Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N-V-T

N-V-T

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

N-V-T (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is based on concepts introduced in a predatory journal (http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.linguistics.20140301.03.html) published by one of the worst predatory publisher (SA Pub). Most of the references [1-8] only mentions Cook's scholarship in passing, are from Cook themselves. Everything else [9+] are 'context' reference pertaining to the V and T part of the T-V distinction, and do not establish notability. REPLY: This statement is incorrect. The article is based on "N-V-T, a framework for the analysis of social dynamics in address pronouns", Chapter 1, pp 13-34, in "The Social Dynamics of Pronominal Systems", Paul Bouissac (Ed.), John Benjamons, 2019, Hardbound ISBN 978902720318 and e-Book ISBN 9789027262547

The only source that critically evaluates the NVT framework is [1], which does mention it positively. REPLY: This comment refers to a book review. There are also references in works relating to a variety of languages, namely English (2) Maicol Formentelli and John Hajek, Indonesian (3)Ester Jakindo, Ilza Mayuni and Yumma Rasyid, Lithuanian (4)Gintare Pavilaiciute, Portuguese(5) Aline Bazenga and Spanish (6) Leanne Schreurs.

I'm not a linguist, but the notability of this concept doesn't seem to be established by the current references, and my google searches don't come up with much. REPLY: This comment reveals lack of understanding. The linguistic notability of the N-V-T framework of analysis can be better understood, even by someone who is not a linguist, if you refer to references (9) to (24) that list problems found by several scholars throughout the years/decades solution for which is not provided by the T-V distinction but is enabled by the N-V-T model, i.e. answer to the need for the following to be taken into account: a neutral, unmarked approach; types and roles of nominal T and V; grades of T and v; a 'default' form; semantic ambiguities and covert meanings.

I'm myself leaning delete here, and I'm nominating this so this article's notability can be properly vetted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I nominated WP:Articles for deletion/N-v-t distinction, which appears to be essentially the same topic, in 2014. It was soft deleted (which doesn't preclude re-creation). In 2014 I declared it a "non-notable theory", though that was prior to the publication of the 2019 volume Headbomb found a review of. Still, this strikes me as possibly WP:TOOSOON. Cnilep (talk) 06:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Delete WP:TOOSOON at absolute best, and we should steer clear of predatory journals wherever possible. XOR'easter (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)