User:LipstickShtick/Evaluate an Article

Linguistic Distance
Linguistic distance

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I judged 'Linguistic Distance' pertinent to the course 'Languages in Peril'. In noting that the smaller the distance between two languages, the more rapid the linguistic shift, 'Linguistic Distance' can elucidate the course's concern with speakers of minority languages shifting toward more powerful, institutionally backed languages.

The article matters in that linguistic distance provides clues to the historical development of human languages. How far have languages have diverged? Can geographical contiguity of two languages' speakers narrow the gap between lexically and grammatically dissimilar languages? What are the implications for the speakers' identities? When two polities/groups trade, is linguistic distance costlier than linguistic affinity?

The article cites reputable research but does not expound upon their findings; its potential but need for improvement makes it a candidate for this exercise.

Evaluate the article
Content:

The lead section is too terse. It does not suffice to say that linguists lack a uniform quantification of linguistic distance but deploy the term across sub-disciplines. What prevents a uniform quantification? What quantifying methods do linguistics employ? When do they use which method?

The article is underdeveloped. The author has devoted a section only to the measures of linguistic distance. Why reference the impact of linguistic distance on trade and negotiation but not assign it its own section (or mention it in the main body of the article)? These gaps notwithstanding, the author underlines, with examples, the usefulness of the analysis of cognate words in determining linguistic distance. But the aspect of syntax gets short shrift; indeed, it is merely referenced, creating an imbalance in the evaluation of the units of analysis. The author adequately discusses how linguistic innovation and conservativeness can distort lexical-statistical measurements. The author notes, with examples, that geographical proximity of otherwise distanced languages leads to greater affinity through the conflation of cognates with loanwords. The author notes, with examples, the inverse situation, in which closely related languages can become dissimilar by dispersing.The phylogenetic method, designed to obviate the limitations of the lexical-statistical method, is not discussed in detail but merely mentioned as counterpoint.

Tone:

That the author privileges measures over sociopolitical factors/implications may evince a bias toward technicality. The tone is, in and of itself, neutral, but the style could be sharpened. The author often writes 'with this'. To what does 'this' refer? I do not detect any exclusion of minority perspectives. The author does note that a current or former colonial context increases the rate at which polities trade but does not explain how more trade impacts the linguistic distance of the languages in question.

Sources:

The author attaches to his/her exordium books on linguistics and its interfacing fields of history and politics. But, as noted above, these books' claims are not developed throughout the article; indeed, they are confined to the exordium, and their points of relevance can be accessed only by the reader's hovering the cursor over their in-text citations. An egregious example of this underdevelopment is the referencing, in the body of the article, of a study on the impact of linguistic distance on language learning. The author notes that the study examines English language acquisition of immigrants to the U.S. and Canada but does not disclose the study's findings. Is linguistic immersion easier when the linguistic distance is small? Or does a language's having more power surpass lexical and grammatical similarities and differences between it and the other language by motivating the immigrant to study it assiduously?