Talk:Linguistics/Introduction

Rosebushes
A small point of contention: In colloquial speech, is there really an extra syllable on rosebushes? Consider the word 'street.' S, T, and R are slurred together. Is it not similar with the SH and Z sounds in rosebushes? I don't really hear a vowel.

Is there a such thing as a half syllable?

I'm only an amateur linguist--very amateur--so I could certainly be wrong about this. Thoughts?


 * I'm British and in my dialect &lt;rosebushes&gt; is certainly 3 syllabled (roughly /ɹoʊzbʊʃɪz/). Perhaps you don't hear a seperate vowel because you pronounce a syllabic /z/. - Ingolemo

A syllable is a unit of pronunciation with one vowel sound, and hence, can't be divided. There are, however, short (pull) and long vowels (pool) and monophthongs (bit), dipfthongs (boy) and triphthongs (fire), where the quality of the vowel changes. As I understand it vowels can be longer and shorter, but it just isn't possible to have half a vowel.

Thanks
Thanks to whoever wrote this text! I start a linguistics program next week and have been trying to wrap my brain around many of the concepts addressed. Now I finally understand the difference between deep and surface structure.

Technology?
"You may think of language as a technology. Depending on how you define the word, this is either a metaphor, or it is literal truth. It is the artificial use of natural phenomena — sounds, gestures, appearances, textures — for the purpose of communication."

I've removed that paragraph because 1. It's confusing, 2. Language use is instinctual, not "artificial", 3. "textures" makes no sense here. Mo-Al (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

My comments
Going through this book as someone who has never studied linguistics and giving some suggestions. Here they are:

I think that two things could be done to improve this introduction. First of all, it is very long, and there was one picture (plus the one of the fork I just added), making it difficult to read. I suggest finding more images to illustrate the text and taking a hatchet to the text and only including what's absolutely necessary and tightening up what still remains after that. To that end, I think the "how do linguists study language" could be removed pretty much entirely, since it basically states what the whole description vs. prescription section says, but less specifically and less eloquently. I also think the case studies could be shortened. Also the whole asterisk thing should be explained all at once.

Second, this page is a bit of a hodgepodge of many things with no clear progression or organization. I think if we sit down and decide what needs to go into an intro of a linguistics text (what is vital that doesn't fit into one of the later chapters). If any of this can be allocated to later chapters, then that should be done, too. So, any thoughts on what should stay and what should go? Personally I think that the idea that linguistics is a descriptive field is vital, although we should take care not to bash prescriptivists ;) . Any other thoughts? DroEsperanto (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree absolutely. At some point, I hope to do a full rewrite, unless someone else does it first. --Quintucket (discuss • contribs) 13:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Who do you wanna look over the application
"Who do you wanna look over the application" is something I (person from New Jersey), would use in speech. Are there any examples that are more ubiquitous?--100.8.43.25 (discuss) 21:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)