Talk:Linguistics

Spoken Wikipedia

I have been hoping to record this article for a while now, seeing as there is an open request for it. I, (a Master's student) and a few enthusiastic professors in the Linguistics department at Simon Fraser University have been arranging our schedules and the recording facilities in order to make this happen over the next few weeks. However, I just noticed a flurry of new activity on the talk page re: Cognitive Linguistics and Corpus Linguistics in the last few days, and as such, decided to post even though we have not officially started recording yet as I would prefer to record a fairly stable version of the article, if possible. I applaud you all for your contributions! We will start with the rest of the article and leave the Cognitive Linguistics and Corpus Linguistics sections for last. Beverlyhannah (talk) 06:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice if you could wait for a few days till we complete and resolve the stuff on corpus and cognitive linguistics. There may not be merely separate sections for these, but these will be incorporated within different parts of the article as well. Maybe we can all work out a deadline for the convenience of this? Then we can make sure that by that date we maintain a stable version of the article, with all the improvisations added. MrsCaptcha (talk) 07:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll throw out an arbitrary deadline: 20 October 2013. Please adjust as you see fit. I'll keep checking back every few days for majority consensus that the text is at a stable enough state for recording. BeverlyHannah 21:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beverlyhannah (talk • contribs)

Sure. If the article feels stable earlier than that, then one of us will post here. Otherwise, check back on the 20th. --MrsCaptcha (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Stable

I think it's more or less stable now; nobody seems to want to make any new changes to the article. There's nothing more to do on it. You should start the recording. I strongly suggest you get someone to do one final proof-reading before you start the recording. Don't forget to post the link to the audio clip here on the talkpage when you're through with it. All the best. --MrsCaptcha (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you - I have indicated on the Spoken Wikipedia project page that recording has commenced. BeverlyHannah 20:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beverlyhannah (talk • contribs)

Did you record it, Beverly (contribs)? MrsCaptcha (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I caught a cold last week, but I will make time tomorrow morning to record. BeverlyHannah (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hope you're well now and all the best with the recording. MrsCaptcha (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Now the recording studio at my lab is having equipment issues...*sigh*, this project will have to go on the backburner until the end of the semester as deadlines are a callin' my name. BeverlyHannah (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Sections and headings

I think this titling of "Basic Concepts" with that meaningless paragraph below about fundamental questions is very arbitrary and redundant. What do we all think? Can we remove that title and directly plunge into each concept as a heading in itself? I think it will look nicer that way. Basic Concepts / Fundamental Questions / Fundamental Issues... all this sounds a bit amateur. I think each of those concepts listed needs to be expanded extensively because there is a lot of interesting material on each and just a paragraph on each concept is insufficient. Mrs. Captcha (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, we need independent headings on Chomsky, Pinker, Saussure, and so on, as well. Mrs. Captcha (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Pinker is a psychologist not a linguist, he is not a relevant figure for this article. I dont think it is useful to have headings on specific theorists, but only on the theoretical paradigms they are associated with.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

maunus: Okay, but he needs a mention, since he has a good deal of work related to the language instinct, etc. Or put him in the bibliography. I think Garik will agree too. Comment edited by MrsCaptcha (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, for linguistics Pinker is a popularizer of other's work, not a significant researcher or theorist. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

What will I agree about? That Pinker should be mentioned here? I don't have a big problem with putting him in the bibliography (although I think a much more principled approach to the bibliography is needed in general), but I agree with Maunus that we shouldn't have headings on specific theorists, but should focus on the theoretical paradigms they work in. I'm afraid I'm pretty busy in real life at the moment to help develop those sections; if that ever lets up, I'll get more engaged in making this article good... garik (talk) 00:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The article is in a stable and perfect condition now. Beverley can start recording it. There is no theorist section in it as garik, Maunus or Rjanag say. I've added Pinker to the bibliography. How do we submit it for it to be reviewed and featured? MrsCaptcha (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The bibliography is for works cited in the text. This article is a light year away from being able to pass any kind of review process. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

"The bibliography is for works cited in the text." Yes, I see that's what we have here. For some reason I was under the impression it was a kind of Further Reading section. In any case, I agree that this article is nowhere near perfect. garik (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

"The bibliography is for works cited in the text." Then what is the difference between the reference list and the bibliography? MrsCaptcha (talk) 07:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

We are working on the bibliography. I suggest User:Garik and User:Maunus work on correcting the things that can be corrected immediately right now, before User:Beverlyhannah starts the recording on the 16th of October. As for making it perfect in the way that you idealise, that process can go on even later. It is perfect right now in it that it covers all the sub-fields. Please add a section on evolutionary linguistics (which Maunus deleted) under the "Areas of Research" section before the recording starts. --Comment edited by MrsCaptcha (talk) 07:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It does not cover anywhere near all the main subfields (phonology, phonetics, syntax, morphology, pragmatics, semantics, contact linguistics, are conspicuously absent - all actual subfields that are much more important for understanding the field than many of the obscure subdisciplines that are included) and it gives undue weight to some minor novel approaches like evolutionary linguistics (which it described erroneously). Many sections have no references at all. And the organization of the article comes across as arbitrary and piecemeal and not in any way a full overview of the discipline of linguistics and its history.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The word conspicuously does not reflect good faith here, User:Maunus. I would suggest you add those sections you refer to soon, or the "conspiracy", as you call it, will balloon, which nobody will be pleased about. --Comment injected later by MrsCaptcha (talk) 04:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I dont think the word "conspicuous" means what you think it means. It has nothing to do with the word "conspiracy". User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

But the word conspiracy derives from the word conspicuous, even if the word conspicuous doesn't derive from conspiracy. MrsCaptcha (talk) 11:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

No it does not. Conspiracy comes from "conspire" from Latin conspirare conspicuous comes form the Latin word conspicere. It means "obvious" or "easily noticeable" and hence is the opposite of any suggestion of a conspiracy.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Opposites are called antonyms. They are bound to each other morphologically and semantically. That means that no two antonyms are completely disconnected from each other. You see? They always share certain traits with each other. (So when something is overtly obvious it is actually a result of it standing out, just the way it is when efforts are made to overtly hide it. Eg. If someone is trying too hard to clearly get others' attention on something (A), it means they are trying to hide something else (B). So the conspicuous effort on making A look obvious leads us to sniff a conspiracy that involves efforts to hide B. Why would I, in this case, make obvious, "conspicuous" efforts to remove references to the grammatical and other descriptive linguistics sub-disciplines you refer to unless I have an intention to "conspire" against whatever one may interpret me to be conspiring against? The fact is that I am being conspicuous about nothing and am conspiring against nothing, and in your allegation of the former, you have accused me of the latter.) MrsCaptcha (talk) 09:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Would you cut it out already. I have not made any allegations about you whatsoever, I have made a claim about the article. Which you based in a ridiculous etymological fallacy chose to interpret as an accusation of a conspiracy. Which is that it is not in a good shape and that some important sections are obviously missing, which means that it is in no way a candidate for a good article review. You are the one who has turned this entire discussion into personal blather. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Well I'll keep my mouth shut then. I thought I'd sort things out here but it looks like we've all grown tired this evening. You were making a claim about the article indeed, Maunus, but you were complaining about stuff without being specific about the errors that need to be changed, and not like you need permission to change 'em, so well, yeah, I don't know where this conversation was proceeding either. Hence I tried to make things clearer. It looks like nobody wanna believe an old woman. Anyway, my point was just that you should correct whatever is wrong with the article rather than tell us about it as I am old and some of my knowledge is a bit outdated on linguistics. As for the article's candidature for a review, any article can be reviewed; one doesn't need no candidature for it. If it's bad, it's bad, that's what the review'll say. What have we to lose with a bad assessment, not like we'd fail an exam o' anything and lose our houses out there, and I'm right o'er three cows! All I'd said was that we'd get-it-a-reviewed and we'd know where we stand, that's all that there was to my remarks indeed. Can we just proceed with the review? Please rate the article on a scale of 1 to 10, Wikipedia, I'm waiting for the review. Personally, I'd give it a nine at least, that's what I'd do. I'd say Wiki do the same. MrsCaptcha (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, add the stuff that's missing, but don't delete things as it will be tough to add it back later when someone adds sources to it. There are a lot more sources in the article (at least 20 more I think) than there were earlier. As for structures, there is one section that mentions those that you describe. It just needs to be expanded. Please go ahead and do so. If you have problems with things missing, please add them. There's no point complaining for the sake of complaining. MrsCaptcha (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The section on "structures" cannot and should not cover the brad and butter disciplines of descriptive linguistics - they need their own separate sections. And yes, stuff that is wrong should be deleted. I am not complaining for the sake of complaining I am complainig for the sake of eventually improving the article which at this point will require an almost complete rewriting based on reliable sources, and an organization that is based on how the discipline is presented in textbooks.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Maunus: I agree that phonetics, phonology, morphology and syntax and semantics and pragmatics, besides the other topics you mentioned, need their own sections. I would be most happy if those can be created by someone, along with evolutionary linguistics, which was removed earlier. And yes, if something is wrong, it needs to be re-written. I just feel that these things need to actually be done rather than only posted on the talkpage, though there is no harm in discussing doubts here, if any. Because if an improvement edit is made, no consensus will go against it, so why not just make it then. It should be done before Beverly starts recording. MrsCaptcha (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not going to do any largescale work on this article right now. I am doing linguistic fieldwork right now and have sporadic internet access and better things to do. I will limit myself to fixing or removing glaring errors.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, you are free to continue engaging with the fieldwork and the better things, but to deride the article and Wikipedia as a "poor" way of spending time is an unfair statement to make towards User:garik, User:Rjanag, Kwami, and Macrackis, who seem to have toiled on this article from Day 1, even if you have single-handedly improved it to its current state greatly with your crisp fixes and removal of glaring errors. I hope you can clarify that. MrsCaptcha (talk) 11:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone said this was a poor way of spending time. Maunus just says he has better things to do right now (as do I). I quite agree with him that linguistic fieldwork is more important than improving this article. garik (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Linguistic field work is as important as improving this article. Not more. Perhaps this is a differentiation between "theoretical linguistics" (through this article) and "descriptive linguistics" (through fieldwork) that we are talking about then, is it? That is a debate/question I'd like leave to Chomsky to decide instead, about which one's more important. Anyway, everyone has their own goals and desires. If some of us would prefer to be in the field describing languages while others on Wikipedia theorizing on this discipline I think each one to his own. "The better things to do" statement sounds a little exaggerated, just as "conspicuous" did. We have no problem with devoted descriptive linguists. We have a problem with theory being derided as redundant, the Internet and Wikipedia being derided as redundant, and the teaching of grammar being derided as redundant. I've done extensive "field work" too, but that doesn't mean I don't edit this article no more or think that's a better thing to do than this. Let's be tolerant of each other and understand our different roles in society. It wouldn't be fair to theorists like Garik, Rjanag, Macrackis and Kwami if practical describers like Maunus derided their tasks all the time. --MrsCaptcha (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Since you insist on making this personal I will be blunt Mrs. Captcha: there is ample evidence on this talkpage that your grasp of linguistic theory is extremely superficial. Your attempts now to make me look as an applied linguist with no interest in theory are ridiculous. Your work on this article has not improved it, and it is unlikely to do so untill you start using sources as a basis for what you write.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not insist on anything Mr. Maunus and I accept that my grasp of linguistic theory is superficial and even a little blunt as you say. I already told you that I am growing old and that my knowledge is getting outdated. I have surrendered to all your criticisms yet you take objection of me. The good part of the article is all to your credit and you know it. I have not taken any credit to improve the article. I even left an encouraging note on your talk page hoping that will be good for the article and for our banter to end. Can we just call for a truce now and let this article rest a bit, poor thing. Leave it alone for a while, I say. I will add as many sources as I have to your edits of the article as you please. But let's continue with our field day outside the computer now. I request you. An old lady requests you this, young man. MrsCaptcha (talk) 03:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

What's more Maunus is that we were being symbolic and figurative in our conversation and nothing was personal. When I said "theorists like Garik, etc" and "practical describers like Maunus" what I was doing was using your names as similes and metaphors. How can you think I could have tried to stereotype you or Garik and the others. Why I even used Macrakis' name in there without knowing a thing about him! I don't know a thing about anyone on here! He's left one little message down there and displays no interest in theory. Yet I took his name as a theorist which shows that I was being figurative and semiotic and not personal! You on the other hand have made constructive theoretical edits to the article and know your theory! Any one who has no eyes can see that. Yet you think I'm silly enough to not be able to decipher things. It was all purely figurative communication, which was functional in order to sort out the tensions between theory and practice. It doesn't matter which one you belong to and whether you even belong to one. The point is to balance out the two so as to make the article and this world better. Theory and practice are formal and functional and hence should be intertwined into each other like lovers. Please stop getting defensive about everything and let's improve the article. MrsCaptcha (talk) 03:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Linguist

"Outside the field, the term is commonly used to refer to someone who speaks many languages fluently."

Really? It is a gross myth and misconception if it is used like that. Linguistics is not quantitative. We need to remove that line. MrsCaptcha (talk) 09:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

But this is simply a fact: English speakers tend to use the word "linguist" not to refer to someone who works in the field of linguistics, but to mean "polyglot", or just someone who works with language (including, say, a translator). You might not like it, but they do. garik (talk) 12:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

There may be many ways in which a word is assigned a wrong meaning. It may sound like I'm being pedantic, but I'm not. We can't list every conflicting definition of a word in the article. There are a lot of people who don't know what linguistics means but that doesn't mean that we list all interpretations of it here that someone might guess it to be. I think we should present the term in the broadest way possible that is accurate. MrsCaptcha (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Like many words, "linguist" has more than one meaning. The polyglot sense actually precedes the philologist sense (according to the OED), and is still in active use, e.g., a linguist in the US Army is not someone who studies languages, writes grammars, etc., but a translator. That said, I agree that there shouldn't be an extended discussion of alternative meanings; the existing dabnote is good enough. --Macrakis (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting. I'd assumed that when people thought a linguist spoke a lot of languages, they were simply unfamiliar with the term. That's probably the case much of the time, but it's good to know it's not necessarily ignorance. — kwami (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's surprising that people expect linguists (in the philologist sense) to speak multiple languages. Don't most linguistics graduate programs require students to have a good knowledge of at least two non-English languages, one of them "exotic"? --Macrakis (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Macrakis, no, they do not. Kwami, you were right: no such meaning has ever existed. It is a misconception; not an alternative meaning. There are never any alternative meanings. There are misconceptions, and there are accurate meanings. Dictionaries stand testimony to this. Linguistics is not a quantitative study of languages and it has nothing to do with knowing actual languages. It is a mathematical study and the knowledge of one or more languages is purely functional to a linguist or to a student of linguistics. You can apply linguistic theory to any language regardless of whether you can speak it or not. For that matter, there would be no rationale to this: researchers working on dying/tribal languages would never exist because they wouldn't 'know' the said language if what you said were true. That definition which you allude to a linguist has never existed. If such a meaning of the word preceded philology, then the word they used back then would have been polyglot itself. The word for someone who speaks a lot of languages is "polyglot"; the word for someone who researches on language (as opposed to languages) is "linguist". The term "linguist" was coined simultaneously to the birth of philology in the 18th century. I think we should stick to that rather than indulge in any further etymological investigations. MrsCaptcha (talk) 08:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I must add here that students being expected to have a good knowledge of at least two non-English languages is something that is common with programs in comparative literature and not with programs in linguistics. It is in comparative literature that students are expected to take courses in the literature of more than one language so that they are able to make comparisons there. They are often expected to have knowledge of Latin and Greek here too, which is what I imagine you perhaps refer to when you say "exotic". This kind of research work is not at all part of a linguistics course. MrsCaptcha (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

This article is not called Linguist, but Linguistics, which never refers to multilingualism. Those who are not clear about the term linguist should either consult a separate article with that title or — preferably — look up the word in Wiktionary or some other dictionary. LiliCharlie 20:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiliCharlie (talk • contribs)

LiliCharlie, "Linguist" redirects to this article. It is worth discussing somewhere in the article the various related terms including "philology" (which has meant different things in different times and places), "grammar" (ditto), "linguist" (ditto), etc. This does not need to be an extended discussion. As I said above, in the case of "linguist", perhaps a dab note is sufficient.

MrsCaptcha, Re "no such meaning has ever existed...there are never any alternative meanings", the OED documents the "polyglot" meaning quite clearly and dates it to before the "language scholar" meaning; and of course many words have multiple meanings.

MrsCaptcha, I was not referring to Comparative Literature programs, but to Linguistics programs. A quick survey of a half-dozen well known US graduate programs shows the following language requirements:

• MIT -- 1 + a course on the grammar of a Less Familiar Language
• Harvard -- 2 + a course on the structure of a non-IE language
• UCLA -- 1 + a field methods course on a Little-Studied Language
• Stanford -- 1 + in-depth knowledge of the structure of a foreign language
• UC Berkeley -- 1-2 languages
• Chicago -- 2 + a non-IE language

So most of these programs (5/6) require at least one foreign language plus some study of another. Most (4/6) also require that the 2nd or 3rd language be non-Indo-European, Less Familiar, or Little-Studied (excluding of course Latin and Greek, which are IE, familiar, and widely studied). I don't know what the stats are for linguistics programs in general, in the US or elsewhere. --Macrakis (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Here are some definitions of linguistics. Here is the definition of linguistics by the OED's American English dictionary. Here is the definition of linguistics by the OED's British English dictionary.

[noun] [singular]: "the scientific study of language and its structure, including the study of grammar, syntax, and phonetics. Specific branches of linguistics include sociolinguistics, dialectology, psycholinguistics, computational linguistics, comparative linguistics, and structural linguistics."

Here are some definitions of polyglot. Here is the definition of polyglot by the OED's British English dictionary.

[adjective]: "knowing or using several languages": a polyglot career woman.

[noun]: "a person who knows and is able to use several languages": Slovenians, being surrounded by many countries, are mostly polyglots.

These are thus two separate words, Macrakis, polyglot and linguist. They have never been linked to each other, ever. If that were so, then "Slovenians would mostly be linguists", which sounds irrational even when you hear how it sounds.

Since linguist and linguistics are inter-connected words, a linguist deals with linguistics. That goes without saying. A linguist is therefore not a polyglot. Even the OED definition of linguist itself deals with its meaning as either someone who studies linguistics or someone who is skilled in "foreign" languages. However, that doesn't mean that a linguist knows "many" languages.

Macrakis, also please note that knowledge of those languages at UCLA and Harvard and wherenot is meant to serve a functional purpose to describe the universal properties of language. Outside the US, no department makes it part of its criteria to know specific languages though as a linguist you may benefit in your research if you can source features from more than one language. --MrsCaptcha (talk) 07:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The original question was very simple: is the term "linguist" ambiguous enough in common use to the point that we need to disambiguate? Your own citation from the Oxford online-dictionary shows this, as do the citations I have provided to the OED and to the Army site. --Macrakis (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity. It is all crystal clear. MrsCaptcha (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

That it is "crystal clear" to you that "there is no ambiguity" is not a useful argument, when there are multiple reliable sources to the contrary, whether you like it or not. --Macrakis (talk) 02:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent edit conflicts

Attention: @User:Maunus, @User:garik, and all other regulars out here.

"Schools of thought" versus "History of linguistic thought"

Does "linguistic thought" really mean thoughts on linguistics? Because "linguistic thought" could refer to a speaker's thoughts too. MrsCaptcha (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes it does, and it is used in that way very frequently.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

But linguistic is an adjective to the spoken/written language and not to the theoretical study of it. MrsCaptcha (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Early grammarians

Is "early grammarians" the right way to refer to the grammatical approach in linguistics? MrsCaptcha (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no "grammatical approach" in linguistics. Early grammarians is the conventional way to refer to the kind of linguistics that was practiced in the before the establishment of the discipline of comparative philology.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If that is the case then it deserves an independent section of its own and grammar should not be included with the other "schools of thought" or "approaches". Grammar is a section in itself, which will have sub-sections on morphology, syntax, phonology, and the rest of our bread and butter. MrsCaptcha (talk) 08:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

What about Jakobson ?

No mention on introduction?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.216.27 (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

He has been referenced in the very first line of the second paragraph. The introductory section could certainly do with more on him and the Russian formalists. Feel free to write a paragraph on him and post it here on the talk page so we can all edit it and integrate it. MrsCaptcha (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hindered areas

User:Kwamikagami says Chomsky hindered psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics. Can you explain a little more? MrsCaptcha (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

In the US at least, psychologists interested in language deferred to linguists, which for decades meant Chomsky, figuring that they must know what they're talking about. It took them a long time to realize that Chomskian linguistics was psychologically implausible, and that they had to start from scratch. Now that they're looking at language as they would any other function of the brain, his ideas have been largely discarded. He also had a detrimental effect on language documentation, dismissing it as "butterfly collecting", at a time when most US languages were becoming moribund, with the idea that all languages were underlyingly the same so all you needed to study was English. (Of course, as soon as you start looking at other languages you realize that Chomskian linguistics doesn't work.) — kwami (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thumbs up. So now Chomskyan linguistics is only a theory and it's not the default. But he has done some work related to psycho- and neuro-linguistics. Shouldn't we give him some credit for that? MrsCaptcha (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It was only ever the default in the US and probably a few countries which took their lead from the US. AFAIK it never got much traction in Europe; I've found if you're American and talk to European linguists or anthropologists who are interested in your work, they're quite relieved when you tell them you don't follow Chomsky. I'm not sure he did much psycholinguistics – from what I've seen, there's Chomskyan linguistics, and then there's psycholinguistics, – but if he did, he should of course be given credit according to how well that work is received in the academic community beyond his own followers. — kwami (talk) 07:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You're certainly right about the European trend. Chomsky and his work is not very popular in Europe and Britain from what I've seen as well though it is in the United States and in everything that is done there. But that's got to do more with theoretical trends rather than with his impact on psycholinguistics. I would think psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics are language-in-the-mind worlds in themselves, and that they are potentially influenced by many positions, including the American/Chomskyan position. While the cognitivists might view psycholinguistics as the study of language in its functional potential in the mind, I would believe the generativists see it as a formal, innate, and biological potential in the mind. But both the cognitivist and the generativist view contribute to psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics in the broadest sense possible. MrsCaptcha (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

"all languages were underlyingly the same so all you needed to study was English. (Of course, as soon as you start looking at other languages you realize that Chomskian linguistics doesn't work.) " Whoa! This is just flat out not true! David Pesetsky just published a book on Russian case, Norvin Richards has spent most of his career working on Walpiri and Lardil, Ken Hale wrote extensively on Navajo, Luigi Rizzi made huge contributions to generative syntax using Italian... the list goes on. In fact, Mayan and Bantu languages are really hot topics right now, and are being worked on by lots of MIT people.

Furthermore, Chomsky never said that all languages are exactly the same-- that's obviously not true. What he said was that there is an extensive common core, which you reveal by studying and comparing lots of languages. 128.135.96.69 (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)