About the journal by Language Under Discussion (journal)
Language Under Discussion is a peer-reviewed journal devoted to promoting open-minded debate on c... more Language Under Discussion is a peer-reviewed journal devoted to promoting open-minded debate on central questions in the study of language, from all relevant disciplinary and theoretical perspectives. Our journal seeks, unapologetically, to promote scholarly discussion of the “big” questions about language—such questions as: What kind of a thing is language? What is the nature of linguistic meaning? How to best conceptualize structure and regularity in human languages? What is the role language plays in culture and how do cultural phenomena reflect on language? What are the roles of cognition and communication in language?—We believe that specialized and applied studies are at their best when they are informed by a vision or model of language in general and reflect back on it, just as theoretical discussions are only truly valuable when grounded in empirical research.
Language Under Discussion is designed to actively promote debate among its readers and contributors. Each of the journal’s issues will feature a discussion of a topic or thesis and will remain open for a period of time to eventually include a series of discussion notes on the topic of the issue and a response by the authors of the original contributions.
Language Under Discussion welcomes well-argued contributions from linguists, philosophers, communication theorists, cognitive scientists, sociologists, literary scholars, education scholars, and scholars in any other fields that offer a fresh perspective on language—what it is, how people use it, and how it can be studied and analyzed. We also accept empirical and applied studies, provided their theoretical implications for our understanding of language are clearly stated and are more than trivial.
The first issue of Language Under Discussion is now out, and with it, our journal has now been of... more The first issue of Language Under Discussion is now out, and with it, our journal has now been officially launched. Language Under Discussion is an open-access, peer-reviewed journal devoted to promoting open-minded debate on central questions in the study of language, from all relevant disciplinary and theoretical perspectives. Moreover, we seek to provoke a kind of discussion that is rarely seen on the pages of academic publications nowadays—a discussion that moves its participants outside their theoretical comfort zones, into a space where familiar assumptions can be questioned and fundamental questions can be raised. Our journal seeks, unapologetically, to promote scholarly discussion of the “big” questions about language—such questions as: What kind of a thing is language? What is the nature of linguistic meaning? How to best conceptualize structure and regularity in human languages? What is the role language plays in culture and how do cultural phenomena reflect on language? What are the roles of cognition and communication in language?
Vol 7 Issue 1 by Language Under Discussion (journal)
Langauge Under Discussion, Aug 9, 2024
This paper explores the relation between language and emotion and thus contributes to both langua... more This paper explores the relation between language and emotion and thus contributes to both language sciences and affective sciences. In both fields, insights from the other field are conspicuously absent. The core empirical claim presented is that there are no grammatical categories dedicated to encoding emotions. This seems to be universally the case and hence appears to be no accident. The absence of grammatical categories dedicated to encoding emotions is surprising given the otherwise close connection between language and emotions as evidenced by phylogenetic, ontogenetic, and neurological properties. Hence, one cannot attribute the absence of emotion categories to a complete disconnect between language and emotions (or cognition more generally). Moreover, one might expect such categories to exist, based on cognitive and evolutionary considerations. The conclusion to be drawn is that emotions are not to be considered primitives that could be directly linked to grammatical categories, but instead that emotions are constructed. In this way, the properties of grammar provide new evidence for the theory of constructed emotions. It is further proposed that linguistic theory may shed light on how emotions are constructed. Specifically, the article explores the hypothesis that the same architecture is responsible for the construction of complex linguistic expressions and for the construction of emotions. As such, the article introduces a novel research agenda, i.e. the emotional spine hypothesis, which invites new avenues of interdisciplinary research.
Vol 6 Issue 1 by Language Under Discussion (journal)
Language Under Discussion, Vol. 6, Issue 1 (2021), pp. 1–29, Jul 31, 2021
Combining digital discourse analysis and Citizen Sociolinguistics, methodological frames that con... more Combining digital discourse analysis and Citizen Sociolinguistics, methodological frames that contend with the effects of evolving digital practices, I present an approach to studying sociolinguistic trends by investigating how social media users talk about what language is doing.
This approach is applicable to research on a wide range of linguistic and cultural contexts. The particular focus in this paper, however, is on U.S.-based social issues and linguistic features of American English as they appear in pieces of digital discourse from the micro-blogging platforms Twitter and Tumblr. Situated within the highly fractured sociopolitical climate of the pandemic-afflicted United States, the language under discussion provides a glimpse of some historically relevant sociocultural beliefs and attitudes towards the role of gender and racial identity in sociopolitical discourse. Focusing on uses of-splain, a metapragmatic bound morpheme, the paper demonstrates how social media users assemble lexical, discursive, and other semiotic resources as means for negotiating sociopragmatic appropriateness. The analysis shows how the usage of words like mansplain encompass the sociolinguistic process of enregisterment through practices of linguistic reflexivity, creativity, and regimentationpractices that are essential aspects of interaction and participation in social media. Using these enregistered metapragmatic words problematizes imbalances in users' sociopragmatic ideologies, namely who can or cannot say what, to whom, and in what manner. I show how creative metapragmatic language is deployed to discuss issues of entitlement and epistemic authority in communicative dynamics. I draw on theoretical frames that reveal how the recontextualization and resemiotization of-splain words and other metapragmatic neologisms are performances of identity. I also show how splain-mediated communication facilitates users in achieving their own discursive intentions to point out language in judgmental and/or lighthearted manners. I assert that attention to metapragmatic neologisms in the perspective of Citizen Sociolinguistics enhances the analytical repertoire of digital discourse analysis.
Language Under Discussion, Vol. 6, Issue 1 (2021), pp. 30–37., Dec 17, 2021
I situate Bridges's study of-splain and its social outgrowths and implications within the framewo... more I situate Bridges's study of-splain and its social outgrowths and implications within the framework of Rymesian Citizen Sociolinguistics, offering clarity on the methodological differences between this approach and other approaches that have been conflated with it. I agree with Bridges's addition of critical discourse analysis and neology to the Citizen Sociolinguistics method and with her use of metapragmatics to shed light on the emergence of new personae associated with the weaponization of (man)splain and its associated call-out culture.
Language Under Discussion, Vol. 6, Issue 1 (2021), pp. 38–42., 2021
This note addresses the topic of Judith Bridges's focus article, namely -splain neologisms such a... more This note addresses the topic of Judith Bridges's focus article, namely -splain neologisms such as mansplain, thinsplain and covidsplain, from the perspective of morphological theory. I attempt to show that Morphopragmatics, a subfield of morphology, can account for the complex pragmatics of word formation processes like those in -splain neology. I propose that the analysis of -splain words as constructional idioms, under the framework of Construction Morphology, provides a suitable account of the pragmatic effects associated with the innovations in this lexical pattern.
Language Under Discussion, Vol. 6, Issue 1 (2021), pp. 43–46., Jan 17, 2022
This discussion note is inspired by, and in turn expands on, a few themes and threads laid out in... more This discussion note is inspired by, and in turn expands on, a few themes and threads laid out in Judith Bridges's "Explaining '-splain' in digital discourse". The note stresses the focus and contribution linguistic anthropologists have made to understanding various types of indexical meaning-making practices, and the order of indexicality. This discussion note also briefly details the affordances of the word "explain" and the suffix "x-plain", which may account for why this suffix, and not others, has come to be used so frequently.
Language Under Discussion, Vol. 6, Issue 1 (2021), pp. 47–53., May 1, 2022
This article is meant to initiate a dialogue with Judith Bridges about the performativity of lang... more This article is meant to initiate a dialogue with Judith Bridges about the performativity of language. By analyzing how social media users talk about what language is doing, especially when these users accuse someone of whitesplaining, mansplaining, or other forms of [X]-splaining, I show that they implicitly acknowledge what has been called elsewhere the ventriloquial dimension of communication. By ventriloquation, I mean that whenever we speak, write or, more generally, communicate, an act of delegation always takes place, which means that what is said, written or communicated can be presented by others as making us say things that we had not necessarily anticipated. This form of delegation, which is typical of the episodes analyzed by Bridges and that I identify as a form of downstream ventriloquation, is contrasted with upstream forms of ventriloquation, that is ventriloquations by which other actors are deemed as expressing themselves through what is being said or, more generally, communicated. I believe that the identification of these two forms of ventriloquation can help us analyze the performativity of language that interests Bridges.
Language Under Discussion, Vol. 6, Issue 1 (2021), pp. 54–60., Aug 27, 2022
This discussion note offers a response to Judith Bridges' focus article "Explaining '-splain' in ... more This discussion note offers a response to Judith Bridges' focus article "Explaining '-splain' in digital discourse". We review some of the article's core findings on the bound morpheme-splain, utilised in words such as whitesplain, covidsplain, and thinsplain, and expand on them by addressing three key concerns: we situate the construction and use of-splain formations in a more expansive version of prescriptivism, what we refer to as 'prescriptivism 2.0'; discuss them within the context of language policing and political correctness; and ask whether forms ending in-splain are subject to moral gradience, highlighting directions and opportunities for future research.
Language Under Discussion, Vol. 6, Issue 1 (2021), pp. 61–67., Oct 22, 2021
Judith Bridges' analysis of-splain discourse illustrates the slipperiness of language in the age ... more Judith Bridges' analysis of-splain discourse illustrates the slipperiness of language in the age of Twitter, microblogging, and cancel culture and helps explain why having meaningful public discourse seems increasingly difficult. X-splaining is a form of epistemic injustice. I suggest that, barring a Humpty-Dumpty theory of meaning, attempts to recontextualize neologisms like mansplain to make them antonyms of their original meanings should be seen as misuses. Moreover,-splain terms creatively and conveniently compress multiple meanings into one, but can also function to cut off dialogue, making it harder to hold speakers accountable for their claims.
Language Under Discussion, Vol. 6, Issue 1 (2021), pp. 68–77., Jan 10, 2023
some common themes emerged regarding the instability of meanings, how we treat neologisms, and so... more some common themes emerged regarding the instability of meanings, how we treat neologisms, and some research methods for understanding the equivocal nature of metapragmatic neologisms. My reply addresses these issues. With the intent to accomplish the sort of productive, interdisciplinary conversation that Language Under Discussion promotes, I hope my reflection and final contribution helps us better understand language and communication.
Vol. 5 Issue 1 by Language Under Discussion (journal)
Language Under Discussion, Vol. 5, Issue 1 (2018), pp. 1–41, Apr 10, 2018
Syntax is a central subfield within linguistics and is important for the study of natural languag... more Syntax is a central subfield within linguistics and is important for the study of natural languages, since they all have syntax. Theories of syntax can vary drastically, though. They tend to be based on one of two competing principles, on dependency or phrase structure. Surprisingly, the tests for constituents that are widely employed in syntax and linguistics research to demonstrate the manner in which words are grouped together forming higher units of syntactic structure (phrases and clauses) actually support dependency over phrase structure. The tests identify much less sentence structure than phrase structure syntax assumes. The reason this situation is surprising is that phrase structure has been dominant in research on syntax over the past 60 years. This article examines the issue in depth. Dozens of texts were surveyed to determine how tests for constituents are employed and understood. Most of the tests identify phrasal constituents only; they deliver little support for the existence of subphrasal strings as constituents. This situation is consistent with dependency structure, since for dependency, subphrasal strings are not constituents to begin with.
Language Under Discussion, Vol. 5, Issue 1, pp. 42–44, Dec 13, 2018
I argue that the crucial criterion for evaluating analyses is psychological plausibility, and not... more I argue that the crucial criterion for evaluating analyses is psychological plausibility, and not parsimony, so the number of nodes isn't important—and indeed, one version of dependency analysis recognises as many nodes as some phrase-structure analyses do. But in terms of plausibility, dependency grammar is preferable to phrase structure because the latter denies that the human mind is capable of recognising direct links (dependencies) between words. Tim Osborne's paper, " Tests for Constituents " (Osborne 2018), raises a really important issue: how should we evaluate syntactic theories (or, more generally, theories of language structure)? For him the question concerns the choice between theories based on dependency and phrase structure, but of course it goes well beyond that. The answer depends on what kind of science you think linguistics is: is it like astronomy or psychology? If it's like astronomy, then our data are all observational so we're looking for a parsimonious theory which uses the fewest possible assumptions to explain the observed data. But if psychology is our model, our data come from a lot of different sources—observation, experimentation, introspection and everyday experience—and what we're trying to model is the 'theory' that an ordinary person builds to explain their experience of language, and also to guide their own use of the language. In that case, the challenge is to find a theory which meshes as cleanly as possible with everything we know about how human minds work, and parsimony is only as important for linguists as it is for ordinary human beings.
Language Under Discussion, Vol. 5, Issue 1 (2018), pp. 45–51, Jan 20, 2019
Timothy Osborne has surveyed a very large number of published introductions to grammatical analys... more Timothy Osborne has surveyed a very large number of published introductions to grammatical analysis, all of which share the assumption that syntactic argumentation is to be conducted without reference to the meanings, uses and contexts of the example sentences. The purpose of Osborne’s article is to examine how well syntactic tests identify subphrasal strings as constituents. The aim of this discussion note is not to engage directly with this issue but to consider, from the viewpoint of Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG), the validity of the autonomous syntax assumption shared by Osborne and the authors whose work he considers. The note dwells on the hidden presence of functional and interactive notions in a methodology based on syntactic ‘tests’ and it is suggested that the difficulties encountered by that methodology (notably with regard to coordination) can be resolved insightfully by FDG with its four levels of analysis.
Language Under Discussion, Vol. 5, Issue 1 (2018), pp. 52–67, May 2, 2019
This paper is a reply to Timothy Osborne's paper Tests for constituents: What they really reveal ... more This paper is a reply to Timothy Osborne's paper Tests for constituents: What they really reveal about the nature of syntactic structure that appeared 2018 in Language under Discussion. This paper discusses how constituent tests work and why it is no problem if they are not applicable. It is argued that Osborne's claims regarding simplicity of Dependency Grammar (DG) in comparison to Phrase Structure Grammar (PSG) are unwarranted and that DG models that include semantics make use of auxiliary structure that is equivalent to the nodes assumed in PSG. A final section of the paper discusses the general validity of counting nodes for theory evaluation and the assumption of empty elements vs. specialized phrasal rules.
Language Under Discussion, Vol. 5, Issue 1 (2018), pp. 68–82, Jun 28, 2019
Timothy Osborne argues that phrase structure grammars (PSGs) postulate unnecessarily complex stru... more Timothy Osborne argues that phrase structure grammars (PSGs) postulate unnecessarily complex structures, and that Dependency Grammar (DG) is to be preferred on grounds of simplicity (1:1 word-to-node ratio) and empirical adequacy (capturing the results of constituency tests). In this reply, I argue that, while some of Osborne's criticisms of PSGs are justified, there are both empirical and theoretical problems with his major claims. In particular, his version of DG is too restrictive with respect to certain constituency facts (modified nouns, verbal phrases), and what it gains in simplicity qua number of nodes, it loses in requiring a more complex interface between syntax and other linguistic components (phonology, semantics). I argue that Mirror Theory, a framework that is in a sense intermediate between DG and PSGs, answers Osborne's justified criticisms while not suffering from the problems of his version of DG.
Language Under Discussion, Vol. 5, Issue 1 (2018), pp. 83–116, Dec 4, 2019
My focus article in Language Under Discussion from 2018 argued that dependency syntax is both sim... more My focus article in Language Under Discussion from 2018 argued that dependency syntax is both simpler and more accurate than phrase structure syntax with respect to the results delivered by tests for constituents. Four linguists (Richard Hudson, Lachlan Mackenzie, Stefan Müller, and Matthew Reeve) have responded to my focus article with discussion notes, challenging aspects of my message in various ways. In this article, I respond to the counterarguments produced in the discussion notes. In order to address one of the main counterarguments, having to do with scope and meaning compositionality, I introduce a new unit of dependency syntax, namely the colocant. My claim is that aspects of scope and meaning compositionality, for which phrase structure is deemed necessary, can be addressed in terms of colocants. Hence, scope phenomena and the manner in which meaning is composed can no longer be construed as an argument against dependency syntax and in favor of the necessity of phrase structure.
Vol. 4 Issue 1 by Language Under Discussion (journal)
Language Under Discussion, Vol. 4, Issue 1 (2016), pp. 1–37, 2016
This paper is concerned with discovering the system that lies behind linguistic productions and i... more This paper is concerned with discovering the system that lies behind linguistic productions and is responsible for them. To be considered realistic, a theory of this system has to meet certain requirements of plausibility: (1) It must be able to be put into operation, for (i) speaking and otherwise producing linguistic texts and (ii) comprehending (to a greater or lesser extent) the linguistic productions of others; (2) it must be able to develop during childhood and to continue changing in later years; (3) it has to be compatible with what is known about brain structure, since that system resides in the brains of humans. Such a theory, while based on linguistic evidence, turns out to be not only compatible with what is known from neuroscience about the brain, it also contributes new understanding about how the brain operates in processing information. Nowadays it is easier than ever to appreciate that there are many ways to study aspects of language, driven by different curiosities and having differing aims. The inquiry sketched here is just one of these pursuits, with its own aims and its own methods. It is concerned with linguistic structure considered as a real scientific object. It differs from most current enterprises in linguistic theory in that, although they often use the term 'linguistic structure', they are concerned mainly with the structures of sentences and/or other linguistic productions rather than with the structure of the system that lies behind these and is responsible for them. To have one's primary interest in sentences and other linguistic productions is natural for people interested in language and is nothing to be ashamed of or shy about; so to say that they are more interested in linguistic productions than in the system responsible for them is in no way intended as critical of these other theories. They have been providing useful and
Language Under Discussion, Vol. 4, Issue 1 (2016), pp. 38–43, 2016
This comment on Sydney Lamb's article " Language structure: A plausible theory " explores the sim... more This comment on Sydney Lamb's article " Language structure: A plausible theory " explores the similarities and differences between Lamb's theory and my own theory called Word Grammar, which was inspired by Lamb's work in the 1960s. The two theories share Lamb's view that language is a symbolic network, just like the rest of our knowledge. The note explains this claim, then picks out a number of differences between the theories, all of which centre on the distinction between types and tokens. In Word Grammar, tokens are represented as temporary nodes added to the permanent network, and allow the theory to use dependency structure rather than phrase structure, to include mental referents, to recognise the messiness of spreading activation and to include a monotonic theory of default inheritance.
Language Under Discussion, Volume 4, Issue 1 (2016), pp. 44–50
Sydney Lamb (2016) presents a theory of linguistic structure that reaches through all levels of l... more Sydney Lamb (2016) presents a theory of linguistic structure that reaches through all levels of linguistic organization (semantics, syntax, morphology, phonology). The network architecture of Lamb’s system is analogous to the network of neurons in the brain. Lamb’s theory organizes linguistic units in part in terms of constituencies. This discussion note explores the possibility of recasting Lamb’s theory entirely in terms of dependencies. An approach that relies more on dependency as the principle organizing the units of linguistic structure would result in simpler networks, increasing plausibility and thus being more consistent with the network of neurons in the brain.
Uploads
About the journal by Language Under Discussion (journal)
Language Under Discussion is designed to actively promote debate among its readers and contributors. Each of the journal’s issues will feature a discussion of a topic or thesis and will remain open for a period of time to eventually include a series of discussion notes on the topic of the issue and a response by the authors of the original contributions.
Language Under Discussion welcomes well-argued contributions from linguists, philosophers, communication theorists, cognitive scientists, sociologists, literary scholars, education scholars, and scholars in any other fields that offer a fresh perspective on language—what it is, how people use it, and how it can be studied and analyzed. We also accept empirical and applied studies, provided their theoretical implications for our understanding of language are clearly stated and are more than trivial.
Vol 7 Issue 1 by Language Under Discussion (journal)
Vol 6 Issue 1 by Language Under Discussion (journal)
This approach is applicable to research on a wide range of linguistic and cultural contexts. The particular focus in this paper, however, is on U.S.-based social issues and linguistic features of American English as they appear in pieces of digital discourse from the micro-blogging platforms Twitter and Tumblr. Situated within the highly fractured sociopolitical climate of the pandemic-afflicted United States, the language under discussion provides a glimpse of some historically relevant sociocultural beliefs and attitudes towards the role of gender and racial identity in sociopolitical discourse. Focusing on uses of-splain, a metapragmatic bound morpheme, the paper demonstrates how social media users assemble lexical, discursive, and other semiotic resources as means for negotiating sociopragmatic appropriateness. The analysis shows how the usage of words like mansplain encompass the sociolinguistic process of enregisterment through practices of linguistic reflexivity, creativity, and regimentationpractices that are essential aspects of interaction and participation in social media. Using these enregistered metapragmatic words problematizes imbalances in users' sociopragmatic ideologies, namely who can or cannot say what, to whom, and in what manner. I show how creative metapragmatic language is deployed to discuss issues of entitlement and epistemic authority in communicative dynamics. I draw on theoretical frames that reveal how the recontextualization and resemiotization of-splain words and other metapragmatic neologisms are performances of identity. I also show how splain-mediated communication facilitates users in achieving their own discursive intentions to point out language in judgmental and/or lighthearted manners. I assert that attention to metapragmatic neologisms in the perspective of Citizen Sociolinguistics enhances the analytical repertoire of digital discourse analysis.
Vol. 5 Issue 1 by Language Under Discussion (journal)
Vol. 4 Issue 1 by Language Under Discussion (journal)
Language Under Discussion is designed to actively promote debate among its readers and contributors. Each of the journal’s issues will feature a discussion of a topic or thesis and will remain open for a period of time to eventually include a series of discussion notes on the topic of the issue and a response by the authors of the original contributions.
Language Under Discussion welcomes well-argued contributions from linguists, philosophers, communication theorists, cognitive scientists, sociologists, literary scholars, education scholars, and scholars in any other fields that offer a fresh perspective on language—what it is, how people use it, and how it can be studied and analyzed. We also accept empirical and applied studies, provided their theoretical implications for our understanding of language are clearly stated and are more than trivial.
This approach is applicable to research on a wide range of linguistic and cultural contexts. The particular focus in this paper, however, is on U.S.-based social issues and linguistic features of American English as they appear in pieces of digital discourse from the micro-blogging platforms Twitter and Tumblr. Situated within the highly fractured sociopolitical climate of the pandemic-afflicted United States, the language under discussion provides a glimpse of some historically relevant sociocultural beliefs and attitudes towards the role of gender and racial identity in sociopolitical discourse. Focusing on uses of-splain, a metapragmatic bound morpheme, the paper demonstrates how social media users assemble lexical, discursive, and other semiotic resources as means for negotiating sociopragmatic appropriateness. The analysis shows how the usage of words like mansplain encompass the sociolinguistic process of enregisterment through practices of linguistic reflexivity, creativity, and regimentationpractices that are essential aspects of interaction and participation in social media. Using these enregistered metapragmatic words problematizes imbalances in users' sociopragmatic ideologies, namely who can or cannot say what, to whom, and in what manner. I show how creative metapragmatic language is deployed to discuss issues of entitlement and epistemic authority in communicative dynamics. I draw on theoretical frames that reveal how the recontextualization and resemiotization of-splain words and other metapragmatic neologisms are performances of identity. I also show how splain-mediated communication facilitates users in achieving their own discursive intentions to point out language in judgmental and/or lighthearted manners. I assert that attention to metapragmatic neologisms in the perspective of Citizen Sociolinguistics enhances the analytical repertoire of digital discourse analysis.