Everything is different in each university throughout the land, but from what I have found, in humanities, at least, the supervisor selects the applicant and not the other way round.

Hi Nimrod,
I work in linguistics and use lots of foreign-language sources and quotes. I quote in the original language and then footnote a translation, for instance: My translation: XXX. This means that readers can locate the original easily and can reflect on it with the trans, which is furthermore appropriate with semantically sensitive material. This is the norm in my dept, but maybe others can feed into this.

That's an interesting point, sue. I wouldn't say linguistic evolution occurs through mistakes, because mistakes are irregular slips. I would probably call it variation where a word's meaning changes over time - take the semantic development of 'gay', for instance. Language change is an interesting concept, especially in English where there are so many varieties.

Shani's very right, especially with the German spelling reform and with France's Académie Francaise. However, l'Académie Francaise isn't regarded with as much respect as it used to be and sees language variation from a purist's perpective, whereas with English we could say we have a much more tolerant interventionist approach to change.

Today's dictionaries are composed from corpora totaling millions of words taken from everyday language use (eg spoken/written language, journalism, ephemera)in an attempt to represent modern English. This means that although some expressions may seem wrong, the modern dictionary's aim it to characterise the language as it is. Lexicographers are now descriptive as opposed to prescriptive. They are very wary of deeming a form as wrong. Prescriptive grammars (eg The King's English) document how language should be used.

I agree with what you say and I am astounded to learn that in a matter of years 'I would have eaten' is likely to be replaced by 'I would of eaten' due to current usage.

I hope that's a little clearer.

I'm doing my lit. review too, so this has been quite interesting to follow. But, there is something my supervisor has written which is weak and subsequently questionnable. What do you think about commenting on your supervisor's work from a negative perspective?

I always find it amusing that when you receive an email from the supervisor, they expect a prompt reply. Often within 24hrs. However, when you email them, any reply within less than a week in unreasonable!

Thanks for the replies. From what I understand it's that it was assumed/hoped that I would stay. However, I haven't said that I would stay. Their reasons are rather weak, being that I'm better staying in a smaller dept working with people I know. Personally, I'd rather meet new people and do different things in a bigger dept. My mind's already made up to be honest. I just don't think it's very professional to be telling students that they should stay without concrete reasons.

Hi everyone!

Got a problem: I'm going to do a PhD at a different university from my BA and MA, but my dept. is really against me going. I've had nothing put positive remarks and encouragement from my prospective university. My current dept. keeps telling me what a mistake I'm making, and has produced reasons why I shouldn't go. I'm finding this really unfair and it feels like I'm being bullied into staying against my will. The decision not to stay has been on my mind since Septmeber.

Anybody got any advice or pointers?

I was in your exact situation lasy year! I was completing my undergrad and was planning to proceed straight to a PhD in European linguisitcs. I had the full support of my supervisor and she was really keen. I was getting caught up in her enthusiasm before I knew what was going on.

Just be careful and be aware that it is expected to have an MA in the humanities before a PhD. I'm doing an MA now and I think that going straight to the PhD would have missed a vital step. I'm applying to start a PhD in September.

Good luck!

And this isn't the first time ancient posts have been dug up...

I've read 'The Unwritten Rules of PhD Research'. I found it really interesting and quite witty too. It mentions various aspects of a PhD such as conferences, supervisors, writing, reading etc. I've found it really useful. It's a general book, which is good for those people (like me) who are not scientists!