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.
> 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?
> 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.
> 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.
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:
> 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.
|
