User talk:Celer2017/Phatics

Comments (1st session)

1. On the lede (first paragraph), probably only one or at most two terms in bold, and move the other terms to a "Terminology" section below. Otherwise Wikipedia editors will complain based on this policy. I feel it's also slightly risky to center the page on the idea of "phatics," since that term was invented through original research. Not a problem for a paper on the subject of course. But here, I'd suggest, probably, stick to phatic in bold and as the title of the article, and refer to phatics more informally (in italics at most), with a citation to someone like al-Qinai (2011, p. 35), viz. All the above examples point towards the fact that it is fallacious to contemplate a faithful rendition of phatics and that instead of mistranslation we may opt for under-translation as a compromise. Arided (talk) 08:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
   • I made an edit here, leaving original text in comments. Arided (talk)
2. On Malinowski, how new is the discovery? He mentions drawing rooms as a comparison. Something I wanted to mention about this is that in American English I think we'd usually refer to a "parlour," which has the same root as French "parlez" -- in other words, the parlour is a room for talking in. Presumably this idea could be generalized with "phatic architecture." Arided (talk) 09:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
3. I've separated out a subsection in the "textual foundations" section on Malinowski, tentatively titled "As a response to Ogden and Richards". This section includes original research (starting with "Most commentators...") and bounces around to more modern material. Original research is fine for a paper but for the wikipedia article some edits and restructuring is going to be needed. I'd also scrub the whole article of opinion-laden fragments like "Among the many noteworthy points..." since these won't be deemed encyclopedic. Arided (talk) 09:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
4. I did the same separating-out with "As an alternative reading of Malinowski" in the La Barre section, though that section title is probably not correct. In general I think "main" sections with three or four paragraphs each is probably a good idea for the wiki, otherwise things look "excessively detailed". Subsections can probably get away with being a bit longer, if it's obvious to people that they can skip them, but even here I'd suggest to have more sections rather than more paragraphs-per-section. (And of course, in the end, there's the same amount of detail with more subsections, but with sign-posting and structuring, Wikipedians are more likely to accept it.) Arided (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
5. ... And I did the same thing with "Anatomy of Jakobson's definition". These sections, or at least some of their content, could probably be "folded away" in the Wikipedia treatment, but preserved in the published article. That would give room to include original research that won't be accepted on WP, but that's required in scholarly articles. Even so, continuing to add subsections seems like a good idea, especially in the Jakobson section which is quite long. (If this section really does offer an "anatomy" then it would make sense for it to have some further subsections.) Arided (talk) 10:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
6. Is "face-making" related to making funny facial expressions or to "face" as in politeness? It sounds like the former but it's hard to tell from the context. Arided (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Encyclopedia article vs journal paper

After some experimenting, I settled on the color "GhostWhite" for highlighting text that I'd suggest should go into the paper but not the encyclopedia. It is unobtrusive for long passages, but still visible. Enter via <span style="background:#F8F8FF"></span>. Note that this doesn't seem to cross section headings nicely, so if an entire section is to be routed to the paper, then include the section heading as normal and just add the span to mark up the contents; that should be clear enough.

To further help visualise this structure, I've adjusted the outlining with the idea that 4th-level headlines (and any lower-level sectioning that we add beyond that...) will go into the paper. My editorial (as opposed to just typographical) suggestion would be to sum up the ideas in each lower-level section in the final paragraph of its "parent" section. In the paper, this will help things flow, and in the article, it will give people the "short version."

Naturally, current structuring is only indicative and the "boundaries" should be permeable. In other words, move things around and relabel sections as needed!" Arided (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments (2nd session)

1. In the section As a response to Ogden and Richards, I question the use of the Nepalese example Bhat khanubhyo?. Is there a corresponding example that was used by Malinowski? I think it could potentially make sense to use extra-textual examples like this in a later section about "uptake" of the ideas, but it comes across as an anacronism in this section. Arided (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
2. Relatedly, in La Barre in Context, I'd suggest to move Here La Barre is actually prefiguring the exact illustration taken up in the Relevance Theory approach to a later section on Relevance Theory, and switch the direction of the temporal markers, so that it says "Note that this is prefigured by La Barre, above". Arided (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
3. In the section Precursors to the definition of "phatic function" found in the work of Jakobson's contemporaries, I've started to add a brief summary of why these references are important, but didn't get very far with that. Similar to the earlier section on "Textual Foundations", three short paragraphs would sum up the longer material for a wiki readership. Arided (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
4. In Phatic communication, I'd suggest to transplant the aside which Malinowski arguably used exactly because of it's religious overtones and etymological priority to "communication" to a "Malinowski section", since it doesn't fit that well in this "La Barre section". Also, it's a well-reference fragment, but on that basis I think it would be better to say "so-and-so argues" instead of "arguably". Arided (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Wordsmithing the lede section

1. I'm not sure what this means: Malinowski was "essentially negating the referential, emotive, and conative functions of primitive speech." Is there a specific theory (or a strawman argument) that he was opposing? I assume he wasn't claiming that primitive speech does not have these functions whatsoever, but perhaps positing that there is another phatic "mode" that occurs alongside them and takes precedence. I'd suggest clarifying that fragment, and maybe adding another sentence or two for each of the theorists in this paragraph. Perhaps a further expansion of the specific idea of primitive languages in the "Malinowski" section as well, with quotes. Arided (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)