Talk:Theoretical linguistics

Merge with linguistics?

Could this page be merged with Linguistics? Most people who are not doing anything theoretical do not call what they're doing linguistics. For example, many sociolinguists would dispute that what they are doing is not theoretical. If this page continues to exist it will either have to become more narrowly specialized than its name implies, or else it will repeat a lot of what is said on the Linguistics page. --Svenonius 11:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's true that most non-theoretical linguists would argue that what they do isn't linguistics. Nevertheless, there's so little here I think it would make more sense as a section of Linguistics if it doesn't get expanded soon. User:Angr 12:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

What I meant was, theoretical linguistics seems a little redundant; the term 'linguistics' already implies the study of language, hence almost unavoidably with some sort of theory. Without theory, you can talk about language, but are unlikely to actually call what you're doing linguistics. For the same reasons, there is hardly any talk of "theoretical biology", for example. Even in psychology, where you might want to distinguish clinical practice from theoretical research, the expression "theoretical psychology" is not used a lot, it seems to me. --Svenonius 13:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps not in those other fields, but in linguistics it is quite common to distinguish between theoretical linguistics and applied linguistics. The University of Potsdam, for example, divides its Linguistics Department up into three divisions: Theoretical Linguistics, Computer Linguistics, and Patholinguistics. User:Angr 14:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I found this page after being directed from General Linguistics, which is where my personal bio stub (which I am naturally interested in, but which I have neither created nor edited -- except once, I think, to correct a typo) points to. I am not a theoretical linguist, and in fact most linguists would not call themselves theoretical linguists. I am a general linguist. Period. Clearly this page (and this discussion) is not being conducted by linguists, and I personally find it offensive that others feel free to decide what academic category others belong in. This is of a piece, I'm afraid, with most of the other material on Wikipedia abour language, linguistics, and (especially) English grammar, which is very poor. Sorry, just the truth. -John Lawler http:/www.umich.edu/~jlawler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.169.229 (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Major subfields chart

Can anyone explain what flowchart labeled "The relationship between the major subfields of theoretical linguistics" is supposed to demonstrate? If its going to be included, it needs to be explained. I can't for the life of me figure out what it's trying to say about the various subfields or how it relates to any formalism that doesn't posit underlying levels or handle phonology.156.56.22.239 (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh, I never even noticed it before. I have absolutely no idea what it means. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If no one posts an objection within another week, I'll probably remove it.156.56.22.239 (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Content removed from Phonetics

I don't know what this was or why it was there. Please feel free to restore it if you do know.

'''Orthographic representation''' : S, s '''Phonetic features:''' Phonetic representations: {{IPA|[s]}}, {{IPA|[z]}}, Ø Perception through the ear: high frequency sounds accompanied by a hissing noise. Acoustic features: ''Frequency'' : 8000 – 11000 Hz ''Color'' : similar to the hissing noise made by snakes. '''Phonological characteristics''' : Occurrence : beginning, middle or end of words. Accompanied by vowels or consonants. Distinguishes meanings of words depending on context: '''s'''''low'' ≠ '''g'''''low''

Orthographic representation : S, s
Phonetic features:
  Phonetic representations: [s], [z], Ø
  Perception through the ear: high frequency sounds accompanied by a hissing noise.
  Acoustic features:
    Frequency : 8000 – 11000 Hz
    Color : similar to the hissing noise made by snakes.
Phonological characteristics :
  Occurrence : beginning, middle or end of words.
  Accompanied by vowels or consonants.
  Distinguishes meanings of words depending on context: slow ≠ glow

Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 06:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion re: edits starting on 7 January 2020

There was a substantial edit made on 7 January 2020, which effectively deleted all prior page content and created a stub. There is no associated discussion for the edits, so I wanted to start one here. I am not personally opposed to adding new content to the page, but I don't think replacing the page with a stub and slowly building on it is an improvement on the page. I would like to open a dialogue on the perceived problems of the historical content of the page and what the resolution should be.

Maetshju (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Since this has seen no attention, I will restore the older version. If anyone wants some of the current content moved back in, they can add it back in or discuss it here. Maetshju (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, right. I'd missed your post on 17 Feb. It's true that it's not nice to have stubs, but the stub version was not problematic while the one you restored has, as advertised, multiple issues. The main problem is the lack of a generally accepted definition. It now states that theoretical linguistics is the same as general linguistics, which is a possible starting point, and, in fact, it has been one of my plans to write an article on general linguistics. General linguistics is currently a redicrect page to Linguistics. This is a little controversial because the historical notion of general linguistics is indeed a reference to general or universal grammar (although not necessarily to Chomsky's notion of it). Generative grammarians argue that GG is 'theoretical linguistics' because it is the study of Chomsky's UG, but this perspective is then specific and narrow. The concept of phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics as being the sub-fields of 'general linguistics' is derived from Saussure's idea of language as a system, although the correct term as taken from Course in General Linguistics is actually not that, but 'internal linguistics' (vs. 'external linguistics'). This is a valid understanding of what 'theoretical linguistics' means. However, it is more common from a standard scientific point to consider theoretical linguistics as theoretical approaches to linguistics, i.e. involving methods and theories.

So, while there's some simplified general reference on the issue, it is really not simple at all. In any case the page you restored is essentially nothing more but a messy duplicate for the page linguistics, adding nothing good to it. My suggestion would be to restore the unproblematic stub, create a page for general linguistics, possibly review universal grammar to widen the perspective, and then see whether theoretical linguistics should continue to be an independent page, or whether to merge it with general linguistics. Weidorje (talk) 07:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your response. I don't agree that the stub was unproblematic, though. The referenced Brittanica article did not support the claims it is was cited for (e.g., metalanguage being a part of theoretical linguistics). Furthermore, the term "theoretical linguistics" is already in use by various departments to refer to the study phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics, such as the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and Georgetown University. It appears to synonymous with what other departments call "general linguistics," like the University of Washington.

I do agree, though, that trying to cleave different areas for linguistics, general linguistics, and theoretical linguistics is difficult. Yet, there are certainly some areas under the umbrella of linguistics that are not necessarily under the umbrella of theoretical linguistics, such as psycholinguistics. And, given the relative synonymy between "general linguistics" and "theoretical linguistics," eventually merging the two into one page would be a good decision. So, I think perhaps the best move for now is to revise the stub from before and ultimately work toward some merged page between general linguistics and theoretical linguistics like you suggest. Maetshju (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, let's try something like that. There is a convention followed by many universities to divide linguistics into theoretical and applied linguistics where 'theoretical' is mainly a reference to what Saussure called internal linguistics, i.e. the study of the language 'system'; and this is especially contrasted with language pedagogy. But these days the big universities have a lot more than just those. Some universities use the term general linguistics which is typically a reference to doing linguistics outside the main departments which are those of English language, German, French, etc. So, general linguistics in practice often means studying small languages or typology. I'm sure a lot of linguists relate to these terms because they are used to seeing them on a daily basis at work, but there isn't really much substance for more than a messy dictionary entry. This is because the university arrangements and policies can change anytime whereby the meaning of the term will seem to have changed.

On the other hand, what is not contradictory is that these fields of study, whatever you call them, will always include various theoretical aspects, and the term theoretical, in linguistics, is definitely used in the more normal sense, too. If we're going to expand from a mere dictionary entry, I'd personally prefer to avoid duplicating parts of linguistics. But, to make the page useful, there could be the dictionary/terminology part on top, and then, additionally, a presentation of the main theories in different fields of linguistics. For example, in comparative-historical linguistics, there are classical theories such as the laryngeal theory, and Grimm's law and many others. Semantics has its theories as does typology and language acquisition and all other fields. It's a messy subject and a lot of work, but if you think about it from the reader's point – if it's well made – it could actually be quite informative and interesting to read. But we are talking about a grand project, then. Weidorje (talk) 07:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Theoretical linguist, heal thyself.

The article's lead does not discuss the field of theoretical linguistics, but rather the lexical item, "theoretical linguistics." I can imagine few fields where such a violation of the use-mention distinction would be more ironic. Furthermore, what the lead asserts about that lexical item is that it is not well defined, that it has no widely agreed referent. What are we doing?—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)