Linguistic theory: yes or no?

Question

Proposal: Planned Languages

There seems to be several suggested questions where we are divided on whether it is ok or not to ask about linguistic theory, with no connection to any dead, existing or planned conlang. So: do we want discussions of linguistics, yes or no?

Answer 1

Linguistics is just inseparable from conlanging. Once you start tinkering with language, you are going to wonder about how language works and get at least some interest in linguistics. Conversely, learning about linguistics is necessary if you want to try your hand at "exotic" language features (i.e. language features not present in any natlang you have a passing command of), or want to get better at understanding and describing your own work.

So discussions about linguistic theory shouldn't be banned per se. Still, especially since there's this Linguistics Stack Exchange site being built, I don't think all discussions about linguistic theory should be considered on-topic. Discussions about the merits and failings of Universal Grammar, or about the true nature of morphemes, do not bring anything on the table for us as conlangers, and may be even inflammatory. However, discussions about technical and/or applied linguistic topics (like: "what's the subjunctive mood?" or "what are active-stative languages" or even "what are phrase structure rules?") should definitely be on-topic, as they give us information that we can directly use in our craft (and usually will be asked by someone who wants to use that information for their own work anyway).

Also, don't forget that there still is an undercurrent of hostility towards conlanging in the linguistic community. Who says our questions will be welcome in the Linguistics Stack Exchange site?

Answer 2

I would say "no" to general discussions about linguistic theory. There is an up-and-coming site better suited specifically for that subject: Linguistics.

I suspect that the creation of the "Linguistics" site — an academic study of language form — will supersede a considerable portion of the general questions that might have been asked on "Planned Languages". For a Planned Languages site to "work," it would have to focus on applied questions about specific artificial languages; not general theory.

Answer 3

As a doctoral student in linguistics, I'm very interested in linguistically plausible conlangs (especially for use in fictional world-building) and helping conlang creators be informed about the way natural languages work. I would see it as a real shame if questions that would aid people in the creation of realistic languages were shunned.

This doesn't mean all linguistics questions should be allowed. Questions relating to theory or frameworks or research programmes are almost certainly off-topic. But questions relating to linguistic typology, language universals, language description, grammar and dictionary writing, historical linguistics and sound change, comparative linguistics as well as core concepts in phonology, morphology, syntax (particular as applicable to language description and typology) must surely be allowed.

Answer 4

I think there has to be some overlap with the Linguistic site. That's just inherent in the topic. What we should to is fine tune it as we go along instead of trying it figure it all out up front.

Answer 5

For the moment, I say "yes." Right now I feel like we should be gathering as many people as we can and "throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks." If we discover that theorycrafting is a bad fit for the group, we can throw support behind another board for it at that time.

Answer 6

I think the Constructed-Planned languages site will be able to tolerate questions with a much higher linguistics-theory content than the Linguistics site will be able to tolerate questions with any constructed-language content.

In my real life experience, I constantly come across questions like, what is an applicative. On a conlang site, I would expect the answer to use conlangs as examples and discuss if this is a interesting or helpful feature. On an academic Linguistics site, I would expect a very different answer, using real languages, be much more technical.

Also, in conlangs, theoretical questions can be settled (sometimes) by seeing what the language specification says. On the otherhand, I've read half a dozen seemingly different academic explanations about how obviate-proximate systems really work, and the professionals don't seem to have come to a solid agreement yet.

Answer 7

I would say that arguments about the merits of competing linguistic theories would be off-topic. However, posts about how realism in conlangs may inevitably involve references to linguistic theory, so I don't think that posts about linguistic theory per se should be ruled out.