Talk:Linguistics/Archive 3

Metaphysical and post-structuralist linguistics?
The main paragraph beginning this page seems to assert that semiotics plays a big role in linguistic theory. It doesn't really. What exactly is "metaphysical" linguistics? I've never heard of it and I've been studying linguistics for 11 years (PhD this year). I would have thought that with all the courses I've taken on every major linguistic subfield I would have at least come across it. I haven't.

As far as post-structuralism goes, I agree that modern theories of semantics and discourse have incorporated more contextualization. However, this just doesn't hold for other areas of the field. How exactly could one contextualize segments? aspiration? How about phonological conditions on morphology? Each of these concepts exists in the usage of language by speakers. However, surprise surprise, English speakers remarkably treat aspiration as a cue to voiceless stops. There aren't exceptions. This perception is not tied to some social context. It is completely a-contextual. Acontextuality (or non-indexicality) is an important aspect of language precisely because it allows us to understand each other regardless of contextual effects. At some level, there are invariant components to speech. English speakers also know that uglily sounds bad. It's not simply because no one says it. A made-up adjective like "durfish" would make durfishly fine, but a made-up adjective like "stroomly" would still make stroomlily bad. At some level we know that you can not add the adverbializing suffix -ly to words which end in [li]. Contrary to post-structuralist views, most English speakers agree on this.

I am not arguing against contextualization. Not at all. I completely agree that many aspects of language are contextualized. Yet, rejecting any structure in language does not allow one to make any predictions about its scientific nature. It's just an anti-scientific game that armchair philosophers play. We should leave the discussion about postmodernism and metaphysics on a separate page. It makes Linguistics sound too much like armchair philosophy. It's a science. Lingboy (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. This article has recently been heavily edited by someone called Supriyya, who seems to have biased it towards semiotics, which is really far from central to linguistics (some would not even call it a part of linguistics, but a related discipline). I think much needs to be changed back. garik (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Right. I've edited the page considerably. garik (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yikes, this page is still a wreck. The introduction seems to have everything necessary there, but it has a lot of unnecessary text as well. The descriptions of sub-fields (narrative studies, discourse, semiotics?!) should definitely be moved down the page into another section. Anyone who comes here trying to learn more about linguistics will be utterly confused. I'm going to try to rewrite the introduction over the next day or two. Indeterminate (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's because Supriyya changed it all back. Please, let's discuss such changes here first. garik (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Article Categories
The article lsits these categories, most of which I submit are not apt.

By comparison, a few of the other Social Sciences only are a member of two categories: social sciences, and their own category. None that I checked were a member of sciences, or "peer", unrelated disciplines like literature is to linguistics.

I suggest changing the categories section to the much smaller:

—  r obbiemuffin  page talk 02:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent massive edits: PLEASE can we have a few more opinions on this
Supriyya and I clearly disagree strongly on what constitutes a good article on linguistics (in fact, we probably disagree on what constitutes linguistics). Before this turns into an edit war, can a few more people PLEASE add their thoughts. Here is a comparison of the two visions of the article: They are very different. Please can we ALL discuss how this article should look:

Thanks.

garik (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is good
Since we've decided to discuss, here goes:

Most of the problems that exist between the ideological worlds of generative linguists and cognitive linguists, are too narrow to concern me. I think our academic system (especially with ref. to linguistics), sucks. It takes a very, very, narrow view / perspective into account, and as usual that means bad news. Plurality of linguistic tradition is being systematically ignored. We are not fascists. Needless to say, I think wikipedia (a public encyclopedia), needs to go beyond it:

Straughn - your graduation school didn't teach you stylistics? All the more reason why it must be on the top of the page. Don't worry about what they taught you there. It's over. Read wikipedia now.

I'd appreciate if well-meaning old-school 'linguists' added to my changes, rather than lazily reverted to their own, older ones. When I made the changes, I did maintain a number of the (valid, non-racist) points made previously. I'm afraid I'll continue reverting to my own version if democracy doesn't prevail - on both sides.

Cheers Supriya 19:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, let's hope we can get a community consensus on this. garik (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't had time to look at all Supriyya's changes, but implications that the article was "racist" before bode ill for the neutrality of them. The statement "Don't worry about what they taught you there. It's over. Read wikipedia now" is very worrying as it suggests a willingness to add original research here. —Angr 21:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, just looking at the two versions Garik linked to I'm seeing some serious problems with Supriyya's version already in the first paragraph. S has written that linguistics "approaches language through meaning, discourse, semiotics (or social signification), as well as through existing narrative and grammatical structures", relegating grammar (which is the main focus of theoretical linguistics) to last place after semantics (also an important focus of theoretical linguistics), discourse, semotics, and narrative (three areas that are rather tangential to theoretical linguistics). S then goes on to say "The recent study of semiotics and discourse have introduced linguistics to the more metaphysical and sociological perspectives available today, making it open to a wide range of inter-disciplinary subjects and approaches within the realm of the human sciences", putting some pretty heavy UNDUE emphasis on the tangential areas of semiotics and discourse. Now I understand that this article is Linguistics, not Theoretical linguistics, and therefore has to cover areas outside theoretical linguistics as well, but the way S's version of the opening paragraph reads, the reader is left with the impression that linguistics is all about semiotics and discourse nowadays, which is very far from being the case. Supriyya, you wrote "I'd appreciate if well-meaning old-school 'linguists' added to my changes, rather than lazily reverted to their own, older ones", but merely adding to what you've written isn't going to solve the problems you've created in the article. Your skewing of the article toward semiotics and away from grammar can only be undone by removing (some of) your edits, not by adding to them. —Angr 21:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyway, here's my view: this is an article about mainstream linguistics. And I'm sorry, but while semiotics, narrative studies, discourse and stylistics may relevant to linguistics, they really are not at all in the centre of what modern linguistics is about. Supriya has made massive changes to the article since 18 May, and all without discussing these changes on this talk page. And it really seems to me that those edits seriously bias the article towards a very unrepresentative &mdash; and in places quite POV &mdash; view of linguistics. You may feel that stylistics and narrative theory deserve more attention in modern linguistics. You may think that our academic system sucks. But this is not the place to push those views. The purpose of this article is to describe the mainstream work going on in the academic discipline of linguistics. It doesn't matter if you feel linguists are taking linguistics in the wrong direction (though I don't think they really are). That's not what this article is for. Supriya really should have raised these issues on this talk page before making those massive edits. All I did was take the article back to something like what it had been before 18 May. And this is because I feel strongly that that article then, despite its many failings, was a much more accurate depiction of what mainstream modern linguistics is about. And that's what this article is supposed to be for. garik (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Next problem: The section called "Theories" doesn't even make an attempt to be NPOV. It's pure editorial, using words like "interesting", "unfortunately" (!), and "naive", and calls mainstream linguistics "pseudo-scientific" (!!) and guilty of "reinforcing colonial attitudes". The claim that there is no consensus among linguists on the question of whether animals have language is ridiculous: there certainly is consensus that language is uniquely human. Animals have lots of forms of communication, but language is more than just communication. And while chimpanzees and gorillas can be taught to make the signs of sign language, AFAIK they've never learned to use the grammar of sign language. —Angr 22:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There are too many edits for me to look at more than a small sample, but for the ones which I looked at, angr and garik seem to be doing better than Supriya. For example, it makes perfect sense to remove "this is a myth" on NPOV grounds here:  (sometimes I think linguists don't consider written language enough, but my opinion doesn't mean anything without sources, and even if there are some wording tweaks called for, "this is a myth" is clearly not the kind of wording we want).  Kingdon (talk) 03:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This edit summary made me laugh out loud. Of course sculpture and painting are not language – at least not language in the literal sense as studied by linguists, which does not include the metaphorical use of the term in "the language of music" etc. And of course there's the obligatory accusation of fascism, bringing Godwin's law to fruition and completely destroying Supriyya's last shred of credibility. —Angr 19:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Quoth Supriyya: "Most of the problems that exist between the ideological worlds of generative linguists and cognitive linguists, are too narrow to concern me. I think our academic system (especially with ref. to linguistics), sucks. "
 * bleep, thanks for playing. The only puropse of Wikipedia is to reflect the "academic system" (all its facets, including minority views within WP:DUE). You don't like that? Edit somewhere else. Nobody here is interested in what concerns you -- this is a collaborative project, with rules, not your personal webspace. --dab (𒁳) 20:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I sympathize with Supriya - I also would like the Linguistics article to have a broad view of the field, it would be interesting to get more information about non-Western linguistic tradition if possible, and it sucks to have your hard work reverted - but I think the article was pretty good before. Whoever reverted the introduction back to how it is now, thank you. Surpriya, I'm sorry you've had bad experiences with linguistics in the academic system, but try to understand that any encyclopedia is inherently conservative: we want to reflect the mainstream views, as Dbachmann said above, because that's what people come here to see. WP isn't a global information collective. Indeterminate (talk) 09:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I definitely have no objection to including the non-Western linguistic tradition as well as non-mainstream Western views, but it has to be done a lot more carefully, and without distorting the article to suggest that the way some people think linguistics ought to be is the way linguistics is. —Angr 10:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nor do I &mdash; and I agree with Indeterminate's sympathy: the article could certainly do with expansion to express a broader outlook. But, as you imply, this all has to be put into context. I have no problem with, and would encourage, the inclusion of a well sourced section (or sections) on non-Western traditions in linguistics (although this is probably a misnomer &mdash; most Japanese linguists I've met are pretty generativist, while Panini's work is almost certainly closer to modern mainstream "Western" linguistics than most of what European scholars of language did for centuries). garik (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC) edited by garik (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

what do we mean by "non-Western"? Historical schools? For that, we have history of linguistics (it is very easy to enumerate the historical non-Western linguistic traditions: Indian, Chinese, Islamic, and arguably Jewish (though mostly western)). This article should focus on the past 100 years or so. That's difficult enough to do in a coherent way to say the least. I don't know if mainstream academic linguistics is "Western" any more than the very notion of academia itself tends to be "Western". We don't request a treatment of "non-western traditions" at the Physics article, do we. dab (𒁳) 12:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. You're quite right. As I said above (kind of), it makes little sense to divide modern linguistics along geographical lines. And I suppose it makes no sense to try to accommodate all kinds of dissent from the mainstream (Intelligent Design probably doesn't get much mention in the Biology article). In any case, now I look at the article again, it seems to me that the most pressing concern is making some sense of, and elaborating on, the rather unclear Structures section. Then there should probably be a section on the major theoretical divides in mainstream linguistics (and here, most likely, generativism and cognitive grammar are indeed the main players). On the topic of writing versus speech/signing: I seem to recall a paper &mdash; or perhaps a book &mdash; that argued that the written modality has, in highly literate modern cultures, some claim to primacy (at least among adults). I'll try to dig that reference up. garik (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In my understanding, the "golden age of philology" lasts from Schlegel to de Saussure (if you like, 1808-1916). It is possible to give an account of linear progress of that. After de Saussure, we appear to witness a schism (say, 1920 to 1990) that isn't yet resolved. In my opinion (which I am not trying to impose on the article), postmodernism and Chomskian nativism have fragmented linguistic research into so many ephemereal pet theories. Only since about 1990 we appear to see some self-healing processes at work, and it is too early to jump to conclusions on that. Thus, the period 1950 to present will almost necessarily have to be treated in a bipartite "Chomskian vs. anti-Chomskian schools" structure. dab (𒁳) 13:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes (although I'm not sure where postmodernism fits in): I would certainly agree that Chomsky still looms large enough over modern linguistics that the main division is perceived as Chomskian vs non-Chomskian. This is perhaps somewhat unfortunate, since figures like Jackendoff (inter alios) are probably best treated as somewhere in the middle &mdash; and it may be worth noting that the non-Chomskian camp is by necessity somewhat more diverse: it's far from certain to me that Morten Christiansen, William Labov and Ronald Langacker are quite bedfellows, for example.  But yes, C vs non-C  does seem to be the clearest divide, and that is therefore how the relevant section of this article should probably be structured. Still, to be fair to Chomsky (and I'm far from being a nativist), he probably did save linguistics from going down a very dodgy behaviourist path.  garik (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose he must have been counter-punching against something. It is difficult for me to appreciate the necessity, 60 years later, just like it is difficult to appreciate Knoxian Puritanism for someone who hasn't experienced 15th century Roman Catholicism. But being a Chomskianist today, in this simile, strikes me a bit like being a puritan iconoclast today. --dab (𒁳) 17:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly sympathise with that analogy:) although many (obviously) wouldn't! Anyway, unless someone else with a good knowledge of the major theoretical divisions in modern linguistics would like to do so (and there are almost certainly many editors far more qualified than I am), I'll try to make some start on at least a skeleton of a new section later this week, depending on real work. garik (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What about those of us who, in your analogy, are modern-day mainstream Presbyterians? Are we Chomskyanists or not? ;-) —Angr 17:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * well, I suppose you are trying to sidle away from the original "nativist" tenets as inconspicuously as possible, without actually retracting anything, just shifting concepts around until they actually make sense, while at the same time still being able to imply that you were "right all along" :op --dab (𒁳) 07:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with garik and angr here. The edits by Supriyya are very biased and completely out of line with the way linguistics is done in most departments in the US, Japan, Australia, and Europe. And that's true whether the department is nativist or non-nativist, formalist or functionalist, chomskyan or non-chomskyan in direction. Supriyya's comments seem to have little to do with linguistics as i understand it or as I understand the views of other linguists who disagree with me on points of theory. I might add that I've been teaching linguistics for 15 years at a major research institution.(PS I work extensively with colleagues who are Native American and work on Native American languages. They take the standard view. The politics of linguistics in the early 20th century was undeniably racist and colonial, but I seriously doubt that has much validity any more, at least not in my experience. AndrewCarnie (talk) 02:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Outside view
I've still got dab' talkpage on my watchlist, so I take the liberty to comment this one. I roughly compared the version before Supriyya's contributions with the current version, and I have to say the version from before looks better. Considering that Supriyya has edited this article nearly exclusivly (~ 85%) contribs, that he also made nonsensical edits like adding BOLD TEXT to the top of the article and that he did not elaborate the point why linguistics are an art on this talk page I would consider it within the limits of the acceptable to remove all his contributions and drop a generic message about vandalism and the wp:sandbox on his talk page. However, since this is probably to drastic, here is a general reminder about dispute resolution. Supriyya, you have no consensus supporting your edits. Please put your views in a discussable proposal, and seek to achieve a consensus on this talk page. Zara1709 (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * spot on, except that Supriyya should probably be referred to in the feminine. --dab (𒁳) 20:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There are male Supriyas too. —Angr 20:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * well, yes, but the page I link to is the profile of 'our' Supriyā (note the motto, "just another narcissist at work"). dab (𒁳) 08:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverting to a revision such as is entirely appropriate under the circumstances.  The problem we have here is not just one or two disputed edits, but a firehose of edits, almost none of which have had any kind of reasonable talk page discussion, or support by anyone other than Supriyya.  I mean, adding a fact here or taking out an especially bad wording there isn't necessarily a bad way to start, but this has been going on for a month now. Kingdon (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Much could be done to improve that version, of course (sources in particular are much lacking). But, as you say, it needs to be done carefully and with consensus. garik (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and by someone who knows what they are doing... and someone who isn't here due to a sentiment of rebellion against the establishment. dab (𒁳) 12:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well...
There are too many points that have been made above (or below or however you look at it) and I cannot respond to them all. However, since the idea that language is sociological and metaphysical rather than innate and biological has been ousted by a "majority consensus", here goes:

1. I do not agree that the job of an encyclopedia is to merely reflect the education system, of all the things. Ironically, you state that it should be "neutral", right? So what happens to that neutrality from the view of "establishments"?

2. It almost seems pointless to argue, because all of you here seem to have one single idea fixed into your head like a brick on the wall. How can you say that language is exclusive to human beings when animals are capable of the same things as humans are? They experience emotions (yes they do!), they experience hunger, they experience sex - they procreate. Like us, they are also trying to survive. Nothing that is alive on this planet is incapable of 'language'. Language captures the cycle of life; it is not just a fucking set of binary codes and muscles flapping on the toungue! Those are just surface structures and they manifest in multiple forms. Our minds are more dynamic and complex than that - there are feelings involved! How can you ignore that - even in science? Rather, especially in science?

3. It is sad that this view is a minority view in 'modern, mainstream' linguistics. And no, just because that is what things are like, I don't see why they should continue to be re-enforced. Women are raped, humiliated, objectified practically everyday: that is the way things "are": that does not mean that I continue to state it in the same way because that is not really the way they are: they have been "made" into that, you see? Just as we have to restore liberty and justice for women and not continue to state them as weaker, subordinate beings, we also need to restore justice to the way we think - about linguistics or anything else! And whatever linguistics has been made into, is not necessarily what it is - it has been manipulated into that by a set of individuals. The idea that animals do not think, that it is all 'innate', that surface structures is what one can go by, that questioning 'establishments' is wrong, that science means one thing and philosophy means another - these are all problems very political, darlings.

4. I am all for neutrality: I had presented both perspectives - the Chomskyan (innate language) one, as well as the post-structuralist (metaphysical / sociological) one. This amounts to some sort of a shady double standard - you've voted against the view I put forth because that is just "one" view, but you're imposing your own, what about that? Isn't that biased too? I am all for stating what you and Chomsky think about language, but why is there a problem with the other idea also expressed? The older edit completely ignored that perspective! And without removing the Chomskyan references, I had only ADDED to it with the other one. I had NOT replaced it - the way it is being done then, and now.

5. I hope sense prevails. Some day.

Good night.

Supriya 22:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * there are fundamental misunderstandings here. Please make an effort to familiarize yourself with the project aims for one thing. First of all, you should actually read (more than just the title of) WP:NPOV. Read the whole damn page please. Concerning animal language, see animal communication and great ape language. For "metaphysical" language, see shabda, Philosophy of language and Category:Language and mysticism (yes! even in the anally retentive "West", people have noted that language has "metaphysical" aspects). This article is about the academic discipline of linguistics, and as such aims to reflect the field itself. If you actually read the comments above, you will see that at least Garik and I are anti-nativist (anti-Chomsky), but that we still accept that Chomsky's school will be treated prominently in the article, because we understand what a Wikipedia article is supposed to do.  The fact that animals experience emotions or have sex is supremely irrelevant to this discussion. If you are trying to establish that linguistics isn't what it should be, Wikipedia isn't for you. Write a book, get it published, then get it academically reviewed, and then Wikipedia can mention it. dab (𒁳) 07:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * On the topic of animal communication: as an evolutionary linguist, I think one of the most fascinating things about this is how different the human communication system is from that of other animals &mdash; in spite of the many similarities in other respects. For sure there are features in common between human and non-human communication &mdash; there are certainly things we do to communicate that some other animals do: grunting and growling and baring our teeth are obvious examples (yet while these would certainly be considered communicative, they would not be considered linguistic). There are more subtle things as well: some animals seem to organise their calls in a manner reminiscent of syntax (and syntax is certainly involved in that part of human communication we call language). Yet, at the same time, the differences are immense: the range and flexibility of language is staggeringly more impressive than the communication systems of other animals. Certainly other primates can learn to produce and understand human sign language to an extent, but they don't come close to producing anything as complex in the wild. The situation is similar with regard to culture: while there is evidence of impressive learned behaviour and cultural transmission (e.g. tool use) in other animals, no other species shows the same kind and degree of cumulative culture that human beings do. Such differences should not be denied, any more than the similarities. They are in need of explanation &mdash; by scientific means. Perhaps the difference between the communication systems of other animals and ours is quantitative rather than qualitative, but the chasm between them remains to be bridged (or rather &mdash; which is not quite the same thing &mdash; the bridge remains to be uncovered). garik (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Modified by garik (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * On the following: "How can you say that language is exclusive to human beings when animals are capable of the same things as humans are? They experience emotions (yes they do!), they experience hunger, they experience sex - they procreate. Like us, they are also trying to survive. Nothing that is alive on this planet is incapable of 'language'. Language captures the cycle of life; it is not just a fucking set of binary codes and muscles flapping on the toungue! Those are just surface structures and they manifest in multiple forms. Our minds are more dynamic and complex than that - there are feelings involved! How can you ignore that - even in science? Rather, especially in science?"
 * I would not deny that other animals experience hunger, emotions, and sex; that they procreate and are trying to survive (I don't know many people who would). But just because most animals do these things (some, of course, don't have sex; and many of the most basic lifeforms probably don't experience emotions in any useful sense of the word) does not mean that all animals do all the same things as human beings. I may be wrong (and I'm not sure what you mean by "Language captures the cycle of life"), but it seems to me that you're trying to apply the term "language" to the whole of cognition. garik (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm
"...staggeringly more impressive"

That's the problem. I can live with you saying that animals do not have any 'language' (which is also false). I can live with you saying that grunting and snarling is not 'linguistic' (which also I completely disagree with). But to say that human language is "staggeringly more impressive"? That's a serious prejudice: who decides what kind of communication is 'more advanced' or 'less advanced'? How do you know that animals do not experience more complex thoughts than Shakespeare ever did in his whole life? Have you lived among every animal community in the planet? How do you come to the conclusion that human language is "staggeringly more impressive" than animal language?

The thing is, that even if you are anti-Chomsky, what angers me is how those who apparently "oppose" his stance also conform to it sub-consciously. Your opposition is a very surface-level one. The problem is not so much between a historical perspective versus an acontextual perspective. These things are so multiple, that no one thing is right or wrong. There are times when you go beyond context, there are times when context cannot be ignored. There are times when you look at history, there are times when you look at pure philosophy. There are times when structure is used to give a certain functional understanding to the intangiblities of language, there are times when you just look inside you (even if it means arm-chair philosophy) at questions of aesthetics. There is no ONE answer. And Chomskyan or "anti-chomskyan", "mainstream" linguistics rejects this kind of plurality, and that is what my problem is. I am not "anti-Chomsky", as many people might accuse me of being. It's just that, like NO philosophy, NO theory, NO school of thought should be taken, I cannot accept EVERYTHING he says, neither can I reject everything he says!

To read the Bible, you do not have to be a Christian. You can be a Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, atheist, and still read the Bible, as a text. The linguistic education system refuses to look at Chomsky's work as a text. It takes it as an ultimate answer to life, and THAT is where my problem is. I happily accept a lot that Chomsky says, if only I'd be allowed to pick and choose aspects of his theory or philosophy. But it is this kind of a liberty that is being denied here. To say that you either agree or disagree with the man is a silly, one-sided thing to do: there are some things that he is right about, somethings that he is not right about - to my mind, or to the mind of any ordinary person who decides to go and work with language.

I think the meaning of 'linguistic' is being confused here. You say communication is different from linguistics. What is communication and what is linguistics? Communication is what you and I do every single day; linguistics is about taking a view on that communication. It is not a communication system in itself! If you say that the root word 'ling' means toungue, the suffix 'al' means what applies to the toungue or what the toungue is doing (speaking, communicating, etc), 'ist' means some kind of an expert work on either the toungue in itself (linguist), or on this activity of the toungue (called communication), and finally, finally, the suffix 'ic' is an approach to all of this. So 'linguistic' is an approach to communication, to language. It cannot be used as an antonymn to communication itself. That's like saying you only eat and I go "beyond" eating - I cook food, so food can be experienced only by me. You don't really know what food is, you have no taste buds on your toungue coz you don't cook. How do I know if you don't go back home and cook, and are a fantastic cook? And even if you don't, how do I know that you don't have the potential, the gift for it? Have I followed you into the kitchen to see? And is that really the point? And to categorize who eats and who cooks - who decides that? Who knows whether animals also have linguistics departments where some one chimp's theories are being propogated through manipulation?

About some animals not having sex at all, garik, I am not sure at all. I think everything that is alive has sex - in some way or the other. Because sex is about pleasure. And even if it is a creature involved in "asexual" reproduction, like say, the ameoba, I refuse to believe that it doesn't have its own pleasure system, that it doesn't perhaps masturbate. And whatever its own word is for masturbation, if it multiplies - i.e. has babies of its own (reproduction), it surely experiences pleasure. I believe that language, like sex, also functions on the same premise - pleasure and pain; creation and destruction.

But if you reject "metaphysical linguistics" simply because you were not offered a course on it while studying the subject, then you will definitely miss my point completely, and not get what I am trying to say. Language has "metaphysical properties", just as it has "physical properties", like sound waves, syntactic constituents, homophones, etc. It's just that most people reject the metaphysical properties "around" them, because they can't "see" them. Well, in that case, can you even "see" the physical properties like constituents and sound waves? It's just that you are afraid to talk about what you do not know. So you pretend that it's not there. That's what I call "escapism". From reality. Paradoxical, I know. Ironical, I know.

Now I know - you might just come back to your point and say that this is my personal opinion about language. It is. But everything in this world is a personal opinion only. And what I had tried to do in my 'massive' re-write was not to ignore this perspective that does not belong to me, or the people I largely agree with. I had maintained BOTH sides of this argument that we are having right here. And if you honestly, really truthfully look at what is happening, or what had been happening, it is your article that has wiped out one side of the story completely.

You might say that you did that on majority consensus. Fine - one of the flipsides, perhaps, of democracy is that if more number of people say something, it is held to be true. If less people say it, it is held to be false. I don't really follow that. There were more number of people at one point of time who said that the world is flat, and lesser numbers who said that it was round. It hasn't changed the shape of the planet, because of the number of people who stated one fact. Still, if I were asked to describe the shape of the earth, I would much rather say that it looks round to me, atleast, even if to others, it looks flat.

Supriya 14:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I suppose we're all impressed by different things. The point is the gulf between human communication and that of other animals, regardless of what (if anything) one finds more impressive. De gustibus non disputandum est... Anyway, I think you've misunderstood my (and, I'd guess, most linguists') attitude towards Chomsky. You say: "I happily accept a lot that Chomsky says, if only I'd be allowed to pick and choose aspects of his theory or philosophy. But it is this kind of a liberty that is being denied here. To say that you either agree or disagree with the man is a silly, one-sided thing to do: there are some things that he is right about, somethings that he is not right about - to my mind, or to the mind of any ordinary person who decides to go and work with language."
 * Well, fine. I also happily accept a lot that Chomsky says; and indeed, we are all allowed to pick and choose aspects of his theory or philosophy. I know of nobody who is denied this liberty. I neither agree nor disagree with him entirely: there are indeed some things that he is right about, and some things that he is not right about. Dab possibly implied (unintentionally) that I'm more rabidly opposed to Chomsky's view of language than I am. Or maybe I did. But I'm perfectly happy to agree that he's undoubtedly right about many things.


 * On communication and language: I'd say language is a subset of human communication, and linguistics is the study of that subset (though it may well &mdash; and should &mdash; make reference to other aspects of human and non-human communication in its attempt to understand language). In other words, not all human communication is language, but all language is probably communicative in some sense. And I'm pretty certain most linguists would agree. Inevitably there will be ambiguous cases and vagueness at the edges, but that's the way of things. Now, of course you could choose to define language as encompassing all communication in all its forms, but that's just not how it's defined within the academic discipline of linguistics. And it is perfectly reasonably (probably essential) for a body of scholars to define the boundaries of their discipline in this way. I would not criticise a student of law for claiming that the physical laws of the universe do not fall within the boundaries of their discipline. I might choose to define "Law" as including all laws, physical, juridical, divine or whatever, but this has no bearing on what should be included in the Wikipedia article on Law.


 * As for whether or not an amoeba masturbates, and whether or not it has a word for it... well, I'll leave that as an open question. garik (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's not even the case that all language is communicative. Language and communication overlap, but there is nonlinguistic communication (all animal communication and a great deal of human communication), and there is noncommunicative language ("Hi, howya doin' today?") As for metaphysics, whenever anyone mentions it, I always check to see if my wallet's still in my pocket. —Angr 16:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. You're quite right. There are certainly examples of language that can be argued to not be communicative &mdash; of course, we could still say that e.g. "How do you do?" communicates something, but probably only in a trivial sense. So yes, language is not quite a clean subset of human communicative behaviour. And yes, I'm inclined to be equally cautious of my pockets (although less so than when I hear the word postmodernist). garik (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Supriya says: I still don't know if you folks have got what I mean in terms of the relationship between 'communication' and 'linguistics', or communication and 'language'. To me atleast, communication is a way of getting a point across, language is a dynamic set of the elements that are simultaneously used in communication, and linguistics is the analysis and perspective to all of this. So how can communication be non-linguistic and how can linguistics be non-communicative? What is the purpose of a perspective? A perspective is a way of seeing things. The thing is not the perspective. So here the "perspective" is linguistic and the "thing" is language. Now are you saying animals lack the perspective and have the thing and humans have both the perspective and the thing? Either way, I disagree. If you have the perspective, you have to have the thing unless you have a perspective on nothing, and if you have the thing, it is not very far away from gaining a perspective - in some way or the other - eventually. This - what I am saying is a philosophy, true. And though I am not in a position to cite references to it here, I am sure there are others (in history) who have already said the same thing.

Now, Angr, how can anything uttered in this world be 'non-communicative'? Even a baby babbling or wailing or smiling communicates to its mother that it is hungry or tired or thirsty or happy. There can be communication errors yes - which there are always are: the mother may think the baby is asking for food when it is asking for sleep, or asking for water when it asking for food and so on. But the communication is happening, it very much is - be it a baby babbling or a Chinese speaking to an Andamanese. Errors are just a part of the game. So even a redundant statement like "Hi, howya doin' today" does communicate something. There is a semiotic or a pragmatic communication taking place here - which is exactly the point that I am trying to emphasize on. When I say "Hi, howya doin' today" to someone I meet on the road, I am not really expecting an answer but the utterance of the above sentence as a whole is meant to signify that I am concerned about their well-being, or that I acknowledge that they are alive. That is my purpose of saying that sentence, or uttering it. And even if each of those words don't literally mean anything, they are meant to mean something that me, and my acquaintance have silently consented on. It is not in our cultural tradition, today, in the 21st century - be it Europe or America or India or Japan - to walk up to some acquaintance and tell them "I am concerned about your well-being within the next twenty-four hours and I hope that it is fine" rather than shout out a "Hi, howya doin' today". For that matter, many things we do, do communicate (send a message) something. Laughter, chuckles, giggles, groans, moans, smiles - all of these signify something. Just like words that have "meaning" do - bird, well-being, health, etc. All of them are messengers. They just look different. The phrase "Hi howya doin'" may look different from a smile, or a single word or a sentence, but the point is that they all carry a message across. Their purpose is "universal" (remember?); their meanings are perhaps not, their appearances are not. They carry messages from one end to another. So how can anything which has an intent behind it be "non-communicative"?

So, on the basis of the above premise you have to explain to me clearly what your point is:

Are you saying that animals don't analyze communication (they are not 'linguistic'; read: they are not 'linguists' because they don't have degrees from MIT or suchlike?)

Are you saying that they don't communicate only - that they don't pass around messages (impressive or unimpressive)?

Or are you saying that they have no intent to communicate and pass these messages across?

PS: I wonder why you need a wallet in your pocket, Angr. Or maybe I just didn't get the joke. Communication error perhaps. And garik, I just read your comment. So who decides what is trivial and what is important? Nothing is even so trivial that you can't brood over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supriyya (talk • contribs) 17:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

talkpage discipline
Supriyya, you've been told what you need to know to contribute to Wikipedia. The purpose of article talkpages is explained at WP:TALK. It's up to you what you do with this information. You'll hardly be the first if you ignore the rules or try to dodge them. Wikipedia is built so it can deal with it. Unless you have anything to constructive to contribute, I would ask you to now leave this talkpage to those who do. Discussions irrelevant to improving the article may be removed from talkpages, and I suppose we now need to begin doing that. If you're just looking for a chat, there are plenty of places on the internet where you can find that (newsgroups, discussion fora, chatrooms, blogs, community sites). See also WP:NOT for a list of things Wikipedia isn't (but is often mistaken for). dab (𒁳) 11:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please write that comment to yourself - not to me. Wikipedia is a public encyclopedia, and indeed, it has been created for the purpose that you yourself state. You do not have the right to tell me, or anyone else, to "leave the talk page", because clearly, you do not own it - the page is part of the infinite "chat rooms / discussion forums" on the Internet, as is Wikipedia. It doesn't belong to you, or to me. No, that it doesn't. So if you wish to delete the "irrelevant" conversations, go ahead: Wiki gives you the right to do so, and after all the purpose is being served - if this is a public encyclopedia, then the reflection of the prejudices along with the kind of public that a subject (sadly for itself, draws) is most important as well. But in anycase, you can't delete the history (of the articles / talk changes), so there might be a slight hurdle remaining for you there in anycase. Sorry about that though. And all the best with linguistics, darling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supriyya (talk • contribs) 14:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am as entitled as anyone to ask you to respect WP:TALK. If you don't, your contributions may be removed, it's as simple as that. No, Wikipedia is not a chatroom. You got that wrong. Wikipedia is not a "public encyclopedia" in any other sense than that of GFDL. You obviously didn't read any of the policy pages you were pointed to. But I do interpret your statement as a farewell message. That may be the best for everyone. Thanks for your good wishes, and good luck with your blog. dab (𒁳) 17:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How nice that you read my blog. If not from linguistics, maybe you'll learn something there. Although I wouldn't advice you to take everything I say as ultimate you know, given your tendencies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supriyya (talk • contribs) 19:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Lexis?
Why is lexis suddenly under the "theoretical linguistics" part of the navigation box? Since when was lexis considered to be a linguistic study on the level of syntax and the like? It's more a school of thought in linguistics (not to mention one that radically deviates from long-held conceptions of language, and not just Chomskyan); thus, to me, it shouldn't be implicitly equated with the fundamental study of the elements of language (i.e. syntax, semantics, etc.) by the organization on the page. I don't even think it belongs under "applied linguistics," either--perhaps just discussed along with universal grammar. Thoughts?

FWIW, I'm checking my intro linguistics books, and not one of them mentions lexis. (Or if they do, it wasn't significant enough to warrant indexing!) Kyledavid80 (talk) 07:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Lexis was added to the template last September, so it's hardly sudden! Anyway, Template talk:Linguistics is probably the more appropriate place to discuss it. —Angr 09:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm talking about lexis not just as a part of the template, but as an area of linguistics in general--it isn't "on par" with syntax and such, is it? Not to my knowledge, at least. Kyledavid80 (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I had a look at the article, it looks like linguistics in my view. BUT... It also has a massively biased POV. It is set up as if the lexicon isn't found in important linguistic theories like GB, MP, LFG or HPSG. It could definitely do with some work. Don't have time to do it myself.AndrewCarnie (talk) 07:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Supriyya's back again
Have a look at Language. Supriyya seems to be trying to turn the linguistics section of that article into a rival to this one. This is getting ridiculous. garik (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've left some noob advice and reverted lazily. WP:PROVEIT would probably apply to most of what s/he is adding.  If it's unsourced and contested, it can be removed without controversy.  Generally sources will be found and a better page will result (as well as a possible ulcer).  WLU (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Post-structuralism
Anyway, let's all calm down and get on with collaborating to improve this article. There almost certainly is a case for introducing a new section entitled "Post-structuralist approaches", or something of the sort, with proper reliable sourcing (which is generally lacking throughout the article) and proper teamwork. What does everyone think of that? It strikes me that this would be the most useful thing to do now. garik (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That sounds nice. I think it's a good idea to not fight over this too. The post-structuralist section can include the work being done on discourse, semiotics, narrative theory and metaphysical approaches to language. That does not mean the 'mainstream, theoretical approach' has to be touched. If you notice, I had barely been arguing about removing any of the existing content, as long as these things were included. Derrida's and Foucault's writings are important references, since a large chunk of the work is being done through their theories. Also, there are writers who have suggested a third way - between the structuralist and the post-structuralist. I think that should be also included, to bring out a balance. There is a third position, which is a criticism to both post-structuralism as well as to structuralism, because PS abandons or rejects structure and any kind of a grounding entirely. Since these are "critical approaches" it would be a good idea to just quote. -- Supriya  20:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent. Now let's all take the softly-softly approach and add edits slowly and measuredly, with good citations &mdash; I agree that it may be a very good plan, at least initially, to introduce quotes (reasonably short ones!) and build up the section around those. garik (talk) 11:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Animals
I guess I'm not the only person who feels so. Along with the post-structuralist approach, I strongly appeal that the controversial animal language issue be re-assessed as well. -- Supriya  21:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it just seems to me that animal communication isn't really a common area of research for linguists... take this section, for example. I think it's more commonly studied by biologists. You're right, I think we should have a small section on it, but I think it should have a main template pointing to a larger, primary article. I'd like to see any section on animal language mention Hockett's Design Features of Language, as well as any major relevant post-struct works on the subject.
 * While we're on the topic, we should probably mention constructed languages (portal) somewhere also. At the very least, these related fields should get a link down in the See Also section. Indeterminate (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. No one is denying that other animals communicate, or that the study of animal communication is extremely useful and relevant to the study of human communication. Indeed, there should definitely be a small section on it here. I'm an evolutionary linguist after all: what other animals do is of the greatest relevance to my area of research. However, as Indeterminate implies, linguistics is the study of language, and by language, I mean (and the vast majority of linguists mean) a particular part of human communicative behaviour. This in no way denigrates what other animals do; it's just helpful to focus the discipline in this way. In fact, I have a godo citation on this somewhere. garik (talk) 11:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that animal language is not really a research area in linguistics, and I am not really pushing for it to become one or anything. Even post-structuralists haven't really gone and actually dealt with animals or anything, for that matter. It's just that it isn't fair to say things like "Non-humans do not." Or that "modern" humans are the only ones who use "sophisticated" communication. It's one thing to not do actual research on something; it's another thing to make a statement like that. Forget about animals, even the issue of pathological or mentally challenged people not really being able to use language is controversial. They have their own logic systems and its just that they are functioning on a different discourse parameter than what other "normal" people do. Until some years ago, homosexuality was considered clinically / psychologically "abnormal"; that "deviation" was attributed by many medical scientists to "genetic" differences. Today it is not. Today people realize that sexual preferences - homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, etc - are all personal choices that individuals are making. Language "differences" are also like that. Anyway, along with the additional inputs on the fringe animal language research work in linguistics, I think it could be better to first of all start by not making a comment on the fact that they do not use language - that user had most accurately edited the words that could make it non-controversial. I suggest that we just cite sources and quotations on the varied opinions on "non-human" language and what is not considered "human" language. -- Supriya  11:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hope this edit makes it somewhat clearer and less controversial. And bear in mind that many linguists do do a great deal of research on non-human communication. By using language to refer to a specific kind of human communication, all they're doing is saying that it's different from what other animals do (whether this is a difference of degree, of kind or whatever). And many linguists study atypical human communicative behaviour too. And it is just a fact that some people who are severely autistic, or whose brains differ in other ways, do not acquire language in the same way as people who are more typical. This is important, since it gives us an insight into how the human brain works. It may also be the case that a small number of people acquire a communication system that differs to the extent that we might not call it language. There's nothing insulting about that, any more than to say that other animals's communication systems don't have language. I think this is just a terminological issue. It's just that most linguists use the term "language" in a more specific way than the average person probably does, which is useful to the discipline of linguistics. Just as it's useful for biologists to define "vegetable" as not including tomatoes, which may be more narrow than a cook's definition, it's useful to define language more narrowly than the average non-linguist. But just as the biologist's definition is not offensive to tomatoes, the linguist's definition should not be construed as offensive to those communciation systems that they do not term "language".

On the sexuality analogy: bear in mind that most modern gay activists seem to consider homosexuality to be something you're born with and not the result of choice. I have some sympathy with this (although I think it's a red herring when it comes to gay rights): I doubt very much if many people have a great deal of choice in their sexuality (although some element of choice is probably involved). In any case, regardless of their origins, homosexuality and bisexuality are less common than heterosexuality. In that sense, they are less normal (and I say this a bisexual man). In the same way, being severely autistic is less normal than not being severely autistic. This is no value judgement. It just means that certain states are less typical than others, usually for quite obvious evolutionary reasons. garik (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, I disagree again - there are many activists who would refute this 'normal' label again. And there is choice; we are already making it when we define our sexual preferences. I know a lot of people around me, in a comparatively traditional society compared to the West, who are openly bisexual, and many others like me, who are somewhere between bi-curiousity and bi-sexuality. There are a lot of people who are into threesomes these days: there are very few sexually active people I have seen who are not into that. Surely atleast one of them have bisexual preferences. These lines blur very often. There might be fewer examples of certain choices being made, but that is not the same thing as normalness. I don't agree with the definition of 'normalness' applying to numbers. Also, I am not completely arguing against innateness or genetic factors. There is always a mix of social and biological aspects in every area - language or sexuality. And when I say 'choice', I don't mean that it is completely indefinite. True, there are certain things about ourselves that we cannot change; the way I speak and talk at some essential level may never change. My sexual preferences may not either. It is perhaps unchangeable at the level of the "subconscious" and not so much at the level of genetics. I think a lot of linguistic controversies confuse these two; for a long time I interpreted this 'innateness' as the 'subconscious' thought. I agree that we have little choice where the sub-conscious is concerned; but then again I feel that the conscious mind and the subconscious mind are always being influenced by each other, and in some ways, I don't have any control over that relationship.  Supriya  12:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, it may well be the case that most people are at least a bit attracted to both sexes (maybe even a lot). It may not be; this is in principle an empirical question, not one that can be answered a priori. But I have no very strong feelings as to what the answer is likely to be. But I think this discussion is rapidly getting drawn away from its original topic, and I'm getting drawn away from my real work! garik (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, we are "deviating" (no pun intended), and my critics have never refuted that I get carried away with analogies. So, lets drop the analogies and concentrate on language instead. I do think that both sides of this innate-social debate should be brought out, though. Because these are two very dominant views on these extremes, and ideally we should go beyond both and find views / comments / sources that look at the spaces between. But even these two, to start with, can be a good beginning I think. -- Supriya  14:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not updating. I shall be back soon, promise :-) -- Supriya  09:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Intro
I think the Intro needs to be re-written. If we are addressing theoretical linguistics as one of the many branches, then it should be described in the second paragraph, before or along with the others - evolutionary, historical, etc. The intro should in that case be more general towards linguistics; it should speak of the two major movements in the academic context, which are structuralism and post-structuralism. -- Supriya  02:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the final sentence here. The two major movements in the linguistic context are functionalism and formalism, NOT structuralism and post-structuralism. Structuralism and post-structuralism are literary & philosophical notions. The major areas (phonology, phonetics, semantics, syntax) etc are equally relevant (more or less) whether one is a functionalist or a formalist. The difference between the approaches is in the degree to which they overlap (formalist pushing for discrete areas, functionalists pushing for greater overlap). The other areas (evolutionary, historical) etc. are parasitic on the basic formalist/functionalist divide and are correctly included in the second paragraph.AndrewCarnie (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether the use of the words 'major' or 'minor' in terms of these movements is appropriate; there might be different things that are important to different linguists. While I agree that formalism and functionalism are two opposing perspectives to linguistics, I do believe that there are others also, and this includes structuralism and post-structuralism. We could talk about formalism / functionalism, as well as structuralism / post-structural. About them being philosophical and literary notions, there are for that matter, lots of overlaps between literature / philosophy and linguistics, and post-structuralistic approaches to linguistics has been quite a bit about that. Structuralism and post-structuralism are definitely linked to linguistics as well, there are already lots of internet articles, books, and material that speaks about these approaches in linguistics. We can cite and refer to all of those when we mention structuralist and post-structuralist linguistics.  Supriya  04:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, in making a personal observation, formalism / functionalism are movements within structuralism itself. Post-structuralism doesn't really deal with either of these at all - the people, the theories and the schools of thought are completely different there. So then again, we will be returning to the entire article not including any post-structuralist stances.  Supriya  04:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I wasn't clear. There is no such thing as post-structuralist linguistics. Post-structuralism is a notion from literary theory. Many functionalists are *influenced* by post-structuralism, but it is a real mistake to think that post-structuralism has any thing to say about linguistics as it is understood by most practitioners today. Linguistics is a science, post-structuralism is post-modernist philosophy. Mixing them up is confusing to the lay reader. AndrewCarnie (talk) 05:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Derrida and Foucault have largely been referred to as post-structuralist linguists. They have also been working on language under the influence of post-structuralism, like you say, or what could identify as "beyond" structuralism. Even if it is an influence, that does then constitute a certain discipline, because all the work being done in linguistics (call it structuralist, Chomskyan or Saussarean) is under the influence of something or the other only. Where else does it come from if not from the influence of some school of thought? Whether linguistics is a science or a philosophy, humanities or cognitive science, of literary interest or not, is still being debated in most places as far as I can see / read / hear (like we are doing right now infact); so I think all those arguments should reflect here, not just one of them. The work that these people have been doing, as a reaction to structural linguistics, has been classified under post-structural linguistics. Structuralism and post-structuralism has both been written about in reference to linguistics, and all those references have been cited.  Supriya  08:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know why I'm bothering to engage in this silly debate, but clearly the problem here is that you think linguistics isn't a science. But this is a fundamental mistake. The fact that linguistics is a science is what distinguishes it from humanistic studies of literature and culture. (Just to be clear, there's nothing wrong with humanistic approaches, but they aren't the same thing as sciences). We have two distinct disciplines: literary theory and linguistics. The first is humanistic, the second is scientific. THis is not up for debate, it's definitional. The fact that some people are confused about the distinction does not mean that the distinction isn't there. Sciences are defined by the use of the scientific method. The scientific method presumes a degree of structuralism, because scientific theories have to have defined parameters for empirical verification. Imagine we were to propose a "post-structuralist" approach to Chemistry, as I can best understand such an incoherent notion, it would be closer to religion than science. Derrida and Foucault are not linguists, because they are not scientists, they are philosophers of language. The fact that people call them linguists is just evidence that people don't understand what linguistics is; it does not mean that linguistics includes what they do. This is why, in most Universities in Europe and North America, Eco, Derrida and Foucault are taught in philosophy, English, literature and (more rarely anthropology) departments and are not taught (except in passing as influential to the functionalist movement) in linguistics departments.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCarnie (talk • contribs) 13:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Andrew, I for one am glad you're bothering to engage in this debate. It needs to be made clear--preferably by an actual linguistics professor like you--what linguistics is and isn't, that Derrida and Foucault aren't linguists, and that linguistics has nothing to do with poststructuralism, postmodernism, metaphysics, animal communication, sculpture, painting, or masturbating amoebas. —Angr 15:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As you rightly observe that it is good that we are engaging in this debate, I put in my word of agreement with that. If there is one thing that linguistics needs, it is debate. Since that's settled, I'll do my part and put forth my argument (within our debate) once again. I stand by what I said earlier: I don't agree with the idea that any science can function in vaccuum; structuralist theory or post-structuralist theory. These are just ways of putting various, shall we say, perspectives across. I think we've already gone over this before considerably, but *sigh*, until my fingers work, I'll type it again. You might feel linguistics is a science, but there are people who do not agree with that. I respect your views, and my purpose is not to change your mind. But it's also important that you respect theirs (which happens to include mine, which is not really the point). Not allowing their views to be reflected, alongside yours, amounts to censorship. As far as I know, wikipedia doesn't stand for censorship. If material is sourced and verified, and there are people who voice a certain opinion (regardless of whether their understanding fits in with yours), there is no reason why it should not be up here. I respect your experience in the subject. I also respect the fact that you might know more than I do about the subject. But I also strongly stand for the idea that people's views and perspectives on something need to be taken into account irrespective of their age, actual experience and the information that they have; these things are a means to an end - and that end is plurality of thought. It's fine if you don't agree with the fact that linguistics is also being studied as a philosophy or that you would not like to refer to Derrida, Foucault and Barthes as "linguists". However, there are others who do, and they do not agree with your view that the philosophy of language is not integral to linguistics. Clearly, there is a controversy here, about what constitutes truth. Because they might perhaps say exactly the same about you, that what you say about their understanding. It could be endless, not to mention pointless, to attempt to arrive at a conclusion about who is right and who is wrong. I stand by the idea that whether we agree with each other or not, we must respect each other and let each other speak: it's not for my personal benefit or anything (although I don't see how I wouldn't benefit from something so positive), but it's just a part of democracy.  Supriya  17:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not censoring you, I've made no changes to the page. However, your position is simply philosophically incoherent. It is possible to distinguish among disciplines without taking away from the fact that they can influence each other. Language is a complex topic and there are a wide variety of perspectives on its study. But it's simply a mistake to lump all these perspectives together under the rubric "linguistics". Philosophical perspectives are studied in the discipline known as Philosophy of Language, Literary and Humanistic perspectives fall under literary theory and semiotics, medical and theraputic perspectives are studied in the Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences. These are all valid views on language and they all influence each other and linguistics. But that does not MAKE them linguistics. Your claim that because we're studying the same object (to the extent that such an object is definable) means we're doing the same thing is not only totally incompatible with current practice, it's out and out wrong. I've stated it before. You are simply wrong in your definition. Let me retreat again to my analogy with chemistry. Both Physicists and Chemists deal with atoms and molecules and the like. But you would be wrong to say that because they study the same set of objects that they are the same discipline. They have different methodologies and have different perspectives. That's what *makes* these different disciplines. You'd be even more incorrect to say that philosophers who study the natural world are physicists. They're not. Thats why we have distinct entries in wikipedia for metaphysics and physics. Wikipedia aims for a balanced point of view, but there are times when facts override the unfortunate situation that people have mistaken ideas about things. Take for example the fact that I can point out in the world that there are many people who believe that the holocaust never happened. The fact that there are people who are mistaken in their beliefs exists does not validate the incorrect position. Linguistics, as done by all it's major practitioners in major linguistics departments (not English departments, not philosophy departments, not anthropology departments, not communication departments, but *linguistics* departments) define linguistics as a science. There is no room for debate on the issue, it's a matter of facts. If you don't believe me let us consider the contents of articles in the major general journals of linguistics: The Linguistics Society of America journal _Language_ and the Linguistics Association of Great Britain's _Journal of Linguistics_. These journals are by their very constitution defined as publishing work from the range of areas defined as linguistics. One will find articles about language evolution, historical linguistics, semantics, phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, psycholinguistics, language acquisition, second language acquisition, and discourse analysis. But what one will not find is any discussion of any literary theory or philosophy of language, except when these areas intersect with on of the previously mentioned areas of linguistics. The LSA, about as an authoritative source on what is "linguistics" as you can have, defines linguistics as "the science of language". They also have an excellent set of articles about what linguists are and what they do. One good overview is found at http://www.lsadc.org/info/ling-fields-overview.cfm. Linguistics is a science. If you don't do science then you aren't a linguist. (You can call yourself one, but then you're out of the norm). I would like to add that my father was a professor of literary theory and I'm very good friends with people in our English and Philosophy departments here at my institution. We're friends because our interests overlap in language. However, I also know that with one exception (a colleague who studied under the linguistic Jakobson, and who now does a fair amount of semiotcis), none of my colleagues who study language from philosophical or literary points of view call themselves linguists. They, like me, recognize that there is value in a wide variety of perspectives in language study, but that it does no one any good by trying to lump them all together into a category, especially when the majority of practitioners have carved out the use of the label to have a specific and unvariable meaning.AndrewCarnie (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC) (Andrew Carnie, Associate Professor of Linguistics, Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona.)


 * I agree that overlaps and distinctions both exist, and that while linguistics has some commonalities with literature, philosophy and zoology, it is also distinct in its being called linguistics. However, that is the case with everything in the world; it is like an X shape: it meets at one point and it also disperses at other points. But what we see as distinct in it and what we see as common is bound to defer from person to person: we are bound to see different things, our visions cannot be the same, just as at some other level, they share an experience of the same sight as well. But both the commonalities and the varieties need to be brought out simultaneously, since they both exist. It's not fair to only speak of the varieties, just as it is not fair to only speak about commonalities, because then that is where the risk of 'categorization' occurs. About the journals and what is taught in linguistics' departments, there is writing that is not in agreement with the position of linguistics simply being referred to as a "science" and even if it acknowledges it as a science it has a differing take on what a science is in the first place; you can see those sources in the article itself. As for linguistics' departments, I have been part of one briefly myself, and I agree that while semiotics and philosophy of language are not really given much weightage, as a minority position they do exist in these linguistics departments itself. Semiotics, atleast here, is not taught in English departments, or in Philosophy departments, or Sociology departments. It is taught as a linguistics course, unless of course, some departments combine Linguistics and English. The department that I was briefly with, some years ago, interestingly existed in combination with the English department. It split later due to the obvious differences that we all might be able to guess. But if they started out as one department - linguistics and english literary studies - and continued like that for many years, surely there must have been some reason behind that? Somewhere I read that the MIT linguistics department also split with its English department before it joined with the Philosophy department (I could be wrong; this is what I vaguely remember reading). But the point is - why were these subjects being taught together if there is really no link between them, as you say? Were people wrong for so many years before one theory came along and decided to change it all? I have had a course in semiotics, and the professor who taught us semiotics is perhaps one of the very few (rather only) linguists that I have met who had a post-structuralist persective. However, considering that this professor of mine has been trained, experienced and been a part of the same linguistics' department that is predominantly Chomskyan or structuralist, proves that there are people in this discipline who do not follow the norms that the majority of others might do. He is called a linguist; that is obviously his designation. He has a PhD degree in the subject, and yet his views are not the same as the majority of other linguists who teach or study in the department. Now of course one could say that he is a minority, and that the majority does not agree with him, so he is not important. However, the controversy here is not about whether an event has happened or not (taking your example of the holocaust), but how various people experience a subject. Linguistics is an idea (scientific or philosophical or either); it is not a thing that has been placed by nature in front of us. It has been created by people, by you and me. It is not like a rock, or even an event in history that has physically happened. I don't think that the experience of linguistics, or literature, or any other subject for that matter can be simply reduced to the majority of views. -- Supriya  18:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I probably shouldn't engage in a pointless argument. But you have missed the point so I will try one more time. My point is that because things interact with one another (e.g. literary theory with discourse analysis) does NOT mean they are the same thing. As for the issue of majority view -- that's what consensus means. And wikipedia articles are based on consensus. AndrewCarnie (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not claiming that they are the same thing. To share attributes indeed does not mean being the same. And the article at no point states that everything that's mentioned there is the same or anything. It says they borrow and draw from each other, which is far from the idea of being alike. Also, wiki is about consensus, sure, but consensus / majority on wikipedia also does not signify high numbers necessarily; it means that we (all sides of the argument) should live with each other harmoniously. If you want X and I want Y, then we can have both X and Y. We don't need to choose one. There's space for both, and more than both also.

PS: Angr, why do I have a feeling you are kind of secretly fascinated with the idea of masturbating amoebaes? I could be wrong though. Anyway, all said and done, I've enjoyed this 'conversation' or 'debate' immensely over the last few days; I don't know about the rest of you. Thanks - it has been quite a catharsis.  Supriya  21:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't add much but my support for Angr and Andrew Carnie's positions. As I said above, I think that we could reasonably add a section to this article entitled something like "post-structuralist approaches to the study of language". However, I absolutely agree with Andrew Carnie that post-structuralism is not a major movement in modern linguistics, or even that it has much of a role in linguistics at all. I'm afraid I'm extremely busy for most of this month and next, and will not be able to send much time on Wikipedia. But here is my view. There is nothing wrong with having a section on how post-structuralist notions have influenced the study of language, but they are far from being mainstream and are very far from the heart of what modern linguistics is. garik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that post-structuralist is mainstream, or that structuralist is marginal, or vice-versa. Regardless of what is mainstream and what is marginal, I stand by the idea that all points of view must be upheld equally, regardless of what we personally wish to follow or how many follow it. The contrary of that would amount to censorship, even if it is through a majority, and I would continue to strongly oppose that. The words 'mainstream' and 'marginal' don't even appear here. That is immaterial as far as I'm concerned.  Supriya  10:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please just read WP:undue. This is not how Wikipedia works, and how Wikipedia works is non-negotiable. In general, you seem to show disregard for the conventions and rules of this encyclopedia. Two separate people have asked you to stop marking all your edits as minor, and yet you continue to do so. You have been asked twice to sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, but you continue not to do so. I am not even the first person to point out to you that Wikipedia has a policy on the weighting it gives to minority views. I shall put it clearly: you are disregarding the rules and conventions of this encyclopedia to push a minority POV, and you can be blocked from editing if you continue to do so. garik (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware, I haven't "broken" any of wiki's rules as per the examples you allege: the missing signature is usually an error, and I always come back and add it when I have not placed it. I am not even arguing against consensus and majority, and obviously you have missed my point / misunderstood what I meant in my above statement. I stand by the idea that minority views not being included along with the majority, by the majority, through "consensus", is censorship. The edits get marked as minor by default: I just need to change the settings / figure out how to do that. I have no intention of marking major edits as minor: it doesn't really help me or anyone. Threatening to block me is fine and all, but that doesn't mean it will change what I stand for or against. -- Supriya  12:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we should conclude this now: clearly we don't agree with each other on somethings. But given that post-structural approaches is a minority view in linguistics, as garik points out, it deserves a section of its own and a mention, as that minority view. -- Supriya  13:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you didn't know how to change your editing preferences you should have asked someone. Click on "My preferences" on the top right. Then click on the "editing" tab. Then uncheck "Mark all edits minor by default". Then click "Save". Let someone know if this doesn't work. As for minority views: Wikipedia policy is clear. I'm starting to feel like an evolutionary biologist arguing with a creationist. Just because some people from outside the discipline hold certain views and beliefs does not mean that these views deserve equal space, or even a mention. Intelligent Design does not deserve equal treatment with natural selection on the Evolution page (and you'll notice, if you look through the archives, that they also make similar claims about censorship). And I'm sorry, but I did not quite say that post-structuralism is a minority view in linguistics. I agree that it's a minority view, but as Andrew Carnie says, there is no such thing as "post-structuralist linguistics". What I had in mind was that there may be a case for a section to be added about post-structuralist views on the study of language (although I'm becoming less and less convinced of that), but your edits so far have gone way beyond that and should, I think, be reverted. garik (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC) modified by garik (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am already tired of this argument. Everything that has been written in the article about 'post-structural linguistics' has been sourced and cited. Nothing else (older content) has been touched or offended or tampered with. Your statements that PSL doesn't exist, is, actually POV in that context.  Supriya  13:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * One of your own sources states that "All linguistics in the 20c is structural in this sense"! And you're still marking all edits as minor. garik (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, all edits are no longer minor. You are looking at the older ones. And about what the source says, that's not something that can be debated here atleast. Please feel free to write to the source if you disagree. As far as I know, if a source states something it can be linked. These are academic sources. Not informal ones.  Supriya  13:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And, there are other sources who speak about the emergence of post-structural linguistics also.  Supriya  13:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * But I agree that "all linguistics in the 20c is structural in this sense". It's you who disagrees with it. And as for this: Blog pages are not reliable sources. This most definitely does not adequately support the claim that "The study of language today broadly falls under structuralist and post-structuralist schools of thought." You might as well cite your own blog. garik (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read Reliable_sources and Verifiability (paying special attention to this section and this one). As for the claim that modern linguistics is fundamentally structuralist: well, as I pointed out above, you yourself introduced a source that supports this. garik (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)