imported>Chunbum Park |
imported>John Stephenson |
| (159 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| == '''[[Linguistics]]''' ==
| | {{:{{FeaturedArticleTitle}}}} |
| ''by [[User:James F. Perry|James F. Perry]] <small>(and [[User:Charles Sandberg|Charles Sandberg]], [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] and [[User:David Boven|David Boven]])</small>''
| | <small> |
| ----
| | ==Footnotes== |
| [[Image:Spoken-language-naples.jpg|right|thumb|175px|{{#ifexist:Template:Spoken-language-naples.jpg/credit|{{Spoken-language-naples.jpg/credit}}<br/>|}}Language is arguably what most obviously distinguishes humans from all other species. Linguistics involves the study of that system of communication underlying everyday scenes like this.]]
| |
| '''[[Linguistics]]''' is the scientific study of language. Its primary goal is to learn about the 'natural' language that humans use every day and how it works. Linguists ask such fundamental questions as: What aspects of language are universal for all humans? How can we account for the remarkable grammatical similarities between languages as apparently diverse as English, Japanese and Arabic? What are the rules of grammar that we language users employ, and how do we come to 'know' them? To what extent is the structure of language related to how we think about the world around us? A ''linguist'', then, here refers to a linguistics expert who seeks to answer such questions, rather than someone who is multilingual.
| |
| | |
| ''Theoretical'' linguists are concerned with questions about the apparent human 'instinct' to communicate,<ref>The view that language is an 'instinct' comparable to walking or bird song is most famously articulated in Pinker (1994).</ref> rather than authorising 'rules' of style or 'correctness' as found in grammar textbooks or popular guides.<ref>A popular recent example is Truss (2003).</ref> For example, *''dog the''<ref>An asterisk (*) indicates that what follows is unacceptable to speakers of that language.</ref> is unacceptable in English, but children recognise as much long before they receive any formal grammatical instruction. It is such recognitions, and the implicit rules they imply, that are of primary concern in linguistics, as opposed to rules as prescribed by an authority.
| |
| | |
| Although interesting in its own right as one of the directions we follow to learn more about ourselves and the world around us, the study of linguistics is also highly relevant to solving real-life problems. ''Applied'' linguists may bring their insights to such fields as foreign language teaching, speech therapy and translation.<ref>Increasingly, however, applied linguists have been developing their own views of language, which often focus on the language learner rather than the system itself: see for example Cook (2002) and the same author's [http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/SLA website].</ref> While in universities and research institutions worldwide, scholars are studying the facts of individual languages or the system of language itself to find evidence for theories or test hypotheses, applied linguists are at work in classrooms, clinics, courts and the highest levels of government. They use their knowledge to bridge linguistic divides, coax speech from the mouths of the disabled or abused, supply forensic evidence in courtroom trials, find out how language comes to children - in fact, they are everywhere people in need or in conflict over language are to be found.
| |
| | |
| In virtue of the fact stated in the first paragraph, that the primary goal of linguistics "is to learn about the 'natural' language that humans use every day and how it works", we recognize that core areas of linguistics qualify as biological science, a recognition reinforced by the kinds of questions studiers of linguistics ask and seek answers to, detailed in that first and the succeeding two paragraphs.<ref name=bioling>Di Sciullo AM, Boeckx C. (editors) (2011) ''The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty''. Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0199553270. | [http://books.google.com/books?id=aHbNVjpvqU4C&source=gbs_navlinks_s Google Books preview].</ref>
| |
| | |
| ''[[Linguistics|.... (read more)]]''
| |
| | |
| {| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" style="width: 90%; float: center; margin: 0.5em 1em 0.8em 0px;"
| |
| |-
| |
| ! style="text-align: center;" | [[Linguistics#Footnotes|notes]]
| |
| |-
| |
| |
| |
| {{reflist|2}} | | {{reflist|2}} |
| |}
| | </small> |
Latest revision as of 09:19, 11 September 2020
The Mathare Valley slum near Nairobi, Kenya, in 2009.
Poverty is deprivation based on lack of material resources. The concept is value-based and political. Hence its definition, causes and remedies (and the possibility of remedies) are highly contentious.[1] The word poverty may also be used figuratively to indicate a lack, instead of material goods or money, of any kind of quality, as in a poverty of imagination.
Definitions
Primary and secondary poverty
The use of the terms primary and secondary poverty dates back to Seebohm Rowntree, who conducted the second British survey to calculate the extent of poverty. This was carried out in York and was published in 1899. He defined primary poverty as having insufficient income to “obtain the minimum necessaries for the maintenance of merely physical efficiency”. In secondary poverty, the income “would be sufficient for the maintenance of merely physical efficiency were it not that some portion of it is absorbed by some other expenditure.” Even with these rigorous criteria he found that 9.9% of the population was in primary poverty and a further 17.9% in secondary.[2]
Absolute and comparative poverty
More recent definitions tend to use the terms absolute and comparative poverty. Absolute is in line with Rowntree's primary poverty, but comparative poverty is usually expressed in terms of ability to play a part in the society in which a person lives. Comparative poverty will thus vary from one country to another.[3] The difficulty of definition is illustrated by the fact that a recession can actually reduce "poverty".
Causes of poverty
The causes of poverty most often considered are:
- Character defects
- An established “culture of poverty”, with low expectations handed down from one generation to another
- Unemployment
- Irregular employment, and/or low pay
- Position in the life cycle (see below) and household size
- Disability
- Structural inequality, both within countries and between countries. (R H Tawney: “What thoughtful rich people call the problem of poverty, thoughtful poor people call with equal justice a problem of riches”)[4]
As noted above, most of these, or the extent to which they can be, or should be changed, are matters of heated controversy.
- ↑ Alcock, P. Understanding poverty. Macmillan. 1997. ch 1.
- ↑ Harris, B. The origins of the British welfare state. Palgrave Macmillan. 2004. Also, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
- ↑ Alcock, Pt II
- ↑ Alcock, Preface to 1st edition and pt III.
