The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Do non-linguists practice linguistics?: An anti-eliminative approach to folk theories
Abstract
This contribution discusses two issues: (a) it provides a definition and an analysis of the term “non-linguist“, which is conceptualized as a non-discrete category on a continuum and as an activity rather than as a permanent status, and (b) it discusses the general value of folk linguistic theories, which should not, despite their potential imperfections, be a priori excluded from but rather integrated into the scientific data of linguistics. The article will also present a provisional typology of folk linguistic positions based on recent empirical research on folk linguistics conducted by the author. Finally, a plea is made for a new description of the object of linguistics, incorporating the different varieties and degrees of linguistic knowledge ranging from scientific to folk conceptions.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“But this category of 'casual reader' might include an extremely wide range of people involved in the production, mediation and reception of political discourse, including, for example, political orators, speechwriters, government information officer, journalists, various audiences among the public (Paveau, 2011).”
From The Ministry of Information and the linguistic design of Britain’s World War II propaganda: What archival documents can tell us about political discourse (2020) · cites this paper as Paveau, 2011
Citations
Cited by
Spencer-Bennett, J. (2020) · Discourse & Society · doi:10.1177/0957926519889125 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Paveau, M.-A.
- Venue
- AILA Review
- Publisher
- John Benjamins Publishing Company
- Published
- 2011-12-21
- Volume
- 24
- Pages
- 40-54
- ISSN
- 1461-0213
- 1570-5595
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Do non-linguists practice linguistics?: An anti-eliminative approach to folk theories. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1075/aila.24.03pav
- The paper
- Paveau, M.-A. (2011). Do non-linguists practice linguistics?: An anti-eliminative approach to folk theories. AILA Review. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.24.03pav
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
