Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Numerous bibliographic additions to linguistics and new stub mathematical linguistics.
Re #2: nice!
I have hyperlinked more of the technical terms, such as syntax, string, word.
By the way, since we have a lot of material on and related to quantum information theory via dagger-compact categories, and since the main authors of that approach have turned around to claim that this is also a good model for natural language (or some claim along these lines), I am vaguely interested in understanding this latter claim, though I don’t feel I want to invest much time into it. So if anyone would write an informative brief paragraph on the matter into the entry here, I’d be interested.
re #5:
We may have to disambiguate the author name Vasily Pestun.
There is a V. Pestun concerned with machine learning here
and apparently another one concerned with hep-th here.
[edit: checking the email addresses, I see that this is the same person, after all. ]
I wonder if David Corfield has anything to say about using quantum information models to model natural language.
6: I think that we should follow wikipedia decision here: syntax in the sense of logic or computer science and syntax in the sense of linguistics are two different notions in scope and they should have separate pages.
Namely in logic syntax encompases everything about formal expressions. And sometimes in logic it refers not only to expressions/valid sentences but also formal reasoning that is syntactic proofs (which are even not expressions of the language of logic). In linguistics syntax is usually denoting only the description/rules/relations how parts of linguistical expressions form the whole as opposed not only to semantics but also disjoint/opposed to vocabulary (lexic), phonetics and phonology and language (morphological) derivation. It also includes weak rules of forming larger utterances which are not in yes/no form (e.g. syntax of discourse). In logic on the sharp contrary, the list of primitives (vocabulary) and alphabet are parts of syntax. In linguistics there is also diacronic syntax ignored even in formal linguistics a la Chomsky which denotes the science of historical syntax change and mechanisms how the change was influenced by other parts of language (e.g. phonology and semantic change).
2: Admitting pragmatics as an additional layer of language description rather than studying what would be pragmatic phenomena as integral part of the foundation how concrete language works assumes belonging to the influence and classifications of Chomsky. Often it fails to distinguish on the level of spectrum going from pragmatic alternatives belong to thinking, philosophy or culture to the ones which are really part of a concrete language as normalized part of the language semantics, syntax or description of their normalized interaction. Thus treatisies on pragmatics are in large part about philosophical, cultural or cognitive pragmatics rather than about the description of a concrete language hence linguistics while some of the phenomena which are about “pragmatics of a concrete language” are actually semantic conventions of the concrete language.
As long as our entry on syntax remains the stub that it is, there is unfortunately no material to be split into two entries.
Of course, but now it seems I can assume you approve the reasoning. It is easy to create the material about language syntax but there is a hesitation if the classification is obstructing or misleading (I would never put language material into the entry syntax with the idea section that it is an entire “theory”, simply contributing to a wrong page makes no sense). So I will go on with creating a new page syntax (linguistics).
It aims to develop a toolbox for description of concrete languages (applied linguistics, descriptive grammar), their classification (language families, language typology) as well as to understand how language functions (e.g. relations to cognition and social constraints) and changes (historical and comparative linguistics). The description of a concrete language includes organizational principles called grammar and distinguished constants called lexic. The grammar is described at several hierarchical levels (phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax).
There is an opposition between
Linguistics sign has also a dichotomy between its meaning and its expression.
Linguistic systems are often also at several levels from personal idiom/idiolect, through social sociolects, regional dialects to languages and language families. There is no fundamental agreement of entirely consistent boundary of what is a boundary level of a language as opposed to dialects or language groups. Also there is no universal criterium of what a boundary of a word is, that is what a word is.
1 to 12 of 12