Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cognitive approaches to grammar

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. given consensus, improvements to article and the nominator's withdrawal of nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive approaches to grammar

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

has been tagged as possible original research for a long time Chidgk1 (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - thanks for improving Chidgk1 (talk) 08:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Biology. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Unsourced, but Gscholar turns up several uses of the term. I'd TNT this if someone wants to do a rewrite. It's been tagged for a decade now. Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is subject to the same ambiguities handled in the article on Cognitive linguistics, which it alternatively could redirect to. It's not adding anything beyond explicating what cognitive and grammar can mean. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 12:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is essentially five "See also"s (generative grammar, cognitive linguistics, construction grammar, cognitive grammar, and word grammar, by order of appearance); the understandable assertion The basic claim here is that grammar is conceptualization (emphasis original); and the less understandable statement an autonomous mental faculty that it is governed by mental processes operating on mental representations of different kinds of symbols that apply only within this faculty (confusion added).
I think our best course of action might be to ~~Navboxify or Categorify and Soft delete the article~~ Keep per User:Uncle G below. One inbound link, from Cognitive grammar. Folly Mox (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC) Switched 04:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, find references, rewrite, and expand. It is a notable topic though the article needs considerable work. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 07:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without sources, this is just personal reflection. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not personal reflection, JzG. Bookworm857158367 is right, and Oaktree b's TNT isn't even necessary.
Interestingly, it is close to what a couple of Routledge encyclopaedias, which I just checked, say about the subject. The problem here is that this started off in 2005 as rubbish, got edited to counter the rubbish a fortnight after its creation, and has been largely untouched, apart from removing the what-this-article-used-to-say-is-wrong part, in the 18 years since.
It's a fairly obscure and technical linguistics subject; and, sadly, the only editor who apparently knew anything at all about the subject was 130.88.187.141 (talk · contribs) who hasn't edited Wikipedia since 2005. Xe is the one who added the text that aligns with what the Routledge encyclopaedias have to say.
Evans 2010a, p. 47 and Newby 2013, p. 625 show where to go with this subject, and Broccias 2008, which covers Langacker's cognitive grammar as just one of its three models, shows how deep the subject goes. (Yes Folly Mox, professor Broccias also covers Goldberg's and Croft's construction grammar so this article is right to link to them.) This really needs expert attention, but it isn't random rubbish, and hasn't been since 2005; and there (very clearly!) is scope for a lot of expansion. As a remarkably on-point example of how an encyclopaedia can be expanded on this subject, Vyvyan Evans, author of the first aforementioned Routledge encyclopaedia article, expanded it to book length (Evans 2010b), and cognitive approaches to grammar is the whole of part 3, chapters 14 to 21.
I wonder who it was, 18 years ago at the University of Manchester, that set this article on the right path.
Uncle G (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Evans, Vyvyan (2010). "Cognitive Linguistics". In Cummings, Louise (ed.). The Routledge Pragmatics Encyclopedia. Routledge. ISBN 9781135214579. Cognitive linguistic practice can be divided into two main areas: cognitive semantics and cognitive (approaches to) grammar.
- Newby, David (2013). "Pedagogical grammar". In Byram, Michael; Hu, Adelheid (eds.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning (2 ed.). Routledge. ISBN 9781136235542.
- Broccias, Cristiano (2008). "Cognitive approaches to grammar". In Kristiansen, Gitte; Achard, Michel; Dirven, René; Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco J. (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives. Applications of Cognitive Linguistics [ACL]. Vol. 1. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 9783110197761.
- Evans, Vyvyan; Green, Melanie (2018). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Routledge. ISBN 9781317954354.
- You have not really touched on how it relates to the article Cognitive linguistics, which is explicitly the subject of the Evans 2010-article, and the book of the Broccias-article. The articles you mention seem to cover a lot of what is already in the Cognitive linguistics-article, to the point that I think any expansion should happen there (hency a redirect vote). In any case, they should make it able to at least somewhat distinguish these two articles from each other. Do the sources you mention support the text of Cognitive approaches to grammar stating that Chomsky's generative grammar is such an approach? Note that Cognitive grammar is the only article that links to Cognitive approaches to grammar. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 11:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - The quote from Evans 2010a should have made this amply clear, as well as what I said about the way that Evans 2010b is structured. This is one of the two main areas of cognitive linguistics, Vyvyan Evans outright tells you. Uncle G (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of suggesting a redirect to cognitive grammar, but the new sources from Uncle G bring me over to keep, though without prejudice to any editorial shuffling around of the content that people might think appropriate. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I think there is a rough consensus to Keep this article but I'm reluctant to close a discussion as Keep that relies on some hypothetical editor at some point in time improving this article. Is anyone volunteering? If not, and this article was Redirected, what would the target article be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as an uninvolved editor reading through what has been said above, there certainly seems to be a strong case for this article to exist (though it's current quality is perhaps not the best). Keep the tag up for maintenance and we can see if anyone knowledgeable in the subject comes by to improve the article. Styx (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the tags have been up since 2009 - how much longer should we wait and see if anyone knowledgeable in the subject comes by to improve the article? Chidgk1 (talk) 05:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit tonight. Will work on it tomorrow. Styx (talk) 06:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I withdraw request - not sure how to close this technically Chidgk1 (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately with other delete recommendations it mustn't be technically closed yet. But the closer will take your withdrawal as a recommendation to keep. —siro χ o 08:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NEXIST —siro χ o 08:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.