Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Education & ReferenceOther - Education · 2 months ago

Can a great mathematician be a poor linguist?

I mean i find linguistics a lot easier than mathematics, statistics and anything that is related to numbers. It's as though i have an innate aptitude for languages and pick  their nuances without even trying as opposed to Physics, Chemistry and Math in which i struggle, but its partially because i was fearful of those subjects. I am working on getting rid of that fear and i am starting to find those subjects relatively easier now. I always loved subjects like English, Hindi, and History and hated Math, Physics and Chemistry. I study philosophy as a hobby which is said to be harder than Math and science but i found it be way easier than subjects entailing quantitative ability. 

Are there people that who are opposites of me in a sense that they find Math easy but linguistics difficult? 

1 Answer

Relevance
  • 2 months ago

    A peruser messaged me a fascinating inquiry that merits giving a more extensive crowd to:

    It almost made meextremely upset to hear that maths might be a necessary thing in phonetics, maths has pulled me back from a couple of chances in the past before semantics, I'd been keen on designing, sea life science, and so on I was simply contemplating whether there was any work around, whatever would assist me with semantics that didn't need maths. Just. any exhortation whatsoever, for getting into the field of etymology with something as disturbing as dyscalculia.

    The peruser makes a valid statement I hadn't pondered. I recall my phonetics educator revealing to us that she regularly selected understudies into etymology by disclosing to them that it's one of only a handful few fields that show non-numerical information investigation. That was something that engaged me.

    I'm inexperienced with dyscalculia so I can't address how it impacts the investigation of phonetics straightforwardly. However, even language specialists who don't see themselves as "doing math" frequently still are, as muddled estimations and such, as in phonetics and psycholinguistics. For the most part however, I believe that there are as yet numerous occasions to do non-numerical phonetics, particularly in fields like sociolinguistics, language strategy, and language documentation. Let us not fail to remember that by far most of the world's dialects stay undocumented so we need a multitude of etymologists to work with speakers the world over to record, examine, and portray the vocabularies, syntaxes, and sound frameworks of those dialects. We likewise need to see better youngster language obtaining, slang, even minded surmisings, and a large group of other profoundly significant semantic issues. It actually requires a great deal of classic, non-numerical semantics abilities to examine those themes.

    Lamentably, those are woefully come up short on aptitudes also. One reason math is assuming control over etymology is basic financial aspects: that is the place where the cash is. Both the employment market and the exploration award market are moving intensely towards quantitative abilities and devices, paying little mind to the control. That is only a reality we as a whole need to manage. I didn't go to graduate school to work at IBM. That is exactly where the employment is. I was unable to get employed at a college to spare my life at the present time, yet I can make twice what an educator makes at IBM. So here I am (don't misunderstand me. I have the fortunate situation of getting paid well to take a shot at genuine language issues, so I ain't griping).

    Progressively, the estimation of enlightening etymological aptitudes is in the making of corpora that can be prepared naturally with apparatuses like AntConc and such. You can do a ton of corpus etymologists these days without express math on the grounds that the product does a ton of the work for you. In any case, you will in any case need to comprehend the fundamental number related ideas (like why genuine "catchphrases" are not just recurrence look). For subtleties, I can enthusiastically suggest Lancaster University's MOOC "Corpus semantics: technique, examination, translation" (it's free and online at the present time)

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.