![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Fall 2014. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of British Columbia/Linguistics (Fall 2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
RM Dechaine (
talk)
05:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Below are the headings that we intend to use for this article.
Atonello ( talk) 22:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
The following are journal articles that will guide us in editing this Wiki in the near future.
Does anybody else have further information on Ewe? The paper I'm using only refers to cases in which an affix cliticizes, not the independent pronoun system. At the very least this seems to imply that Ewe will end up under two different sub-headings. Thoughts? FionaJEd ( talk) 22:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Overall, the article explains Logophoricity quite clearly, and is generally accessible to those without an extensive Linguistics background. Logophoricity seems to be something that is most clearly conveyed through examples, so a particular strength of this article so far is the extensive list of examples. There are some formatting issues, particularly with the text boxes, as well as some inconsistencies with citations (Harvard style seems to be mixed with Wikipedia’s style).
The beginning section seems a bit long, and goes into a bit too much detail for a beginning section. Perhaps some of it could be put into a new introduction or properties section. LewisHaas ( talk)
Great article! Could definitely use some consistency in citation linking and applying citations. Specifically in the introduction you cited Hagège, but did not link him to your references section. The article could also use more links to other Wikipedia articles, however you should not link one article multiple times. A “Also see” section is not good enough. There should be a lot more links to other articles, especially for an article that is very technical. Gelainamah ( talk) 04:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Overall, I think you have a great article! I think that the style is a bit too much like a scientific paper than a Wikipedia article though, so you could try rewording it a bit, and changing the type of citations you have, so that it reads more like and encyclopedia, and less like a scholarly article. Consider removing the direct reference from the text body, and changing them to the provided Wikipedia citation style. In examples, and when referring to parts of examples, consider bolding the key words, instead of italicizing them, as this makes them stand out more. And when say something like “in (1a)” make sure you say where (1a) is located- above/below, etc. Also, consider rewording this sentence (in the Logophoric Affixes section): “The language generally used to demonstrate logophoric verbal affixes is Gokana.” In an essay, this would be good leading into the next paragraph, but try something like: “Gokana, seen below...” OR “The following language, Gokana...”
It’s great that you have tree diagrams of some of your examples! If you could do some more for other examples, that would be even better. Also, add as many links to as many linguistics terms as you can, so that people who aren’t studying linguistics and find out what they mean by visiting these other pages. In the Abe examples, adding the full translation as the third line in your examples would make them just that much better. ChristianEpp ( talk) 01:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
The first section of Logophoric Typology is well cited the following sections are lacking citations. I've added citation needed tags where I think citations would be helpful, it's possible that adding certain citations will satisfy more than one citation needed tag. Jaxsun ( talk) 19:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I believe the section on Logophoric Affixes could be reworked to be more clear. Currently you have the Akɔɔse data in the lead section and separate section for Gokana section, I think it would read better if both languages had their own section. Additionally you appear to begin by talking about affixes for pronouns, then you proceed to attempt to contrast with affixes for verbs. However all the data use verbal affixing, which I found confusing as you try to point out contrasts which don't seem to appear in the data. Jaxsun ( talk) 19:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Several portions of the Logophoric typology section discuss how logophoricity can introduce ambiguity. However there is no isolated or dedicated discussion of logophoric ambiguity. I feel that gathering all the discussion of logophoric ambiguity into a single section would help strengthen the article. Jaxsun ( talk) 21:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Some of the data/grey boxes in the binding theory section spill off the page. I fixed this by closing the br tags. Jaxsun ( talk) 22:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
At several points throughout the article (nearly in every section) you redefine what it means to be a logophor (coreferent outside of discourse context/outside of sentence) I think it would be good to define it once and then reference it when you need to. Otherwise having subtly different definitions spread throughout the article can cause confusion. Jaxsun ( talk) 22:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
For the sake of transparency I will post my collected thoughts as submitted to the course below:
The article provides a strong empirical explanation of Logophoricity in a variety of languages and the brief historical introduction is appreciated. However I found certain parts of the article to be inconsistent and confusing, and several significant topics, such as the discussion of ambiguity, are spread throughout the article, I feel that centralizing these discussions would help with the readability of the article.
Although I believe that the majority of the analysis is not original research the article is often cited improperly. The lead section and the first section on Logophoric Typology is reasonably cited, however the sections which follow are almost universally uncited except for the data.
I believe the section on Logophoric Affixes could be reworked to be more clear. Currently the Akɔɔse data is in the lead section and there is a separate section for Gokana data, I think it would read better if both languages had their own sections. Additionally it begins by talking about affixes for pronouns, then proceeds to contrast with affixes for verbs. However all the data uses verbal affixing which I found confusing as the article attempts to point out contrasts which don't seem to appear in the data.
Several portions of the Logophoric typology section discuss how logophoricity can introduce ambiguity. However there is no isolated or dedicated discussion of logophoric ambiguity. I feel that gathering all the discussion of logophoric ambiguity into a single section would help strengthen the article.
At several points throughout the article (nearly in every section) it redefines what it means to be a logophor (eg. coreferent outside of discourse context/outside of sentence). I think it would be good to define it once and then reference it when you need to. Otherwise having subtly different definitions spread throughout the article can cause confusion.
Jaxsun ( talk) 01:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I've been through and made some changes for clarity, and inserted some citations. Hopefully most of the "citation needed" tags are satisfied, especially with supporting links to other articles for more clarification. Kndouglas ( talk) 02:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
There was a general revision in formatting so that examples are consistent in numbering and form. General editing has also improved readability, grammaticality, and consistency. FionaJEd ( talk) 07:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
The text has a number of Harvard references to Clements 1972, but the References section has only Clements 1975. Is this the wrong year, or is the intention to cite two works by Clements? -- Boson ( talk) 22:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
So it's possible that an additional citation got removed by mistake. The references seems to have been added by User:Atonello in a class project supervised by User talk:RM Dechaine, so perhaps one of them would like to comment. -- Boson ( talk) 13:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
We will soon be editing the existing article, as well as adding one additional language example and one additional analysis. Details to come later. For editing, we will focus on:
More to come later. Group0730018 ( talk) 18:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
We will be providing structural edits and adding new content to this page focused on Logophoricity, specifically the logophoric pronoun section. This is part of a course-based activity of a 3rd-year syntax course, and we anticipate having completed our edits by the end of December. We would appreciate any and all constructive comments and suggestions about how to improve the overall quality of this article. We will be adding material from French and the Northeast Caucasian language Avar as well as adding other content as needed. Content from Avar will be added to section 3.2.1 and French content will be added to a new section, 3.2.2, entitled Silent Logophoric Pronouns in French. If you have any issues, comments or suggestions please let us know. — Preceding JD+MP comment added by 23.16.171.171 ( talk) 03:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Fall 2014. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of British Columbia/Linguistics (Fall 2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
RM Dechaine (
talk)
05:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Below are the headings that we intend to use for this article.
Atonello ( talk) 22:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
The following are journal articles that will guide us in editing this Wiki in the near future.
Does anybody else have further information on Ewe? The paper I'm using only refers to cases in which an affix cliticizes, not the independent pronoun system. At the very least this seems to imply that Ewe will end up under two different sub-headings. Thoughts? FionaJEd ( talk) 22:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Overall, the article explains Logophoricity quite clearly, and is generally accessible to those without an extensive Linguistics background. Logophoricity seems to be something that is most clearly conveyed through examples, so a particular strength of this article so far is the extensive list of examples. There are some formatting issues, particularly with the text boxes, as well as some inconsistencies with citations (Harvard style seems to be mixed with Wikipedia’s style).
The beginning section seems a bit long, and goes into a bit too much detail for a beginning section. Perhaps some of it could be put into a new introduction or properties section. LewisHaas ( talk)
Great article! Could definitely use some consistency in citation linking and applying citations. Specifically in the introduction you cited Hagège, but did not link him to your references section. The article could also use more links to other Wikipedia articles, however you should not link one article multiple times. A “Also see” section is not good enough. There should be a lot more links to other articles, especially for an article that is very technical. Gelainamah ( talk) 04:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Overall, I think you have a great article! I think that the style is a bit too much like a scientific paper than a Wikipedia article though, so you could try rewording it a bit, and changing the type of citations you have, so that it reads more like and encyclopedia, and less like a scholarly article. Consider removing the direct reference from the text body, and changing them to the provided Wikipedia citation style. In examples, and when referring to parts of examples, consider bolding the key words, instead of italicizing them, as this makes them stand out more. And when say something like “in (1a)” make sure you say where (1a) is located- above/below, etc. Also, consider rewording this sentence (in the Logophoric Affixes section): “The language generally used to demonstrate logophoric verbal affixes is Gokana.” In an essay, this would be good leading into the next paragraph, but try something like: “Gokana, seen below...” OR “The following language, Gokana...”
It’s great that you have tree diagrams of some of your examples! If you could do some more for other examples, that would be even better. Also, add as many links to as many linguistics terms as you can, so that people who aren’t studying linguistics and find out what they mean by visiting these other pages. In the Abe examples, adding the full translation as the third line in your examples would make them just that much better. ChristianEpp ( talk) 01:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
The first section of Logophoric Typology is well cited the following sections are lacking citations. I've added citation needed tags where I think citations would be helpful, it's possible that adding certain citations will satisfy more than one citation needed tag. Jaxsun ( talk) 19:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I believe the section on Logophoric Affixes could be reworked to be more clear. Currently you have the Akɔɔse data in the lead section and separate section for Gokana section, I think it would read better if both languages had their own section. Additionally you appear to begin by talking about affixes for pronouns, then you proceed to attempt to contrast with affixes for verbs. However all the data use verbal affixing, which I found confusing as you try to point out contrasts which don't seem to appear in the data. Jaxsun ( talk) 19:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Several portions of the Logophoric typology section discuss how logophoricity can introduce ambiguity. However there is no isolated or dedicated discussion of logophoric ambiguity. I feel that gathering all the discussion of logophoric ambiguity into a single section would help strengthen the article. Jaxsun ( talk) 21:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Some of the data/grey boxes in the binding theory section spill off the page. I fixed this by closing the br tags. Jaxsun ( talk) 22:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
At several points throughout the article (nearly in every section) you redefine what it means to be a logophor (coreferent outside of discourse context/outside of sentence) I think it would be good to define it once and then reference it when you need to. Otherwise having subtly different definitions spread throughout the article can cause confusion. Jaxsun ( talk) 22:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
For the sake of transparency I will post my collected thoughts as submitted to the course below:
The article provides a strong empirical explanation of Logophoricity in a variety of languages and the brief historical introduction is appreciated. However I found certain parts of the article to be inconsistent and confusing, and several significant topics, such as the discussion of ambiguity, are spread throughout the article, I feel that centralizing these discussions would help with the readability of the article.
Although I believe that the majority of the analysis is not original research the article is often cited improperly. The lead section and the first section on Logophoric Typology is reasonably cited, however the sections which follow are almost universally uncited except for the data.
I believe the section on Logophoric Affixes could be reworked to be more clear. Currently the Akɔɔse data is in the lead section and there is a separate section for Gokana data, I think it would read better if both languages had their own sections. Additionally it begins by talking about affixes for pronouns, then proceeds to contrast with affixes for verbs. However all the data uses verbal affixing which I found confusing as the article attempts to point out contrasts which don't seem to appear in the data.
Several portions of the Logophoric typology section discuss how logophoricity can introduce ambiguity. However there is no isolated or dedicated discussion of logophoric ambiguity. I feel that gathering all the discussion of logophoric ambiguity into a single section would help strengthen the article.
At several points throughout the article (nearly in every section) it redefines what it means to be a logophor (eg. coreferent outside of discourse context/outside of sentence). I think it would be good to define it once and then reference it when you need to. Otherwise having subtly different definitions spread throughout the article can cause confusion.
Jaxsun ( talk) 01:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I've been through and made some changes for clarity, and inserted some citations. Hopefully most of the "citation needed" tags are satisfied, especially with supporting links to other articles for more clarification. Kndouglas ( talk) 02:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
There was a general revision in formatting so that examples are consistent in numbering and form. General editing has also improved readability, grammaticality, and consistency. FionaJEd ( talk) 07:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
The text has a number of Harvard references to Clements 1972, but the References section has only Clements 1975. Is this the wrong year, or is the intention to cite two works by Clements? -- Boson ( talk) 22:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
So it's possible that an additional citation got removed by mistake. The references seems to have been added by User:Atonello in a class project supervised by User talk:RM Dechaine, so perhaps one of them would like to comment. -- Boson ( talk) 13:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
We will soon be editing the existing article, as well as adding one additional language example and one additional analysis. Details to come later. For editing, we will focus on:
More to come later. Group0730018 ( talk) 18:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
We will be providing structural edits and adding new content to this page focused on Logophoricity, specifically the logophoric pronoun section. This is part of a course-based activity of a 3rd-year syntax course, and we anticipate having completed our edits by the end of December. We would appreciate any and all constructive comments and suggestions about how to improve the overall quality of this article. We will be adding material from French and the Northeast Caucasian language Avar as well as adding other content as needed. Content from Avar will be added to section 3.2.1 and French content will be added to a new section, 3.2.2, entitled Silent Logophoric Pronouns in French. If you have any issues, comments or suggestions please let us know. — Preceding JD+MP comment added by 23.16.171.171 ( talk) 03:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)