• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Linguistics

I don't have much to add, I'm just bumping this, because I officially got my diploma for my Master of Arts in General Linguistics and in the name and honor of linguistical love and love of language so many of us share, I feel like I need to meet Jamshyd and talk linguistics with him at some point,

so, bumpity bump bump
 
Thanks malakaix! I just got hired at a relatively crappy job but it'll be good for some money while I'm looking for a better one, dunno what I'm going to do yet exactly. But I do like some nerdy linguistics conversations and felt this thread needed bumping.
 
Non-native English posters on discussion boards with a very good grasp of English-in most ways better than mine are often detectable as non-native English users through prepositions that are off from how they usually get used. I can not think of an example right now but you probably know what I mean.

I'm kind of assuming from this that preposition choices in a lot of canonized expressions are just a matter of a beaten path rather than something accessible by rules or logic. Speakers of more than one language and lovers of linguistics is this the case?
 
Non-native English posters on discussion boards with a very good grasp of English-in most ways better than mine are often detectable as non-native English users through prepositions that are off from how they usually get used. I can not think of an example right now but you probably know what I mean.

I'm kind of assuming from this that preposition choices in a lot of canonized expressions are just a matter of a beaten path rather than something accessible by rules or logic. Speakers of more than one language and lovers of linguistics is this the case?

I know exactly what you mean, their English seems just kind of "awkward" and sometimes they use the wrong register in terms of formality. Sometimes with prepositions, like "in/on" in English for example, aren't really differentiated between in languages like Spanish (I think). So, sometimes even if you've learned the language pretty well, small things like that are where you are going to show marked features that you aren't a native English speaker.

And, to some degree I suppose they are "just a matter of a beaten path" because at times, you can use logic to explain some of these differences and rules between different languages, but intuitions in your native language are always going to be stronger and more reliable than those in any of your non-native languages.
 
Last edited:
I know exactly what you mean, their English seems just kind of "awkward" and sometimes they use the wrote register in terms of formality. Sometimes with prepositions, like "in/on" in English for example, aren't really differentiated between in languages like Spanish (I think). So, sometimes even if you've learned the language pretty well, small things like that are where you are going to show marked features that you aren't a native English speaker.

My halfway decent grasp on Spanish would lead me to believe you are correct. I think Spanish is a much easier language to speak than English.
 
I think Spanish is a much easier language to speak than English.

I disagree on this quite a bit, seeing as no language is really "easier" or "harder" to speak. They can be either easier or harder to learn depending on what your native language is/what languages you already know, but there's really no such thing as one language being "easier" or "more difficult" than another, especially if they all qualify as actual languages (not pidgins, etc).
 
I disagree on this quite a bit, seeing as no language is really "easier" or "harder" to speak. They can be either easier or harder to learn depending on what your native language is/what languages you already know, but there's really no such thing as one language being "easier" or "more difficult" than another, especially if they all qualify as actual languages (not pidgins, etc).

You're the expert here %)
 
P_C: Congratulations!! And yes, it would be absolutely wonderful to sit and discuss linguistics with you - at least as much as my amateur self can ;).

Speaking of omniglot - my favourite orthography is almost certainly Syriac ("Estrangalo"), as with the following example:

ܘܐܡܪܘ. ܬܘ ܢܒܢܐ ܠܢ ܩܪܝܬܐ. ܘܡܓܕܠܐ ܕܪܫܗ ܒܫܡܝܐ. ܘܢܥܒܕ ܠܢ ܫܡܐ. ܕܠܡܐ ܢܬܒܕܪ ܥܠ ܐ̈ܦܝ ܟܠܗ̇ ܐܪܥܐ ܀


As well as scripts derived from it, such as Mongolian:

NSFW:
babel_mongolian.gif



---

Enki: I call this the "Nabokov Effect" (though I'm sure it has a proper name somewhere in psycholinguistics).

At least the way I see it, those of us whose primary language is NOT the native language tend to feel insecure about their ability to express, regardless of others' reassurances that we are clear after all. I can say in my case, as one whose only medium of creative self-expression is the word, that my use of language - even my internal monologue - is in a constant state of stylistic and aesthetic editing.

(for those not familiar, Nabokov is the Russian author of the English masterpiece, Lolita. English was not his first language, but rather his primary one used for self-expression).
---

PiP: Got your pm, not ignoring you, just been slacking on pms in general :). Will reply to you sooner than later!
 
^^haha,ohhh okaaay...
;-p

but whats more important, is that this "Nabokov Effect", seems to puts more actuality towards whats being communicated; or maybe less faith in whom one is communicating with.
seems being so diligent in description, is hope to instill preservation of an idea,, by using an effective amount of like words and phrases, repetitively sometimes to create a rhythm tried as a 'medium' for the intended imagery .

although there is greater power I feel, in fewer choice words...
but, i love to talk, or pretend at least, hahha.
qwert'd
even as far as to talk about speaking?!?


-absorbing and understanding ones surroundings and sense of self before speaking, can often bring fewer more whole-sum words-
???
 
I'm afraid I don't understand a word of what you said. Can I persuade you to to put it in more lengthy phrases, so I can understand it better? Sorry, I'm slow. ;).
 
As a professional linguist, I have some/ many opinions about the discussion here, but a limited amount of time forbids me from going into all of it. I will choose one or two to respond to.
(Note that, just because I am a pro doesn't mean that I have all of the answers, or that everything I say is necessarily correct. This is obvious, since no two linguists have the same opinions, but I just wanted to put it out there. I do have reasons to support my beliefs, and I have put in a lot of time thinking about these and similar issues.)

Question:
what type of part of speech is "what"? How about "how"? "That", etc.?

In intro linguistics, my prof claimed that this was a zone of on-going controversy.

The problem is that each word you mentioned is actually several "words".
For instance, take the word "that". It can be used in several different ways:

1) as a demonstrative pronoun : I like that.
2) as a demonstrative determiner/adjective: I was given that shirt by my Uncle.
3) as a complementizer: He seems happy that you came.
4) as a relativizer: She’s the woman that I told you about.

All four of these realizations are grammatically distinct.
Not only that, but they are actually pronounced differently!
Berkenfield (2001) measured people saying these and found that the vowel is both longer and higher (F1) at the top of this list, and progressively shorter and lower as you move to the bottom.

So there is solid evidence that people are thinking of these four uses of "that" as four distinct words.

I don't think that there is a great deal of room for controversy here, though; describing the facts of language as it is used, we can come up with a list like the one I have above. If you want to argue about how to label each use of "that", you are welcome to (but I won't be taking part in that discussion, which is generally very boring to me). As for how it is used, however, the answer is clear.


There are many other points I could address in this thread, but I will state this with a brief explanation: I, and thousands of other linguists, do not accept Chomsky's claims about Universal Grammar or a Language Acquisition Device. To us, it is simply bad science to make such claims. Saying that there is a "black box" in the brain, ready to acquire language, is not a real hypothesis, but rather a last resort. If all other hypotheses are tested and found to be unlikely, we may have to resort to claims of innateness, but it is better to explain/motivate things based on other facts. In fact, there are many, many aspects of language that can be motivated by biological, neurological, socio-anthropological, and historical facts.

For example, why do the many languages with 5 vowels all have essentially the same 5 vowels (a,e,i,o,u)? Because Universal Grammar specifies that languages with 5 vowels must use these ones? Ridiculous! Better: because they are located at maximally distinct regions within vowel space (the oral tract), which in turn maximizes both ease of production and ease of comprehension.

Why do all languages have a word for "water"? Because Universal Grammar demands such a word? Very silly. Better: because all humans need to drink water regularly, and the communication demands of this real-world behavior result in all languages borrowing, creating, or inheriting a word for "water". Simple.

To motivate language using what we already know about humans and the world is far preferable to hypothesizing that language is innate. The residue, after all potential explanations have been exhausted, can be said to be innate, but to do so before that seems really silly.

A movement sprung up in the 70's and 80's to reject Chomsky's version of linguistics, and that movement has grown into multiple, established schools of thought with thousands of practicing linguists supporting them.

Chomskian linguistics became the dogma for a few decades there, but this is no longer the case. The field is moving closer and closer to an even split between Chomskian and non-Chomskian approaches.

One classic book arguing against Chomskian linguistics is George Lakoff's "Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things" (1987). Though Lakoff was wrong about a good number of things, he got the basic argument right, in my opinion, and laid it out in detail over the course of about 15 chapters.

There are simpler and more profound arguments against UG and LAD, however, as I have described here, and if anyone is still interested, I can go into more detail.
 
I disagree on this quite a bit, seeing as no language is really "easier" or "harder" to speak. They can be either easier or harder to learn depending on what your native language is/what languages you already know, but there's really no such thing as one language being "easier" or "more difficult" than another, especially if they all qualify as actual languages (not pidgins, etc).

I generally think you are correct, but there has been a heated discussion about this recently on a linguistics listserve I subscribe to.
Some say what you (and, generally, I) believe.
Others would argue that, in this case, the syntax and phonology of English are simply far more complex than that of Spanish. There are many, many exceptions to the rules in English, but not in Spanish.
If you take a look at native American languages, they are ridiculously hard and complex, at least from the standpoint of an English (or Spanish, or Chinese) speaker. They carve up the world in ways that are hard to imagine for those of us who speak European or Asian languages.

But how can we empirically measure complexity in language? Turns out that it is not easy at all. Can we simply base it on how many pages we need to describe the grammar of a language? Unfair, since we typically use English (or another European lg) as a starting point.

Interesting issue, not easily resolved.
 
Last edited:
I'm afraid I don't understand a word of what you said. Can I persuade you to to put it in more lengthy phrases, so I can understand it better? Sorry, I'm slow. ;).

auto-pilot off///
& look at what im set-up after now... hahah.
=D

seems being so diligent in description is a way to instill preservation of an idea (as with Eastern civilizations and Ancient Greek) by using an effective amount of like words and phrases, repetitively to create a rhythm to help carry, and implement further the subject being stressed and instill more memorable imagery - and convey more fact or truth.
~
"Jams, now let us ride! have your hoarse prepared let us ride! east towards the mountains, through the valleys so green, past thine farmers so waiting, and through thee mountains arching gates!"

now this matter is only referred to as so:

"PIP! east to the mountains, through the valleys so green, past thine farmers so waiting, and through thee mountains arching gates! a hoarse can not make these strides, for in the 'east towards thee mountains... "
~

with Gilgamesh's tablets as an example (a 5000 year old example?!?) this strict rule of description with a rhythm or repetition is written predictability for so many measures, which often have already been established.
as if the writing was only to be preserved for history, recorded in a way that readers of the future would be better able to- piece the 'story' back together figuratively, if not literally; when any damage or loss of the 'tablets' did occur.

_________________________________________
with that said,, i have to admit that this is a subject of grammar and syntax.
- lol
there it is though...
 
^very interesting, and even more so that it isn't resolved..:)

One problem is the question of exactly what the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is.
Your language influences the way you think?
Language is part of culture, which together influence thought?
Language influences unconscious habitual thought?
Language influences thought tendencies?
Language constrains thought potential (or imagination)?

A big part of the problem - most of it, really - is the fact that the definitions you adopt of of mind, culture, and language really determine your results.
 
^HAH-that is a great thought...
=D

language has as much precedence over what i think, as much as my thoughts do over all of my actions - voluntary or not.
i do recognize that my bodies involuntary actions are what is most needed, and so set in this way.
although, sadly i know this is true (to an extent), such thoughts are blanketed or manipulated by the mass of input received - from all sources in our surroundings; this can be used to our advantage though, and applied as one of many sources of -wisdom...



'tis stigmatic constancy otherwise
 
I totally took a BL-hiatus and am posting in all threads I care about tonight it seems.



I, and thousands of other linguists, do not accept Chomsky's claims about Universal Grammar or a Language Acquisition Device. To us, it is simply bad science to make such claims. Saying that there is a "black box" in the brain, ready to acquire language, is not a real hypothesis, but rather a last resort. If all other hypotheses are tested and found to be unlikely, we may have to resort to claims of innateness, but it is better to explain/motivate things based on other facts. In fact, there are many, many aspects of language that can be motivated by biological, neurological, socio-anthropological, and historical facts.

I clearly don't accept them either, and I agree with you on this. Just curious, what is your specialization exactly? I'm assuming you have a PhD and myself only M.A. so I'm always interested in this sort of this. My main areas of interest are socio and historical linguistics, so I'm going to guess we differ here greatly based on what you've posted here in this thread, in terms of primary interest anyway.

I generally think you are correct, but there has been a heated discussion about this recently on a linguistics listserve I subscribe to.
Some say what you (and, generally, I) believe.
Others would argue that, in this case, the syntax and phonology of English are simply far more complex than that of Spanish. There are many, many exceptions to the rules in English, but not in Spanish.
If you take a look at native American languages, they are ridiculously hard and complex, at least from the standpoint of an English (or Spanish, or Chinese) speaker. They carve up the world in ways that are hard to imagine for those of us who speak European or Asian languages.

But how can we empirically measure complexity in language? Turns out that it is not easy at all. Can we simply base it on how many pages we need to describe the grammar of a language? Unfair, since we typically use English (or another European lg) as a starting point.

Interesting issue, not easily resolved.

This is interesting, I've often thought about that, but also reasoned with myself it was because I'm a monolingual speaker of English (somehow, still, I'm just not very good at learning other languages, I'm more interested in learning about them and their structure.) The problem with a lot of linguistic work is that it is heavily Indo-European centric for the most part, since Indo-European languages are the starting point for most research, and although the Proto-language itself had plenty of rules as do many of the living daughter languages, that really makes it all quite regular. I've also dealt with grammars that were huge and ones which were small, and after learning details of the Native American languages in my area, I've realized that agglutinating languages seem especially odd for English speakers. When it comes to typological studies however, it seems that most currently spoken languages are still relatively systematic (I can't remember the years, but googling Dryer and Cinque should do it, one was a professor of mine and they seem to be leading typologists, I often wonder if there's anything left to do in the field).

I agree, it's an interesting issue but there are arguments everywhere, although Chinese speakers also have a better chance at learning fluid-sounding English than those of Japanese or Korean speaking origin, and while I'm not too familiar with the Asian languages, Chinese seems to be the most complex of these to me...this was found through a Master's Project/some other sociolinguistic expertise literally today, but I thought it was a super interesting find.
 
Top