[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 99 KB, 960x400, word_cloud_3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16303724 No.16303724 [Reply] [Original]

How do I into linguistics?

>> No.16303736

>>16303724
Read analytic philosophy. Simple really.

>> No.16303737

Learn a few languages and spend the rest of your life learning computer modeling techniques that tell us nothing about language, and listening to your colleagues pontificating woke bullshit about "descriptivism" and how ooga booga creoles are just as creative as high literary languages (excuse me did you say "high"? that implies a hierarchy of merit you colonialist pig)

>> No.16303742

>>16303724
The standard text is 'An Introduction to Language' by Victoria Fromkin.

>> No.16303750

>>16303742
Where do I go after that?

>> No.16303752

>>16303737
>t. never studied linguistics

>> No.16303755

>>16303724
https://b-ok.lat/book/2973784/fed037
Good start and you can pick where to go from there.

>> No.16303768

>>16303750
After that, you go to the introductory textbooks for the subfields -- syntax, semantics, morphology, phonology, phonetics, etc. At that point you should have an idea of what you want to specialize in.

>> No.16303775

>>16303724
Read the first anthropologist: Joseph De Maistre

>> No.16303777

>>16303755
That's pop trash for lay people, not a serious introduction.

>> No.16303786
File: 631 KB, 2000x1400, Apple pie.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16303786

>>16303724
Any particular interest?

>> No.16303792

>>16303737
depressingly accurate. don't bother OP

>> No.16303794

>>16303786
I just want to get into linguistics from a philosophical, anthropological and historical standpoint.

>> No.16303797

>>16303792
>t. never studied linguistics

>> No.16303800

>>16303724
Rousseau once admitted: "I believe that speech was very necessary to invent speech."
These words present the reason for the impossibility of language by men: for to invent is to think, and to think is to speak inside oneself. Signs are required for thought, because they are required for speech; and one can say, to summarize, that man thinks his speech before speaking his thought, and expresses his thought for himself before expressing it for others. Human reason is in divine speech, as the child's reason is in the father's speech. That is why speech and reason are expressed in Greek by the same word, logos; and man could not have reasoned by himself; and if I do not understand the incomprehensible mystery of human speech, why should I seek to penetrate the mystery of divine speech?
In writing about language, Bonald again begins with God (Whom he calls the "Verbe Eternel"), the originator of language. Such a divine origin is the only possible means for language to start, since language needs thought and thought needs language (thought being but internal conversation). https://people.uvawise.edu/pww8y/Supplement/-TheoristsSup/Romanticists/BonaldPolLang.html

>> No.16303801

Chomskys a kike

>> No.16303805

https://youtu.be/4d-YsD8zN88

>> No.16303808

>>16303797
>>16303752
it's cute when undergrads defend a major they just got into

>> No.16303809

>>16303794
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/linguistics-and-philosophy/24-900-introduction-to-linguistics-fall-2012/readings-and-other-materials/

>> No.16303827

>>16303808
>t. clueless zoomer who never attended university

>> No.16303829

>>16303805
based. just learn latin. fuck linguistics

>> No.16303834

>>16303827
>I ATTENDED UNIVERSITY I AM A LINGUISTICS MAJOR I IDENTIFY WITH IT VERY STRONGLY DON'T ASSESS MY FIELD I KNOW MY FIELD IT'S MY FIELD I AM A LINGUIST

we know, undergrad

>>16303829
this + study philology. linguistics is increasingly a joke field for women.

>> No.16303840
File: 297 KB, 1200x1200, Plato drawing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16303840

>>16303724
Plato's Cratylus.

>> No.16303846

>>16303834
>t. clueless zoomer who never attended university

>> No.16303862
File: 14 KB, 255x247, loser.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16303862

>>16303846
>trying to gatekeep with "ummm sweetie i go to a state school and i'm a 3rd year linguistics major" credentials
>because you're offended someone insulted your unprofitable joke major on the internet

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you are mad in real life about having your college major lightly mocked on 4chan

>> No.16303865

>>16303862
ok buddy. that's all i got to say

>> No.16303867
File: 94 KB, 1080x1036, cat_milk.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16303867

>>16303724
If you're not in college here's an old run down:

Starter Pack (based on Yale undergrad curriculum):

> 1. Mike Davenport, S. J. Hannahs - Introducing Phonetics and Phonology
> 2. Geoffrey Poole - Syntactic Theory
> 3. Andrew Spencer, Arnold Zwicky - The Handbook of Morphology [Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics] (2001) (https://englishzoneone.weebly.com/uploads/2/5/5/1/25513129/andrew_spencer_arnold_m._zwicky_the_handbook_of_morphology_blackwell_handbooks_in_linguistics__2001.pdf))
> 4. Lyle Campbell - Historical Linguistics: an Introduction
> 5. Mitkov Ruslan - The Oxford Handbook of Computational Linguistics
> 6. Ferdinand de Saussure, Wade Baskin - Course in General Linguistics

Language/Linguistics Ubercollection, +64 GB
> magnet:?xt=urn:btih:1ad01a626310a2692f74c3e401fd15ba4d5ab30c&dn=Language%20and%20Linguistics%20Collection%20(Updated!)&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3a80%2fannounce&so=0-340

Anon-Suggested Books:

> Surviving Linguistics by Monica Macaulay
> Walter J. Ong - Orality and Literacy (New Accents) (2002)
> https://web.stanford.edu/~jurafsky/slp3/
>Susan Blum, Making Sense of Language (good intro to anthropology-ling textbook)

>>16303786
Just started reading Campbell's book for a class, what am I in for?

>> No.16303877

>>16303865
next time try rebuking the people you disagree with instead of posting
>t. didn't even go to based university like me
four times, the latter makes you look butthurt and defensive about a COLLEGE MAJOR

>> No.16303882

>>16303877
ok wagie

>> No.16303884

>>16303862
I'm twice your age, kiddo. And no, I didn't major in linguistics. I'm familiar with a range of academic subjects since I'm not an uneducated pleb like yourself. Nice self-own, though.

>> No.16303893

>16303877
>t. clueless zoomer who never attended university
Aren't you embarrassed?

>> No.16303902

>>16303882
wagie is what you call someone who did a 4-year joke degree in computational linguistics, and now has to claim it applies to the entry-level jobs he interviews for (this is you in 2 years)

i went to graduate school for a real field, one with very few women at all

>>16303884
>>16303893
nb: women

>> No.16303906

>>16303902
>>16303902
>>
>i went to graduate school for a real field, one with very few women at all
such as?

>> No.16303907

>>16303902
You never attended university.

>> No.16303911

>>16303805
Is this true? Will I be able to learn French, Italian, and Spanish easy-mode after learning Latin?

>> No.16303923

>>16303906
you have to guess

>>16303911
it helps a little but not directly all that much. the help comes more from learning the structure of indo-european grammar, but that will help with almost any language you learn subsequently, even non-IE ones, because you will approach languages more grammatically and schematically while others spend years languishing in "immersion" classes for a modern romance language.

once you learn one or two romance languages the rest come fairly easy though

>> No.16303957

>>16303777
you're a lay person stupid it has bibliography. It's one step above a wiki article and I'm sure you read those

>> No.16304221

>>16303923
>you have to guess
Engineering?

>once you learn one or two romance languages the rest come fairly easy though
what are the easiest to hardest romance languages?

>> No.16304369

bump

>> No.16304502

>>16303794
Wrong standpoints. Only grammar, typology and etymology matter