How are Phd linguistics classes like? e.g. a phonology, syntax, semantics, or pragmatics class. What happens in one of its typical lectures?

[mq1]

As the question stated. So Is it for example like a professor comes in discuss an article that the students already read or is it like each student has to present on one of the articles and then the class discusses that article? I have heard of something called round table, what is a round table? Students set at a round table in class and then start discussing an article or something? Please tell me comprehensively, Tell me every thing you know. I really appreciate it and thanks a million in advance. This will help deciding going for a Phd in linguistics or not. Again I am thankful a lot.

Take care

MQ1

[ladyling]

It very much depends on the program and on the class. In my program, we have a structured set of classes we take our first year. The 'A' classes are focused on problem sets--we complete a problem set as homework (usually working together) then come in and develop our theory of the phenomenon at hand. Sometimes we agree about an analysis and sometimes not, but class is spent working through the implications on our theory. 'B' classes are a bridge between 'A' classes and seminars. They involve more reading and fewer problem sets, but the discussion tends to be highly structured. Students are responsible for several presentations throughout the course, both of their own work and the work of others. When they present a paper, they are expected to lead discussion. 'C' classes are sometimes treated like 'B' classes and sometimes like seminars. Seminars have all the features of a 'B' class, but the content of discussion tends to vary a bit more. Typically, the class is developing an understanding of a narrow topic in the field together. Whereas 'A' and 'B' classes introduce you to fairly standard, mainstream theories, seminars involve deeper exploration into a topic. We tend to read the seminal papers in the first week or two, then move to newer articles. We're more likely, too, to read articles that present opposing analyses. I've only had one class so far that didn't require a substantial paper at the end of the course. Usually these are squibs, but sometimes they're lit reviews and sometimes they're expected to be a bit more polished.

[mq1]

I

It very much depends on the program and on the class. In my program, we have a structured set of classes we take our first year. The 'A' classes are focused on problem sets--we complete a problem set as homework (usually working together) then come in and develop our theory of the phenomenon at hand. Sometimes we agree about an analysis and sometimes not, but class is spent working through the implications on our theory. 'B' classes are a bridge between 'A' classes and seminars. They involve more reading and fewer problem sets, but the discussion tends to be highly structured. Students are responsible for several presentations throughout the course, both of their own work and the work of others. When they present a paper, they are expected to lead discussion. 'C' classes are sometimes treated like 'B' classes and sometimes like seminars. Seminars have all the features of a 'B' class, but the content of discussion tends to vary a bit more. Typically, the class is developing an understanding of a narrow topic in the field together. Whereas 'A' and 'B' classes introduce you to fairly standard, mainstream theories, seminars involve deeper exploration into a topic. We tend to read the seminal papers in the first week or two, then move to newer articles. We're more likely, too, to read articles that present opposing analyses. I've only had one class so far that didn't require a substantial paper at the end of the course. Usually these are squibs, but sometimes they're lit reviews and sometimes they're expected to be a bit more polished.

I am grateful. This helped a lot

[fuzzylogician]

In my program, first year classes come in a sequence of two: Intro to X in the Fall, Advanced X in the Spring (X = syntax, semantics, phonology). Usually there is also a TA who gives a recitation and/or helps with assignments. The structure and content of the course depends on the professor but generally it's designed to cover all the material that students should know as a basis for being a working linguist. In phonology, in my year they did OT in the fall (basics, features, stress, tone), cyclic derivations in the spring. In semantics they tend to do extensional semantics in the fall, intensional semantics in the spring. In syntax, a rough description is A-movement phenomena in the fall, A'-phenomena in the spring. Professors usually come with a handout with the material they want to discuss. Students have assigned reading. Topics come up based on the handout and the discussion goes where it goes. We discuss datasets that are famous examples for prominent theories of different phenomena, and often we bring up other datasets or concerns that the theory needs to deal with. So basically we learn how the theory was developed and we often learn where its limitations are. In the fall there are assignments in each class almost every week. It's a very fast pace. Usually assignments contain datasets that are derived from published papers or books and they ask you to implement an analysis you learned on the data, deal with problems and solve them; or they just ask you to develop a theory of the data - come up with generalizations, explain exceptions, etc. In the spring there are less assignments, and more time is devoted to beginning some independent research. Classes usually require a squib in addition to assignments, and students are required to present something - their squib topic or a paper - in each class.

[mq1]

In my program, first year classes come in a sequence of two: Intro to X in the Fall, Advanced X in the Spring (X = syntax, semantics, phonology). Usually there is also a TA who gives a recitation and/or helps with assignments. The structure and content of the course depends on the professor but generally it's designed to cover all the material that students should know as a basis for being a working linguist. In phonology, in my year they did OT in the fall (basics, features, stress, tone), cyclic derivations in the spring. In semantics they tend to do extensional semantics in the fall, intensional semantics in the spring. In syntax, a rough description is A-movement phenomena in the fall, A'-phenomena in the spring. Professors usually come with a handout with the material they want to discuss. Students have assigned reading. Topics come up based on the handout and the discussion goes where it goes. We discuss datasets that are famous examples for prominent theories of different phenomena, and often we bring up other datasets or concerns that the theory needs to deal with. So basically we learn how the theory was developed and we often learn where its limitations are. In the fall there are assignments in each class almost every week. It's a very fast pace. Usually assignments contain datasets that are derived from published papers or books and they ask you to implement an analysis you learned on the data, deal with problems and solve them; or they just ask you to develop a theory of the data - come up with generalizations, explain exceptions, etc. In the spring there are less assignments, and more time is devoted to beginning some independent research. Classes usually require a squib in addition to assignments, and students are required to present something - their squib topic or a paper - in each class.

Sweet

But did you have an MA in Linguistics before you go for a Phd in linguistics?

Thanks a million

[mq1]

It very much depends on the program and on the class. In my program, we have a structured set of classes we take our first year. The 'A' classes are focused on problem sets--we complete a problem set as homework (usually working together) then come in and develop our theory of the phenomenon at hand. Sometimes we agree about an analysis and sometimes not, but class is spent working through the implications on our theory. 'B' classes are a bridge between 'A' classes and seminars. They involve more reading and fewer problem sets, but the discussion tends to be highly structured. Students are responsible for several presentations throughout the course, both of their own work and the work of others. When they present a paper, they are expected to lead discussion. 'C' classes are sometimes treated like 'B' classes and sometimes like seminars. Seminars have all the features of a 'B' class, but the content of discussion tends to vary a bit more. Typically, the class is developing an understanding of a narrow topic in the field together. Whereas 'A' and 'B' classes introduce you to fairly standard, mainstream theories, seminars involve deeper exploration into a topic. We tend to read the seminal papers in the first week or two, then move to newer articles. We're more likely, too, to read articles that present opposing analyses. I've only had one class so far that didn't require a substantial paper at the end of the course. Usually these are squibs, but sometimes they're lit reviews and sometimes they're expected to be a bit more polished.

What about the Lady of all Ladies

Did you have an MA in linguistics before you start your Phd in Linguistics program?

Thanks a million

[ladyling]

I'm not sure I understand your first question, but as for the second, yes, I did get an MA before entering my PhD program. That's a bit unusual in my department, though, and I think my MA program was probably a bit different from most. It was more of what I'd call a bridge program: meant for those with limited undergraduate exposure to the field.

[mq1]

I'm not sure I understand your first question, but as for the second, yes, I did get an MA before entering my PhD program. That's a bit unusual in my department, though, and I think my MA program was probably a bit different from most. It was more of what I'd call a bridge program: meant for those with limited undergraduate exposure to the field.

The first was not a question. It was a compliment to you.

Thanks a billion

[ladyling]

Oh, well, thank you!

[fuzzylogician]

Sweet

But did you have an MA in Linguistics before you go for a Phd in linguistics?

Thanks a million

I have a BA in linguistics. I started my MA but never finished it because I got accepted into MIT midway through.