Web Images Videos Maps News Shopping Gmail more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
CL101: "What is language"
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
  5 messages - Collapse all  -  Translate all to Translated (View all originals)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Sai Emrys  
View profile  
 More options Oct 28 2006, 6:55 am
From: "Sai Emrys" <sai...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 10:55:03 -0000
Local: Sat, Oct 28 2006 6:55 am
Subject: CL101: "What is language"
This is usually the first chapter of an intro linguistics book.

I suggest we drop it in favor of covering the same info implicitly.

The usual points are that lanauages:

* have symbols & grammatical signals

I.e. are communicated in some mode(s): written, oral, gestural (,
...?). Modes should be covered in the first chapter, to set up the next
three. That it's symbolic is covered throughout.

* are shared by a community

Well, not necessarily at first ne. :-P

But this should be covered implicitly under language change (contact,
etc) and in the last chapter on getting the language spread.

* are (hierarchical) systems

Covered implicitly.

* are relatively arbitrary

Covered under language change (trend towards arbitrariness).

* change over time

Ditto.

Is there anything that doing it this way would not cover, or would lose
pedagogically? I'd like CL101 to avoid all the boring (to
non-ling-geeks) preambles about philosophy of language etc, and just
jump straight into the actual language creation.

 - Sai


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Jim Henry  
View profile  
 More options Oct 28 2006, 11:30 am
From: "Jim Henry" <jimhenry1...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 11:30:28 -0400
Local: Sat, Oct 28 2006 11:30 am
Subject: Re: [CLBP] CL101: "What is language"
On 10/28/06, Sai Emrys <sai...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is usually the first chapter of an intro linguistics book.

> I suggest we drop it in favor of covering the same info implicitly.
......
> Is there anything that doing it this way would not cover, or would lose
> pedagogically? I'd like CL101 to avoid all the boring (to
> non-ling-geeks) preambles about philosophy of language etc, and just
> jump straight into the actual language creation.

As far as I can tell it should probably work.  But maybe
we can sum up such material all in one place either in
an appendix to CL101, or one of the essays in the other
book?

--
Jim Henry
http://www.esperanto-atlanta.org


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Sai Emrys  
View profile  
 More options Oct 28 2006, 11:41 am
From: "Sai Emrys" <sai...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 08:41:45 -0700
Local: Sat, Oct 28 2006 11:41 am
Subject: Re: [CLBP] Re: CL101: "What is language"

> As far as I can tell it should probably work.  But maybe
> we can sum up such material all in one place either in
> an appendix to CL101, or one of the essays in the other
> book?

I think it may make for good appendix or wrapup material. It would be
useful to have a "so, what you've learned without realizing it..."
section.

How would it work as an essay? It'd need to be developed beyond just
this, since the essays book is intended for a post-CL101 / intro ling
audience, who would already be aware of this. I can't think offhand of
a good essay topic that expands on it.

 - Sai


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Jim Henry  
View profile  
 More options Oct 28 2006, 11:47 am
From: "Jim Henry" <jimhenry1...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 11:47:54 -0400
Local: Sat, Oct 28 2006 11:47 am
Subject: Re: [CLBP] Re: CL101: "What is language"
On 10/28/06, Sai Emrys <sai...@gmail.com> wrote:

> How would it work as an essay? It'd need to be developed beyond just
> this, since the essays book is intended for a post-CL101 / intro ling
> audience, who would already be aware of this. I can't think offhand of
> a good essay topic that expands on it.

Maybe an essay about how linguists' core notions of what
(natural) langauge is and isn't do and do not apply to
various kinds of conlangs?  Perhaps combined with
something about how apparent linguistic universals
are violated in some conlangs, some of which turn
out to be fluently speakable, which suggests that some
universals apply only to the way language can evolve
naturally, not to the way the human brain's language
centers work.

--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Sai Emrys  
View profile  
 More options Oct 28 2006, 11:55 am
From: "Sai Emrys" <sai...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 08:55:47 -0700
Local: Sat, Oct 28 2006 11:55 am
Subject: Re: [CLBP] Re: CL101: "What is language"
I think this would work well as an aspect of an essay on necessary vs
happenstance linguistic universals. Could make some pretty important
points really; most of modern descriptive linguistics is
straightjacketed by the fact that they can basically only do
observational tests, not experimental ones, and consequently only know
what *happens* to happen - and then speculate on what *has* to.
(*cough* Chomsky *cough*)

 - Sai

On 10/28/06, Jim Henry <jimhenry1...@gmail.com> wrote:


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
End of messages
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google