Talk:Linguistics: Difference between revisions

Template:Vital article

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cmthomas16 (article contribs).

All citations in Linguistics, Humanities, Social Science, and Cognitive Science indicate that the enterprise of linguistics is scientific in method and aim (not humanistic) and that if it ever could be considered to have had anything more than a tenuous relationship to the humanities historically, that has long since ceased to be a notable or relevant description of the field; the relationship of linguistics to the humanities field of philosophy (via logic, semantics, and philosophy of language) is no more compelling a reason to classify linguistics as a part of the humanities than any other discipline that also leans heavily on the same elements of philosophy for either their formal foundations (theoretical computer science and foundational mathematics) or their concern for the scientific modeling of language, belief, and communication -- artificial intelligence, cognitive psychology, and the cognitive sciences broadly also have contact with many of the same areas for the same or similar reasons (see e.g. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computational-linguistics and http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cognitive-science).

Appeals to library classification or occasional instances of university institutional structures are transparently facile, ignoring the substance of the matter and the history of linguistics; such appeals also leave unresolved the inconsistency between what is indicated by the weight of evidence of existing citations in the articles mentioned and the lingering presence of the humanities category tags/and template. Either the humanities tags/templates need justification (presumably citations) that doesn't conflict with the existing citations offered, or (the most straightforward resolution), the humanities template and/or category tags should be removed. 128.54.50.250 (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

I concur with 128.54.50.250's reasoning, and no one seems to provide reason to disagree, so I'll go ahead and remove the category and template tags. 24.16.211.19 (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Someone seems to be adding lines to the introduction that are a. meaningless b. grammatically wrong c. in an attempt to create problems for this article {...also knowns as Universal Grammar (UG)} MrsCaptcha (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

I agree with (b), but do not believe (a) and (c). So please give justifications when reverting any changes. Strasburger (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

==justification for recent revision

Linguistics is the scientific study of what makes us human; Language. Its study is not limited to communication and what is known as "e-language". It is, according to Chomsky(1957)(1963)(1976)(1993)(1994)(2002)(2013)(2014)(2016) and many other scholars in a number of subfields and branches of linguistics such as theoretical, cognitive, psycho, neuro, bio,etc. the science of linguistics focuses hugely on the role of language in cognition, thought, perception and consciousness. Language is human-specific, no other organism is equipped with it, it is arguably what makes us human. It is primarily used as an internal system responsible for generating an infinity of recursive thought at the conceptual-intentional interface. And later interpreted to sensory-modality and could be externalized. Thinking as sophisticated as we have evolved to possess, would be most ideally like what monkeys do if we weren't equipped with Language. Also there is all sorts of connection between thought (at least language-related) and what we perceive (relativity) and there is a huge number of work on what is called Language and Consciousness. Too many details I won’t go into, yet they can be easily found anywhere you look. Therefore I believe the revision for Linguistics is absolutely necessary since it is one of the most important branches of cognitive science and the very thing which ultimately makes us human. For further reading: Noam Chomsky; Why Only us; 2016 Noam Chomsky; What kind of creatures are we? 2016 Noam Chomsky; The Minimalist Program Noam Chomsky; Aspects of the Theory of Syntax George Miller; Language and Perception Ray Jackendoff; Semantics and Cognition Massimo P.Palmarini; The Bio linguistic approach Massimo P. Palmarini; Language as a natural object; Linguistics as a Natural Science Cedric Boeckx; Syntactic Islands Cedric Boeckx; Language and Cognition Massimo P. Palmarini; Linguistics and some of its underlying dynamics Steven Pinker; The Language instinct — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linguist91 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

Linguist91, you are still making no sense. You are simply putting up chunks of information about linguistics that we all know about. The article already covers everything you are saying here in a different way than you are lecturing us about, all of which you have attempted to add into the article randomly. I request you to first read the article as it stands first with an open mind rather than make your own assumptions. So the end result is that you are simply messing around with the structure of the article meaninglessly, by inserting statements that are unverified, grammatically wrong, and have no context whatsoever at the place that you are attempting to place your philosophical statements. I saw that you have placed similar sermons on linguistics on your own talkpage as you are doing just now on this article's talkpage, but what you simply don't seem to get is that the article has already covered all of this through different sections and references that already exist. Please discuss what you wish to add to the article here on the talkpage first. Thanks. MrsCaptcha (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

Strasburger, reverting is being done because there are so many tiny meaningless sentences being duplicated by Linguist91 in the middle of the article without any context like I explained, that the only way to cure his/her edit later is to revert back to the older structure, which is and was absolutely fine. He/she is not making any actual contribution to the article, only editorialising the article in an un-encyclopedic fashion. MrsCaptcha (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

I have tried to address the problem before, and I have provided justification for my claim. linguistics is about understanding the very nature of language in the first place and how it relates to other cognitive processes such as: thought, consciousness, perception, etc. it also studies form, meaning, and context. but the main article about linguistics is only about (what is usually called) E-language. please, some linguists help me out here. the article is being revised by people who do not know the first thing about linguistics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linguist91 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

Linguistics is the scientific study of what makes us human; Language. Its study is not limited to communication and what is known as "e-language". It is, according to Chomsky(1957)(1963)(1976)(1993)(1994)(2002)(2013)(2014)(2016) and many other scholars in a number of subfields and branches of linguistics such as theoretical, cognitive, psycho, neuro, bio,etc. the science of linguistics focuses hugely on the role of language in cognition, thought, perception and consciousness. Language is human-specific, no other organism is equipped with it, it is arguably what makes us human. It is primarily used as an internal system responsible for generating an infinity of recursive thought at the conceptual-intentional interface. And later interpreted to sensory-modality and could be externalized. Thinking as sophisticated as we have evolved to possess, would be most ideally like what monkeys do if we weren't equipped with Language. Also there is all sorts of connection between thought (at least language-related) and what we perceive (relativity) and there is a huge number of work on what is called Language and Consciousness. Too many details I won’t go into, yet they can be easily found anywhere you look. Therefore I believe the revision for Linguistics is absolutely necessary since it is one of the most important branches of cognitive science and the very thing which ultimately makes us human. For further reading: Noam Chomsky; Why Only us; 2016 Noam Chomsky; What kind of creatures are we? 2016 Noam Chomsky; The Minimalist Program Noam Chomsky; Aspects of the Theory of Syntax George Miller; Language and Perception Ray Jackendoff; Semantics and Cognition Massimo P.Palmarini; The Bio linguistic approach Massimo P. Palmarini; Language as a natural object; Linguistics as a Natural Science Cedric Boeckx; Syntactic Islands Cedric Boeckx; Language and Cognition Massimo P. Palmarini; Linguistics and some of its underlying dynamics Steven Pinker; The Language instinct — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linguist91 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

Please look at : Language as a Natural Object; Linguistics as a Natural Science (by Massimo P. Palmarini; Cedric Boeckx) Why Only Us (Noam Chomsky) Linguist91 (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

As the article shows other linguistic traditions are well alive, and making the Chomskyan approach part of the definition would constitute an infringement of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, one of our five pillars (fundamental principles). See also Wikipedia:Describing points of view. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

Exactly! Let us stick to the "neutral" point of view. There is, as you can see, absolutely NO introduction to the role of language as an instrument of thought. That is not necessarily Chomskyan so much it is linguistics as cognitive science. Please, even if you despise Chomsky, let the article express the truth Linguist91 (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

Linguist91, what LiliCharlie is saying to you is that it is your edit that's making the article lack the Neutral POV. By adding Chomsky's concepts into the introduction you are unnecessarily duplicating stuff that is already covered. Secondly, the view on linguistics being cognitive/linked to thought is in fact covered in the article if you read the entire thing. If you feel there should be more coverage on cognitive linguistics, please go ahead and add it in the right place - not randomly in the introduction or wherever you wish to. To add a source/reference that you feel is not being covered, you need to use the "ref" tag at the appropriate place in the flow of the article, which will help you to add works/citations by cognitive linguists as well as by Pinker. Since you seem new to Wikipedia, I suggest you look at the way that references/sections are structured first. MrsCaptcha (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

Linguist91, all this is not a matter of whether I "despise Chomsky" or not. (FWIW: The contrary is true, my own approach is heavily influenced by Cartesian and Chomskyan thought.) Wikipedia is, however, an encyclopaedia, and we cannot pretend the truth is found as long as serious linguists like Daniel Everett and many others contest this "truth." And yes, MrsCaptcha is right, I was also talking about presentation and the place where certain statements are made. Notably the first paragraph of the intro is reserved for a definition of the term linguistics, not for its apparent findings (hypotheses) that might be disproved by some "linguistic genius" tomorrow, maybe by Chomsky himself. (Once again, as this wouldn't be the first time for him to disprove his own hypotheses.) We should accept that a number of different schools of thought exist in this colourful world, and justifiably so. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you, LiliCharlie. I agree with you, and your above message, completely. In fact, not just does the article sufficiently cover Chomskyan/formal linguistics (besides functional/communicative approaches), the very first line in the introduction also already refers to Chomskyan linguistics through the phrase language form - ("Linguistics is the scientific study of language, and involves an analysis of language form, language meaning and language in context.") - which is what Chomskyan linguistics is anyway all about. I don't think we could do more justice to Chomsky than that, and I would be very glad if either Linguist91, or you, or anyone else, would be interested in adding a reference or source there (immediately to the phrase "language form") that includes information on his theories or work, or on generative/cognitive linguistics or universal grammar from the Chomskyan point of view. MrsCaptcha (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

I still believe that the first paragraph is "too" simplified. It is also not at all clear what "language form" refers to for an amatuer reader since it does not even link to anything about linguistics) Linguist91 (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

Like I said, please go ahead and add a reference to language form if you wish, and also to language meaning, and language in context in the bargain. The first paragraph has to be simple in order to help an "amateur reader" understand what linguistics means, because if you add random information about universal grammar there it will make no sense to him/her at all. Moreover, we all know that linguistics is not all about universal grammar, but also about sociolinguistics. That aspect needs sufficient expansion in the article too, irregardless of whether you are concerned with Chomsky or not. I'm not saying that the introduction/first para has no scope for improvement, but not in the way that you were trying to amend it. MrsCaptcha (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

Moreover, it still doesn't seem like you have understood the need to maintain NPOV in the article, a problem that has dogged this page since years if you read the talk archives. There seem to have been many folk like you, Linguist91, who wished for a greater Chomskyan/formal focus to linguistics, but it has not helped them or this article to hold on to such a biased POV. If you would read the entire article with an open mind, like I said once again, and particularly the first paragraph too, you would know why "language form, language meaning, and language in context" are the appropriate terms that are meant to be juxtaposed with each other in order to maintain theoretical and methodological diversity in the definition of linguistics. Please co-operate. MrsCaptcha (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello again dear MrsCaptcha I have changed the link of formal to theoretical linguistics and meaning to semantics. Linguist91 (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

I think if someone please uploads a photo to the top, it will improve the page. I highly recommend a picture of Mind or a cognitively-based photo for that matter. Linguist91 (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

The Commons feature pictures and other media in Category:Linguistics with lots of subcategories, one of them being Category:Cognitive linguistics. There's also Category:Noam Chomsky and many many others. For how to insert a picture into an article read Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. Please only choose media that make sense and insert them in the right place, where they really illustrate what's being discussed in the respective paragraph. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

Would you please do it yourself? Or someone please do it. As I do not know how to insert a picture to a page Linguist91 (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

Even though I do not identify myself as a proponent of cognitive linguistics, I believe that we should do fair contributions to the article regardless of our personal interests. Linguist91 (talk) 07:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

Would appreciate it if you would be a little more specific too. MrsCaptcha (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

Linguist91 (talk), if you are referring to cognitive linguistics alone, then the cognitive aspect already applies to several other aspects of linguistics, from language form to language meaning to language in context. If you are talking about Chomsky's theory, that applies to language form alone. So language form involves both Chomskyan theoretical linguistics and language cognition. There is the cognitive aspect even in non-Chomskyan linguistics, including in sociolinguistics and functional/communicative linguistics. I am all happy to add more information in the article to language cognition, but, as we have discussed above - one must be very careful as to which aspect you want to expand in the article in connection to expanding such an aspect of language cognition research in linguistics or the aspect of what is known as cognitive linguistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrsCaptcha (talk • contribs) 05:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

No, by Cognitive Linguistics I did not mean the Chomskyan tradition. CL is different in its approach towards language as it does not consider the mind having several modules, one of which specific to language. I recommend creating a new section about the topic. Linguist91 (talk) 07:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

I can provide you with more information on the topic. Linguist91 (talk) 08:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

• Cognitive linguistics is a tradition within the non-generative, functional paradigm of linguistics associated with linguists like Ronald Langacker, William Croft, and recently Vyvyan Evans. It already has its own section in the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

I think the fact that linguistics can be considered both a social and natural science should be added to (preferrably) the first paragraph. Thoghts? Linguist91 (talk) 07:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

An uncontroversial source would be required for its being a natural science like chemistry or astronomy. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, sources that demonstrate that this is a generally held view would be required. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

Sure. Here is one. http://www.dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~massimo/publications/PDF/BoeckxMPPLingReview2005.pdf Linguist91 (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

I can easily provide you with as many books and articles as you want. Linguist91 (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

This article makes a claim that linguistics can be brought closer to the natural sciences. It does not state that it is both, and it makes it clear that this argument is novel and not generally accepted.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

Note that we suggested was that the sources be "uncontroversial" and "demonstrate ... a generally held view." Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

Look, in linguistics, we have people of different interests. One may be interested in sociolinguistics and that is certainly not the natural part of linguistics. However, biolinguists embrace language as a natural object and apply the laws of natural science to their work. (particularly Biology and Physics) there are tons of papers and books defending all my statements, but if you decide to ignore that, is really not fair. Linguist91 (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

If your statement is generally accepted it should be very easy for you to pull down a general textbook in linguistics or a similarly high quality general source and find the place where it makes the statement that linguistics is both a social and a natural science.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

Furthermore, it is surely not a generally held view as there are people doing historical linguistics who would tell you that what they are doing has nothing to do with the natural sciences. Linguist91 (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

Does the number of articles and books to which I can introduce you mean nothing to you? They are all written by well-known scientists. What more reliable source do you want? Linguist91 (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

The article has paid good attention to the social aspect of linguistics, but practically nothing to the more scientific part of it. Isn't that a problem? Don't you think that it's a problem? Linguist91 (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

It is a problem only if you can demonstrate that reliable sources about linguistics as a general topic do it differently.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

I really hope you understand my concerns...i really do. Thank you Linguist91 (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Maunus

 Would you please be more specific? Linguist91 (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

Here is a reliable source. It is the Cambridge Handbook of Biolinguistics. I really think this one can satisfy your need for a "reliable" source. https://books.google.com/books?id=6b33CwAAQBAJ&pg=PT301&lpg=PT301&dq=textbook+in+biolinguistics&source=bl&ots=cwwOwvoV6H&sig=Al_RZTusSSYWo7CEXpInEfP6hv8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-_pmK6-zRAhVCBBoKHUqdDg8Q6AEIJjAG#v=onepage&q=textbook%20in%20biolinguistics&f=false Linguist91 (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

If the source is from a handbook of biolinguistics it belongs to that article where it is possible to explain in what sense this label is meant. In this article biolinguistics is treated rather superficially and is described as "a highly interdisciplinary field, including linguists, biologists, neuroscientists, psychologists, mathematicians, and others." Simply calling it a "natural science" here would be highly misleading as Wikipedia defines this term as "a branch of science concerned with the description, prediction, and understanding of natural phenomena..." I am afraid more space would have to be given to the specification of "natural science" in the context of the interdisciplinary (i.e., not purely linguistic) field of biolinguistics than to its current description in this article. I don't see what is gained by ascribing such "metalabels." Anyone interested in the details should consult the relevant articles. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

I cannot possibly understand what you mean by "details" ! This is what all Generative and biolinguists believe in; what we work on, has absolutely nothing to with social aspects of language. We believe that language is not a means of communication and it is primarily used as an instrument of thought. This is by no means a minority view. Ok, fine, if you still think stating that linguistics can be a natural science is too much, the least we can do is to say that it embraces the natural sciences in some respects. I think that's basically what Wilki is for. To give sincere information so that people have a better understanding of the topic. Linguist91 (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

Moreover, both in theoretical and biolinguistics, we consider language as a mental organ (just like heart) and that it's part of the biological world which basically means a physical entity. We use the scientific methods used in natural sciences NOT in social ones. Linguist91 (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

I am soon making changes to the article for reasons extensively discussed. Linguist91 (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

Changes are not made if they are not supported by a consensus. If this is such a common view it really should be very easy to source it to a number of general linguistics textbooks.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

Linguist91, your title itself states that Linguistics is both a social as well as a natural science. Then why are you only pushing sources and articles that are pertaining to natural science? If you come out with articles and sources (no matter how many in number), and "how much that may mean to us", there will be others who may be also able to come out with sources that are counter arguments to yours too, isn't it? I think you are still not attempting to really understand the problem with the one thing that you are obsessed with, which can be loosely defined as your desire to resurrect Chomsky, generative linguistics, cognitive linguistics, natural science, and an entire stream of things that are already incorporated within the unbiased nature of the currently existing article as it stands and reads right now. MrsCaptcha (talk) 12:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

That is not to say, by the way, that several sections following the introductory section after "Nomenclature" do not need expansion, including the ones pertaining to Linguist91's interests. L91: It would be wonderful if you would do the honours of properly adding more information to those sections instead of trying to add improperly structured stuff into the very first intro paragraphs and sections alone. Why not expand on the later sections in the article too? MrsCaptcha (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Linguistics articles
• Top-importance Linguistics articles
• WikiProject Linguistics articles
• Wikipedia articles that use Oxford spelling
• Wikipedia articles that use British English
• Spoken Wikipedia requests

• WikiProject banners with class parameter that needs moving to banner shell
• Pages using Talk header with unknown parameters
• Pages using Talk header with deprecated parameters