Talk:Theoretical linguistics

message: Could this page be merged with Linguistics? Most people who are not doing anything theoretical do not call what they're doing linguistics. For example, many sociolinguists would dispute that what they are doing is not theoretical. If this page continues to exist it will either have to become more narrowly specialized than its name implies, or else it will repeat a lot of what is said on the Linguistics page. --Svenonius 11:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's true that most non-theoretical linguists would argue that what they do isn't linguistics. Nevertheless, there's so little here I think it would make more sense as a section of Linguistics if it doesn't get expanded soon. User:Angr 12:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I meant was, theoretical linguistics seems a little redundant; the term 'linguistics' already implies the study of language, hence almost unavoidably with some sort of theory. Without theory, you can talk about language, but are unlikely to actually call what you're doing linguistics. For the same reasons, there is hardly any talk of "theoretical biology", for example. Even in psychology, where you might want to distinguish clinical practice from theoretical research, the expression "theoretical psychology" is not used a lot, it seems to me. --Svenonius 13:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps not in those other fields, but in linguistics it is quite common to distinguish between theoretical linguistics and applied linguistics. The University of Potsdam, for example, divides its Linguistics Department up into three divisions: Theoretical Linguistics, Computer Linguistics, and Patholinguistics. User:Angr 14:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with linguistics? 

message: Can anyone explain what flowchart labeled "The relationship between the major subfields of theoretical linguistics" is supposed to demonstrate? If its going to be included, it needs to be explained. I can't for the life of me figure out what it's trying to say about the various subfields or how it relates to any formalism that doesn't posit underlying levels or handle phonology.156.56.22.239 (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh, I never even noticed it before. I have absolutely no idea what it means. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 05:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If no one posts an objection within another week, I'll probably remove it.156.56.22.239 (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major subfields chart 

message: I don't know what this was or why it was there.  Please feel free to restore it if you do know.
 Orthographic representation : S, s
 Phonetic features:
   Phonetic representations: , , Ø
   Perception through the ear: high frequency sounds accompanied by a hissing noise.
   Acoustic features:
     Frequency : 8000 – 11000 Hz
     Color : similar to the hissing noise made by snakes.
 Phonological characteristics :
   Occurrence : beginning, middle or end of words.
   Accompanied by vowels or consonants.
   Distinguishes meanings of words depending on context: slow ≠ glow
 Orthographic representation : S, s
 Phonetic features:
   Phonetic representations: , , Ø
   Perception through the ear: high frequency sounds accompanied by a hissing noise.
   Acoustic features:
     Frequency : 8000 – 11000 Hz
     Color : similar to the hissing noise made by snakes.
 Phonological characteristics :
   Occurrence : beginning, middle or end of words.
   Accompanied by vowels or consonants.
   Distinguishes meanings of words depending on context: slow ≠ glow
Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 06:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content removed from Phonetics 

message: The article's lead does not discuss the field of theoretical linguistics, but rather the lexical item, "theoretical linguistics." I can imagine few fields where such a violation of the use-mention distinction would be more ironic. Furthermore, what the lead asserts about that lexical item is that it is not well defined, that it has no widely agreed referent. What are we doing?—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theoretical linguist, heal thyself.