Linguistics B‑class Top‑importance

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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:BT list coverage Template:WP1.0

Archives

2003–04 January 2005 to May 2008 May 2008 to June 2008 July 2008 to February 2009

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The "Some subdisciplines subsection" and the "Fundamental Concerns and Divisions" sections seem to overlap in content. Personally I like the "Fundamental Concerns" version better, but am unwilling to cut the other section without some discussion. AndrewCarnie (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could "Linguistic Analysis" be removed here? It is not an area of the field that anyone does regularly nor that anyone makes a regular living doing. It is too small to be considered a sub-discipline. Perhaps it is merely a practical extension of the study of linguistics. On another note, should the diachronic linguistics section be relabelled "historical linguistics" and revised? While there is some debate right now on the role of diachrony in linguistic generalizations, it is quite well and alive (e.g. Blevins 2004) in many academic departments, despite what is alluded to in the section.-Lingboy (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was brief discussion that went to the archives about pruning this. Everyone seemed to be in favour. It'll be quicker to list the texts that should definitely be kept than the ones that can be removed. Any suggestions? garik (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need both the first and second editions of things like the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. The encyclopedias should be kept and probably the Blackwell handbooks. Bloomfield and Sapir are still important works, as are the two Chomsky volumes. The most popular intro textbooks should be there (adding Fromkin, Rodman, and Hyams, which is mysteriously missing from the list). Anilla's historical linguistics is still pretty standard in "lists" along with both Ladefoged's and Catford's intro phonetics books. Selecting syntax books will be trickier because it's like picking the two prettiest blooms on an apricot tree. (Taivo (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

It would be worth being clear what the section is for. I assume it's intended that people reading the article use the books as further reading, in which case Skinner's Verbal Behavior should go, if only for being outdated. It occurs to me that choosing which of the many books called "Introduction to Linguistics" (or something similar) to include is going to be tricky — can we come up with some reasonable criteria for what we include and what we don't? And how long should this section be? It definitely looks too long to me, but maybe that's paper-encyclopedia thinking. garik (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not obvious to me that the section is needed at all. It is not practical to list all works of possible interest and value, but there is no clear cut-off between works that should and should not be included. The whole See also section seems unduly long. I note that main pages for other social science disciplines typically either do not list Branches and fields or Popular works and texts, or their lists are no longer than a dozen or so items. This page lists around sixty of each! Cnilep (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Note that what follows is a response to discussion below, beginning with garik's contribution at 13:40, 28 April 2009 through rʨanaɢ at 00:48, 29 April 2009. It seemed a bit mis-placed under the "Restoring Foucault and Derrida" heading.)

How would we determine which text to list for each subfield? That is indeed an important question. What do others think of this as a weekend project (or more likely, a set of such projects)? The Linguistic Society of America has a list of 209 linguistics programs, mostly at US colleges and universities. The LINGUIST List has a similar list with 826 programs from some 70 or 80 countries. If, as I imagine is the case, a suitably large number of these programs lists their required texts for introductory courses on the web, some enterprising user(s) could survey those requirements and count the number of programs requiring or recommending particular texts. If one (or more likely two or three) text is required by a suitable plurality, that should be the choice. In the case of the LINGUIST List list, anglophone programs could be surveyed. This would be no small task, but it seems do-able.

Other possibilities might be for users to suggest a bunch of potential texts and then to choose the most "popular" as determined by copies sold. A third possibility is to do away with the "Popular works and texts" heading as mentioned above, but that seems an unpopular suggestion. Cnilep (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, some of you might remember a user called Goblin a year or two ago, who was an admin and was active on this linguistics page. That was me. I've lost the details of that account and am back now. What is happening to this page??? What nonsense is this? Please resolve this argument immediately, or every single one of you will be eventually banned. Jadoogiri and AndrewCarnie included. That's the only way to end this havoc, isn't it? No discretion in banning people. The entire community will die and a more serious one will come, one which will contribute to serious mainstream linguistics that looks at the subject as a science and does not dig their fingers in all this bullshitting. Period.

As you also might be aware, I've been teaching linguistics since the last 35 years in the East, which includes Beijing, Hong Kong and Puttucksvilla, and I think I should be able to take a call on this and I think my judgment and decision should be heard and respected. Now I think someone needs to mean "business" on this page. And I mean BUSINESS. Everyone's being going berserk fighting with each other? I've been reading the archives all day! What utter informal rubbish has been discussed here over the last few months?! Stop this right now.

Please take this as a warning, and if that's not enough, then an ultimatum.

Stinguist (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I agree the discussion has been pretty pointless, but since you can't do anything about it, what's with the threats? You've been sucked in and are now just another spouter of drivel. That's how we breed. kwami (talk) 10:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "havoc"? This article is quiet as a tomb compared to Macedonia. (Taivo (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Also, User:Goblin is not an admin or former admin, has never edited this article or this talk page, but has edited Wikipedia just a few weeks ago, so it's unlikely he has "lost the details of that account". —Angr 21:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it tends to be cranks who issue "ultimatums". I could see it if they were trying to reveal that language derives from dolphins, Atlantis, or extra-terrestrials, but this seems a really odd POV for a bunch of crackpots to latch on to. (Or one crackpot, more likely, since they all appear to have about the same intellect.) kwami (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What will you people do if a group of 100 or 200 people are brought in, and they all rotate to take turns in reverting back the article to state the idea that linguistics is also an art? How many people will you be able to handle? Knightingail (talk) 06:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is just pathetic. Supriyya is either having a good laugh, or she must truly believe everyone else is a complete moron. You couldn't fool five year olds with this sock circus. At this point, just permaban her and all her accounts. Supriyya, Wikipedia can easily deal with 200, or even 500 of your socks, you wouldn't be the first to try. So please don't bother. --dab (𒁳) 07:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not understanding this right. what does this guy, above, mean? socktalk and sockcircus? and what have we?! incoherent! i would fail all my students instantly if they behaved like this. Knightingail (talk) 08:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and dab, refer to Supriyya under her message, not under mine! I have a name too. It is Knightingail. Knightingail. KNIGHTINGAIL, KNIGHTINGAIL, KNIGHTINGAIL. This is most offensive talkpage behaviour: to refer to one person as another. please enforce some talkpage discipline here, ho hum! Knightingail (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know. And "stinguist" of course, another linguist ex machina with a "funny" username. Andd your declaration that you are willing to come up with another 100-200 clones. I am ready to end this with the ban-hammer: what does everyone think: do you want to go through checkuser with this first? --dab (𒁳) 08:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can get a checkuser approved, go for it. A separate issue is whether we are ready to ban Supriyya for exhausting the community's patience. —Angr 08:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Supriyya. It's been a while since I last looked at checkuser, and an impressive bureaucracy seems to have grown around it (as usual with any Wikipedia procedure). --dab (𒁳) 09:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been told quack and I tend to agree. I've blocked the socks, and I am willing to issue a permanent block to Knightingail as well at the first time that this charade is going to continue. After that, it will just be a game of whack the sock. It' is high time to take the burden of dealing with this nonsense off this page so that interested editors can continue to work on the article in peace. --dab (𒁳) 11:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for a third opinion at Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements on the best name for Names for U.S. citizens and whether the attested phrase "US American" should be allowed in the article. Maybe some of you have opinions on this? kwami (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard "US American" before. Like the article says, "American" seems to be the most common (regardless of how ridiculous a term it is). I've heard "United Statesian", but pretty much as a joke. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(clarification, after reading some of the discussion at Talk:Names for U.S. citizens) I don't have a problem with including the term in the article; I just don't know if it's a reasonable title to use for the article. "U.S. citizens" seems to be the most general, neutral term (without aligning itself with any of the names), whereas "US Americans" is one of the names themselves. To make an analogy to another article that recently went through a titillating AfD, it would be like renaming Criticisms of Bill O'Reilly to Bill O'Reilly is a jerk—using one of the specific examples as the full article title. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing that "Names of US Americans" should be the title, just that "Names of Americans" is inappropriate. kwami (talk) 07:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this is being discussed here. What has this got to do with the Linguistics article? —Angr 09:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend for the discussion to be here. I just thought perhaps some of the people here might have an opinion to share on that article's talk page. kwami (talk) 10:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My fault. I'll take my comments over there. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the discussions presented on the talk page and its archives, I have restored the Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault texts to the list in the article. The discussions were quite shocking in their non-neutral POV and failure to address the criteria established by the Wikipedia project as a whole to address such disagreements. Editors' personal or professional opinions are not the way in which such disputes ought to be resolved. This is not an arena for any of you to push your own agendas about what you think linguistics is or isn't, should or should not be. Instead, we refer to reliable sources and see what they say and report those results in the article. Even the most brief search on Google books for the words "Foucault" and "linguistics" generates plenty of results, demonstrating that post-structuralist analyses are relevant and appropriate to this article. Whether Foucault may be considered a "linguist" or not is entirely besides the point. I notice that philosophers whom we would not call linguists make several appearances in the article; that Foucault and Derrida wrote during a time when others were also exploring the field with a scientific methodology makes no difference whatsoever to the appropriateness of their appearance in this article. The use of sources to resolve disputes is a fundamental principle of the Wikipedia project, without which its popular image as an unreliable source of information is entirely justified. Please try to respect that when encountering something with which you disagree. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this addition has been reverted twice now without addressing the concerns detailed here. Whether you feel that they have been addressed in the past or not is irrelevant. If there is a concern now--and there is--then it needs to be addressed. I'm more than happy for you to explain why the vast amount of published material on this subject is irrelevant, but you need to make that case. That a few of you share an opinion does not mean that this determines the content of the article; that's what the principle of referring to sources is there for. The truthiness of your consensus is not a substitute for an argument based on the evidence of sources. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a slightly different note: I think most people here would agree that there are numerous texts worth removing from the list besides Foucault and Derrida. Before this discussion gets going, let's ask if we really need the Popular Works and Texts section. Cnilep voted above for removing it altogether. There's something to be said for that. I'd be in favour of leaving a small number of introductory texts on linguistics and its major branches, though choosing which introductory works to put in may prove to not be worth the effort. garik (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are definitely other texts in the list that need to be removed, not just Foucault and Derrida. —Angr 13:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list is greatly improved by Angr's trimming. I think, though, there are still quite a few candidates for removal - things that aren't suitable for those who've never read a linguistics book before and who are coming to Wp to find pout what linguistics is. And I'm not sure we need books on individual branches - the branch pages are probably a better place to look for those. We could usefully introduce some sub-headings, too - clumping the encyclopedias together, for example, and separating out the books genuinely aimed at a popular audience from the textbooks. --Pfold (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Garik, Angr, and Pfold - which is not to say that I disagree with Cnilep (grin). A number of introductory texts should be mentioned; though not necessarily an introduction to each subfield. Maybe introductions to theoretical linguistics generally, syntax, phonology, and applied linguistics generally? Similarly for Branches and subfields, maybe the "big six" (phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics) plus applied linguistics should be listed? Maybe historical linguistics too? But by the time we get to glottometrics or asemic writing I think we're down to details rather than subfields. Cnilep (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would we determine which text to list for each subfield? Most have numerous different introductory books with different slants (for example, I have three introductory syntax textbooks and three phonetics textbooks sitting on my shelf) and some don't really have any one good textbook-style introduction. For the ones that do have multiple books, choosing to list any one over the other would not be very Wikipedian of us, and listing all of them would just be listcruft. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed again. Derrida and Foucault are not linguists and their work is of no relevance to this article. Honestly, listing them makes as much as sense as listing Jane Goodall or Stephen Hawking. —Angr 13:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Failing to address the specific concerns detailed here is not an appropriate response. Either explain why the sources should be ignored or leave them there. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have to explain why you insist on restoring utterly irrelevant information to this article. Neither of the books you want listed is about linguistics. What "reliable sources" assert that they are? —Angr 13:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you having difficulty reading the post made above? It states, quite clearly and unambiguously, that there is clear evidence from even the most cursory search on Google books that Foucault and Derrida's work--and Deleuze, etc. while we're at it--is relevant to the field of linguistics. Google book search "Foucault" and "linguistics" and you will be presented with a large quantity of evidence. Kindly follow Wikipedia's procedures and explain why all that material is irrelevant if you do not wish it to appear in the article. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've identified the problem yourself - a cursory search on Google Books! Google Books searches can turn up anything - there's no way a cursory search there can separate the wheat from the chaff, the reliable sources from the fringey cruft. And even among the reliable sources, simply searching for "Foucault" and "linguistics" will do nothing but turn up books where the two words are mentioned on the same page - hardly convincing evidence that Foucault's contributions to linguistics are so earth-shattering he needs to be mentioned in the See also section of this article. —Angr 14:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Derrida (not necessarily Foucault) was influential in Linguistics based literary criticism (as it evolved into Deconstruction). There should be some mention in the application of Linguistics for literary criticism, as there is a large connection. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dionysos & Ottava Rima, If they were influential in linguistic-based literary criticism then they should be mentioned at Literary Criticism and not here. This article is about fundamental Linguistics, not all its hyphenated step-children. (Taivo (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Um, actually, the article necessitates the discussion of Linguistics when it comes to literary criticism, as that is the primary field of application and it even mentions it in the lead! Ottava Rima (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

some of the titles are obviously irrelevant. Others, like the Terrence Deacon one, may be worth a closer look. The Symbolic Species may be relevant for discussing how linguistics has begun to interface with neighbouring disciplines such as anthropology and neurology. I am not sure about Derrida or Foucault. Googling "Foucault and linguistics" cannot be a basis for listing random works by that author in the bibliography. What DionysosProteus and Ottava Rima appear to be talking about is the Linguistic turn. Referencing that does not necessitate transcluding a postmodernist reading list, it can be as simple as "linguistics also influenced Western philosophy during the 20th century, see linguistic turn." Being influenced by a field and being relevant to a field are two seperate issues. --dab (𒁳) 14:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As User:DionysosProteus has reverted to his preferred version no fewer than 5 times in less than an hour, I have reported him at WP:AN3. —Angr 14:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely shameful behaviour from most of you. Wikipedia has clear guidelines about the removal of relevant and appropriate content. You are required to demonstrate here first that the material does not belong in the article before removing it, if it is sourced. The narrow POV-pushing in evidence is appalling. While the linguistic turn in continental philosophy is certainly something with which the authors mentioned are involved, they are ALSO involved in the field of linguistics. The evidence is out there and clear for all to see in the way I have described. That you share a narrow conception of what constitutes the field does not, in any way, justify the POV-pushing in which you are clearly engaged. Unjustified removal of content, especially to promote a narrow POV consititutes vandalism. Kindly desist. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

QUACK, the sock is at it againAndrewCarnie (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that is an attempt to suggest that my account is a sock-puppet, I'd like to explain the basis for such an accusation. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Most of you". That sounds like a clear majority of editors interested in this topic. Close to "consensus". (Taivo (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Quite. Hence my description of truthiness. That you share a narrow and biased assessment of this field does not make your collective opinions true. Difficult though it may be for you to accept, you are required to engage with the evidence presented. That is how we resolve disputes, not by a hand-count. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I retract the accusation of sock, DP is clearly too articulate to be a sock of the usual suspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCarnie (talk • contribs) 15:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, DP isn't a sock of Supriyya. He's been around a long time, longer than she has, and seems to be a valuable editor in areas he knows something about (the theater, acting, dancing, etc.). —Angr 15:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the practitioners in a field share a view of what falls outside it is hardly surprising. Linguistics is what linguists (with some help from the institutions that employ them) define it to be. There is no platonic definition of linguistics which we are failing to see and which you will be able to enlighten us on. --Pfold (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sheesh. take a minute to look at the account's history before throwing around sock allegations. As for "you are required to engage with the evidence presented" -- well, then present evidence. As in, quote secondary sources in support of your claims. Also known as "writing encyclopedia articles". Just adding titles to a list of literature isn't "presenting evidence". No, you cannot dump assertions here and leave their verification as an exercise for the reader even if your assertions are true. When challenged, the burden lies with you to present evidence. Telling people to google isn't "presenting evidence". --dab (𒁳) 15:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DP has been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring here, so he won't be presenting any evidence or anything else here until tomorrow at the earliest. —Angr 15:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, there is no deadline. As far as I am concerned, he is still perfectly welcome to present his evidence in good faith, and it will be considered in good faith, and may ultimately lead to an article expansion or modification. It is not out of the question to mention Derrida here. Such a mention just needs to be based on a solid rationale. --dab (𒁳) 11:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it seems to be lost in the above thread - Derrida used Linguistics in the basis of the Deconstruction literary criticism movement. This was the evolution of linguistic analysis. Since Literary criticism is the primary field of Linguistics application and is mention in the lead, it needs to be discussed in the body of the work, which it is not adequately done. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is literary criticism really the primary field to which linguistics is applied? What about language teaching and speech technology? Besides, it's not at all clear to me that the fact linguistics is applied to another field justifies including people who do so in the list of popular works and texts for this article. garik (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion of the inverse. "linguistics is essential to literary criticism" does not establish that literary criticism is essential, or even relevant, to linguistics. The fact that you need a bottle opener to enjoy your Heineken does not imply that Heineken should be linked prominently, or at all, from the bottle opener article. --dab (𒁳) 15:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or even vice versa. —Angr 15:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not much I can add here that wasn't already said by Garik and Dbachmann.... but yes, while linguistics and literary criticism are relevant to one another (see, for example, books like Linguistics and Literature) and a lot of early linguistics work was inspired by literary theory (for example, early investigations of meter and prosody), literary theory is not really the main application of linguistics now, at least not in the US. Linguistics departments are still sometimes thrown in with "humanities" departments, most of what goes on now is science, and most people who use it are in fields like speech pathology, education, psychology, neuroscience, etc. I don't know enough about Derrida to know what his contributions to linguistics were back then, but I know he's not really talked about anymore, so if he is mentioned at all in the article it should be as part of the history, not as part of the "popular works". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just look up the history of philology and see where Linguistics came from. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So the quantum mechanics article should list biology books because both fields are derived from what was once called natural philosophy? --Pfold (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, you could be more reasonable and say that quantum mechanics should discuss physics. Regardless, Linguistics is the evolution of philology, has its origins in Literary theory and study, and is primarily used as such. Applied linguistics is the most published on aspect of linguistics as a whole. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as the article on chemistry need not list a medieval work on alchemy in its bibliography, so, too, an article on linguistics need not list works relevant to its roots in the distant past. Put these materials in an article on the history of linguistics, not in a description of the modern field. (Taivo (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Seeing as how philology is still a major part of Linguistics and linguistic analysis, and that many linguistics journals have philology in your title, your analogy is patently absurd. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I have no opinion on Derrida and am not an expert on literary analysis, but like I said, literary analysis is not the main application of contemporary linguistics, and many departments I am aware of don't care much about literature. Things may be different in, for example, much of Europe, where discourse analysis is a more active field of study. But in most of the areas of study that are big now, the main applications that linguists propose for most of their work are in areas like cognitive science, speech therapy, artificial intelligence and computational linguistics, and education. Especially with the economic situation right now, when NSF, NIH, and other federal grant programs are hesitant to fund research that doesn't have real-world usefulness.

Anyway, like I said, I'm not arguing for or against including Derrida somewhere. I just want to be clear about what linguistics is used for (or, at least, how most linguists see themselves). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, linguistics used to be anthropology, not philology. But either way, that was before Derrida's time. The question for us is: Does the article discuss Derrida, so that we should provide a source? and, Do linguistic or history-of textbooks today mention Derrida, or is he otherwise considered an influence in the field? AFAIK, the answer to both questions is 'no', so I agree that there's no reason to include him in the refs or bibiography. kwami (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Derrida on the linguistic sign and writing". I would recommend reading through this as it would enlighten many of the anti-Derrida responders. If you have Saussure, you need to have Derrida. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Without having read this book, I shouldn't pass too much judgment...but looking at the contents, I imagine what it gives is a very limited look at linguistics, with a focus only on a couple subfields. There appears to be a lot of coverage of philosophy of language (Wittgenstein, Austin) and sociocultural stuff (Sapir, Whorf, Labov) but very little of the "science" side of linguistics (it looks like it pretty much just pays lip service to the Skinner/Chomsky debate). And the inclusion of a whole chapter on Orwell is a little disturbing....I love Orwell, and think "Politics and the English Language" is fun reading, but I wouldn't call it linguistics, and most linguists I know ridicule that essay (I think its level of credibility within the field is about on par with Bill Bryson's The Mother Tongue). Not to say it's a bad book or anything; it's just certainly not a comprehensive look at the field. It would be interesting to see what the other volumes cover. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read that bit that Ottava provided and I kept trying to see how it applies to the core issues of linguistics. I did my graduate work in linguistics during the 1970s and early 1980s and I don't recall ever hearing the name "Derrida". de Saussure, Sapir, Boas, Chomsky, Bloomfield, Grimm, Jones--these names were common knowledge--but Derrida has basically had no influence on the field that I can tell. (Taivo (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I think your point also ties in to Kwami's question, "Do linguistic or history-of textbooks today mention Derrida, or is he otherwise considered an influence in the field?" While I haven't read any works on the history of the study of linguistics that I can recall, I have read a number of books and articles on various aspects of linguistics (and that includes several linguistics textbooks), and I don't think any of them mentioned Derrida. I'm not any sort of expert on the subject, and willing to concede I could be wrong, but I think Ottava Rima needs to provide some examples of modern works on linguistics (as a whole, not on a specific subfield) that mention Derrida or cite him prominently. --Miskwito (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly can't believe that you ever had anything close to graduate studies in Linguistics and not hearing of Derrida. Seeing as how Linguistics was a field that gained a lot from the French scholars in the 40s-60s, not hearing of Derrida past 1970 would mean that you either didn't attend, or went through a program not worth mentioning. I -loathe- Derrida, and I have dealt with him constantly in both Linguistics and Literary criticism. All anyone has to do is type in Derrida and linguistics into google books and you will find plenty of limited view texts that you can read about his relationship. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ph.D. in Linguistics *and* Philosophy here (MIT, 1995), currently an associate professor of linguistics at the University of Arizona. Learned about him in philosophy classes (discussed with great scorn, but that's besides the point) but never in linguistics ones. We certainly don't teach about him in any of our classes. His work is largely irrelevant to the material we study. He is, however, taught in the lit crit classes in our English department and in our Language departments. For Lit crit and Phil of Lang, he's certainly relevant -- if wrong. Modern linguistics (and frankly even linguistics in the last century) deem him, rightly or wrongly, part of a separate discipline. AndrewCarnie (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I call BS. Even an individual talking Linguistics 101 would know that both Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis are two primary components of Linguistics, which both include the Philosophy of Language and Literary Criticism. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I heard of Derrida when I took a course on "Philosophy of Language" at the departmemt of philosophy. Never when I took courses on theory of linguistics. I think he may have been influential in semiotics, and he obviously was in philosophy and literary criticism - but he is clearly not notable in relation to linguistics.·Maunus·ƛ· 04:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a bit of a survey of introductory linguistics texts. Frank Parker & Kathryn Riley, Linguistics for Non-Linguists, 4th edition (2005): no Derrida in bibliography. William O'Grady et al., Contemporary Linguistics: An Introduction, 4th edition (2001): no unified bibliography, but no Derrida in any of the chapter Recommended Reading lists. Victoria Fromkin et al., An Introduction to Language, 8th edition (2007): no unified bibliography, but no Derrida in any of the chapter References for Further Reading lists. Edward Finegan, Language: Its Structure and Use, 3rd edition (1999): no unified bibliography, but no Derrida in any of the chapter References lists. Grover Hudson, Essential Introductory Linguistics (2000): no Derrida in bibliography. Ronald W. Langacker, Fundamentals of Linguistic Analysis (1972, my first linguistics textbook): no Derrida in bibliography. So there you have it. Some of the most common introductory textbooks in Linguistics being used today and not a single one of them even mentions Derrida. If his work is not mentioned in introductory linguistics textbooks, it shouldn't be included here either. (And thanks, guys, for not letting Ottava's insult to my education go unanswered.) (Taivo (talk) 05:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks, Taivo, for doing the library work to establish this. I've been learning and teaching linguistics at the university level for two decades, and cannot ever recall Derrida (or Foucault) being mentioned (in print or in speech) in any linguistics context. I am very sure that none of the intro texts I've ever taught from cite either of them.Mundart (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Crystal, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, 2nd edition (1997): no Derrida in the bibliography. (Taivo (talk) 05:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I've gone through the books that come up on google books. The vast majority of them are not books about linguistics; they are books that mention both linguistics and Derrida, which should not surprise us, as Derrida made several references to linguistics. The others are almost all about linguistics and something else; and it's in the something else that Derrida is normally considered to fall: semiotics and linguistics; linguistics models and literary theory; linguistics and the philosophy of language. The book Ottavo Rima mentions specifically is a series of chapters about individuals who have some connection with the study of language. I use the word "individuals" on purpose: the last chapter is about Kanzi, who is a chimp. He is not normally considered a linguist; nor is Savage-Rumbaugh, the human being who has written about him. I should add that I've done a postgraduate degree in linguistics; I've taught linguistics at undergraduate level, and I'm doing a PhD in linguistics. At no point has Derrida been mentioned. I'm aware of him, but he really doesn't play any important part in modern linguistics. And before you suggest that my program wasn't worth mentioning, let me add that, in terms of research, my department is the highest rated linguistics department in the UK. One other thing occurs to me though: while Derrida isn't really mentioned in linguistics departments, it wouldn't surprise me if he gets mentioned rather more in courses called things like "Linguistics for literary theorists", run by literature departments and the like. No one's saying he didn't write about language, and this kind of course often includes figures who wrote about language and are relevant to literature, even if they're not considered linguists in the normal sense. This might be at the root of all this. "Linguistics" as presented to literature students is not necessarily quite representative of the kind of stuff that goes on in linguistics departments. garik (talk) 09:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 12,000-page Encyclopedia and Language and Linguistics (2nd ed.) does not have an article on Derrida, though it has full articles on non-linguists like Descartes who've had an influence on linguistics. I've found several fleeting mentions of Derrida in other articles, generally on topics such as semiotics, literary theory, the interaction of linguistics and philosophy, or the influence of linguistics on other fields, and generally as just one name within a list of several others, though there is the occasional specific mention of him, such as a parenthetical remark that a footnote in a book by Derrida credits Gelb with coining the term "grammatology". He would appear to be completely unnotable within linguitics, which is consistent with the fact that he was never mentioned in my History of Linguistics course (or any other linguistics course), either in class or AFAIC remember in the readings. kwami (talk) 10:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke a bit too soon. (Text search of PDF files is quite slow.) Derrida is prominent in the article on grammatology, which, however, is rather peripheral to the study of linguistics. He's mentioned twice on his own in the article on Poststructuralism and Deconstruction. A full paragraph in Texts: Semiotic Theory. Umberto Eco, by the way, has a 1-page biography and a 3-page article on Theory of the Sign. kwami (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of bibliographies of textbooks is intellectually insulting to everyone. An individual's importance is not measured by how often he is cited, or even that he is cited in a -bibliography-. Three of my linguistics textbooks have Derrida listed in the indicies. Now, I am willing to but my multiple graduate degrees up for comparison against anyone else here. Yes, I am an expert in the field. Yes, multiple people, including those at WMF, ArbCom, and the rest have my personal information and can verify that. The very fact that many of the other "experts" here tried to state that philology is a major aspect of Linguistics shows that they lack any actual understanding of the field. Anyone reading this essay by Derrida can easily see that it is a work dealing with Linguistics. Now, for more books on Derrida and linguistics - 1, 2 (note, this is a major textbook used in many Linguistics courses), 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (p. 69 has a discussion about Derrida and the field of Linguistics), 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, etc. There are over 9000 hits, and this is just the first couple. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It hardly need surprise us that he's mentioned a lot in the grammatology article. But, as a brief look at the Wikipedia article on grammatology shows us, Derrida's grammatology has very little to do with linguistics. garik (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We did discuss some topics like this in syntax: How much of what we conceive syntax to be is actually a product of literacy rather than inherent to language? But I don't recall Derrida's name ever coming up, and we certainly never read anything by him.

Ha! 2½ pages are dedicated to sodium amytal, far more than all mentions of Derrida put together. kwami (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, Garik, so what the grammatology has or does not have is not evidence of his importance within a field. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has now entered upon discussing the relation of linguistics and philology, yet nobody seems to be aware that we have a standalone philology article. Yes, philology does combine linguistics and literary criticism in its aim at a deep understanding of a language and its literature. The philology article should certainly be linked both from the linguistics article and the literary criticism article. But a detailed account of what it is about should obviously go to the philology article itself, in the spirit of WP:SS. --dab (𒁳) 11:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensiveness requirements are there to ensure that all articles have the necessary information about their topic. Just because there is another page talking about it does not mean that there should not be a summary or inclusion. -All- linguistic topics should be included or summarized. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right: all necessary information. This discussion has shown that Derrida's influence on linguistics is so minimal (basically nonexistent) that no mention of him in the article is necessary at all. —Angr 16:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above, the vast majority of the hits on Google Books are books not primarily about linguistics. But even if we take, as an example, a book mentioned by Ottava with a title that seems particularly relevant to linguistics (Key thinkers in linguistics and the philosophy of language) we don't find justification for including Derrida in this article. Many people have written about language; but should this article also list works by Plato, Aristotle, Berkeley, Leibniz, Kant...?

But, to be fair, I can see why Ottava considers Derrida relevant to this article. S/he says: "Anyone reading this essay by Derrida can easily see that it is a work dealing with Linguistics." Well this is true in the sense that Derrida talks a lot in this essay about linguistics. But that still doesn't make him a linguist. More importantly, however, even if we were to say that Derrida was a linguist, this wouldn't justify including his work in the Popular Works section. That section is alreday bloated enough with unnecessaries as it is. As I've stated above, I'd be happy enough to see the back of that section altogether, until we can decide on a few really relevant books to list in it.

Now, while I agree with Angr that "no mention of Derrida is necessary in this article at all", I have no principled objection to a brief section one day appearing on what Derrida (and related thinkers) had to say about linguistics (though I would stress "on linguistics", rather than "on language"). The main problem with this is that it really is not central to what mainstream linguistics is about. And we need to improve and expand this article's coverage of mainstream linguistics before we introduce stuff like this. To add it now feels like giving it undue weight. I can imagine a point in the future when the article is large enough and ready for the introduction of more fringe topics. But now isn't the time. garik (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Having written that, I'm not entirely convinced that it would ever be a good idea. The point of this article is to explain to readers what mainstream linguistics is about. It's probably best to keep the non-mainstream to other articles. garik (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. No offense meant to Derrida (who is a swell guy), but to be perfectly frank, I think the book demonstrates that Derrida is interested in linguistics, not that linguistics is interested in him. Which is natural; since linguistics is such a broad field and touches on so many other fields, it's something that a lot of people from other fields might take interest in and use in their work in their own field, even though they might not be making a major contribution to the field of linguistics. I'm sure the same could be said about a lot of fields (for example, tons of people use neuroimaging methods in their field, but they're not necessarily revolutionizing the science of EEG). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This article is about mainstream linguistics and the mainstream linguists writing here have generally never heard of him in their graduate work in linguistics at several major universities. No introductory textbook in linguistics mentions him in either the bibliography of sources or in the recommendations for further reading. The one book that Ottava mentions as a "major textbook" has a title that indicates it has more to do with semiotics. Derrida may deserve mention elsewhere in Wikipedia, but not here. (Taivo (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Quite so - the fact that Derrida has written interesting things on linguistics does not mean that he should be mentioned here. Even if we allow that Derrida is a linguist, there are literally thousands of linguists who are not mentioned in this article. This is an encyclopedia article introducing the field of inquiry known as linguistics, not an exhaustive list of scholars or topics under that general heading. Cnilep (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV would require Derrida to be mentioned in the article in which Sausseur is mentioned. The fact that Derrida contradicted and critiqued Sausseur, which inspired a major critical movement within literary analysis (aka Deconstructionism), it would seem unethical not to mention Derrida. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people have critiqued Darwin, but that doesn't mean that they all deserve mention at Evolution. If Derrida inspired something at literary analysis, then that's where he should be mentioned, not here. This isn't literary analysis. (Taivo (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Nice try. Saussure, or rather his structuralist program, has been criticised by any number of post-structuralist thinkers, they don't need to be included in the linguistics article either.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saussure is one of the founders of the discipline; Derrida doesn't get a mention in any of the basic linguistcs textbooks (even as a critic of Saussure!). Case closed. This article doesn't have anything on citics of Chomsky either - it's an introductory article, for goodness sake, not the last word on the subject! --Pfold (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how you continue the same provenly false claim about Derrida not mentioned in linguistic textbooks when it was 1. proven academically dishonest that you used "bibliographies" instead of indecies, 2. used less than 20 textbooks when there are thousands, and 3. have been proven wrong by the Routledge introductory text used in many colleges and what I have taught from before has a section on him and is linked above. Its one thing to lie, but to keep up the lie when you are blatantly proven wrong is really disturbing. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And just to prove how absurd Pfold is - a list of textbooks used by Linguistic courses that have Derrida critiquing Saussure: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. as just a small example of books used in classes. And lets not forget this: "Those whose interpretations are examined in detail include Bloomfield, Hjelmslev, Jakobson, Levi-Strauss, Chomsky, Barthes and Derrida." If you want, I can provide the huge amount of articles relying on Derrida in various Linguistics journals as can be found through JSTOR and MLA Bib. And also, lacking any critique on Chomsky is also in violation of NPOV, as he does not represent the majority opinion within the Linguistics field in any respect. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derrida is -the- critiquer of Saussure. There is no one else that comes close. To claim otherwise is to lack any academic integrity or to have no actual understanding of the subject. I provided plenty of evidence. Not one other person has bothered to do the same. So far, you few individuals seem to have no respect for NPOV, V, or anything else that makes this encyclopedic, let alone have an understanding of the topic. Shameful. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia article on Derrida doesn't mention the word linguistics once.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can name over 400 notable works that lack pages and those works are older than 100 years old. What Wikipedia lacks is not justification to keep excluding it or not improving. The Linguistics page is not a featured article for a reason. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I could name a lot of reasons this article isn't an FA yet, and lack of Derrida is pretty low on the list... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derrida is one of many aspects that show that the page is not inclusive. It is only 40k of what should be an 80k + sized page, as this is a major topic that needs to be both comprehensive and neutral. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Wow, a foodfight! Where's my raincoat? PhD in linguistics here too (mostly the Applied type, though I have my fingers crossed for a more "hardcore" article I've submitted recently to a decent journal).. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of application? I was more of a genre specialist, so my degree is more traditional philology than linguistics, but historical linguistics was a major specialty of mine. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, Ottava, you admit you're not a linguist. Hmmm. Well, none of those books you cite are introductory textbooks in linguistics, but in side topics--translation studies, literary criticism, etc. None of these books would ever be used in an introductory linguistics course. And it's very interesting that you use Google books to do your "research" and gather your citations. That's not research, that's just an internet search. At least when I cite a book, I hold it in my hands and turn from page to page. And I still haven't found a single linguistics textbook that cites any work by Derrida whatsoever even though they all tend to cite the truly important works in linguistics--Sapir, Bloomfield, Chomsky, etc. (Taivo (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

In the LLBA, 331 results found for Derrida... 175 of those from peer-reviewed journals. Umm, let's see what journals. I see Journal of Pragmatics. I see Applied Linguistics. Mmm, a few literary-ish journals, no surprise... but all in all... the reality is, in Wikipedia, ties always and everywhere end up going for the inclusionists. That's simply the reality. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, Ottava, I checked the indexes of all the previously cited books and not a one of them lists Derrida, although I see Bopp, Boas, Sapir, Bloomfield, Chomsky, Grimm, etc. (Taivo (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Perhaps you didn't read, because what I focus on is a subfield within Linguistics. Or, are you one of those types that want to remove historical linguistics and any study of anything before 10 years ago out of the field along with any critique of Saussure? I think its funny how you say you haven't found a single linguistic textbook that cites him when I have provided quite a few above. You are either blind or you are causing a disruption on purpose. I even quoted a passage which lists other linguists that you are happy to include along with Derrida. Funny how that works. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LingNut, I'm sure that Derrida wrote articles in journals on the sidelines of linguistics, that's not in question. What is in question is whether he had any influence on the field. The answer seems to be a clear "no". I could find a whole raft of linguists who had more influence on the field than Derrida, but we're not going to list every linguist who moved the field by one degree to the right or to the left. Derrida seems not to be even in that crew. (Taivo (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

A basic google book search for Saussure and Derrida comes up with over 15,000 hits. No influence? The founder of a genre of literary and sociological criticism that was based 100% on denying the claims of Saussure is meaningless? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Taivo: I think Ling.Nut was referring to citations/mentions of Derrida, not articles written by him. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Ottava, I was very clear that I'm not going to cite a book that I don't hold in my hands. I don't think you do the same. You seem to rely on internet searches instead of looking at the books. And there is not a single one of the books you listed that is an introductory textbook in linguistics. And, you don't seem to understand that this is not the article on literary and sociological criticism. Cite Derrida there. This is the linguistics page and Derrida's influence seems to have been virtually zero. (Taivo (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

(undent) (ec) Errm, aside from the fact that the articles are about derrida rather than by him... to me, the solution simply abundantly self-evident: we all need to acknowledge that Wikipedia is inherently, systematically inclusionist. We need to learn to love the bomb, or at least tolerate it. Thus the article needs to mention Derrida in a section on the .. shall we say, literary types? ... and folks who only read Language (that's not an insult, of course) just need to grit their teeth and bear it. It is just the way things are. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otava: If I criticise Newton that doesn't necessarily make me notable in the field of physics. Derridas criticism has not caused anyone in linguistics to part from the basically structuralist understanding of language (those that have parted have done so for other reasons) Derrida is important in the field of semiotics which is a marginal subfield between linguistics, philosophy and literary studies - not in linguistics it self - why is this so hard to accept?·Maunus·ƛ· 03:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]