🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ONEIL.93Jan7213354@husc10.harvard.edu>, oneil@husc10 (John O'Neil) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.002157.20841@leland.Stanford.EDU> alderson@cisco.com (Rich Alderson) writes:
>
>[omitting several sage definitions (not to disparage this one)]
>
>	There are a number of ways to divvy up the field of linguistics.  One
>	major division is that between synchronic and diachronic studies
>	(Saussure 1916).  This is a distinction between the study of speech in
>	a single time-frame versus the study of speech across time-frames.
>
>That's one dimension.
>
>	Across this dichotomy is a breakdown by special area of interest:
>
>Phonetics to pragmatics -- that's the second dimension.
>
>	The synchronic side is generally referred to as "theoretical" linguis-
>	tics, although there are theories on the diachronic side as well.  This
>	group of studies is susceptible of investigation by experimentation,
>	either instrumented (as, for example, acoustic phonetics) or introspec-
>	tive (as, for example, acceptability judgments in syntax).
>
>	The diachronic side--the study of languages in a temporal dimension--
>	uses the results garnered by "theoretical" linguistics, but in addition
>	uses methodologies similar to those of other *historical* studies,
>	methodologies which simply do not admit of mathematical manipulation.
>
>You may want to consider a third dimension of labelling, instead of just using
>the "theoretical" label.  That is, the dimension of 'pure' linguistics versus
>psycho-, socio-, neuro-, mathematical, and computational linguistics (along
>with other hyphenated variations which I have neglected.)  Thus, we are able
>to give a label to such sub-fields as diachronic socio-phonology, for example.

Thanks for the addition.  I had thought about at least psycho- and socio-
linguistics, but the post was getting long and I was trying to summarize too
broad a field anyway.

I stated in my post that I thought that pragmatics was least amenable to a
diachronic study.  Of course, "diachronic acoustic phonetics" is probably even
less do-able.

>Along this dimension we might want to include 'theoretical' linguistics,
>although the term 'theoretical' is used in a somewhat unexpected way in
>linguistics, in comparaison to other sciences. In physics, say, a theoretical
>physicists is usually occupied with comparing different theories and their
>structures -- as if one were comparing GB to LFG, for instance, or discussing
>the abstract properties of some formalism.  However, this activity is usually
>considered mathematical linguistics or formal language theory by linguists,
>who reserve the term theoretical linguistics for activities which are really
>more concerned with accounting for experimental or observational data within a
>formalism.  I don't want to imply that that's a bad thing, or that we
>linguists should change our usages to conform with other fields, but I just
>wanted to bring it up.

Thanks for this clarification, as well.  I mentioned that synchronic studies
are often designated "theoretical linguistics" but failed to expand on it.
-- 
Rich Alderson   'I wish life was not so short,' he thought.  'Languages take
                such a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about.'
                                                        --J. R. R. Tolkien,
alderson@leland.stanford.edu                              _The Lost Road_