User talk:McYeee/List of unsolved problems in linguistics

Learning a language

some are generally interested while learning a language, but some are not self motivated, as they come for class because somebody force them, pople of different background should be able to learn a language , how is it possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.112.252 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 6 June 2006

noncompliant

The noncompliant tag is pretty self-explanatory... the article is inherently POV, original research, and an indiscriminate collection of information. A collection of open-ended free-associated questions asked out loud by a few Wikipedia editors is not an article. (And who says that "Origin of language is the major unsolved problem"?) wikipediatrix 02:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is interesting. It gives links and references. It creates, for related questions, a hub that is richer than a plain list - we have so many of them here in WP.

This article has both qualities and defects : not well-formed and useful. I'd like to find a way to criticize it ; to improve it : it is hard. My remark is that, if you take off the "major problem" syntagm (is it a syntagm ?), there is very little POV left. What do you think ? -- DLL ^{.. T} 19:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not "indiscriminate collection". It is collection of unsolved problems in linguistics, all of which are properly referenced. There is the whole category:Unsolved problems in other areas. There is nothing much to "improve"; it is just a referenced list, for reference. All what you can do is to fix its style/language and to expand it. `'mikka (t) 15:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This is largely a list of questions, with no reference cited to indicate who, if anyone, is actually asking that question. wikipediatrix 15:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Your statement is an overgeneralization. Once again, there is plenty of references. If there is no reference, then the question is taken from the wikilinked article on the corresponding topic. For example, Psycholinguistics has the whole section, Psycholinguistics#Issues and areas of research.

I appreciate yoru concern for the quality of wikipedia, but next time please don't forget click thru provided links before accusing in oroginal research, especially in areas which are not of your immediate expertise. If you disagree and claim that the particular question is a closed topic, you are very welcome to provide the link. If you think that some problems are trivial, spell it, and I will try to find a more convincing reference. But putting the wholesale "bullshit" label is hardly a productive approach.

At the same time I am impressed with your list of AFD votes and high rate of success, indicating you have a good eye for nonsense. Do you maintain a "kill ratio"? `'mikka (t) 21:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks for that. My problem with Unsolved problems in linguistics is mainly an aversion to the open-ended question format. Rather than "How localized is language in the brain?", I'd prefer the problem be stated, rather than asked: "The degree to which language is localized in the brain is currently undetermined." In other articles, like Unsolved problems in medicine, the speculative questions are getting really out of hand, and there's really nothing to prevent someone from adding questions like "Can we someday regenerate missing limbs?", "Can we someday develop the power to telekinetically manipulate our own cellular structure?", "Can we someday sprout a third eye from our pineal gland that can send and receive text messages?", etc., etc. On the other hand, I think Unsolved problems in philosophy is a fine article because it's more than just a list of questions, and you don't have to click on a bunch of different articles to develop an overview of the subject. wikipediatrix 23:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. I was probably looking at a bad example. OK, I will try to kill some question marks by introducing generic titles. When I started this article, I thought it will draw an attention of experts. Obviously, experts are busy with something else. `'mikka (t) 23:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I largely agree with User:wikipediatrix in saying that this does not read at all like encyclopedia content. It is a listing of some things that are either controversial or understudied in the field of linguistics. It is by no means an encyclopedic listing of such 'problems', however. I don't know how useful such a list would be to someone turning to Wikipedia for information on topics in linguistics. The problem is not simply an overabundance of question marks; it is a lack of relevant information or encyclopedic content.Cnilep (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to add "relevant information or encyclopedic content" `'Míkka>t 16:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

glossolalia/xenoglossa

should these be included on this page? 86.134.216.101 18:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No.129.237.215.146 (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

lots of work

This page needs lots of work. Most important problems haven't even been mentioned. Plus, I don't really agree with the section "translation." I mean this is for linguistics, not for translation. If the article was big enough, maybe it would be OK to include translation, but under the current circumstances, I do not agree with this. Lingforum 01:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

IMO you got it quite opposite. By wikipedia ways (if you really need it, I can find you the corresponding style guideline), if the article were big enough, then translation could be put into its own article. But since the article is small and translation is definitely a subtopic of linguistics, then trtanslation stays here until you write much more more (eg., >32Kb, by wikipedia's rule of thumb for big articles (joking:-). `'mikka 04:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

In any case I am realy glad that at last some experts got interested in this page. `'mikka 04:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Superfamilies et al

Would it be reasonable to add to this list the relationship, if any, between distantly-related clades? This is a generalisation of linking in isolates. It's a controversial problem, in the sense that some people say they have solutions (Nostratic, etc.) and many (most?) experts think the problem is insoluble. But some of the other lists of unsolved problems include controversies like this, appropriately marked. To take an extreme case, cold fusion is on the physics page, though hardly anyone takes that seriously. David Bofinger 03:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think so, even though there's less and less going on in the field re: the question of superfamilies as time goes on. Insoluble problems definitely have a place on this list. Perhaps we could outline specific problems, like finding connections between Indo-European, Uralic/Altaic, Afro-Asiatic, etc., in the same way we list the Basque problem. szyslak (t, c) 09:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Psycholinguistics

I changed the entry on the location of language acquisition etc. There are numerous proofs that language is indeed located in the brain just look at the articles on aphasia and there are no ressources to substantiate the claim. Weeddude (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of unsolved problems in linguistics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060506193057/http://www.dissertation.de/FDP/3898257770.pdf to http://www.dissertation.de/FDP/3898257770.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Creole languages

Way back in 2009 User:Jasy jatere added a list of unsolved problems, including "The emergence of Creole Languages". The wording of that issue has changed somewhat over the years, though mainly in superficial ways.

In May 2018 User:Nardog added a {{clarify}} request, with the edit summary "be more specific?" In June 2018 User:Tomrwilliamson removed the tag, with the edit summary "irrelevant information".

I restored the tag. It is not obvious to me the ways in which the emergence of creole languages (generally? in each instance?) constitutes an unsolved problem, and I think the issue should be clarified for readers of Wikipedia. Perhaps the issue is well understood by more knowledgeable linguists. In that case, could you please have a go at explaining the basics for we less-knowledgeable types, and for a general encyclopedia readership? Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the tag and raising the question here on my behalf. Glancing through the Creole language article, there seems to be a debate as to whether there needs to be a pidgin first in order for a creole to emerge, but I also fail to see how the emergence of creoles is an unsolved problem distinct from more general questions like "How does language emerge?" or "How/why do languages change?". Nardog (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both for raising this issue, I apologise for my lack of clarity in this matter. The reason I removed the tag was because I believed that the unsolved problem (How do creole languages emerge) was well-worded enough not to warrant clarification. The concerns you both raise regarding the relevance of this problem, however, I find agreeable to a certain extent; there are hypotheses regarding the stages of pidgin and creole development, such as how a rudimentary pidgin (an initial stage) might turn into a stable pidgin (the following/second stage) (e.g. tertiary hybridisation, Keith Whinnom (1971) - summarised by Sebba (2008) The early pidgin involves attempts by speakers of different indigenous languages to speak a version of the lexifier language with native speakers of the lexifier, i.e. it is a medium for native speaker – non-native speaker communication.). This being said, given the nature of language and its study and documentation, there aren't many records better than the anecdotal regarding the formation of a lot of creoles that exist today. User:Nardog's comment about the debate regarding the necessity of a preexisting pidgin is correct - Thomason and Kaufman (1988) proposed a concept called abrupt creolisation, where circumstances may have resulted in pidgin stages of a creole's past being short-lived. Because of this potential, I would argue that the problem does constitute an unsolved problem - although, without a time machine perhaps, I'm not sure how it would be solved. --Tomrwilliamson (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your elaborate answer. If it is indeed an unsolved problem to you, then how would you rephrase it so the likes of us can ascertain what the problem is? Also, as Cnilep touched upon, is the problem applicable to all creoles or specific to certain ones? If the former, then I don't think we'd need a time machine but we could just observe how a new one comes into being when the opportunity arises (which is a long shot too, but at least more likely than the time machine scenario). Nardog (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, given how a pidgin might form within a plethora of different environments, cultures and other linguistic communities, I would consider it erroneous to suggest all creoles emerge in exactly the same ways, despite there being a general theory of the stages of one's evolution. I think this is suggested by the above reference to the work of Thomason and Kaufman from the late '80s too. With the aim of rephrasing the problem, on reflection, I would recommend adding a verb from the present perfect, e.g.: How do/have creoles emerge/d?, or perhaps something with better formatting.--Tomrwilliamson (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I've stumbled into this discussion and also tried to remove the tag as Tomrwilliamson did previously, but Nardog has now restored. Sorry, but I am struggling to see what additional clarity is needed. The question is a general one, how do creoles in general emerge as opposed to how did certain specific ones emerge. Creole languages are a distinct type of language, so this is clearly a distinct problem from how does language emerge/change in general. Tomrwilliamson's comments above demonstrate that there is a specific literature on this question. Bondegezou (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Then I suggest you cite it. The question as it stands is too generic at least to me. Especially, according to Tomrwilliamson, it is "erroneous to suggest all creoles emerge in exactly the same ways" and there is "a general theory of the stages of one's evolution", yet the article presents it as though it is assumed that creoles emerge in some one way, and we don't know what it is. It also doesn't clarify why creoles in particular are brought into question, not, for example, just languages in general. Nardog (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see what clarification is missing. You understand what the question is. If you think the question shouldn't be included, delete it. If you think another question, about languages in general, is needed, add it. If a citation is needed, use a cn tag. But the question means what the question means. Bondegezou (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The reason that the question How do creole languages emerge? is not in need of further clarification is because the question points to that there is a debate as to exactly how creole languages emerge. The unsolved question, in this case, concerns if there is some unifying process of the emergence of creoles to which each creole can be related. As I show above, there is indeed a large body of work concerning this unsolved question – we do not know exactly how creoles emerge, or even if there is a one single route or many, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that there are at least general stages. This question is unsolved, but as I mention above, it might also be unsolvable given the inability to track exactly all creoles that have existed in the past, and indeed how necessarily impossible it may be to even track ones today or in the future given how complex creoles' socio-linguistic environments can be. In wanting to resolve this issue, I propose another rewording of this unsolved question: "Is there one universal process with which the evolution of creole languages can be tracked?" --Tomrwilliamson (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I like your suggestion and it's exactly the kind of clarification I was looking for. Nardog (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Tons of jargon, to understand this article you need to do tons of jargon googling

As the title said. I love jargon, I think it’s important, if only someone could write “translations”… Lanabro (talk) 08:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)