Talk:Biolinguistics

message: 1. It would be better if contents are reorganized.
2. Neurolinguistics, Typology, and Artificial grammar learning might be relevant to this article, but it seems that they need clearer links to biolinguistics.
3. Syntax part seems to be redundant... 
4. In "Critiques," I think some discussions on modularity are needed.
5. References need to be checked (e.g., footnote 7 Jenkins (1997), "Web Journal of Formal, Computational and Cognitive Linguistics" - one of my classmates indicated this)
Ninackjeong (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: You are saying: 'Ordinary speakers regularly do say things which the nativists claim nobody ever says, and systematically fail to say things which the nativists claim people often say. In speaking the way they find natural, the population at large blows the nativist case to pieces.'
Comment:
One MUST NOT forget about a distinction between linguistic performance, people's speech actions, and linguistic competence - the knowledge a grammar exemplified in those speech actions. The proper object of Chomskyan linguistics is competence and not performance, and its highest aim is the modelling of linguistic competence - something which is mentally represented. Performance is a different kind of study and, second, performance is the reflection of not just one but at least several competences. The explanation of variation in any given speech action will have to incorporate numerous - psychological, social, etc. - causes. No wonder people 'fail to say things' that belong in the domain of competence, not performance. -- Biolinguist (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Geoffrey Sampson 

message: This concerns POV tag cleanup.  Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it.  This permits discussion and consensus among editors.  From WP tag policy: Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.  Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements.  This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags.  No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your tagging. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: Shouldn't David Poeppel be removed from the People In Biolinguistics list, since he has rejected the Biolinguistics program? Wiki nikk (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Poeppel 

message: I agree with the above note. Unfortunately, Chomskyan linguists have strengthened their reputation for insularity by calling a purely minimalist theory of the biology and evolution of language "biolinguistics". Here are my suggestions for improvement, which I'd be happy to do someday assuming no one complains:
1) minimalist biolinguistics (and this is usually what is meant these days by the term, I think) should be treated separately from other biologically-oriented theories of language, and it needs to be clearly and immediately identified as something coming from one particular linguistic theory among many. Not acknowledging such things is a very bad habit that some linguists have fallen into, unfortunately. Minimalist biolinguistics should be treated separately both to avoid confusion and because it is indeed radically different from any other research in this area that I am aware of. 
2) Now that I re-read it, the whole thing is written in an oddly effusive style which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry, both for style and POV reasons. I suppose the whole thing should really be extensively re-written.
3) Other "biological" theories of language, including the views and very important research of Philip Lieberman, for instance, should get some treatment here. The EvoLang conference should be mentioned. There should at least be links to neurological stuff, etc. I can write that part, I suppose. Oh, and this needs to link to the evolutionary linguistics page. On the other hand, and I think this is probably the best idea, this page can be renamed "Biolinguistics (Minimalist Program)" or something along those lines, and other research into the biology of language can have its own article, perhaps with a disambiguation page.
I'm not sure when I would have the time to make some of these changes. I would suggest that what is there now is really not worth keeping, and it might be better to erase most of it and leave it as a stub until someone gets around to editing it.
AlanHogue (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I second that 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Biolinguistics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070221083019/http://www.ling.uni-potsdam.de:80/lip/25/LIP25-3soschen.pdf to http://www.ling.uni-potsdam.de/lip/25/LIP25-3soschen.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070220115531/http://www.biolinguistics.net:80/ to http://www.biolinguistics.net
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Where did you find the information linking biolinguistics to the minimalist program? I always thought that was an accusation on the part of Pinker, not a proven fact, but if you have citations for that I'd love to see them. Ejohnso9 (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: In the "Hypothesis" section, the paragraph is mostly a close paraphrase of the paper that is cited. While this is certainly a sound perspective to be included in the page, perhaps the format could be rephrased to be more suitable for a Wiki article? --The Philosopher John Locke (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Myself and a a few other linguistic classmates will be going over Origins, developments and the critiques sections in the Biolinguistics page. Our main focus will be on stylistics editing on what is currently on the page to make this article more understandable for individuals who are non-minimalist linguists.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by KRlinguist (talk • contribs) 21:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stylistic editing/ content organization: Origins, developments and critiques 

message: KRlinguist (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding information 

message: In the intro paragraph there's mention that biolinguistics challenges human language acquisition as a behavior based approach. I plan on elaborating this is a new section towards the end of the paper. I think this will be useful for non-linguists to get an understanding of the other view of language acquisition. I will specifically focus on the Usage based Approach. KRlinguist (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does biolinguistics challenge 

message: Though these topics are valuable, it seems like they are explained in too much detail for a page dedicated to biolinguistics. I hope to condense this information into a table that will have a short summary of each topic as well as possible research questions within biolinguistics; links to each page will still be provided in case the reader wishes to learn more. Murdoch.thecat (talk) 03:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reformatting of "Other relevant fields" 

message: I plan on  further elaborating on the concept of merge and how it we can think of it here and its importance. I will be moving Relevanve of Nat. Law below MP as it will flow better given that MERGE is a concept that both tough on the subject KRlinguist (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minimalist Program and Relevance of Natural Law 

message: Over the next few weeks, new content will be added on the Integration Hypothesis by myself as well as two of my class colleagues for a project that we are working on. The content that will be added includes discussions about what the Integration Hypothesis is (the E component + the L component), how we see the application of this hypothesis with simple sentences in English as well as compound words in non-English languages, the origins of the E and L components found in the the animal world (specifically in the communication systems of birds and non-human primates), and lastly the rapid emergence perspective of the emergence of human language. Thank you so much for your patience as we work on incrementally developing this portion of the Biolinguistics page! 
Nehamultani (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New content on "Integration Hypothesis"