Linguistics

2353 readers

2 users here now

Welcome to the community about the science of human Language!

Everyone is welcome here: from laypeople to professionals, Historical linguists to discourse analysts, structuralists to generativists.

Rules:

Instance rules apply.
Be reasonable, constructive, and conductive to discussion.
Stay on-topic, specially for more divisive subjects. And avoid unnecessary mentioning topics and individuals prone to derail the discussion.
Post sources when reasonable to do so. And when sharing links to paywalled content, provide either a short summary of the content or a freely accessible archive link.
Avoid crack theories and pseudoscientific claims.
Have fun!

Related communities:

Resources:

Grammar Watch - contains descriptions of the grammars of multiple languages, from the whole world.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

moderator@mander.xyz

Martin Haspelmath: Four stereotypes that have guided morphosyntactic thinking (dlc.hypotheses.org)

submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by antonim@lemmy.world to c/linguistics@mander.xyz

0 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Thinking about language structures is made difficult not only by their incredible complexity, but also by entrenched ways of thinking about grammatical and lexical patterns. Linguists do not investigate languages in fresh way, but against the background (and often on the basis) of a centuries-old tradition.

Could it be that these traditional and stereotypical ways of thinking sometimes get in the way of approaching our objects of study in a fair way? Few linguists would deny this possibility, so here I will list four ways in which this may have adversely affected morphosyntactic descriptions and general theories:

– the word stereotype (1)

– the grammar/dictionary stereotype (2)

– the building-block stereotype (3)

– the speaker directionality stereotype (4)

My really bad TLDR: words don't exist, grammar is like words and words are like grammar, language isn't done by putting things one after the other, and we study too much how we make language and not enough how we make sense of language. Bonus sub-point: we like to say A is made of B but we could also say B is made of A.

no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

there doesn't seem to be anything here