Template talk:Linguistics: Difference between revisions
Doubts about this template |
→The status of [[Stylistics]] in the template: moved stylistics and prescription |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
I question the placement of [[Stylistics]] in the template to start with. I don't think it is a common topic in linguistics at all; note that the article stub does not offer even a reference to an introductory textbook (if somebody wants to try to convince me about the importance of having this topic in the template, I'd request that they put some references in the article). A lot of the stuff that's referenced by the article is covered by [[Sociolinguistics]], too. [[User:Sacundim|Sacundim]] 7 July 2005 17:24 (UTC) |
I question the placement of [[Stylistics]] in the template to start with. I don't think it is a common topic in linguistics at all; note that the article stub does not offer even a reference to an introductory textbook (if somebody wants to try to convince me about the importance of having this topic in the template, I'd request that they put some references in the article). A lot of the stuff that's referenced by the article is covered by [[Sociolinguistics]], too. [[User:Sacundim|Sacundim]] 7 July 2005 17:24 (UTC) |
||
:As per talk, I've moved [[Stylistics (linguistics)|Stylistics]] and [[Linguistic prescription|prescription]] lower into the ''applied'' or ''hyphenated'' area. [[User:Mitchoyoshitaka|mitcho/ |
|||
== The status of [[Etymology]] in the template == |
== The status of [[Etymology]] in the template == |
||
Revision as of 07:18, 29 April 2007
The status of Stylistics in the template
his template shows Stylistics (linguistics) as one of the core areas of linguistics, nestled between Semantics and Pragmatics. I think the placement at least is wrong, and that if there is to be an entry for "Stylistics" in this template, it ought to go lower down.
I question the placement of Stylistics in the template to start with. I don't think it is a common topic in linguistics at all; note that the article stub does not offer even a reference to an introductory textbook (if somebody wants to try to convince me about the importance of having this topic in the template, I'd request that they put some references in the article). A lot of the stuff that's referenced by the article is covered by Sociolinguistics, too. Sacundim 7 July 2005 17:24 (UTC)
- As per talk, I've moved Stylistics and prescription lower into the applied or hyphenated area. mitcho/
芳 貴 07:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The status of Etymology in the template
Etymology is not at all a central topic of linguistics. Linguists, by and large, don't care about the history of individual words. In linguistics, the history of individual words comes into play as a means, and not as an end: one might examine the history of a particular word, but only because one's trying to make a point about a whole language, or language as a whole. Sacundim 7 July 2005 17:24 (UTC)
Three sections in the template?
This template is currently divided into two sections. The one on top seems to be "core linguistics," and the second one seems to be "hyphenated linguistics." I propose that we should have three sections: core linguistics, hyphenated linguistics, and layman topics. The third section is for linguistics-related topics that are not at all central to the discipline, but which are of great interest to non-linguists. Stylistics, Etymology and Prescription and description strike me as topics that belong there. Sacundim 7 July 2005 17:24 (UTC)