Talk:Linguistics/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Why is semantics limited to the study of the "literal" meaning of words in this article? I have been doing semantic research for 30 years and many of the most interesting observations have to do with non-literal usages of words. I have never before seen a definition of semantics limited as it is in this article, and am curious as to the rationale. There is probably a reasonable rationale, in which case, as a minimum, we need to find some area of linguistics where the non-literal meanings of words is studied. (lexicography?)

Wayne Leman Linguist my Cheyenne language website: http://www.geocities.com/cheyenne_language

---

"Linguists can be partitioned with a reasonable degree of success..."

Oh, Christopher, so much to answer for... Jacquerie27 06:12 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

---

Could we just combine "historical linguistics" and "comparative" linguistics? (Under the heading of Linguistics is also studied with other disciplines, thus:...) There is a Historical-comparative linguistics entry, after all. --Devotchka

---

We are going to have a problem here. On the Language page, languages are being categorized by their origin. This entry, Southeast Asian languages, is a classification by geographical area. Both are possible and should be on separate pages. I am not at all sure this entry belongs directly on the Linguistcs page. Perhaps a languages by geography page should be added to the LanguagE page?

Do you think it's necessary to separate out geography of languages like that? As far as national languages go, there's nothing wrong with just linking to them from the appropriate country pages. I think what we probably need is some higher level geographical categories, like Southeast Asia, which can handle languages, countries, and a lot more besides.

I was just suggesting some way to separate out language families by origin and by geography. I am not wedded to any particular scheme. I wouldn't want readers to assume that SouthEastAsianLanguages are necessarily similar. Also, eventually, casual language descriptions of a particular language shoud be separated from Linguistic analysis of particular languages, I should think. Assuming the content appears...:-).---- Neither etymology nor philology are strictly speaking areas in the modern study in Linguistics. Both these areas have nothing to do with making generalizations about Language with a capital L. For example, etymology studies specific words and their origins, but not the processes involved in a change. This later general discussion is part of Historical linguistics.---- There is now duplicate material on "phonemes" on this page and the phoneme page.

Nothing wrong with that, in principle.

---

One separately analyzes the units from which words are assembled, the "morphemes." These are the smallest units of sound that a native speaker recognizes as significant and can often be determined by a series of substitutions. A speaker of English recognizes that "Make" is a different word from "Makes," so the s-sound is a distinct morpheme.

It's been a long time since I had a class in linguistics, but wouldn't "make" be the better example of a morpheme? I thought morphemes were the smallest units of meaningful language, whereas phonemes were the smallest units of sounds that make a difference in the language. I am not criticizing, I'm just confused and want enlightenment. --LMS --

I don't see anything wrong with the description of "morpheme", but the text could be clearer. A word may have one or more morphemes. The word "make" has one; the word "makes" has two, viz. "make" and "s". GregLee

-- Revising an earlier comment, which appears not to have been saved. The linguist's definition of a phoneme is what's given in the article, the smallest unit of sound that makes a difference in meaning. It's identified by paired-sound tests and some comments on field procedure emphasize that one is only gathering sounds--they're supposed to be analytically distinct from meanings. So in that sense, phonetic research is only supposed to find out what distinctions of sound a native speaker can recognize. But, to repeat, the article's definition is correct so far as I know. The 's' in "makes" is an example of a morpheme that is one phoneme long. Correct as an example, I think, but possibly confusing. Using "make" as an example opens up another confusion though--a morpheme is not a word.AMT

---

I'm not saying it's not correct. I'm saying it's confusing. It needs to be clarified for those who have not studied linguistics. --LMS

---

It may be that the term Adamic language is only used specifically by the Mormons, in general linguistics I know this concept as the Proto-World language (as for example Proto-Bantu, a language which has been reconstructed as the ancestor of the Bantu language family). Additional reserarch needed. Hannes_Hirzel

I thought so, but someone (don't remember who) said it was more than Mormons, although Mormons are the only ones who still believe it. Obviously more research needs to be done. It may also be linguists no longer use the term, but it was more widespread a few hundred years ago. Probably the info here in Linguistics will get more review and research then Adamic language. I'll be sure to copy any insights over, though. --Dmerrill

---

Do we really want a separate list of linguists on here and in the 'Linguist' article? I note that there is more detail here than there, but I'd be tempted to copy this list there and delete it here, combining the two lists there. (BRG)

I would welcome if you combine the two list! -- HJH

If nobody objects, and nobody else does it first, I'll do so in a few days (to give anybody who does object a chance to say so). -- BRG

---

This article was starting to ramble on about certain "linguistic layers", especially morphology. I have replaced the ramblings with a more concise summary. Some will undoubtedly be upset. I have not destroyed people's work, however; I have copied the ramblings to the appropriate articles, e.g. I've copied the morphology stuff to morphology (linguistics).

The only claim I've completely eliminated is this:

In the task of describing a previously undescribed language, phonetics must be studied first.

Why "must" it be this way? It seems to me that one could start with any linguistic layer. Say the linguist was not particularly good at formally writing down phonetics, but nonetheless manager to learned the language under consideration. Could she not skip straight away to describing, say, the syntax (her forte), and leave phonetic considerations to someone else?

Well you have to find a way to put down what you hear first before you start describing. The very fact that you want to describe it brings you to phonetics first? Of course not a full fledged formal notation is necessary. But the basics must be there. Can you really start with syntax for example? Think about it! --Hirzel

I agree that, to study syntax, you probably want to have some written record of what's said. But that record wouldn't have to be in any way phonetic; you could, for example, invent a new symbol for each word, and commit yourself to memorizing each one. You could then do syntactic analysis on those symbols. =) If you're slightly more practical, then instead of using arbitrary symbols, you could start with a very poor quality transliteration into your native language -- something so inaccurate that it wouldn't merit the name "phonetics". I really don't see any theoretical problem here, if we assume, as most linguists seem to, that it's meaningful to study phonology/phonetics apart from syntax. Of course, what linguists choose to do in practice is another story. --Ryguasu

--Ryguasu

The first thing to do in describing an undescribed language is to work out the phonology. Of course, this requires some knowledge of phonetics, in particular how to transcribe using the IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet), as well as some ability to identify the articulatory nature of the sounds you are hearing (along with an ability to produce the sounds, so that you can test your ideas out). But nevertheless, one begins by identifying the phonemes. Detailed phonetic analysis of the phonemes is often left for later, and is often never done. But you can't do morphology or syntax unless you can tell whether two morphemes or words are the same or different, and you can't do that without at least a basic understanding of the phonology.

The view that you have to start with phonetics, work your way up to phonology, then morphology, then syntax, and so on, still has its defenders. To me it seems an old fashioned view, and without merit. It's a positivist view that can probably be traced to behaviorists' influence on Bloomfield. It's probably worth an article. It confuses method with theory (I say). GregLee

---

I doubt if the opening citation is really worthwile. Linguistics is arguably the most hotly contested property in the academic realm. It is soaked with the blood of poets, theologians, philosophers, philologists, psychologists, biologists, and neurologists, along with whatever blood can be got out of grammarians. (Rymer, p. 48, quoted in Fauconnier and Turner, p. 353) In other disciplines there are debates over the field as well. I would like to have a better opening but I can not make up my mind about it at the moment - perhaps later. --Hirzel

My new feeling is that it should be moved to a new "quotes about Linguistics" section. I actually don't like the article overall, even those I've made some extensive revisions; it's too focused on conflict and probably false dualities. In-fighting between different schools should probably be mentioned, but I don't think they need to be the core of the article. --Ryguasu 16:47 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Well, there is actually a lot of conflict about fundamental issues. I like the article, myself, though perhaps because of your revisions. GregLee 20:21, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

______ Where's the discussion of Applied Linguistics???--CQ

It's waiting for you to add what you find to be missing. :D Be bold in updating pages! --Brion 00:44 28 May 2003 (UTC)

---

I would be grateful if someone more familiar with the web of linguistic articles than me placed some links to whistled speech somewhere.

On a separate note: I agree that the introductory quote overemphasizes controversies, and is probably to blame for the devisive tone of much of the rest of the article. AxelBoldt 10:06, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Edit table at Mediawiki:linguistics -SV(talk) 08:18, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)