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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 180 days ![]() |
![]() | 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. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Language varieties
[edit]I believe this section could benefit from editing. The first sentence, while correct, might be difficult to understand for readers with little knowledge of linguistics and language varieties. I think the first sentence of this section should be more of a definition of the concept. Here is a suggested edit: “Language can take many forms based upon various factors such as geographic region, social group, or context. Language is constantly adapting and changing, leading us to language varieties. We can observe these varieties through dialects, registers, accents, dialects, and more." On another note, this page references the process of language genesis, which is not defined. The term was linked to a Wikipedia article that no longer exists. OhHeckYeah (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- I think this whole section is not well placed in the main overview article on the field of linguistics. While "language varieties" is an interesting topic in its own right, it is not a subfield of linguistics per se. Linguistics certainly encompasses the study of language varieties, and almost every subfield will touch on them, but they don't need a section in what should be a short and sweet overview article. Mundart (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed, especially since sociolinguistics already gets its own section (albeit one that could use a tad more meat, maybe) Remsense留 17:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Dead Languages
[edit]Perhaps a section discussing dead languages and how they contribute to modern-day linguistics could be helpful?-Ririnchu (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Ririnchu (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: College Composition II
[edit] 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)
Wiki Education assignment: Linguistics in the Digital Age
[edit] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2024 and 8 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Markovya (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Markovya (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Removal of a newly added section.
[edit]@Clickbait67, just added a new section Dead Languages. Is this new section even appropriate. If so, considering the focus of the newly added section deals with the information on the change of linguistics over time, might it be more fitting to rename it Historical linguistics, with the link to the main article. Since Historical linguistics focuses on the study of language change over time, including the reconstruction of ancient languages and their features. Pinging @Remsense, @Benlittlewiki for what they think. StarkReport (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Aye, we have a historical linguistics section (it's the first one, just about!) Remsense诉 17:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yikes, I can't believe it completely slipped my memory. StarkReport (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Historical linguistics
[edit]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)
Another undocumented paragraph
[edit]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)
- Wikipedia articles that use Oxford spelling
- Wikipedia articles that use British English
- C-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-3 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class level-3 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-3 vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class Linguistics articles
- Top-importance Linguistics articles
- WikiProject Linguistics articles
- C-Class Writing articles
- High-importance Writing articles
- WikiProject Writing articles
- C-Class language articles
- Top-importance language articles
- WikiProject Languages articles