{"title":"What is Folk Linguistics?","authors":"Dennis R. Preston","doi":"10.7557/17.4751","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Folk Linguistics (Mouton de Gruyter, 1999), Nancy Niedzielski and I hope to have shown that the beliefs about, reactions to, and comments on language by what we call \"real people\" (i.e., nonlinguists) are interesting, illuminating, and empowering from ethnographic, linguistic, and practical (or applied linguistic) points of view. I still believe so and am delighted to see in the literature and at many conferences that others apparently agree. So what's new? On a positive note, I believe that the final chapter of Folk Linguistics has pointed and continues to point the way to a great deal of as yet unexplored potential — the careful consideration of the underlying presuppositions and beliefs which lie behind the discourses and actions that constitute the primary data of folk linguistics. What are the folk theories of language held by real people, and how can we extract them from their discourses and actions? In Folk Linguistics several approaches to acquiring and interpreting relevant data were catalogued, but I am all too aware, as Niedzielski and I confess in the last chapter of that work, that much of what we did could be called \"ostensive discourse analysis.\" We acquired the discourses of real people about language, transcribed them, held them up to the view of the reader, and said what we thought they meant and how they contrasted and/or converged with the belief(s) of \"real linguists.\" Except for some of the operational tasks which we assigned respondents, that procedure was our general plan, and I am not unhappy with it. I think the data reported in Folk Linguistics is still the","PeriodicalId":34111,"journal":{"name":"Malbryting","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"92","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Malbryting","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7557/17.4751","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 92
Abstract
In Folk Linguistics (Mouton de Gruyter, 1999), Nancy Niedzielski and I hope to have shown that the beliefs about, reactions to, and comments on language by what we call "real people" (i.e., nonlinguists) are interesting, illuminating, and empowering from ethnographic, linguistic, and practical (or applied linguistic) points of view. I still believe so and am delighted to see in the literature and at many conferences that others apparently agree. So what's new? On a positive note, I believe that the final chapter of Folk Linguistics has pointed and continues to point the way to a great deal of as yet unexplored potential — the careful consideration of the underlying presuppositions and beliefs which lie behind the discourses and actions that constitute the primary data of folk linguistics. What are the folk theories of language held by real people, and how can we extract them from their discourses and actions? In Folk Linguistics several approaches to acquiring and interpreting relevant data were catalogued, but I am all too aware, as Niedzielski and I confess in the last chapter of that work, that much of what we did could be called "ostensive discourse analysis." We acquired the discourses of real people about language, transcribed them, held them up to the view of the reader, and said what we thought they meant and how they contrasted and/or converged with the belief(s) of "real linguists." Except for some of the operational tasks which we assigned respondents, that procedure was our general plan, and I am not unhappy with it. I think the data reported in Folk Linguistics is still the
Nancy Niedzielski和我希望在《民间语言学》(Mouton de Gruyter,1999)一书中表明,从人种学、语言学和实践(或应用语言学)的角度来看,我们所称的“真人”(即非语言学家)对语言的信仰、反应和评论是有趣的、有启发性的和赋权的。我仍然相信这一点,并很高兴在文献和许多会议上看到其他人显然同意这一点。那么有什么新鲜事吗?从积极的方面来说,我相信《民间语言学》的最后一章已经并将继续为许多尚未探索的潜力指明道路——仔细考虑构成民间语言学主要数据的话语和行动背后的潜在前提和信念。真实的人所持有的民间语言理论是什么?我们如何从他们的话语和行动中提取这些理论?在《民间语言学》中,我们列举了几种获取和解释相关数据的方法,但正如Niedzielski和我在该著作的最后一章中所承认的那样,我非常清楚,我们所做的大部分工作可以被称为“明示话语分析”,并说出了我们认为他们的意思,以及他们是如何与“真正的语言学家”的信念形成对比和/或融合的。除了我们分配给受访者的一些操作任务外,这个程序是我们的总体计划,我对此并不不满。我认为《民间语言学》报道的数据仍然是