Linguistics General

ok linguists I've always failed at learning languages and I think it has to do with never really paying attention to grammar and kind of hating it. I'm growing out of that but now I want to learn about grammar in general, not necessarily focusing on english grammar. I think it would maybe help me wrap my head around the general idea that different languages structure meaning differently. Is there any good reading on this or a term? It's not universal grammar is it?

Universal Grammar just refers to the human capacity for language.

>le not a science

>ie not knowing what linguistics is

One reason to think it might form a unit is the fact that it can be substituted. So in sentence (2), we see that [loves a mortal] has been substituted by [does so] while keeping the same meaning (this is not quite correct since there are phenomena like do-support in (2), where 'does' is syntactically a T, but it's a useful approximation).

(1) [Thetis [[loves] [a mortal]]].
(2) [Thetis [does so]]

This is one of the many reasons to think 'loves a mortal' forms a unit. In fact, the computation of syntax is much simpler if we assume only binary branching, so ternary branching should be avoided in constructing models of syntax.

What about something like
John bet $20 with Bill on the race, and Mary did so with Sue

that's what I thought,
so where are some starting points for just learning about grammar and the construction of meaning in language in general? I try to learn a language but it just goes right into terms and verb conjugation and all sorts of stuff but I don't even know where any of that stuff comes from, it's like trying to learn trig without knowing algebra or geometry

Probably the most basic idea in syntax is constituency. Like this guy is suggesting, there are various diagnostics to test for constituency, the most reliable being displacement. For instance the classic test for Verb Phrase in English is VP-fronting, as in
John said that he would [win the game], and [win the game] he did __

The most basic idea for meaning is probably compositionality. Basically you assume individual words have fixed meanings, and the meaning of a sentence is derived from the meaning of its syntactic constituents.

Unfortunately there really aren't any good intro resources for this stuff. I think linguistics outreach, especially syntax and semantics, might be one of the worst in history. Maybe look into Government and Binding Theory.

right on, thanks for giving me a direction to start in!

Also, if you're interested in semantics generally, the standard textbook in the generative tradition is Heim and Kratzer's 'Semantics in Generative Grammar'.

Link related
>cs.brown.edu/courses/csci2951-k/papers/heim00.pdf

This is a good suggestion

Or what about this
John claimed that the evidence had been destroyed, but I don't know of anyone that has done so

What about this? It seems quite consistent with an account postulating constituents.

thanks for the info and links
Is Chomsky begginers material or should I look into basics notions and such beforehand?

I wouldn't recommend you read Chomsky. There are a number of textbooks on syntax which will give you a broader view of the subject matter and will make learning it quicker.

>blackwellpublishing.com/content/carnie/Carnie_Instructor_Manual.pdf

>pnu.ac.ir/portal/File/ShowFile.aspx?ID=c3f3731d-8509-45df-afc9-35b5fbcddd8e

Studying Linguistics to divine the role of the Narrative in ontology and epistemology is like studying cars to learn the geography of why roads limit where you can go.

Questions for linguists: the far left wants to create new words. Such as xer, or the plural "they" to replace the singular "he/she". What do y'all think of this? Is it a good idea to legally enforce compelled speech for unpopular words?

Nice word salad there.

I think it won't work, but whether or not it's a good idea doesn't really matter. Let's see this as a linguistic experiment.

Thanks user

What is the antecedent to "do so?" in these examples?

talk about the most basic cause of confusion due to mathematical jargon

what do you mean?

I think you're assuming the antecedent has to appear verbatim in some previous part of speech, but that's not the case. What the constituent 'do so' is substituted for can be easily identified given only the semantic information from the previous sentence. Hence, the 'do so' substitutes the VPs in (1) and (2).

>(1) John claimed that the evidence had been destroyed, but I don't know anyone that has [destroyed the evidence].
>(1') John claimed that the evidence had been destroyed, but I don't know anyone that has [done so].

>(2) John bet $20 with Bill on the race, and Mary [bet $20 on the race] with Sue.
>(2') John bet $20 with Bill on the race, and Mary did so with Sue.

Note that (2) is actually very clunky. A more natural way to utter this sentence is

>(2'') John bet $20 on the race with Bill, and did so with Sue.

There seems to be movement solicited by something like pragmatic concerns in (2) (I'm just speculating here), which if correct might imply that (2) is derived from (2''), whose parallel with (2') is much clearer.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

any ULTRAFRENCH speakers here?

OP here. I do tabarnak.

I think the point is that the conditional only goes one way. If it's a constituent, you can replace it with a pro-form. But just because you can replace it with a pro-form doesn't necessarily mean it's a constituent.

Any lingbros doing phonetics research? Or phonology or syntax or anything. I'm really just curious what's it's like doing linguistics research as a career

Many words get created and "destroyed" every year, is not an uncommon thing. This process occur by the usage of these new born words with an increasing rate by a community. If the general sexuality discussion and approval get mainstream and accepted by a large part of an community, these words will become stronger accordingly to the society's needs. I don't think nothing about that, is just a normal process, and judging by the social perspective, these changes may take a long time to become common in language: these sexualities have to become a great thing, common sense to a large chunk of the community, this may take at least 40 years.

About "forcing (...) unpopular words", this is not a thing in language: unless there is a great pressure (like a dictatorship), language doesn't simply change without acceptance of the speakers. Nobody will use "xer" if they don't accept the social/sexual implications, and a lot of people don't accept it.

My text is garbage, sorry, I'm lazy and not really proficient in English.

General random question: How many languages can I teach a kid before its critical period?

If a hypothetical parent is fluent in every language, how many of them this child will be able to internalize (NOT learn, internalize as a native language)?

who the fuck is tetris ?

thetis...a greek mythological figure

An interesting thing to note however is that words which do change tend to be nouns and verbs. However, changes in the gender system of a language, while they have clearly occurred before, require not only changes in the lexicon, but changes in the morphology of the language. I highly doubt that the efforts of SJW groups will successfully change how people view linguistic gender. But who knows, maybe I'm wrong.

This is closer to speech pathology (I guess it's a part of linguistics) but how do you guys pronounce your /s/ ?

Some people pronounce it with the tip of the tongue pointed up. Some pronounce it pointed down. It's about 50/50 from what I understand.

I've also heard that some people pronounce it without the tip of the tongue making any contact with the bottom or top row of teeth - but I don't know if that's true.

How do I into this stuff? I think it's really interesting and I've studied logic before. I don't really know any linguistics though. Any good textbooks or lectures notes?

A few textbooks have been suggested in this thread, but here are some of them repeated with some added suggestions for phonetics and phonology.

Phonetics:
>bayanbox.ir/view/2038311472801972102/A-Course-in-Phonetics.pdf

Phonology:
>phonphon.pbworks.com/f/The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology.pdf

Syntax:
>pnu.ac.ir/portal/File/ShowFile.aspx?ID=c3f3731d-8509-45df-afc9-35b5fbcddd8e

Semantics:
>cs.brown.edu/courses/csci2951-k/papers/heim00.pdf

I think for you, syntax and semantics might be most relevant. Enjoy!

Personally, my tongue doesn't point up or down when pronouncing the letter 's', it just points straight forward

Thanks! I'll try reading the one on semantics first. I hope you linguistics guys get more active here, it gets boring just seeing only threads about math, especially because those never get much actual discussion about math itself and generally turn into dick measuring contests.

For the most part, I seem to produce a dental /s/. The only exception to this appears to be, unsurprisingly, when I pronounce an /s/ before an alveolar consonant, such as /t/ or /d/. In such cases, my tongue will be curled up.

It'd be nice if mathematicians contributed to threads like these, although it seems like the Lambek's of this world have all passed away. I don't think there are many mathematicians working on natural language anymore.

I think the difference is which part of your tongue you use. I'm guessing a "down" pointing tongue is using the blade of the tongue, an "up" pointing tongue might be the tongue tip

To some extent, but what he means by down is a dental /s/, while up is an alveolar /s/

If you had a dental /s/ wouldn't it feel like your tongue was pointed more or less straight forward?

Illiterate faggot here. I have a question. Is there any reasoning for the word "best" to have the superlative ending "-est"? I realize it's pretty much an irregular superlative adjective, but is it known if it is an intentional choice in spelling or not?

Real question:
Why do some languages develop retarded vowels? English, for example, has tons of sounds that are sort of "in between" the clearly defined /a/ /e/ /i/ Veeky Forums /u/, whereas basque or spanish only use the basic five.

I think it just a fruitless affair. I was a teaching assistant for some linguistic courses at my university and although mathematical and logical models of language are fun, they are pretty useless. There is not really a connection with real language as for most part language has no structure.

Language is also super ambiguous and the semantics of a sentence depends much more on the context than on the words them self. But that is many a good thing, language does not need any structure at all because humans are really great in extracting the correct information from ambiguous sentences.

source: myself, zero credibility but I think its pretty obvious

Yes, I'm thinking that's what user meant. I may be wrong.

This is a pretty ridiculous comment. Every layman thinks he understands language, but the beauty and elegance in the [math]structure[/math] of language become extremely obvious once you look a little bit below its surface. I'm actually very curious to hear at what university you were a TA in linguistics. The stuff you say makes it sound as though you never even opened a textbook on the subject. And what you refer to as context influencing the interpretation of a sentence is a whole subfield called pragmatics, where mathematical models are once again used to accurately predict how the context influences the meaning of an utterance. Nothing in language is obvious, just as nothing is in any other discipline. One's intuitive understanding of language is constantly challenged when one actually pays attention to the data.

Children learning languages better than adults is a myth.

There are no "basic vowels" common to every language.

It really isn't. Some say the idea of a critical period is wrong, but nobody (save you) is dumb enough to think children don't learn languages better than adults.

You're right it's arbitrary, but apparently it's not a complete accident
etymonline.com/index.php?term=best&allowed_in_frame=0

>This is a pretty ridiculous comment.
ok.
>Every layman thinks he understands language,
did not claim that
>but the beauty and elegance in the structurestructure of language become extremely obvious once you look a little bit below its surface.
Pls tell me about it. If language had a elegant structure can you give me successful model that can derive the meaning of a sentece?
>I'm actually very curious to hear at what university you were a TA in linguistics.
Anonimity but top 100
>The stuff you say makes it sound as though you never even opened a textbook on the subject.
Sure, I am by no means a linguistic. Besides those courses, I wrote a thesis about binding.

But hey, I'm not here for an internet discussion. If there is a usefull model to derive meaning I'm curious. I thought that any usefull advancement in the recent years where all due to AI.

I can tell you why. I am one and the culture is very against it if it is not of a very particular strain.

There are a few people out there working in Lambek traditions and extensions (though I am not one), but what real math actually is and how it is used to model structure is pretty foreign to most linguists.

>can you give me a successful model that can derive the meaning of a sentence
Heim & Kratzer () have a model where the meaning of sentences is derived from function application to result in a proposition, and this model accounts for a large portion of sentences. If you want something that can derive the meaning of every sentence out there you're not going to find it, just like you're not going to find a physical model that predicts everything perfectly accurately.

Ok nice that you mentioned a concrete example. This is exactly what one of the courses of semantics was about. Its a fun game and you can derive the meaning of very simple sentences like: "The cow eats grass".

But a slightly more complex sentence with a plural noun and a generalized quantifier and it stops working.
"The boys killed every cow"

Then you can try to add plurals to your model but binding because even harder and the binding of quantifiers is not accurately described with c-command... so your add additional exceptions to the rule to your model and then things still are fucked up

Once I had a guest lecture of a guy from America that had over 100 different operators for a single semantic deduction.
Or someone that allowed quantum teleportation.
Continuation of Shan and Barker
Modal logic to prevent derivations.

It all really far fetched

>If there is a usefull model to derive meaning I'm curious. I thought that any usefull advancement in the recent years where all due to AI.
I suppose to some extent this depends on what you view as useful. If you're theoretically minded, the best models of language come from the generative tradition. If you're concerned with practical applications, you're unlikely to use discrete mathematics and more likely to design probabilistic models of language. At the end of the day, I'm not concerned with using linguistics to design voice recognition software or some other application, I'm really just interested in understanding how language works as a cognitive process. In this respect, generative grammar seems like the theory with the most explanatory power. If that's not what you're into, that's fine. Many approaches to the study of language are valid.

But this is slightly unfair. You can't expect linguists to have the answer to every question, and there will always be some cooky solutions proposed to any given problem. But very elegant models dealing with plurals have been around for some time now, especially work by Karttunen, Heim or Sauerland. But again, you shouldn't expect us to have all the answers right away, otherwise there would be no field of linguistics.

I myself am not a linguist, but my dad is. He told me that Chomsky's models are outdated, and there are better theories that build on his. It was something on how his branching model of language doesn't work because there are so many exceptions that can be made. Also, Chomsky is a shitty person apparently.

The thing about linguistics is that there are many schools of thought, and they all think their models are better than the others. I'd be really interested in knowing in what tradition of syntax your father works in, let me know if you find out.

>shitty person apparently
kek
I guess this is what it all boils down to, then?
I have never seen evidence of this but then, I don't know him personally. I think him speaking of broad topics and with expertise on anything is rather far-fetched though but people request interviews and talks so it's not like he's forcing anything or being a snake oil salesman. He isn't up-to-date in a contemporary fashion, certainly not outside of linguistics or cognitive science, where he had no expertise to begin with. Especially when he stubbornly adheres to his old thoughts and work, which are largely wrong or have been super seceded, like his opinion regarding neanderthals, for example. He also seems to answer any email you send him, is that the mark of the shitty person? He might be, I don't know and I doubt the disgruntled, ideological sects of linguistics and other similarly ideological sects of philosophy and political theory; know either. That's what it comes down to, ideology and tribes.

You think they're going to teach you everything in an intro to semantics course? Of course you can't just apply it to everything, just like an introduction to any other field.

Would you mind suggesting an introductory text in the sort of math you use? I'm very interested in mathematical linguistics.

It's probably going to be some kind of categorial grammar. There are a few textbooks for that, like one by Glyn Morrill called Categorial Grammar

Thanks, I'll check it out.

Not a Linguist, but out of curiosity, anybody know the origins of Portuguese? It sounds like French at times, Spanish at times, Russian/Slavic at times, and even Italian at times.

You think they're going to teach you everything in an intro to semantics course? Of course you can't just apply it to everything, just like an introduction to any other field.
Something in the world are true and not only sometimes. This is my point, there is no model that can be applied to every sentences so why claim that it has structure.

That by no means indicates that it doesn't have structure.

What do you see as the alternative to language having a structure? Clearly language is not magic, so what principles allow you to interpret the meaning of an utterance? Are you advocating something like construction grammar?

Portuguese is a Romance language, which means that like French, Spanish, Italian and Romanian (and many others), it developed out of Late Latin. Hence, it's normal that there should be parallels between those languages and Portuguese. However, any perceived similarity between it and Slavic languages is purely coincidental.

Well language is a very complicated matter related closely to how the brain works.
But I think it's wrong to assume there is a hidden structure yet to be found. In 40-50 years of research only complicated models have been proposed that do not capture the essence of language.
I think its fair to consider that maybe it is impossible to accurately model it.

But indeed humans do it all the time. In my opinion this is exactly where the beauty lies.
We are able to infer the correct meaning of ambiguous sentences. Maybe that is because most of the time there is only one interpretation that makes sense.
"My friend, wearing a ridiculous jacket, was riding in a car waving an American flag. I took it from him and burned it"

Did he burn the flag? Did he burn the car? or maybe the jacket?

There is no hint in the structure of this sentence but it was probably the flag. I think that can only be concluded if you have a great understanding of how the world works which is pretty hard to model with just math.

There is some structure and I guess there fields in linguistics that can be accurately modeled but deriving the meaning a a sentences in my opinion cannot be modeled. Source: Nothing

Thanks. I'm in Portugal for a while, and I keep on hearing people say "shto" "davai" and sometimes "opa." I guess it's just coincidence

Maybe there are loan words from Slavic languages, but it seems unlikely.

What's interesting about ;linguistic ambiguity is that the different ambiguities can be explained by the different structures that are available. Hence, in the case of your example with the friend, you can bind 'it' to different DPs, and the interpretation will vary based on the antecedent. This being said, you raise a crucial question that the linguistic structure alone does not answer, viz. how do we know which structure is correct. My point is that structure is still a good means of determining meaning, but there are other contextual factors which determine which structure you pick. What these factors are is open to speculation, but I certainly don't think you consider language to be magic. Clearly if the brain is capable of producing and interpreting language, it must do so in a principled manner. For the moment, you are correct that modeling knowledge on how the world works is difficult with math, and probably outside of the scope of linguistics for quite a long time. However, these limitations do not mean that the work done in linguistics right now is without value. The mathematical models we have now are powerful and should not be dismissed simply because they have limitations. No scientific theory is complete.

It seems like you think that if language had structure, there wouldn't be any ambiguity. That's not the case. In your example you say there's only one interpretation that makes sense. Why don't the following interpretations make sense, in your view?
Your friend took his jacket from you and burned an American flag
You took your friend from your car and your friend's car burned itself
Your friend's car burned an American flag and took itself from you

I don't think any perceived similarity is due to lexicon, rather phonology. Not sure what, though, not familiar enough with either language. Vowel reduction? Does Portuguese have a lot of palatalized consonants? Stress patterns?

I don't know much about portuguese but I'd guess that the shto you're hearing might be a form of estar which means be

I don't understand this phrase:

there are people migrating => we(?)(or they?) should migrate

It doesn't make sense to me either way.

Can you try to be clearer about what you're asking

it's liberal bullshit, don't try to apply logic to it

There seems to be a logical implication in that statement that I don't understand.

People migrating make migration necessary. For whom? The ones migrating or the people who are "receiving" them? (And why? But that's for another discussion)

They might be using the word migration to mean immigration

You're right, it doesn't make any sort of sense. Then again, liberal garbage never does.

They're trying to say:
>With 244 million people on the move,
There is widespread displacement of populations going on right now.
>migration is inevitable,
A consequence of this displacement is that IM-migration is inevitable.
>necessary, and desirable
They are liberals.

This has nothing to do with linguistics, by the way

>This has nothing to do with linguistics, by the way
There appears to be some sort of conversational implicature in the utterance, so this is a question about pragmatics to some extent.

I would recommend anyone who wants to learn about the mind and language to read "Language Instinct" by Steven Pinker
Also, Language Files and An Introduction to Language will be helpful throughout your journey.
I really want to participate in these threads but I feel like I do not have enough information in this field yet. Please OP and others who are capable of helping people and discussing fluently, keep linguistics threads alive.
Picture related. Bouba/Kiki effect.
Though most of the words and their meanings linked arbitrarily, we can see some non arbitrariness in this study which concerns these shapes and their meanings. Which one of these shapes is bouba and which one is kiki?
The experiment was first conducted by Wolfgang Köhlerin 1929. He used the words "takete" for the spiked one and "baluba" for the rounded one.
In 2002, Vilayanur S. Ramachandranand Edward Hubbardrepeated the experiment using the words kiki and bouba. As you can guess, almost all called the spiky one "kiki" and the rounded one "bouba".
Further information
Bouba/kiki effect - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouba/kiki_effect

What do people think about these:
Who do you think likes John?
vs
Who do you think John likes?

You could explain this simply by assuming that 'Who' in the first sentence is bound to a trace that is the subject of 'likes' while in the second, it is bound to the object of 'likes'.

>[Who_i do you think [t_i likes John]]
>[Who_i do you think [John likes t_i]]