Talk:Cognitive sociolinguistics

LING 150 Course Project Comments
Any suggestions and comments regarding the content or the organization of the page are welcome!--Danleiseveny (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

This page looks great and is very clear. Good work! One minor error is in the third sentence you have a plural subject "sociolinguists" with a singular verb form "strives." The page is again, beautiful and your number of sources is impressive! Excellent job. Efgoodrich (talk) 06:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The "Prototype, Stereotype, And Semantic Norms" section is very well referenced, and the hyperlinking to relative topics is extremely useful! However, some of your sections suffer from a hyperlink drought. Cultural Models comes off as extensive but dry. The image is good, but the section needs more links. Other than that, thank you for creating such a professional page -- top stuff! Warrenmcbieber (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Another great page! I found this page particularly interesting since it perfectly coincides with my interests. Few things-- in the introduction where you guys separate the four main research areas, the hyperlinking seems a little weird. I would make take the numbering off to make it less awkward. In the development of cognitive sociolinguistics section, I think it would be beneficial to have some sort of date/timeline so it helps put things into more of a perspective. Once we get to the Four Main Areas section, the headings and everything get a little confusing. There is just a lot going on and I feel like the point of wikipedia is to make things more simple. I would maybe put headers for the different norms above each paragraph instead of listing them all at once and then writing it in essay form. I really liked the chart for the rationalist versus romantic models-- good touch! The sociopolitical model I think could benefit from more detail/explanation/examples. Also, I think some of the references are incomplete? Otherwise, it looks good! Good job!MildlyImpressed (talk) 05:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice page! I thought the intro was a bit dense but the first sentence was spot-on. “This burgeoning field concerning social implications on Cognitive Linguistics has yet received universal recognition” should be “has yet to receive” but I also don’t think this sentence is necessary for the Intro, especially because you address it later in the last paragraph of “Development of Cog Ling.” I admire the level of detail in this page and how thoroughly your group explains the concepts. I like how you guys always tie your examples in with the larger picture of cognitive linguistics. As stated above, you need to make your references more complete. Overall, nicely done! Yaylinguistics (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Very impressive page! I don't have much to say that hasn't already been said by others. If you look at your Contents box, the actual four main areas are not sub sections of 'Four main areas', so it's kind of strange to have the 'Four main areas' section. Also, under 'Relevant theories,' I don't think the bullet points need to be used there. Nice work~ Jtnh (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, this page is really impressive! I only have a few minor suggestions. Firstly, the citation situation needs to be fixed. For several of them, you only give the name and the date, but the actual written work is definitely required. Second, the "Four Main Areas" section does not explicitly list what the four areas are. I think this is more of a formatting issue though. The American marriage example of a cultural model you give could also be clarified and expanded on; as it is now, it's a bit ambiguous and unclear to me. Finally, there are several spelling mistakes. For example, at one point you spell "schema" as "shema." I would suggest going back and reading through the page carefully to find and fix other similar mistakes. These are all very minor points and suggestions, as you all have done such a great job to begin with. EmmaKylie (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * “Cognitive linguistics” and “sociolinguistics” probably should not be capitalized.
 * I agree that the beginning blurb was a bit too dense. A clear, simple definition would be great!
 * Is the “Four main areas” section going to be expanded?
 * The “Relevant theories” section is interesting, but I think you should explain a little bit more how it relates to your topic. Also, should it be so high up on your page?
 * Fascinating page overall! I especially loved the “Cultural models” section. I thought it was very well organized and easy to follow. I learned a lot from this page! Great job! AnnaCG93 (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

My comments on this page: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drbazzi (talk • contribs) 08:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The breadth of the content in this article is impressive!
 * I don't think "Cognitive Sociolinguistics", "Sociolinguistics", etc. should be capitalized. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 * I'd personally move the quote by Langacker to the "Development" section, since it seems a bit out of place in the introduction. This would make sense, considering the quote refers to the development of cognitive sociolinguistics. This is more of a nitpicky suggestion, though.
 * The "Relevant theories" section isn't very clear on how essentialism/non-essentialism is related to CSL. It would help to provide a more explicit explanation of their relationship.
 * Some of the header formatting is a bit wonky, with the extra-large headers. This issue might be tricky to solve though, since this is a long article.
 * There are some typos/errors (e.g., "has yet received universal recognition" should be "has yet to receive [...]").
 * Good job with the numerous examples! Drbazzi (talk) 08:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Very impressive coverage of an incredibly complex topic! This is really interesting stuff and you do a good job of covering all the different aspects of the theory and how it meshes with other disciplines. However (and this may just be me), after reading the page, I feel like I still don't really know what cognitive sociolingustics is, or how it is used practically in the field. One suggestion to make the practical applications a bit more clear, especially for users who don't have a background in linguistics: put an summary of a study near the top of the page, and use examples from the study to define key concepts, so that the reader has a clear picture of exactly how cognitive sociolinguistics work is done. Then you can move on to the more theoretical aspects of the theory. Part of the problem may just be that this is a very abstract concept to begin with. Maybe pictures and diagrams would help in that respect. Overall, great job on a very difficult subject! Kdinatale (talk) 06:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to echo Katy's comments above. Ya'll did a wonderful job building an encyclopedic entry relating this to other fields, but some clarification on the purpose of the overall field would be great. Try to quantify some of the really abstract stuff.Hamzajaka (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a lot of material on this page, and it is clear that you have put a lot of work into it, but I must admit I found the page quite unclear. In particular, it is not clear what is 'sociolinguistic' about 'cognitive sociolinguistics'!
 * It is not clear why the 'Relevant Theories' section is where it is, or what it has to do with sociolinguistics.
 * The 'Theoretical Aspects...' section has little apparent connection to sociolinguistics, or to the sections that follow.
 * None of the main four areas seem to have much connection with sociolinguistics.
 * "The goal of cognitive sociolinguists is to build a mental model of society, individuals, institutions and their relations to one another." Is this right? Or is it that they seek to explain sociolinguistic phenomena by attributing to speakers certain mental models?
 * "for future researches on language variations" -> "for future research on language variation"
 * "This burgeoning field concerning social implications on Cognitive Linguistics has yet received universal recognition. Yet, according to Kristiansen and Dirven, "Cognitive Sociolinguistics contributes to establishing an interdisciplinary link between sociolinguists and practitioners of CL."" I suggest omitting this from the opening paragraph -- seems a bit defensive.
 * "Thus, Cognitive Sociolinguistics can be demonstrated through observing commonalities found in existing researches in four main areas: the theoretical aspects, usage-based variations, cultural models of language, and sociopolitical models." What do you mean by "demonstrated" here? What are the commonalities? "researches" -> "research"
 * It is not clear to me why the Langacker quote is useful, especially in the intro paragraph.
 * I think the 'Development' section should be drastically shortened or eliminated entirely; the details of particular academic meetings yielding particular publications in particular seems like the wrong level of granularity. If you go to a page on, say, quantum mechanics, you don't see such discussion.
 * 'Usage-based variation' consists of only a case study. Shouldn't there be a discussion of the approach more generally? Does this work involve any actual measurement of variation?
 * 'Cultural Models' consists of only a case study. Shouldn't there be a discussion of the approach more generally? Does this work involve any actual measurement of variation?

As I said above, I think there is a lot of material here, but that the page requires considerable work. In particular, I think there is no adequate discussion or exemplification of how 'Cognitive Sociolinguistics' is actually sociolinguistic, in the sense of relating to the core concerns of sociolinguistics (i.e. variation, language change, identity...), nor is it clear, as a result, of what characterizes Cognitive Sociolinguistics as an approach to sociolinguistic questions. Ldmanthroling (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Well written article. I might consider reorganizing a bit though- it seems as if the bulk of the content is in the "4 main areas" section. The introduction and development sections are clear and concise, but you may want to go directly into the informative sections immediately afterward. It's not clear to me how the "relevant theories" section fits in the structure of the article. Although the prose itself makes sense, I don't think that its current arrangement contributes to the overall flow of the argument. Otherwise this is very thorough and it's clear that you spent a lot of time developing and researching the page. 2607:F140:400:2131:7ACA:39FF:FEBA:A66B (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Good job on the page. I will first suggest fixing all of your citations, because they are clearly insufficient. In addition to what others have suggested, I think some of your references are a little dated (e.g. 'Example of a cultural model' section) I guess I would suggest looking at Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics (2010), edited by Dirk Geeraerts et al. (Geeraerts with a 't' - see Development section). Section 1.2 of the book talks specifically about cognitive sociolinguistics' focus on 'variation of meaning' and 'meaning of variation', and the significance of those aspects to sociolinguistics. M.karie (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Cognitive Sociolinguistics → Cognitive sociolinguistics – Unless I am mistaken, what is being described here is a general approach to sociolinguistics, not a particular book or specialized term of art. There is no need to capitalize the second word. See Naming conventions (capitalization). Cnilep (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

It's good to see this interest in cognitive sociolinguistics, but I'm sorry you don't recognise my work in this area. As early as 1980 I wrote a textbook called 'Sociolinguistics' in which I focused on individual cognition rather than the community; this textbook has been widely used, and when I revised it in 1996 I made it even more explicitly cognitive in line with my more general theory of language, Word Grammar, which is one of the main theoretical packages in sociolinguistics. In 1997, I published a couple of cognitively-based research articles about inherent variability and the rise of auxiliary DO (which you can find at http://dickhudson.com/papers under 1997). In 2007 I published "Language Networks. The New Word Grammar", with half a chapter on sociolinguistics and how it could be integrated with cognitive linguistics. And in 2010 I included a section on the 'social meaning' of words in "An introduction to Word Grammar". It's true that I don't seem to have used the term 'cognitive sociolinguistics' in print, but I have certainly promoted the idea.

RichardHudson (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)