From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

How about Cognitive Linguistics?[edit]

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)

Would appreciate it if you would be a little more specific too. MrsCaptcha (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
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 (talkcontribs) 05:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

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

  • 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)

Linguistics is both a social and natural science.[edit]

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)

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

Sure. Here is one. Linguist91 (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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. Linguist91 (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)
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)
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)

MrsCaptcha; Thank you. I will do that. Linguist91 (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

L91, Why not start with adding material to 3.1, 4.1, 6.3, 6.4, and 6.6 in particular? MrsCaptcha (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Wider scope for language science[edit]

Check this — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Verbal communication[edit]

I noticed that verbal communication now redirects to this article, although it does not mention verbal communication at all. Is there another page that it should be targeted to instead? Jarble (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Linguistic practices with purported psychological benefits[edit]

Contributors to this page may be interested in a proposal to create a new Category:Linguistic practices with purported psychological benefits. Discussion is found at Talk:Psychology#Linguistic practices with purported psychological benefits. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)