Talk:Linguistics

Template:BT list coverage Template:WP1.0

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))

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)

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)

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)

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))

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)

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)

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)

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)

Derrida

As it seems to be lost in the above thread - Derrida used Linguistics in the basis of the Deconstruction literary criticism movement. This was the evolution of linguistic analysis. Since Literary criticism is the primary field of Linguistics application and is mention in the lead, it needs to be discussed in the body of the work, which it is not adequately done. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Is literary criticism really the primary field to which linguistics is applied? What about language teaching and speech technology? Besides, it's not at all clear to me that the fact linguistics is applied to another field justifies including people who do so in the list of popular works and texts for this article. garik (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Confusion of the inverse. "linguistics is essential to literary criticism" does not establish that literary criticism is essential, or even relevant, to linguistics. The fact that you need a bottle opener to enjoy your Heineken does not imply that Heineken should be linked prominently, or at all, from the bottle opener article. --dab (𒁳) 15:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Or even vice versa. —Angr 15:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Not much I can add here that wasn't already said by Garik and Dbachmann.... but yes, while linguistics and literary criticism are relevant to one another (see, for example, books like Linguistics and Literature) and a lot of early linguistics work was inspired by literary theory (for example, early investigations of meter and prosody), literary theory is not really the main application of linguistics now, at least not in the US. Linguistics departments are still sometimes thrown in with "humanities" departments, most of what goes on now is science, and most people who use it are in fields like speech pathology, education, psychology, neuroscience, etc. I don't know enough about Derrida to know what his contributions to linguistics were back then, but I know he's not really talked about anymore, so if he is mentioned at all in the article it should be as part of the history, not as part of the "popular works". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)