Talk:Basic linguistic theory
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Basic linguistic theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Removed notability template from May 2022
[edit]Making a note of this since it was added without discussion and I could not see any justification for it - the topic is widely cited, the article is brief and could be expanded but includes references that demonstrate notability. --Middle river exports (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, how about writing the truth that it's not a theory of language, but a three-volume book by R.M.W.Dixon? Professor Dixon seems to have done a great job of studying Australian languages and has written a book name "Basic Linguistic Theory". Although it is titled a "theory", it is not a theory; it is a framework and a set of basic concepts. I don't see that the topic has been widely cited; two references in the article are to the book itself, one to another book by the same author, two to articles by M. Dryer (1 of them is only a 6-paragraph text), and one is an illustration that critics think that the amount of agreement on basic linguistic terminology is zero. The article is a stub and it hardly falls into the en:Category:Theories of language. Kolarp (talk) 09:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- I also think that the topic is so closely connected to Robert M. W. Dixon that it would best be merged into that article. I think that would be in line with WP:PAGEDECIDE and in line with existing articles on linguists. I agree that it's unlikely to become a full-blown article, but it could neatly become a subsection on Dixon's page. Replayful (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
The amount of agreement on basic linguistic terminology
[edit]Citing McGregor (2021:25), this article insists that “critics will posit that the amount of agreement on basic linguistic terminology is zero”. However, McGregor (2021:25) actually says the following: “this [=Basic Linguistic Theory] is in fact a theory, albeit one that allegedly bases itself on the set of propositions about language held by all linguists. (This, however, is almost certainly the empty set.)”. Just because the set of propositions about language held by all linguists is almost certainly the empty set, it clearly does not mean that the amount of agreement on basic linguistic terminology is zero. 永月杏 (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've reformulated. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 19:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)