Talk:Sociolinguistic features

From Apics

So, I finally get to say my two cents on this matter - and I have cooled down since the last workshop :-). While I think the addition to the database of sociolinguistic information is fine, I am opposed to them being treated as FEATURES in a project called Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures. I might be the only one with this kind of chip on my shoulder, but I see the inclusion of the sociolinguistic aspects as FEATURES as a perpetuation of the (misguided) feeling in the general field of linguistics that all Creolists are sociolinguists, and one cannot do Creolistics without doing sociolinguistics. As to whether doing Creole studies with or without sociolinguistics is a good or bad thing, I think is beside the point. And no, I am not anti-sociolinguistics. In fact, I like the sub-field!

That said, I am in full agreement that the sociolinguistic questions should be added, probably in a section of the questionnaire designated as LANGUAGE PROFILE. I would support the idea of making them searchable, allowing maps to be created from them, and allowing combination searches to be conducted between them and the structural features. Anything but call them FEATURES!! It sounds like a minor point but I think it has wider ramifications. --Jtfarquharson 15:43, 28 March 2007 (CEST)

As I see it, the main point of the "sociolinguistic features" is to gather a few select data on sociolinguistic properties of the languages that are easily comparable -- precisely in order to "make them searchable, allow maps to be created from them, and allow combination searches to be conducted between them and the structural features". That is, to do the exact analog of what we are mostly doing for structural information for sociolinguistic information as well, only on a MUCH smaller scale and with much less ambition. There seems to be a broad consensus on this. We have chosen the term "features" (rather than other imaginable terms such as "properties", "variables", "characters", "parameters") for structural information, so the obvious choice for sociolinguistic information is "features" as well. I don't see what this terminological choice has to do with the misconception that all creolists are sociolinguists. --Haspelmath 17:00, 28 March 2007 (CEST)

I must admit that it is not EASY to "see what this terminological choice has to do with the misconception that all creolists are sociolinguists", especially when one is not familiar with the "history of the idea", but I think it is one which should be avoided at all possible costs. For those who know better, correct me if I am wrong, but I am sure that at the universities where most people involved in this project work, they are by default considered as sociolinguists. That is a category I would rather not be pigeon-holed into. --Jtfarquharson 17:16, 28 March 2007 (CEST)