Talk:Linguistics

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Linguistics article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8: 6 months

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Linguistics Top‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Writing High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Writing, a WikiProject interested in improving Wikipedia's coverage of content related to the fields of rhetoric, composition, technical communication, literacy, and language studies.WritingWikipedia:WikiProject WritingTemplate:WikiProject WritingWriting
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Languages Top‑importance

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education assignment: College Composition II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 11 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Clickbait67 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Lindseybean28 (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historical linguistics

The statement that historical linguistics is either done diachronically or synchronically, which has been flagged as missing a citation, is actually incorrect. Language change can be studied either way. Historical linguistics is, by definition, done diachronically. MinTrouble (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another undocumented paragraph

This paragraph here, also not sourced, leaves me, historical linguist, left wondering. I'd delete it: "The above approach of comparativism in linguistics is now, however, only a small part of the much broader discipline called historical linguistics. The comparative study of specific Indo-European languages is considered a highly specialized field today, while comparative research is carried out over the subsequent internal developments in a language: in particular, over the development of modern standard varieties of languages, and over the development of a language from its standardized form to its varieties." MinTrouble (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomy?

I think the page should include information about anatomy as well, since anatomy plays the most important role in determine what specific phonemes (sounds) a creature can produce, given enough brain power and conscious thinking of course. Does anyone agree with this? Maybe just a short notice about it being part of the field as well?

Also, can someone help provide a list of some Wikipedia pages that actually deal with anatomy's role in linguistics, as well as some that deal with anatomy's role in sound generation? Luka1184 (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the subfield you are interested in is articulatory phonetics! Remsense ‥ 论 05:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship of descriptive linguistics and theoretical linguistics

Is descriptive linguistics a subfield of theoretical linguistics?

Linguistics says:

Theoretical linguistics (including traditional descriptive linguistics) is concerned with understanding the universal and fundamental nature of language and developing a general theoretical framework for describing it.

Outline of linguistics § Subfields of linguistics puts the following as siblings on the same level:

Theoretical linguistics says:

The goal of theoretical linguistics can also be the construction of a general theoretical framework for the description of language. ... There are various frameworks of linguistic theory which include a general theory of language and a general theory of linguistic description.

Linguistic description doesn't mention theoretical linguistics.

My guess is that descriptive linguistics is not usually regarded as a subfield of theoretical linguistics, and that the dichotomy of theoretical vs. applied has led some authors to attempt to clumsily shunt all other subfields of linguistics into one of those two categories. My guess is also that there is not unanimity among authors in how to organize these subfields. I suggest that the unequivocal claim in the lede of the Linguistics article by modified. Daask (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just for giggles, Descriptive theories, explanatory theories, and Basic Linguistic Theory. Donald Albury 16:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question of "what is a subfield of what" is a unanswerable question, as it's just terms referring to groups of people, with different understandings of when to describe themselves or others with that term (reading "including" as designating a subfield seems a little bit of a stretch too). However, more seriously, the source for the statement you've highlighted from Linguistics is sourced to some "Globe Language dot org" website that doesn't seem like a reliable source - the archived version does not support the aspect of the statement that you're critical of (and the non-archived version is a completely irrelevant text about discourse analysis somehow...). So I would say you can just change it or do whatever, and I'll be impressed if you manage to make it worse. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 16:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]