numerology. And of course the scientific component of psychology is paltry, if increasing. Nonetheless, each of these fields conceives of itself as a science, and holds itself up for scientific scrutiny. There is ongoing debate as to whether linguistics belongs in the humanities or in the sciences, but it did start out as a subfield of anthropology (which IMO is where it still belongs). kwami (talk) 10:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I must concur with garik on the point of language vs communication. Every linguistics lecture I've had over the years has always deal with "what animals grunt/flash/wriggle at each other" from the POV that it's certainly communication and the interesting question of whether it's language.

It may seem like splitting hairs at times, but it normally falls under communication and biology, rather than linguistics. If I remember rightly one of the big lithmus tests is whether whatever species X uses to communicate has constitutent parts that can be assembled differently to change the meaning predictably. Since - afawk - you can't do that with what animals do. The only crossover you might argue there is is with primates that are said to have been taught human sign language in some form or other but these experiments are so mired on opposing views that I wouldn't want to risk making a judgement. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Primates have been taught to use the lexemes of sign language, but they never learned its grammar. American Sign Language (and other deaf sign languages) are as grammatically sophisticated as any spoken language, but the chimps and gorillas just use individual words without any grammar. "ORANGE ORANGE ORANGE WANT ORANGE ORANGE WANT WANT WANT" isn't a grammatical sentence of ASL, but it's about the level at which non-human primates are able to use it. —Angr 10:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Bar that single event (afaik) where one chimp came out with "water bird" on seeing a duck. But "one thrush doesn't make a summer" as the Gaels say. So I agree mostly. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And bees dance to indicate the direction, distance and relative quality of a food source, etc. We have no proof (or even any evidence) that what goes on is any more complicated than these things. Philosophical questions suitable for fireside discussions (probably amply lubricated with alcohol) are fun stuff, but the examples of non-human communication we've observed just don't hold enough content and creativity to bridge the gap between "communication" and "language". And Wikipedia isn't the place for those cool, drunken fireside BS sessions. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 10:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Kwami, re "natural language", although Esperanto is a constructed language, the fact that (unlike most constructed languages) it has a tolerable number of native speakers suggests that it may also be considered a natural language for purposes of linguistic study. At any rate, above I did mention the possibility of calling linguistics "the scientific study of human language" instead, but natural language is a much better, more fleshed-out article than human language is. —Angr 11:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, any constructed language would qualify as a linguistic subject if it were used for functioning communication, say as a market language, as opposed to just another armchair project. Interlingua conferences would be valid linguistic data, even though there are no native IL speakers. Not too dissimilar from pidgins.

Ah, Damin. Likely a constructed language, and there never were any native speakers, but it's "linguistics" nonetheless. kwami (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) [[[human language]] should be a redirect, IMO. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 11:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Supriyya's edits do not, as far as I can tel,l represent the understanding of the term "linguistics" as it is used in North America, South America, most of Europe, Australia, Japan or Korea. I've been a linguistics professor for 15 years, and have been working in the discipline for over 20 years. There is a wide variety of perspectives about linguistics including among others functionalist and formalist perspectives, interdisciplinary perspectives, cognitive perspectives, descriptive perspectives and computational perspectives. But as far as I know no one actually working in the discipline stretches the definition the way Supriyya does. Indeed my experience is that such definitions are given by people with disciplinary roots outside of the field rather than those of the practioners. Let me be clear that I think part of the problem is that Supriyya (and perhaps others) does not understand the difference between a "disciplinary" definition and an "interdisciplinary" one. The definition of the *discipline* of linguistics is clear, straightforward, and outside of this discussion page, completely uncontroversial. Linguistics is the scientific study of natural language/Human language. It is not humanistic, it is not about computer or formal languages, it is not about animal communications. This said, many linguists themselves are *interdisciplinary* and investigate questions from humanistic perspectives, they investigate computer language, and they investigate animal communication, etc. But it should be understood that these are *not* definitional of the discipline. They are intersective studies. Interdisciplinarity is a good thing, and the page should definitely mention those interdisciplinary topics of discussion, but they are not definitional of the discipline itself. To claim that they are shows a profound and almost disturbing misunderstanding of the way the academy is structured. (Just to be clear I'm not defending the structure of the academy, I'm just saying that's the way it is. And since this is an encyclopedia article it should reflect the way things are, not the way someone wants them to be.) AndrewCarnie (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Very well stated. (Taivo (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC))

I'd like to be given one mention, anywhere on wikipedia, that articles are supposed to reflect "the way the academy is structured", rather than the way reality is. If you do, I'll gladly submit to these changes. Supriya 04:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. How about Wikipedia:Truth. There are plenty of Crusaders for the Truth, and we don't accept any of them. (Tellingly, these Truth-Givers—whether the subject is UFOs, Intelligent Design, or fluoridation—never have decent references, and warn of a Conspiracy to censor the Truth.) kwami (talk) 05:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I blocked Supriyya for edit warring. (This has been going on since June. Enough.) kwami (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Post-Structural Linguistics

Now that I have the opportunity to clarify, thank you for the mike! -- I was indeed, not talking about TRUTH. I was talking about reality/reliable sources/etc/what-the-situation-is-rather-than-should-be only: what is and not what should be. That also is not the "truth"! Academics is ONE part of that empirical reality, not the entire. There is linguistic work happening outside academics too. Why can't that fall under our empiric facts? There are many writers on linguistics who do not teach at universities or are not part of the academia, who make some very valid points about the subject, besides the fact being that they are published and discussed themselves. In case if you're not following my side of the argument closely enough, here I repeat again: there are enough number of SOURCES who disagree with the claims being made in this article. Considering that there are a number of people who write about discourse and semiotics and narrative and pragmatic knowledge of language rather than the grammatical and physiological knowledge of it (and yes, they are linguists like Derrida, Foucault, Barthes or Crystal), it oughta be mentioned. Again, what I am contesting for is not about whether they're right or wrong (I in fact, would disagree personally with much of post-structural linguistics), but I am contesting for space on this page for that view to be represented. If you've not understood what I'm saying here, then no point in this discussion. If you have understood and choose to ignore it conveniently, then the blocking was unwarranted and exposes your weak foundation that's been shaken by a single theoretical argument that already exists since centuries. The sooner you get over it, the better. Supriya 07:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Further, considering that post-structural linguistics still needs to be represented on the page, the statement "linguistics is a scientific study of natural language" would hold as one-sided. Post-structural linguists and many other linguists don't merely study natural language; they study other forms of language as well. Historically, there is more to linguistics than structuralism, Chomsky, and there is no rule on wikipedia that says historical growth of the discipline should be ignored, and only modern academic trends be represented. If there must be a historical view to an article on feminism rather than just a contemporary one, if there must be a historical view to an article on philosophy rather than just a contemporary one, and so on, then there must be the same for an article on linguistics. A lot of the texts that were studied in the 19th century under linguistics, can't automatically be ignored in the 21st century, because this page is called "linguistics" and not "modern linguistics", or "21st century linguistics". A historical perspective is rudimentary to an article on any thing. Supriya 07:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If "post-structural linguistics" is a school of linguistics, as opposed to a branch of post-structuralism, then presumably it has approaches to all aspects of language structure. Point us to a body of published peer-reviewed research on "post-structural phonology" or "post-structural syntactical theory" and that will be a significant contribution to your case. BTW, shouldn't it be "post-structuralist", not "post-structural"? --Pfold (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Since Supriyya made up "post-structural linguistics" herself, she can call it whatever she likes. —Angr 21:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Angr. I'm so flattered by the generous credit you shower on me so. But I'd have to decline your kind words and praise. Why, many of the books and articles that show up in that above Google result, go all the way to even reject terms like "applied linguistics" with the growth of "post-structural linguistics"! There are other references in this same Google result which say that contemporary linguistics is "post-structural".

"...the introductory chapter, "On Post-structural Linguistics," presents an overview of contemporary linguistics." In the book "Synthesis in Second Language Teaching: An Introduction to Languistics", the writer Hector Hammerly says, "Terms such as "applied linguistics" have simply outlived their usefulness, especially now in the age of post-structural linguistics..."

Pfold, I'd say that both "post-structural" and "post-structuralist" mean/refer to the same thing, so they are both correct. However, I insist on using "post-structural" because that is the way it has been used, and wikipedia is anyway about sources and not the truth. Supriya 11:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. The book, "Post-structural Approaches to Language: Language Theory in a Japanese Context" By JV Neustupný has a chapter titled "On Post-Structural Linguistics". Neustupný has also done significant work on the same, and in fact, even teaches linguistics at Obirin University in Tokyo. Now please don't complain that you can't see the full book, because there is no rule that says that a book that's mentioned or referred to in a wikipedia article, must be available fully online. Neither do sources have to be purely "academic" (they just have to be formally published - academically or not), so the argument about how "this is how academicians view linguistics and not in any other way" does not hold water either. There are non-academic writers who have said quite some different things about linguistics, and give me one reason why we shouldn't include all that. Supriya 11:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to respond to a very valid issue raised by Pfold.

"If "post-structural linguistics" is a school of linguistics, as opposed to a branch of post-structuralism, then presumably it has approaches to all aspects of language structure." - Pfold

No. Post-structural linguistics is a school of linguistics which does not approach language through its structure. It is the coming together of the post-structuralist movement, and of linguistics. (There also are, branches like feminist linguistics. That does not mean that because the feminist movement does not study morphology and syntax etc, so feminism and linguistics cannot come together. Feminism and linguistics come together to create a new discipline or study called feminist linguistics, just as post-structuralism and linguistics have come together to create post-structural linguistics. Phew. Isn't this simple logic?) Therefore, PSL is a study of language without the study of structure, and the study of linguistics through other perspectives, methods and approaches to language besides those that are structural. That does not mean that post-structural linguistics is not "scientific". It is simply a school of linguistics that goes beyond the structure of language. It studies language in an astructural manner. Post in post-structural means "later". It is the movement that happened post the movement of structuralism (even within linguistics), hence it is post-structural. So post-structuralism does not approach all aspects of language structure, as its very name implies. This movement has clearly been part of linguistics, as the links and sources and the book by Neustupný above suggest. Makes sense now?

So since post-structural linguistics does not study phonology and syntax and morphology yet, there is nothing called "post-structural phonology" or "post-structural syntax" or "post-structural morphology" yet. There is post-structural linguistics. I hope that as it evolves, it will study morphology and syntax and phonetics too because I genuinely think it should, but now are we here to hope, or edit an article for wikipedia? Phonology, syntax and morphology are sub-fields studied under Structural linguistics, and not under Post-structural linguistics. Why, I'd even love to see a book on "post-structural grammar", but I reckon I'll have to write it for myself! So for now, we have to leave it at post-structural linguistics. As soon as I am able to purchase a copy of Neustupný's book, I promise to describe more in detail, what that is all about. Supriya 12:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is no way to study linguistics and languages without studying the component parts of language. Thus, post-structural linguistics is not linguistics until it actually comes to terms with dealing with phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, etc. Calling yourself a linguist if you don't study the component parts of language first is like calling yourself an auto mechanic when you don't know what's inside a carburator. I'm not going to take my car to a "post-structural auto mechanic" any more than I'm going to trust a "post-structural linguist" who doesn't work with the component parts of language. (Taivo (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC))

could we perhaps discuss "post-structural linguistics" at post-structural linguistics, and perhaps place a see-also link here? Because it isn't something that is very relevant to actual linguistics, or something people wishing to read an article on linguistics need to be told about very urgently. Whatever it is, if anything, let it be described at post-structural linguistics and stop interfering with this article. Even if it exists, I know I have no interest in it, and I say this as a linguist. Supriyya is also welcome to write books introducing the field on her own, so once they are published perhaps there can be Wikipedia articles about it, and her. In the meantime, she is only distracting herself from the task of becoming the next Chomsky by spending time wrestling with the Wikipedia WP:OR policy. If J. V. Neustupný and his 1978(!) Post-structural Approaches to Language can be shown to pass WP:BK, it may be a good idea to start out by covering that. But I am afraid that if Neustupný coined the term a full 30 years ago, and google books still gives us a mere 80 hits for "post-structural linguistics" in rather ad hoc contexts, the idea does not really appear to have caught on, does it. --dab (𒁳) 16:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

We can't discuss it at Post-structural linguistics because that article was deleted months ago for lack of sources (if not because of WP:MADEUP). I wonder to what extent the few people who use the phrase even use it to mean the same thing. I suspect some people mean post-Structural Linguistics, while others mean Poststructuralist linguistics. —Angr 17:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

ah yes, sorry, I had forgotten this afd. Then why is this still being discussed at all? In keeping with your suspicion, this can be mentioned at either Structural_Linguistics#Criticism or Post-structuralism#Linguistics for whatever it is worth. There is simply no reason to keep going on about it here, on the talkpage of the main Linguistics article. --dab (𒁳) 17:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hear hear. garik (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

dab, This is being discussed here because that page is going to be revived soon - with sources. A deleted article can be started enormous number of times.

Secondly, I advice you not to give merit to something on the basis of number crunching where google hits are concerned. If there are books written on a subject, it remains valid.

Taivo, that is your own personal opinion. Not everybody is obliged to compare language to a car. In any case, even if it is, certainly not to just the engine of the car. If a post-structuralist approach to cars is compared to a post-structuralist approach to language, then there will be many things that will fall under knowing about cars (as opposed to their engines or other individual parts in the car) just as there will be many things that will fall under knowing about language as compared to knowing about its individual parts. Just as an engine, or a wheel or a steering are parts of a car and not the car themselves, morphemes and phonemes and syntactical constituents are parts of language and not language themselves. Just as narrative and discourse and style is. As a linguist or as someone who engages in cars, everyone has the right to choose what they want to work on. You have the right to trust a "structuralist car specialist" as much as you have the right to trust a "structuralist linguist"; everyone needn't follow suit.

Considering there are enough sources and material on a topic that has been called Post structural linguistics as opposed to "Poststructuralism and Linguistics" or "Criticism of structural linguistics", I will continue to contest -- both on the main linguistics page as well as on the future post-structural linguistics page -- for the inclusion of these writings. "Post-structural linguistics" is not a general connection to linguistics and neither is it a mere critique on Structural Linguistics. It is a discipline in itself, saying quite some different things altogether. Supriya 08:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Back to the car analogy, no one knows cars who doesn't know the parts of a car. It's quite simple. No one is a linguist who ignores the parts of languages. It is the parts that make up the whole and there is not a whole without the parts. The term "post-structural linguistics" is unknown in standard linguistic works. You can "contest" all you want, but you will be reverted here without relevant, current, on-topic sources for your position. The works you cited above are not linguistics texts in and of themselves, but are applied linguistics. Once you have mainstream documentation, then you will have a point to make. Until there are actual mainstream linguists who use the term "post-structural linguistics", then you have no ground upon which to stand. You are talking about a doctor who doesn't know anatomy, a car enthusiast who doesn't know the difference between a straight six and a V-8, a banker who doesn't know the difference between an ARM and a fixed rate, etc. Pick your analogy and you will see the silliness of trying to claim that there is a science of linguistics that excludes a thorough knowledge of the constituent parts of language prior to any broader study. (Taivo (talk) 08:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

Post-structural linguistics, Taivo, does look at the parts. It's just that these parts are different from the parts that structural linguistics looks at. On the car analogy, there are parts like seats, colour, body material, seat covers, cushions, space in the backseat, legspace, the space in the dicky, door handles, whether the top is open or closed, the height, the width, the bredth, the carpet, the shape, and not just the engine. Is the engine going to work without all this? Can you drive the engine without any of the other parts? Is the engine an engine without the rest? Nothing, at the end of the day can address the "whole". At one time, you pick one thing. An auto mechanic looks at the engine, other people look at other things. But they all deal in cars. This is the same with language.

If you look at it through logical reasoning:

Cars are to language

as

engines, seat belts, legspace, etc, are to morphemes, phonemes, stylistic elements, signs and more. Supriya 08:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The end of this debate, it seems. Good. PSL will be up shortly. Supriya 12:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You've got to love Wikipedia as the only place where people will tell you surreal things like "a deleted article can be started enormous number of times" with a straight face. --dab (𒁳) 15:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

And even more so when, as in this case, the editor virtually admits it will mostly be original research and opinion! (Taivo (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

Or when there is an opportunity to fight with censorship, and blind allegations of "original research" and opinion, and the honourable chance to keep repeating yourself hoarse, the names of books and authors from history itself. I'll save the archives of these talkpages for my grandkids. But hopefully, there'll be greater technology then and they'll have the tools to wave their evil magic wands wherever they want to. Let's be a little evil, then, and look forward to the new post-structural linguistics. Supriya 10:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

there already is the technology for you to publish your idea. It is known as "blog". You are simply editing the wrong project. Wikipedia is a privately-run project with a narrow scope and specific rules. Your material doesn't belong here. No problem, take it somewhere else. You are not being censored, you are spamming a private website for no good reason. --dab (𒁳) 12:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Err, really, and I thought you could read. The above is not "my material". Thick, aren't we? Supriya 12:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

30-year-old material that is only marginally linguistics and has been referenced by no one else since falls under the category of WP:Fringe. Take it to your blog. (Taivo (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC))

Yep, and any new article on "post-structural linguists" will be speedily deletable by WP:CSD#G4. —Angr 19:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are we still talking about this? Supriya is ill-mannered and not worth our time. She mentioned above "the end of this debate", and I agree. We don't need further justification to delete a recreated article or to block her from editing if she continues. kwami (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Yes, this endless line of argument has given us one idea on how to improve this article: We should and must expand our coverage of the debate between formalism and functionalism. However, this arose naturally from the discussion, and has nothing to do with Supriyya's highly original views on what linguistics is, or should be. szyslak (t) 23:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I came to wikipedia and see this article. I must say I agree with Supriyya. Post-structural linguistics is a very well known subject of study where I teach linguistics and we need articles on that. So what if it is 30-year old material? As if everything we mention on wikipedia is two minute old! Then Sapir and Chomsky are too old too? Chomsky even has a white scalp now but look how young he looks! I would like to help with the article on post-structural linguistics and many of my students will also benefit by being made to give inputs on it. I'll contact them. Knightingail (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Also to note that we have lot of material on post-structural linguistics in our library and lot of PhD thesis work on it. All of that will be much useful to this article and many more. Knightingail (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

wow, that's a classic.

so, "Knightingail", if "Post-structural linguistics is a very well known subject of study where you teach linguistics", and if you "have a PhD in Linguistics from University of Bloomington (name changed to protect user's identity), Berlin Village (name changed to protect user's identity) and teach at the same place since twenty years" and if you "have lot of material on post-structural linguistics in your library", you will be in the happy position of compiling an article on this "subject" which will actually stand up to scrutiny under WP:NOTE, WP:SYNTH. If you can do that, feel most welcome to go ahead. But maybe a simple WP:RCU will be enough. --dab (𒁳) 09:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. In no time. I won't be doing it alone. Many of my students will help.We have even set up a proposal here to start a Master of Letters (MLitt) in Post-structural Linguistics. It's almost through. Knightingail (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just been watching this from the sidelines since it's not my cup of tea at all but this sudden appearance of another "expert" made me laugh. Cheers for cheering up my day! Akerbeltz (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I am no expert. Yes I have come suddenly on this page because I saw it a few days ago after I realized I must read more in English than in German and I thought I must register to give my contribution than be anonymous. Whatever I learnt, I learnt from my students who are actually my teachers. So they are the experts. I listen to them and from them get the wisdom that I need. The new article on post structural linguistics will be mostly penned by them as part of their own research. They are so eager and bright that if you hear them you will also want to listen to them and their multiple reading. Knightingail (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Err, I hate to point this out to you but by your own word (The new article on post structural linguistics will be mostly penned by them as part of their own research.) you're admitting to Original Research (either by you or your students) which makes anything they do inadmissible on Wikipedia. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it sure is interesting how the banning of Supriya is followed so quickly by the arrival of Knightingail who has the same point-of-view. But things like that happen on Wikipedia everyday ;) The fundamental difference between Sapir and Chomsky and these "post-structuralists" is that Sapir's and Chomsky's works have been quoted by other writers nearly every day since their works were published and their work influenced nearly everyone who followed. (I'm sending a paper to a peer-reviewed journal next week and one of Sapir's works is in the bibliography. Actually, thinking back on it, I think nearly every paper and book I've published has one or two of his works cited. And I've cited one or two of Chomsky's works a time or two even.) It's nearly impossible to pick up a book on linguistics and not find a reference to a work by one of these two men or by one of their students. Sapir's Language is still found in innumerable introductory texts on linguistics. Chomsky's Aspects of the Theory of Syntax and (with Halle) The Sound Pattern of English are in the same category. I've never heard of any of Supriya's "experts" and their work has influenced virtually no one. And just a note on reliable sources--PhD dissertations don't carry very much weight in Wikipedia as sources by themselves. They are OK when they are the only source for something concrete, like a grammar of X language, but since they are not peer-reviewed, unless they are cited in other secondary works, they are just one level above student term papers. If "post-structural linguistics" is only supported by a couple of generally ignored 30-year-old texts in applied linguistics, a handful of PhD dissertations, and "student experts", I doubt that its existence on Wikipedia will be long. (Taivo (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

Haha. I don't think Knightingail is the first person to have "arrived" here after my "banning", though. There have been a number of people who've been on the other side of the argument from the beginning - Orson, Alvin Poe, the person who spoke about functionalism (I forget his name), Mostlyharmless, two or three others on the post-structural linguistics page, and now, Knightingail. (That practically equals the other "army": Angr, Garik, AndrewCarnie, who else? Dab of course!) If you scroll up this long page also, you'll see that half the people on it are divided over this very issue of whether to include post-structural linguistics in the article or not. As was with the deletion page of PSL. To say that all of them are here because of me, is a little flattering. But it could be true. Anyone who's been reading the page from the sidelines might be tempted to jump in to help the right side. Had there been someone else screaming themselves hoarse for neglected material on a mainstream article, I would most certainly chip in to participate if I knew anything about the subject. It's quite natural. As for original research, please. I'm not interested in going and asking them to "change their policy" as someone kindly suggested to me on my talkpage, but my point is that post-structural linguistics is not original research. It is being backed by sources, you blind people. Not a single thing I've added is "original research" and I stand by that. I don't care if you sit and count the number of links on google till you go cockeyed, and make a balance sheet on it; the fact that it isn't original research still remains. Wikipedia is about sources and not about numbers. You can block me and ban me all you want, I'm not making a living out of Wikipedia that I'd worry. Why, when I rejected a Linguistics degree from the Establishment, or even when I still care two hoots about losing a job to the downturn, do you think not being allowed to edit Wikipedia would steal my sleep? I only worry about you: if I go, there'll be others, because this is the world, world wide web! And now you at least know how to deal with me and feed me with wikipedian jargon so that my brain switches off. With others, you'll be starting the process ALL over again. That'll be quite tiring, won't it? When will you get time to censor the rest of the encyclopedia? And as long as the talk pages are alive, there'll be people who come here and read and listen and get to know the other side of the story, and think, and then act! Then what will we do? Now that, I'd say, is a scary ol' worry. Supriya 14:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

it is true that reading talkpages is often more amusing than reading the articles. That's a side-effect, not the purpose of the project. It is because we are more lenient to let clowns edit talkpage and even archive this stuff, while we require encyclopedicity for articles. If you want to know about linguistics, read the article. If you want to be amused, read the talkpage. Wikipedia has something for everybody. --dab (𒁳) 17:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

and the curious reader will always hit on the article history itself, to check out older versions. Non-curious readers who come to wikipedia will anyway join your bandwagon, so that doesn't matter. Besides of course, the curious reader will also be subject to the innumerable changes awaiting the article in the future, sans bans and blocks. Supriya 13:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

post-structural linguistics comes down to one question... are there verified sources. that is all that matters according to wikipedia standards. if someone is deleting well-sourced content, then they'll eventually be banned for promoting their pov. write clean, neutral, cited prose with appropriate wiki-links, and post it again. --Buridan (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I will be doing so. Except that the post-structural article has been "permanently locked" right now. That's the latest example of censorship example that I could treat you with. Supriya 15:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you even know what "censorship" means? It means a restricition of your rights to free expression. Since you have no legal right to edit privately-owned website to begin with, preventing you from editing such websites cannot be "censorship". Or are you being "censored" by cnn.com because they won't let you publish your ideas on their site? Give us a break, and exert your rights to free expression on your own blog. Wikipedia has nothing to do with this. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia project. Wikipedia doesn't "censor" anyone, it permits users to do certain actions on its servers, provided they follow certain rules. This permission does not extend to what you had in mind. This has nothing to do with "censorship", at all. --dab (𒁳) 15:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography

I wonder whether it wouldn't be helpful to subdivide (or perhaps even prune) the very extensive list of 'Popular works and texts'. As it stands, I don't think it's as helpful to the non-specialist as it might be. At the very least, we ought to separate the genuinely general introductory works from those on specific areas of linguistics. And some of the entries are distinctly odd (Kafka, with a specific reference?!) --Pfold (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and would be in favour of extensive pruning. This sort of list tends to attract additions from every passing person who happens to have read (or written) a book on language. A small number of general introductory works should suffice. garik (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion #1: Eliminate the first editions of Encyclopedia of Linguistics and Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics since the second editions are in the biblio already. (Taivo (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

I agree with the pruning. I'd recommend taking out anything that's not a general intro to linguistics. Or at least moved to the more specialised pages, eg all the cognitive stuff to the cognitive pages, the Santali book (??) to the relevant language page. Akerbeltz (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

she's not neutral scotty

you are missing major figures in the history of linguistics especially the europeans. You are missing semiotics/semiology also. Elements of linguistics existed before anthropology and while i know of linguistic anthropology, i don't think of linguistics as a subfield and the history that i know of the field doesn't really indicate it was. elements were, elements were not. --Buridan (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean Europeans like Appolonius Dyscolus, Aelius Donatus, Dante Alighieri, William Jones, Jakob Grimm, Karl Verner, August Schleicher, Johannes Schmidt, and Ferdinand de Saussure, all of whom are mentioned in the History section? Sure, there are lots of influential European linguists who could still be mentioned, but then there are lots of influential American linguists who could still be mentioned too. I certainly don't see that the article in its current state is biased toward American linguistics. —Angr 14:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

how about the contemporary contributors? sure, Saussure died in my lifetime but... it is clear that this is a chomsky festshcrift given the comparative level of coverage. --Buridan (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

ALso note that there is a significant group of linguistics people that describe linguistics as an art. --Buridan (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is meant by "linguistics people", but it does not seem to mean the same thing as "linguists". The latter indicates scholars who regard linguistics as a (social) science. See Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft or Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States. Cnilep (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You are perfectly welcome to make suggestions for improvement. At present, your criticism is too general to be helpful. --dab (𒁳) 15:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Cnilep, there is no rule on wikipedia that says one cannot break up a word into two, in order to convey something. Linguistics people include all those who are associated with linguistics, and not just those who have a degree and are called "linguists". "Linguistics people" is similar to linguists, just as "wikipedia people" would be understood to be similar to wikipedians. We are free to use a word as we want, especially on talkpages. Variations are not banned on talkpages OR the article. Supriya 16:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I made it sound as though I was attempting to impose any rule against any usage or style of discourse. I intended my comment above to be an indirect question ('What is "linguistics people"?') and a definition (of "linguists"). Indeed there are no such rules.

There are, of course, policies and guidelines. As you've noted above, Wikipedia is not censored. At the same time, it is not intended to be a publisher of original research, a soapbox, or an exhaustive list of all facts regarding a topic.

It is also generally assumed that editors act in good faith, as I did and I assume you do. I certainly meant no offense and I apologize if caused any. Cnilep (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Buridan, there is only one contemporary person mentioned in the History section at all, and that's Chomsky. It is, after all, a history section, so there's not too much discussion of the contemporary state of the field anyway. Again, you haven't made the case that the article is biased towards Americans. —Angr 16:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

In the lead paragraph, there is an American bias in the sense that linguistics is listed as originally a subfield of anthropology. This is nearly 100% American, based on Boas. In Europe, linguistics grew out of philology. I've added that point-of-view in there, but didn't look up references yet. (Taivo (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC))

Agree. Four-field anthropology is an American perspective. Social Anthropology as understood in Britain and the Commonwealth, for instance, does not traditionally include linguistics. On the other hand, prior to the rise of linguistics within American anthropology, those scientists studying language were generally known as philologists. A slightly broader description of philology might be called for. Maybe break the sentence referring to "anthropology... in the United States and philology in Europe" into two sentences, or perhaps two coordinate clauses? Cnilep (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

scientific

ok, so you can cite it as a science, and i can cite it as an art. weee, that means you can't just put scientific. sorry. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22art+of+linguistics%22&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%22linguistics+is+an+art%22&btnG=Search linguistics is an art, and since all sciences are arts, no problem putting it as an art. granted it is not the 'fine art' --Buridan (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have an introductory textbook that calls linguistics an art? We can cite hundreds that call it a science. Wikipedia is driven by references and websites are not reliable sources for things such as that. (Taivo (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC))

don't need one just need to be able to provide verifiable sources, sorry. there is clearly disagreement in the field. you might want it to be a science, and elements of it may be a science, but if there are elements that do not agree, then we don't call it a science under npov. we can of course discuss the debate or we can say 'generally considered a science' then cite people who don't call it that, but we can't just universalize unless it is universal. --Buridan (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There really isn't any dispute in the sources. Linguistics is a science in the sense of being a scientific approach to the study of Language. In the lead sentence, you don't list ancillary aspects of the field, but its primary aspect--it is a science. (Taivo (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC))

If you want to come up with one "thing" that linguistics is, then "art" is not it. It is a scientific approach to the study of language. Painting, sculpture, etc. are arts. Linguistics is no more an "art" than is cultural anthropology or animal behavior. (Taivo (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC))

actually government is an art, and anthropology is a humanities, there is nothing especially scientific about linguistics anymore than there is about economics, but both usually fail, much like phrenology, most demarkations of the sciences. That is of course if we are talking of the special sciences. but I'm supposed to finish editing a book today, can't play around here anymore. going to mark it for improvement and npov and move on. --Buridan (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Show me a reference to a single introductory linguistics text that describes the field as an "art". (Not a website, just type in the quote here.) (Taivo (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC))

Taivo and I come from completely opposite perspectives within the field but on this point we completely agree. It meets the definition of scientific: It uses the scientific method. It's a social science. No one within the field believes it to be an art. (Also Taivo is an expert, as am I (prof. of linguistics), as is Angr (Ph.D. in linguistics), as is Garik (Ph.D. student in linguistics) as is DAB. THis one definitely has plenty of expert attention.AndrewCarnie (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Buridan, I see you're at Virginia Tech. Next time you're on campus, stop by Shanks Hall and ask Prof. Joe Eska in the Department of English whether linguistics can be considered an art. He's no Chomskyan, but I have no doubt he'll tell you the same as the rest of us: it's a science. (Incidentally, did you notice most of your hits for "art of linguistics" actually say "state of the art of linguistics"? That's not calling linguistics an art.) —Angr 18:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

science can be an art too. This isn't a fruitful discussion. In fact, I am a little disheartened by the quality of comments made on this talkpage. It seems to be filled with random top-of-the-head a-priori remarks rather than any informed and dedicated drive to improve the article.

I think what is needed here is stricter WP:TALK enforcement. We have allowed Supriyya to turn this page into her personal noticeboard, and now we seem to be having difficulties going back to serious things. --dab (𒁳) 20:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

anthropology

umm, the history of linguistics page doesn't mention anthropology so much as philology. I think anthroplogy needs to be moved out of the start paragraph. --Buridan (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

While European linguistics has a firm foundation in philology, once it got to America it was grabbed up by anthropology very solidly and you will find that most Linguistics departments in the U.S. grew out of anthropology departments. The order of anthro and philo might be reversed in the lead paragraph, but the influence of anthropology on American linguistics (and, thence, through Sapir and Chomsky to the rest of the world) is important enough to include it. (Taivo (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC))

Too bad of course that wikipedia is not a U.S. thing... so this is a npov issue? you are showing the American story? if one side is included, the other needs included, that's the thing.--Buridan (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That's why I added philology. BOTH parts of linguistics' ancestry are important. (Taivo (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC))

Archived to help us return to WP:Talk. kwami (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV and expert

I doubt anyone can disagree that the article is incomplete, lacks perspective and presents a perspective that is not universally agreed. I've pointed out the issue with linguistics being called a science, which isn't universal. It is actually just a bias of american linguistics. Similarly the history section does not reflect the unbiased basis of the article on the history of linguistics. The whole article has a chomsky and united states bias, and it needs to be corrected. We need experts to do it. The expert we have seems to be putting his view forth, but again, it is one of many. Wikipedia is about verifiability and consensus, not fighting to protect an owned article. Let's get the npov fixed, it will take time, but it can be done. --Buridan (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'll support you in cutting down the attention given to Chomsky, but saying L is not a science is silly--unless you have something to back you up? It's a "soft" science, sure, some of it is pseudoscience (e.g. Chomsky), and it has more than its share of crackpots, but then so does physics. Should we also tag the physics article because the claim that it's a science is not universally agreed? kwami (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you give us all a break from simply arguing - use your sandbox Buridan and let's see what you can come up with that's so much less POV and so much more universally agreed and unbiased and once you've done that, we can comb it over. All this tit for tat isn't moving the article in *any* direction. Don't forget to reference it.... Akerbeltz (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict]] [As per Akerbeltz,] Get some actual sources and be specific about what is POV, and we can talk. Otherwise you're just being disruptive. We were too tolerant with the last POV pusher wasting our time, and we don't need another. kwami (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

actually did that, posted them here, someone archived it pretty quickly. I'm not pushing pov, i'm just pushing npov. there are two sides, even your ph.d. editor said it is 10% art, then removed reference to art. --Buridan (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) This article is already fairly neutral. And Chomsky is one of the most influential linguists in the history of the field. Whether you agree with any one or more of his theories or not is immaterial--he fundamentally changed the way that linguistics was done, just as Einstein fundamentally changed the way that physics was done. Einstein wasn't always right, but he changed the field. That's the real key to importance, not how many people today are "Chomskyites", but how is the field different today because of him. Like him or not, he deserves a key position in any discussion of the science of linguistics. (Taivo (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC))

Part of the problem, I think, was the inclusion of Chomsky in the intro. Even as a Chomskyan I don't think that's appropriate. I've moved the Chomsky discussion much later in the article, which I think may even out the POV issues. (but there is NO doubt that it is a science at least among us who practice it.)AndrewCarnie (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the edits that you have made, Andrew. The perspective is much more even now. (Taivo (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC))

(ec) There is, however, one issue which I've always been uncomfortable with about Chomsky and discussions of Generative Grammar. That is the whole "language acquisition" emphasis. While Chomsky was interested in that, the actual application of generative theory throughout the field has rarely even touched upon that issue. Pick up 100 generative grammars and maybe one of them will mention language acquisition as an issue. I think that the language acquisition aspect needs to be toned down a lot. It can still be mentioned as an interest of Chomsky's, but it is not the driving force behind generative theory in application to the languages of the world. (Taivo (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC))

(ec) ::::I disagree, see for example the very extensive work done by Thornton and Craine, By C. McKee, By Paul Bloom, by David Lightfoot, by Nina Hyams, by Tom Bever, by LouAnn Gerken, to name just a few, who have extensively attacked the issue of language acquisition from the perspective of generative grammar. Some of these (e.g. Gerken) have come away thinking GG is wrong, but others have guided and reshaped our understanding of linguistic systems within the GG paradigm. Further, it is a stated desideratum of GG that the theoretical proposals must be simultaneously testable from an acquisitional/psychological perspective. Sometimes the results don't work out the way we want them, but sometimes they do. I think L.A. is a very important part of GG. But, really, this isn't an issue to worry about on this page I think. I think as long as other schools other than GG are represented, then we should leave the short GG section unchanged, since that's how we GGians define ourselves (rightly or wrongly).AndrewCarnie (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC).

My main perspective on saying that is not on theoretical grounds, but on practical grounds. Very few GG grammars of non-European languages even mention LA as part of the process of developing a grammar for a particular language. I guess it all depends on which end of the horse one is looking at--theory or practice. (Taivo (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC))

I would say the article as it stands is a fairly neutral description of the field of linguistics. Perhaps, given those who've contributed to crafting it, it does better reflect the Chomskyan/GG/American perspective that some other perspectives out there. However, that is indeed an extremely important perspective and most alternative approaches (whether functionalist or non-Chomskyan generative or some of the newer hybrids) have been developed in reaction to the GG paradigm. And most of these newer approaches accept some of the basic tenets of the GG paradigm that language is a system, with underlying categories that are mental objects, etc. The "scientific" basis of linguistics is unquestionable, and for that matter within the last 10 years or so the amount of empirical work using new techniques such as corpus studies or experimental paradigms puts the empirical foundation of a lot of recent linguistic work on par with any of the other social/behavioral sciences. I would perhaps like this article to be more balanced between insight gained from the study of syntax versus phonology/phonetics, but it would be the responsibility of somebody like me to get in and do that so hopefully I will find the time relatively soon. There is no mention at all of laboratory phonology, which is an approach of growing importance developed over the last 20 years. By way of authority, I have a Ph.D. in linguistics from Northwestern, currently teach linguistics, phonetics, and acoustics in a communication disorders department at the University of South Florida, and am the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Phonetics.Stefanafrisch (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

As a note about the American perspective, it's been my experience teaching and lecturing in Eastern Europe that they are hungry for American input to complement their traditional approaches to linguistics through philology. When I was asked to teach "Typology" in Ukraine, I taught American typology and they were amazed--to them "typology" is "comparative grammar". In Poland, they were trying to incorporate more generative grammar in their phonology and historical linguistics courses. In that part of the world one of the biggest problems is still access to American scholarship through books and journals. But they are really hungry for it, nonetheless. In linguistics, it's hard to keep the American emphasis out of the treatment because, especially post-Chomsky, Americans are driving the car. (Taivo (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC))

Direction of this discussion

I am very unhappy to see the strange direction this discussion page has taken. The academic discipline of linguistics is about the scientific study of language. This is clearly the subject matter for THIS page. Other approaches to language can have their own article, and they can call their field whatever they want to call it [e.g. literary linguistics]. Linguistics is internationally recognized as a valid scientific discipline. The purpose of the article is to give a fair description of some of the more general results of that endeavor. OF COURSE, this might turn out to be a misguided endeavor, but we won't know if THAT is true for quite a while.

Another issue that is being presented mostly in an irritating way is the role of Chomsky in linguistics. One thing that it is very important to make clear is that Generative Linguistics is not about Chomsky worship. Chomsky made an incredibly important contribution in founding Generative Linguistics, but many Generative Linguists disagree with Chomsky on all sorts of points. In fact, we need to take the upper case away, and say that generative linguistics (note lower case) is a very diverse approach to language, a "project", in the sense that generative linguists are exploring how well a generative model can be applied to the full diversity of language. (My view: so far a lot has been explained but most of language remains mysterious.)

The article on the Linguistics page seems very measured to me in acknowledging the importance of generative linguistics to the discipline but in not taking sides in the many valid scientific disagreements. There would, however, be no disagreement among linguists that the goal of both Functionalist (or is it really functionalist?) and generative linguists is to construct a valid scientific approach to language. We would rather leave literary and other avowedly non-scientific approaches to other disciplines.Pcole (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

yet... those are linguistics too. you can't just demarkate your preference and say this is linguistics, and those people over there doing linguistics are not doing it and not in the article. that's not the way wikipedia works, you need to write the whole article to account for all the phenomena, else you are just giving your opinion, which has very little to do with truth. --Buridan (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Buridan, you requested expert attention to this article. Pcole is a professor of linguistics at U Delaware and Andrew is a professor of linguistics at U Arizona. Their opinion carries the weight here. (Be careful what you ask for.) Linguistics is what linguists define it to be. Counting me, there are three linguistics professors telling you that linguistics is 1) concerned with a scientific approach to natural language and 2) this article isn't about "literary linguistics" or other such things. (Taivo (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC))

then this article needs to be relabled as 'scientific linguistics' because 'linguistics' includes 'those other things'. all one needs to ask is.. 'are they linguistics' the honest answer is yes. to then say they do not belong here because they are not this kind of linguistics is a violation of neutrality. you are not representing linguistics, just the flavor of the month. we can of course refer this to the larger community I suppose and see. we could ask for a review. the article should be about linguistics in its broadest sense, not 'what linguistics professors do', especially when the professors are not necessarily accounting for the whole of the field. --02:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I remind you again, Buridan, that it was you who asked for expert opinion. Now you are discounting the expert opinion which you yourself solicited? That's like changing the rules of the game in the middle just because you are losing. It's clear that your interest is not in learning what linguistics is or isn't (since you are a political scientist). Linguists have the right to define what their field of study is. (Taivo (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC))

I don't agree with the statement "then this article needs to be relabled as 'scientific linguistics' because 'linguistics' includes 'those other things'." Linguistics is what the practitioners of the discipline define it to be, the scientific study of language, or at least, the attempt to study language scientifically. ( I get paid by an accredited university to explain what linguistics is to non-linguists because I spent long years getting a Ph.D. in linguistics, and then many more years training other people to get Ph.D.s in the field.) I can see why there are complaints about the "wiki" approach to creating an encyclopedia. A scientific discipline needs to be described in a form the practitioners of the discipline think is appropriate. Can creationists step in and redefine what is biology? What is happening here is equivalent to that. It is really essential that this non-sense come to an end.

Please note that I don't wish to censor Buridan and others of his/her ilk. The point is that their discussion belongs elsewhere.Pcole (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to add another expert opinion (I'm a professor of linguistics at MIT), I agree with PCole, Andrew, and Taivo: linguistics is a science, as various people have amply documented here. I'm actually not clear on what Buridan wants. The article already includes references to ways of studying language that aren't linguistics (like semiotics, or literary theory), and it's clear that we need some way of distinguishing between what a semioticist does and what I do (since we share almost no assumptions about what we study). Why not allow linguists to decide what linguistics is?NorvinR (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

May I join in the chorus of expert opinion here, representing Stanford. And as a kind of higher authority, may I point to the Linguistics Society of America, which in the brochure "Why major in linguistics?" writes "Linguistics is, broadly, the scientific study of language, and many topics are studied under this umbrella." It would be nice if those disagreeing with this definition of our field, could point out some professional experts engaged in "non-scientific linguistics" -- to me this sounds like a contradiction. USland (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

S'ok, he has gone on wikibreak now. Back to editing. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the assertion that "other avowedly non-scientific approaches to other disciplines" (Pcole, above) "are linguistics too" (Buridan, above), there seems to be a confusion between the common-language use of linguistic ("related to language") and the term linguistics as used within the field ("the scientific study of language"). This article is, and should be, related to the latter. And in case my bona fides may be questioned, I am a PhD candidate in the department of linguistics at the University of Colorado. Cnilep (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm an "expert" too (professor of linguistics at Williams College), and in my expert view, an encyclopedia page called "linguistics" should be limited in scope to describing the specific academic discipline known as "linguistics". It should not be concerned with giving equal space to every other conceivable intellectual pursuit having something to do with language. If we were to follow Buridan's recommendation, we would also need to modify the economics page to cover every academic topic relating to money (metallurgy, cultural history of currency portraiture, anti-counterfeiting technology, etc.). Ludling (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

A total aside - it's been fascinating to see how many highly qualified people Wikipedia does attract, along with a few more colorful personalities! Akerbeltz (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Censorship?

Good lord. Lots of update on the discussion where I left it. Why don't people appreciate the existence of post-structural linguistics. Everybody is arguing and yet they are blocking people and sticking to the same thing? What's the matter? Knightingail (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I am a huge huge fan of Derrida. But he is not a linguist. he is a philosopher. Linguistics is one academic discipline (and within linguistics, "structural linguistics" is just one of a great many subfields). Philosophy is another. There is a "philosophy of language" article. Also, I am sure there is a Derrida article, and an article on deconstruction, and on post-structuralism. So anyone who talks about censorship is - and I say this with respect, in good faith, and constructively - making a fool of themselves. I think it is reasonable to have a link to articles on the philosophy fo language, and notable books by philosophers talking about language, in this article. A big part of Wikipedia is wise use of hypertext and links to show how different articles weave together. In the article on philosophy of lnguage, I want to know what philosophers are doing. in this article, I want to know what linguists are doing. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

one gets you five Knightingail is Supriyya. We should submit this to RCU instead of perpetuating this non-debate. --dab (𒁳) 13:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

what gets you what Knightingail is what? Knightingail (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Knightingail, do you really want to bother? 58.68.48.82 (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC) (Supriya)

we're still waiting for your students' brilliant vindication of the field. --dab (𒁳) 10:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that might have to wait until violating admins on Wikipedia are blocked, isn't it Knightingail? Supriya 12:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I can assure you that violating admins is already considered an offense on Wikipedia :p --dab (𒁳) 15:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you feeling violated, dab, with the idea that post-structural linguistics will indeed be up on wikipedia sometime or the other? Sorry. Maybe you should try complaining about being made to feel violated like that. Really sorry. And otherwise...

...I really wish you would see that your own words actually apply to you and your ilk, and not to me. Your POV pushing is not going to last long, guaranteed. Sooner or later there will be a new order, and you and all the rest of your campaigners and POV pushers will be the ones to be blocked. Supriya 13:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

In fact, it's just a matter of time till the right folk on wiki are found for this purpose. Best of luck, till this nonsense lasts. Supriya 13:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Give it a rest, folks! --Pfold (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, let's. Supriya would appear to be trolling. Let's just ignore or revert unless evidence is ever presented. kwami (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Pragmatics

The definition of pragmatics in this article is wrong. Read what wikipedia's pragmatics has to say, which conflicts with this. "Pragmatics or intent is the study of how the arrangement of words and phrases can alter the meaning of a sentence, it deals with the structural ambiguity in a sentence." Pragmatics is not the study of texts and conversations -- anything in linguistics can be a study of that! How does that definition explain what pragmatics is, as compared to what the other disciplines or sub-disciplines of linguistics isn't? I'm going to find sourced stuff on pragmatics and change that. Supriya 08:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't know where you're getting your definition of "pragmatics", but the study of how the arrangement of words and phrases in the sentence can alter the meaning of a sentence is not pragmatics, but syntax and semantics. Pragmatics relies critically on context for its field of view. Get some consensus here before you start altering the article. Right now no one trusts your judgement and you will be reverted automatically. (Taivo (talk) 10:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

So you agree that the page has been dependent on my judgement or the judgement of people who come here to edit it? That's original research. Please stop promoting it, Taivo. But as an aside, even the pragmatics page definition is wrong. Pragmatics is not the study of the structure of sentences and words, it is the study, rightly, like you said of the context of these things, and more: gestures. It is not the direct meaning but the inherant meaning of something. But if you're interested in "trusting someone's (who comes to edit) judgement, then very good. Don't trust mine. I know someone who teaches Pragmatics and will get him to come and edit the article. 122.161.225.39 (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC) (Supriya)

Let's not all get over-excited. The definition of pragmatics on this page could do with being fleshed out and made a little clearer, which I've just tried to do now. garik (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Supriya, pragmatics has nothing to do with gestures. It's about oral natural language used in context. (Taivo (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC))

Well, it has nothing to do with nonlinguistic gestures. But sign languages have pragmatics too! —Angr 15:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. In overemphasizing the "language" I forgot about signed languages. But, in your superior wording, nonlinguistic gestures are completely irrelevant. (Taivo (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC))

Lingual/Language

These mean two different things. The correct word is "lingual" and not "language". That is linguistically wrong. 58.68.48.82 (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You won't find the word 'lingual' used in the literature, except as a phonetic term. Your certainty is quite misplaced. --Pfold (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"Lingual structure" means "structure of the tongue", not "language structure". (Taivo (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC))

As Taivo says "lingual" is the adjective meaning to do with the tongue. "Language" is a perfectly acceptable adjective. (Just as "leather" is a fine adjective in "leather shoes", "language" is a fine adjective in "language structures". —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCarnie (talk • contribs) 19:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Lingual does not mean toungue. Ling means toungue. Lingual is something that applies to the toungue. So you'd be right if I had said ling structure. However, it should be lingual structure. 58.68.48.82 (talk) 08:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to be very clear, I never said lingual means tongue, I said "lingual is the adjective describing the tongue", these are completely different things. The point is that lingual is *not* used among professionals to refer to language structures, it is used by native English speaking professionals (when they do use the term) to refer to the anatomical organ we call the tongue. Language is the correct adjective to use here. AndrewCarnie (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree? And since this is a linguistics article, not an article on general language. Language structure means it also studies the structure of literary language, which it does not, because it is linguistics. If that is the case: if we study language structure and not merely lingual structure then we must talk about various language structures like literary language structures and philosophical language structures in tradition with non-academic or non-mainstream trends too. We cannot contradict out own selves in this article and threaten Wikipedia's credibility! --Alamari —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.48.82 (talk) 09:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

We must make everything very, very clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.48.82 (talk) 09:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we should. So stop making things unclear by using anatomical terms for linguistics.

"Lingual" has never been used in linguistics to refer to language. There is a bit of poetic use ("lingual offices"), but even there it stands in for tongue as a metaphor for language. Its only use in linguistics has been to refer to sounds made by the tongue, that is, lingual vs. labial. That usage is now obsolete, except in the case of the lingual airstream mechanism, as opposed to a glottal or pulmonary airstream. In that sense, there are no lingual sounds in English, clearly a contradiction of your edit. kwami (talk) 09:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's avoid getting dragged into another endless and pointless discussion by "Alamari" and just get on with editing this article usefully. garik (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong, that's all I can say. this article is wrong. It is misrepresentation of linguistics and as one can see abov in discussion pages, no cooperation is being meted out by community persons. Shame. 122.163.155.133 (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Shame. Shame. 58.68.48.82 (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hahahaha...this article sounds like it has been hurtled over by a volcano community of people who've grown up using the C and M words during high school exams :) Dolmagray (talk) 11:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

please comment

On this AfD (an article on someone claiming to be competent in research in linguistics) Slrubenstein | Talk 20:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Locked

Hi folks! The linguistics page will be locked like this if there is no balance in the article. I have unlimited broadband connection in my "call" center here and I'll leave the editable page open endlessly if there's no justice. Yours Lovingly, Dolmagray. Dolmagray (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia policy on civility. --macrakis (talk) 09:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I just blocked him for disruption. kwami (talk) 09:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Her (this is a sockpuppet of User:Supriyya). —Angr 10:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, leaving the editable page open endlessly has absolutely no effect on the page. Everyone else simply continues to see the page as it is, and can make edits to it (which will then result in an edit conflict for you if and when you do decide to hit save). —Angr 09:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that made me smile!

I must be sexist. When someone acts like that, I assume it's a he.

Do we know it's Supriyya? Can we make the block indefinite? kwami (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that would be nice. If Dolmagray and his/her/its broadband connection isn't Supriyya, then it's surely one of the "hard-working and inventive" students she kept promising to have rewrite the article. (Taivo (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC))

There is normally a better-than-average chance that anyone editing Wikipedia for good or ill is male, but in this case I'm pretty sure it's Supriyya. User:58.68.48.82's edit here is clearly Dolmagray having forgotten to log in, while the same IP's edits here and here are clearly Supriyya having forgotten to log in. —Angr 10:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it's Supriyya, the content of these last few edits have been identical to the ones she tried to press a few months ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCarnie (talk • contribs) 15:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Good enough for me. I'll block Dolmagray indefinitely. If people think I'm oversteping my bounds, I have no problem with s.o. else undoing the block. kwami (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Strange!

I think very strange things are happening on this wikipedia page. Do you all agree? There is often a spooky little reason for such things. Who are all these people? Supriyya? Knightingale? Angr? Dolmagray? Garik? AndrewCarnie? They're all characters created to do something to linguistics. Interesting but very weird and something needs to be put straight. We have to be more professional. Yet we can't be ruthless. We have to be professional and just. Can we? Is it possible? Who is right? Who is wrong? I have a suggestion. Let's delete the entire article and start writing it from scratch in the true and correct way. Pardon my Inglish, it isn't the best, so you correct its grammar when it goes wrong. I'm deleting this page so we can start it all over again. That's the only way the jinx on the wikipedia linguistics page will go and linguistics will be saved and will be fine? Say yes to this suggestion of mine, and things will be good for this community again I promise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadoogiri (talk • contribs) 08:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing strange is happening to this page, and it does not have to be deleted and rewritten from scratch. All that needs to happen is for the article to remain neutral and verifiable, without putting undue emphasis on fringe theories that no serious linguist adheres to. —Angr 08:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

But I don't understand! There is a fight happening here, no? What is the fight about? How to solve this fight without deleting and re-writing the article from scratch? Please let me delete it. I'd like to do good to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadoogiri (talk • contribs) 09:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No, there's no fight. There's one person trying to push her idiosyncratic ideas about what linguistics ought to be into the article, but that just means the article requires monitoring, not rewriting. —Angr 10:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Who is this she? Can't she be taken into confidence? Jadoogiri (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Another sock-puppet I think...AndrewCarnie (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

What's a sock puppet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadoogiri (talk • contribs) 15:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This is comedy. garik (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm waiting for the concession stand to open. (Taivo (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

Delete

This article really needs help and is not stable. *Calls for help* -Jadoogiri. Jadoogiri (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Like all articles on Wikipedia, it could do with some improvement, but it's stable enough, and certainly does not need deletion. —Angr 11:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. You can work on deleting the extra 20 pounds I gained since moving back to the U.S. from Ukraine instead. The only instability in this article is from the Puppeteer running Jadoogiri. You can identify her because she is only wearing one sock. She used the other one to make a puppet. (Taivo (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC))

Please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadoogiri (talk • contribs) 15:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

!!!!!!!

Hahaha. Wow.

Supriya 15:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I blocked Supriyya again. She doesn't seem to be catching on, so we might need to make this permanent. kwami (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. She's always got her socks ;) (Taivo (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC))

Some Subdisciplines Subsection

The "Some subdisciplines subsection" and the "Fundamental Concerns and Divisions" sections seem to overlap in content. Personally I like the "Fundamental Concerns" version better, but am unwilling to cut the other section without some discussion. AndrewCarnie (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Could "Linguistic Analysis" be removed here? It is not an area of the field that anyone does regularly nor that anyone makes a regular living doing. It is too small to be considered a sub-discipline. Perhaps it is merely a practical extension of the study of linguistics. On another note, should the diachronic linguistics section be relabelled "historical linguistics" and revised? While there is some debate right now on the role of diachrony in linguistic generalizations, it is quite well and alive (e.g. Blevins 2004) in many academic departments, despite what is alluded to in the section.-Lingboy (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Names for US Americans

I asked for a third opinion at Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements on the best name for Names for U.S. citizens and whether the attested phrase "US American" should be allowed in the article. Maybe some of you have opinions on this? kwami (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard "US American" before. Like the article says, "American" seems to be the most common (regardless of how ridiculous a term it is). I've heard "United Statesian", but pretty much as a joke. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(clarification, after reading some of the discussion at Talk:Names for U.S. citizens) I don't have a problem with including the term in the article; I just don't know if it's a reasonable title to use for the article. "U.S. citizens" seems to be the most general, neutral term (without aligning itself with any of the names), whereas "US Americans" is one of the names themselves. To make an analogy to another article that recently went through a titillating AfD, it would be like renaming Criticisms of Bill O'Reilly to Bill O'Reilly is a jerk—using one of the specific examples as the full article title. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that "Names of US Americans" should be the title, just that "Names of Americans" is inappropriate. kwami (talk) 07:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why this is being discussed here. What has this got to do with the Linguistics article? —Angr 09:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't intend for the discussion to be here. I just thought perhaps some of the people here might have an opinion to share on that article's talk page. kwami (talk) 10:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

My fault. I'll take my comments over there. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Business

Hi, some of you might remember a user called Goblin a year or two ago, who was an admin and was active on this linguistics page. That was me. I've lost the details of that account and am back now. What is happening to this page??? What nonsense is this? Please resolve this argument immediately, or every single one of you will be eventually banned. Jadoogiri and AndrewCarnie included. That's the only way to end this havoc, isn't it? No discretion in banning people. The entire community will die and a more serious one will come, one which will contribute to serious mainstream linguistics that looks at the subject as a science and does not dig their fingers in all this bullshitting. Period.

As you also might be aware, I've been teaching linguistics since the last 35 years in the East, which includes Beijing, Hong Kong and Puttucksvilla, and I think I should be able to take a call on this and I think my judgment and decision should be heard and respected. Now I think someone needs to mean "business" on this page. And I mean BUSINESS. Everyone's being going berserk fighting with each other? I've been reading the archives all day! What utter informal rubbish has been discussed here over the last few months?! Stop this right now.

Please take this as a warning, and if that's not enough, then an ultimatum.

Stinguist (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I agree the discussion has been pretty pointless, but since you can't do anything about it, what's with the threats? You've been sucked in and are now just another spouter of drivel. That's how we breed. kwami (talk) 10:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "havoc"? This article is quiet as a tomb compared to Macedonia. (Taivo (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC))

Also, User:Goblin is not an admin or former admin, has never edited this article or this talk page, but has edited Wikipedia just a few weeks ago, so it's unlikely he has "lost the details of that account". —Angr 21:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it tends to be cranks who issue "ultimatums". I could see it if they were trying to reveal that language derives from dolphins, Atlantis, or extra-terrestrials, but this seems a really odd POV for a bunch of crackpots to latch on to. (Or one crackpot, more likely, since they all appear to have about the same intellect.) kwami (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What will you people do if a group of 100 or 200 people are brought in, and they all rotate to take turns in reverting back the article to state the idea that linguistics is also an art? How many people will you be able to handle? Knightingail (talk) 06:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

this is just pathetic. Supriyya is either having a good laugh, or she must truly believe everyone else is a complete moron. You couldn't fool five year olds with this sock circus. At this point, just permaban her and all her accounts. Supriyya, Wikipedia can easily deal with 200, or even 500 of your socks, you wouldn't be the first to try. So please don't bother. --dab (𒁳) 07:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not understanding this right. what does this guy, above, mean? socktalk and sockcircus? and what have we?! incoherent! i would fail all my students instantly if they behaved like this. Knightingail (talk) 08:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

and dab, refer to Supriyya under her message, not under mine! I have a name too. It is Knightingail. Knightingail. KNIGHTINGAIL, KNIGHTINGAIL, KNIGHTINGAIL. This is most offensive talkpage behaviour: to refer to one person as another. please enforce some talkpage discipline here, ho hum! Knightingail (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I know. And "stinguist" of course, another linguist ex machina with a "funny" username. Andd your declaration that you are willing to come up with another 100-200 clones. I am ready to end this with the ban-hammer: what does everyone think: do you want to go through checkuser with this first? --dab (𒁳) 08:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If you can get a checkuser approved, go for it. A separate issue is whether we are ready to ban Supriyya for exhausting the community's patience. —Angr 08:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Supriyya. It's been a while since I last looked at checkuser, and an impressive bureaucracy seems to have grown around it (as usual with any Wikipedia procedure). --dab (𒁳) 09:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been told quack and I tend to agree. I've blocked the socks, and I am willing to issue a permanent block to Knightingail as well at the first time that this charade is going to continue. After that, it will just be a game of whack the sock. It' is high time to take the burden of dealing with this nonsense off this page so that interested editors can continue to work on the article in peace. --dab (𒁳) 11:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Restoring Foucault and Derrida to list of texts

Having reviewed the discussions presented on the talk page and its archives, I have restored the Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault texts to the list in the article. The discussions were quite shocking in their non-neutral POV and failure to address the criteria established by the Wikipedia project as a whole to address such disagreements. Editors' personal or professional opinions are not the way in which such disputes ought to be resolved. This is not an arena for any of you to push your own agendas about what you think linguistics is or isn't, should or should not be. Instead, we refer to reliable sources and see what they say and report those results in the article. Even the most brief search on Google books for the words "Foucault" and "linguistics" generates plenty of results, demonstrating that post-structuralist analyses are relevant and appropriate to this article. Whether Foucault may be considered a "linguist" or not is entirely besides the point. I notice that philosophers whom we would not call linguists make several appearances in the article; that Foucault and Derrida wrote during a time when others were also exploring the field with a scientific methodology makes no difference whatsoever to the appropriateness of their appearance in this article. The use of sources to resolve disputes is a fundamental principle of the Wikipedia project, without which its popular image as an unreliable source of information is entirely justified. Please try to respect that when encountering something with which you disagree. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that this addition has been reverted twice now without addressing the concerns detailed here. Whether you feel that they have been addressed in the past or not is irrelevant. If there is a concern now--and there is--then it needs to be addressed. I'm more than happy for you to explain why the vast amount of published material on this subject is irrelevant, but you need to make that case. That a few of you share an opinion does not mean that this determines the content of the article; that's what the principle of referring to sources is there for. The truthiness of your consensus is not a substitute for an argument based on the evidence of sources. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

On a slightly different note: I think most people here would agree that there are numerous texts worth removing from the list besides Foucault and Derrida. Before this discussion gets going, let's ask if we really need the Popular Works and Texts section. Cnilep voted above for removing it altogether. There's something to be said for that. I'd be in favour of leaving a small number of introductory texts on linguistics and its major branches, though choosing which introductory works to put in may prove to not be worth the effort. garik (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are definitely other texts in the list that need to be removed, not just Foucault and Derrida. —Angr 13:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The list is greatly improved by Angr's trimming. I think, though, there are still quite a few candidates for removal - things that aren't suitable for those who've never read a linguistics book before and who are coming to Wp to find pout what linguistics is. And I'm not sure we need books on individual branches - the branch pages are probably a better place to look for those. We could usefully introduce some sub-headings, too - clumping the encyclopedias together, for example, and separating out the books genuinely aimed at a popular audience from the textbooks. --Pfold (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Garik, Angr, and Pfold - which is not to say that I disagree with Cnilep (grin). A number of introductory texts should be mentioned; though not necessarily an introduction to each subfield. Maybe introductions to theoretical linguistics generally, syntax, phonology, and applied linguistics generally? Similarly for Branches and subfields, maybe the "big six" (phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics) plus applied linguistics should be listed? Maybe historical linguistics too? But by the time we get to glottometrics or asemic writing I think we're down to details rather than subfields. Cnilep (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

How would we determine which text to list for each subfield? Most have numerous different introductory books with different slants (for example, I have three introductory syntax textbooks and three phonetics textbooks sitting on my shelf) and some don't really have any one good textbook-style introduction. For the ones that do have multiple books, choosing to list any one over the other would not be very Wikipedian of us, and listing all of them would just be listcruft. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed again. Derrida and Foucault are not linguists and their work is of no relevance to this article. Honestly, listing them makes as much as sense as listing Jane Goodall or Stephen Hawking. —Angr 13:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Failing to address the specific concerns detailed here is not an appropriate response. Either explain why the sources should be ignored or leave them there. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you have to explain why you insist on restoring utterly irrelevant information to this article. Neither of the books you want listed is about linguistics. What "reliable sources" assert that they are? —Angr 13:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you having difficulty reading the post made above? It states, quite clearly and unambiguously, that there is clear evidence from even the most cursory search on Google books that Foucault and Derrida's work--and Deleuze, etc. while we're at it--is relevant to the field of linguistics. Google book search "Foucault" and "linguistics" and you will be presented with a large quantity of evidence. Kindly follow Wikipedia's procedures and explain why all that material is irrelevant if you do not wish it to appear in the article. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You've identified the problem yourself - a cursory search on Google Books! Google Books searches can turn up anything - there's no way a cursory search there can separate the wheat from the chaff, the reliable sources from the fringey cruft. And even among the reliable sources, simply searching for "Foucault" and "linguistics" will do nothing but turn up books where the two words are mentioned on the same page - hardly convincing evidence that Foucault's contributions to linguistics are so earth-shattering he needs to be mentioned in the See also section of this article. —Angr 14:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually Derrida (not necessarily Foucault) was influential in Linguistics based literary criticism (as it evolved into Deconstruction). There should be some mention in the application of Linguistics for literary criticism, as there is a large connection. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Dionysos & Ottava Rima, If they were influential in linguistic-based literary criticism then they should be mentioned at Literary Criticism and not here. This article is about fundamental Linguistics, not all its hyphenated step-children. (Taivo (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

Um, actually, the article necessitates the discussion of Linguistics when it comes to literary criticism, as that is the primary field of application and it even mentions it in the lead! Ottava Rima (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

some of the titles are obviously irrelevant. Others, like the Terrence Deacon one, may be worth a closer look. The Symbolic Species may be relevant for discussing how linguistics has begun to interface with neighbouring disciplines such as anthropology and neurology. I am not sure about Derrida or Foucault. Googling "Foucault and linguistics" cannot be a basis for listing random works by that author in the bibliography. What DionysosProteus and Ottava Rima appear to be talking about is the Linguistic turn. Referencing that does not necessitate transcluding a postmodernist reading list, it can be as simple as "linguistics also influenced Western philosophy during the 20th century, see linguistic turn." Being influenced by a field and being relevant to a field are two seperate issues. --dab (𒁳) 14:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As User:DionysosProteus has reverted to his preferred version no fewer than 5 times in less than an hour, I have reported him at WP:AN3. —Angr 14:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely shameful behaviour from most of you. Wikipedia has clear guidelines about the removal of relevant and appropriate content. You are required to demonstrate here first that the material does not belong in the article before removing it, if it is sourced. The narrow POV-pushing in evidence is appalling. While the linguistic turn in continental philosophy is certainly something with which the authors mentioned are involved, they are ALSO involved in the field of linguistics. The evidence is out there and clear for all to see in the way I have described. That you share a narrow conception of what constitutes the field does not, in any way, justify the POV-pushing in which you are clearly engaged. Unjustified removal of content, especially to promote a narrow POV consititutes vandalism. Kindly desist. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

QUACK, the sock is at it againAndrewCarnie (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If that is an attempt to suggest that my account is a sock-puppet, I'd like to explain the basis for such an accusation. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"Most of you". That sounds like a clear majority of editors interested in this topic. Close to "consensus". (Taivo (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

Quite. Hence my description of truthiness. That you share a narrow and biased assessment of this field does not make your collective opinions true. Difficult though it may be for you to accept, you are required to engage with the evidence presented. That is how we resolve disputes, not by a hand-count. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I retract the accusation of sock, DP is clearly too articulate to be a sock of the usual suspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCarnie (talk • contribs) 15:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No, DP isn't a sock of Supriyya. He's been around a long time, longer than she has, and seems to be a valuable editor in areas he knows something about (the theater, acting, dancing, etc.). —Angr 15:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the practitioners in a field share a view of what falls outside it is hardly surprising. Linguistics is what linguists (with some help from the institutions that employ them) define it to be. There is no platonic definition of linguistics which we are failing to see and which you will be able to enlighten us on. --Pfold (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

sheesh. take a minute to look at the account's history before throwing around sock allegations. As for "you are required to engage with the evidence presented" -- well, then present evidence. As in, quote secondary sources in support of your claims. Also known as "writing encyclopedia articles". Just adding titles to a list of literature isn't "presenting evidence". No, you cannot dump assertions here and leave their verification as an exercise for the reader even if your assertions are true. When challenged, the burden lies with you to present evidence. Telling people to google isn't "presenting evidence". --dab (𒁳) 15:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

DP has been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring here, so he won't be presenting any evidence or anything else here until tomorrow at the earliest. —Angr 15:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

well, there is no deadline. As far as I am concerned, he is still perfectly welcome to present his evidence in good faith, and it will be considered in good faith, and may ultimately lead to an article expansion or modification. It is not out of the question to mention Derrida here. Such a mention just needs to be based on a solid rationale. --dab (𒁳) 11:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Popular Works and Texts section

There was brief discussion that went to the archives about pruning this. Everyone seemed to be in favour. It'll be quicker to list the texts that should definitely be kept than the ones that can be removed. Any suggestions? garik (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't need both the first and second editions of things like the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. The encyclopedias should be kept and probably the Blackwell handbooks. Bloomfield and Sapir are still important works, as are the two Chomsky volumes. The most popular intro textbooks should be there (adding Fromkin, Rodman, and Hyams, which is mysteriously missing from the list). Anilla's historical linguistics is still pretty standard in "lists" along with both Ladefoged's and Catford's intro phonetics books. Selecting syntax books will be trickier because it's like picking the two prettiest blooms on an apricot tree. (Taivo (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

It would be worth being clear what the section is for. I assume it's intended that people reading the article use the books as further reading, in which case Skinner's Verbal Behavior should go, if only for being outdated. It occurs to me that choosing which of the many books called "Introduction to Linguistics" (or something similar) to include is going to be tricky — can we come up with some reasonable criteria for what we include and what we don't? And how long should this section be? It definitely looks too long to me, but maybe that's paper-encyclopedia thinking. garik (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not obvious to me that the section is needed at all. It is not practical to list all works of possible interest and value, but there is no clear cut-off between works that should and should not be included. The whole See also section seems unduly long. I note that main pages for other social science disciplines typically either do not list Branches and fields or Popular works and texts, or their lists are no longer than a dozen or so items. This page lists around sixty of each! Cnilep (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(Note that what follows is a response to discussion below, beginning with garik's contribution at 13:40, 28 April 2009 through rʨanaɢ at 00:48, 29 April 2009. It seemed a bit mis-placed under the "Restoring Foucault and Derrida" heading.)

How would we determine which text to list for each subfield? That is indeed an important question. What do others think of this as a weekend project (or more likely, a set of such projects)? The Linguistic Society of America has a list of 209 linguistics programs, mostly at US colleges and universities. The LINGUIST List has a similar list with 826 programs from some 70 or 80 countries. If, as I imagine is the case, a suitably large number of these programs lists their required texts for introductory courses on the web, some enterprising user(s) could survey those requirements and count the number of programs requiring or recommending particular texts. If one (or more likely two or three) text is required by a suitable plurality, that should be the choice. In the case of the LINGUIST List list, anglophone programs could be surveyed. This would be no small task, but it seems do-able.

Other possibilities might be for users to suggest a bunch of potential texts and then to choose the most "popular" as determined by copies sold. A third possibility is to do away with the "Popular works and texts" heading as mentioned above, but that seems an unpopular suggestion. Cnilep (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If the Popular Works section is retained, who decides what goes in and what isn't there? Scholar1982 (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Troll

Do we have any reason to think that the IP troll that just signed as Supriyya actually was? kwami (talk) 09:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have as much experience with Supriyya as the rest of you, but I would venture to guess WP:DUCK is a good reason... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 09:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm just wondering if a block is appropriate. I don't want to do that if it wasn't actually Supriyya, tho it does seem likely it was. kwami (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• The IP address is from Delhi, like the other IP addresses that Supriyya has used, and this blog (formerly linked to from Supriyya's user page) indicates a writer living in Delhi (but the blog later got sold off to someone else by the Google machine). Of course, there are millions of people in Delhi, but the chances of it being anyone else are quite slim. —Angr 10:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

if Langauge Education is part of applied Linguistics then so is Dyslexia

Linguistics can not be taken in isolation, and not be only about the positive side of neurological skills acquiring language, as party of applied linguistics and more specifically language education. Linguistics must also be concerned with the neurological deficits which create problems in acquiring language, or Dyslexia. So it would be nice to have some help from some neurolinguists with the Wiki Dyslexia project Orthographies and dyslexia and Talk:Orthographies and dyslexia. We need to define the neurological skills required to perform the task of reading for each of the writing systems, so that we can begin to explain the types of neurological skill deficits which would explain why individuals can be bilingual but only dyslexic in one language.

Any help you can provide will be greatfully received. dolfrog (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of a linguist yet who doesn't think linguists should be concerned with language-related neurological deficits. Although it's worth adding that dyslexia is only one among many such deficits. You may also find it more helpful to post a request here. garik (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Between 2, among many is a rule we simply learnt

But even in a set of 32 Football gridiron teams, each match is between 2 squads. Thus a similarity can exist between two languages among the set of more than two languages. If it sounds better using between in lieu of among, it probably signals that when the comparison is being made, it is done pairwise. Lingust (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people are taught that "between" is for two items and "among" is for more than two. But that's a poor description of real English usage. As the American Heritage Dictionary usage note puts it, this is a "a widely repeated but unjustified tradition". Merriam Webster and Chambers are other good sources. While it's true that "among" doesn't work with only two items, either can be used for more than two, and the real distinction depends on whether the focus is on relationships between individuals or more generally distributed. I think your point is getting close to this, but it's not so much about the comparison being pairwise. Consider the distinction between the following: The bomb fell between the [three] houses and The bomb fell among the houses. In this case ("similarities between languages") it seems to me that "between" is called for, and perhaps is always called for with the word "similarity", as comparisons always carry an implication of individualising the entities involved. garik (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

help required

let me start again. We are trying to develop the Dyslexia into a summary article, with many sub articles for the more detailed information. Some of the Sub articles are going into areas or topics which have only previous been touched on, but now these sub articles require multi-discipline input from those who have specialist knowledge, which we do not have and we may need the provision of some detailed explanation so that we can build sub articles that have a strong content. The existing sub articles are as follows:

• Dyslexia research (new category Article)
  • Orthographies and dyslexia
  • History of developmental dyslexia
  • Theories of dyslexia
  • Genetic research into dyslexia
  • Brain scan research into dyslexia
• Management of dyslexia (new category article)
  • Managing dyslexia: alphabetic orthography
  • Category:Dyslexia support by country
• Category:Dyslexia researchers

There could be more articles to be added to this list Hopefully you can help us develop these articles. dolfrog (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there is someone here with the relevant expertise, but why haven't you posted a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics? garik (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

still finding my way around, I will post there soon dolfrog (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did suggest you do so the last time you posted a request here. This page is specifically for discussion of how to improve the Linguistics article, not for requests for help on other articles, so I do strongly recommend you use the project page. Hope you get a good response! garik (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

orphan

Any place here or a more specialized page (incl. under 'See also') for a link to the orphaned article Coercion (linguistics)?

There's also Arbitrary word order (linguistics), Cognitive and linguistic theories of composition, Creative linguistics, all orphans; Combinatorial method (linguistics) I linked from decipherment. kwami (talk) 05:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Coercion (linguistics) is nothing more than a definition, and probably needs to be redirected to something in grammar. Arbitrary word order (linguistics) redirects to Word order, which is not an orphan. Creative linguistics should be redirected to Constructed language (after checking if it contains any useful information not already in the target). Combinatorial method (linguistics) is a problem, as the cited sources are not in English. I believe it should be treated as a sub-topic of Historical linguistics. -- Donald Albury 11:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Coercion is a notion used in lexical semantics and in Distributed morphology. I don't have time to fix this myself. SorryComhreir (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Misleading phrasing of an imaginary "split"?

I worry that a new reader might be misled by the division set up in the first paragraph between "grammar" and "meaning". Semantics (pragmatics, etc) is certainly part of the "grammar" of an individual language, and it is studied as part of the grammatical competence of a speaker, as a system that can change according to grammatical (not just "natural" or extragrammatical) constraints, etc. Every linguistic semanticist I know (as opposed to philosophical etc.) would clearly claim that their work is about the grammar(s) of meaning: that is, how composite meanings are composed, how this happens within a grammatical system, etc. I suggest we re-write this intro sentence to play down (well, eliminate) this spurious dichotomy.

Second, I feel that one might get the impression that e.g. syntax and language acquisition (just to take two random elements) are two independent subfields (from the way they're listed here), when in fact they are orthogonal (the one describes a kind of object, the other a methodology for studying that object, roughly speaking), not in complementary distribution. When one studies language acquisition, one studies the acquisition of some part of the language competency, be it syntax, phonetics, etc. Likewise when one proposes a syntactic theory, part of the goals of that theory is to account for the data from acquisition. Setting the right tone for making this clear will be trickier, given the content of typical intro classes etc, but it's up to us to make sure people understand that these are not--and cannot be--mutually exclusive undertakings. Mundart (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

it is certainly possible to extend the meaning of "grammar" so far as to become equivalent to "language". I have never seen the point in that. Classically, a language is described as composed of (a) its grammar and (b) its lexicon. The fact that the two categories overlap, and that items may pass from one to the other over time, does not mean that they aren't real or meaninful concepts. --dab (𒁳) 16:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think its two different views of language. A formalist view typically defines grammar as only competence and exclude pragmatics and lexicon. A functionalist view of grammar would typically include much more of performance and include pragmatics.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That might have been true 20 years ago, but it isn't true anymore. Most formalists incorporate some view of information structure into their theories these days. The view, common in the EST, to leave pragmatics out was a reaction to generative semantics. Calmer heads now prevail.Comhreir (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

About the second point: of course syntax, semantics, FLA/SLA, and other fields have a ton of overlap, and people working in one often deal with the others as well. Still, the things called "syntax", "language acquisition", etc., are still useful as extremes, or idealized models of a field, even though in practice people integrate a lot of them. They are still often taught independently of one another (most degree programs, at least in the US, offer intro classes in "syntax", and in "phonology", and in "second language acquisition", and yada yada). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to contrast grammar with lexicon, but rather I'm pointing out that the intro now contrasts "grammar" with "meaning". I'm specifically thinking about all the work on the grammar of meaning (nonlexical meaning) in the last 40 years, since Montague especially (think about restrictions on multiple quantifiers, scope amibiguities, modals, adverbs, bound variables, comparatives, etc: all areas where the semantic problems are not just lexical). (Needless to say, classical approaches to the study of language ignored all these areas: a traditional grammar barely has syntax in it, let alone semantics. But luckily we're only tasked with improving the article about linguistics, where these things are indeed studied.)

I also agree that "syntax", "language acquisition" etc are all legitimate subfields of linguistics. And because of the way these areas are taught etc, we sometimes get the impression that they are independent subfields. It's this impression that I'd like to think of a way of avoiding giving (sorry, can't help violate Ross's doubl-ing constraint...). Mundart (talk) 11:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I'm not sure I'm convinced that we need to make such subtle distinctions as Mundart's second point in an encyclopedia, especially if it's made clear that some "subdisciplines" center around their methodology rather than on their scope. But I'm utterly convinced by his first point. The meaning/grammar distinction is a fallacy, even in some of the most common formalist theories. For example in construction grammar and recent versions of HPSG, the entire "rule" system is part of the lexicon. The opposite approach, found in Distributed Morphology, shows the same insight: for them there is no lexicon, there are only rules. I think Chris Goldston proposed something similar for Optimality theory at one point. As Mundart points out, compositional theories of semantics, such as Montegue grammar, encode meaning grammatical. For many functionalist theoreticians the distinction between grammar and meaning is incoherent, since the meaning is the grammar in their view. I vote to take out the dichotomy.Comhreir (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ling

Although the term "linguist" in the sense of "a student of language" dates from 1641,[9] the term "linguistics" is first attested in 1847.[9] It is now the usual academic term in English for the scientific study of language.

Just as an outsider who wishes to comment on the much-debated arguments on this page, I'd like to point out this sentence. Given this sentence, if you say all linguists are people who study language scientifically and academically, wouldn't it be negated by the fact that linguists arrived on the scene (much, much) before linguistics did? In other words, the people who studied language arrived much before the study of language as a science, etc was termed as linguistics. So then in that case, the people who were linguists before the term linguistics was coined, were linguists who simply took interest in language! In that case, Derrida and Foucault are linguists who may or may not have been associated with the field of linguistics! Because linguists are older than linguistics is! These observations, now, are not my own but from what you yourself say on the page. So explain. 125.19.14.2 (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Supriyya. The term linguist is often also used for people who speak lots of languages, as well as people who interpret for the American military. This article, however, is not about them, but about linguistics, and linguists in the sense of students of linguistics. garik (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I am neither a linguist nor even a student in a postgraduate study, but I think some definitions have their creative or commercial or control aspects of their semantics; i.e. the semantic features are sometimes out of boundary for any componential analyses as they supposedly refer to. Many examples of these can be found in phonology and phonetic theories (precisely in their generative). Interestingly though that there are many hidden rules can be seen or to be found, there are many definitions and hypotheses are still in the state of vague. For example, the definition of 'complementary distribution' may better serve in a different context like of this sentence than how it confuses a simple semantic element in phonology:

^{. . . one might get the impression that e.g. syntax and language acquisition (just to take two random elements) are two independent subfields (from the way they're listed here), when in fact they are orthogonal (the one describes a kind of object, the other a methodology for studying that object, roughly speaking), not in complementary distribution.}

Now to come to the points of the editors above, I think who speak lots of languages are called 'polyglots'. The term 'linguist' refers to a person who understands a language consciously (usually by a study completion in linguistics or sometimes in analytic philosophy, though all the academicians more or less are linguists for their professionalism in the academia). The concept is however still not a straight answer if the variety comes to term on the level of conscious knowledge of a language among linguists in comparison to those who just qualified in a given university's standard and who has many yeas of research analyses since that qualification.

Is this correct?Nevill Fernando (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you're trying to say in the first half of your message. As for the second half: no, "linguist" today refers to someone who studies the mechanisms of language (ie, someone who studies linguistics), not someone who "subconsciously understands" language. Nearly everyone in the world subconsciously understands language—that's what speaking language means.

That being said, as garik points out there have been different uses for the word "linguist" throughout history. In the past it was often used to describe polyglots, and that perception still lingers around today. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you dit not see the correction before your edit here, or we were at the same time for editing (but your edit somehow appeared first). Yes. It has definitely been an obvious error. To the first half of the message, i think someone will respond further or i will post later some more details. Nevill Fernando (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't not see anything; you just changed your message after I had responded to it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

@Garik, so who is supposed to decide whether this article is about people who speak many languages, people who interpret the American military, or people who have a degree in linguistics? This article continues to remain biased towards an academic perspective, even if you call that academic perspective the "establishment". There are perspectives outside the academia on linguistics, just as there are on history, philosophy, literature and science, and I'd be pleased if you could give me even one logical reason why those should be excluded. Is there any rule on wikipedia that says we must take only an academic view on things? In that case, an article/topic like BDSM would have to be deleted because no-one in schools and colleges even talk about it! 125.19.14.2 (talk) 09:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about an academic discipline. That's why it focuses on the academic perspective. I think we've gone over this many times before. Go away, Supriyya. garik (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It is no accident that this article is called Linguistics, not Linguists. The former terms is far less ambiguous than the latter. +Angr 10:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)