Welcome to Factonista.org

Factonista is an online freethought advocacy organization that relies on its users for content. Through international broad-based collaboration with its users, and other groups and organizations, it strives to provide timely and comprehensive news, views, reviews, and creative multimedia on issues at the forefront of everything under the umbrella of freethought

Not a member? Register | Lost your password?
Hi and welcome to Factonista. Please keep in mind we're still in BETA. We'll be fully functional very very soon. In the mean while feel free to browse around, read our articles, and participate in our discussions. If you note any bugs and feel like helping us out, forward a quick message to us here. Thanks! [close]

Posts Tagged ‘language’

The life of a language

Sunday, November 30th, 2008

Isn’t it amazing how language perpetuates itself? We tend to look at the world as a set of tangible objects interacting with each other. But there is so much more going on around us. A language exists like a creature, modifying itself through centuries and individuals, often going through natural selection, sometimes being conquered and sometimes even dying, all without our notice. It is estimated today that 50% of languages in the world are on the verge of extinction. That just shows you what a mono-culture we are headed towards.

Context speaks louder than words. The average English speaking adult has a vocabulary of about 40,000 – 60,000 words. The more verbose English speaker can reach about 80,000. But how do we reach these staggering numbers? By no means have any of us looked in a dictionary that many times. Neither do we use thesauruses or wikipedia to learn that many new words. When learning language for the first time, human babies start with about 10 or so words. In a week, they will know hundreds. Of course this is not so clear while actually interacting with a child, but given the limited control they have over their tongue and larynx, several of the words they utter are hidden in their subtle babbles. If you bring in pantomime into the picture, the numbers become even more amazing.

Let’s go into a thought experiment then: let’s consider the world from the point of view of a language.

However they are born (if anyone knows, please tell me), languages are always changing. Any already existing phoneme can undergo a number of morphs. The most common ones occur because of a lack of the tongue’s ability to keep up. If your currently extant ‘noise articulation’ set is very different from a newly imported sound, your tongue will look for a way to minimize that Human vocal tractnew sound – to save the time and effort of going in another direction. ‘Flapping’ is an example of this. It is often associated with the North American accent, for example, over the phoneme ‘t-h’. Usually, to produce the ‘t’ sound, our tongue lines up with the top of our upper teeth, and waits their until enough air-pressure builds up behind it to cause it to ‘pop’. That pop sound is the sound of the letter ‘t’. As you can imagine, in terms of time invested, this is a taxing consonant to produce. So in saving time and energy, the tongue creates a kind of a pseudo-pronunciation of it. As an example, look at the word ‘impor-t-ant’. The North American accent skips over the first t, roughly pronouncing the word ‘impor-ay-ant’. The ‘ay’ is appended with a soft ‘pop’ similar to a ‘t’. The proper British accent on the other hand, goes through the trouble of actually stressing the ‘t’. But that is probably only because those are the prominent sounds in those accents.

But as you approach the ‘Southern’ accent, this habit of flapping becomes more prominent. So much so, that I think we are almost on the verge of a new sound: a combination of ‘r’ and a soft ‘t’ – ‘rt’ said very fast and harshly. So perhaps if this accent remains isolated for long enough, there will be a new sound in it’s inventory. Words like ’shutter’, ‘butter’, and ‘mutter’ will sound almost unrecognizable. Further, to make the rest of the set fit in with a new dominant sound, other sounds are going to be modified also. Currently, the Irish/Scottish and the Newfie accents lie at a distant tangent from common-English, where our hypothetically morphed-language might live.

Imagine other types of flapping also, over sounds like ‘d-h’. The new sound produced from it might be ‘dt’ pronounced very fast and harshly. If you flip English through enough of it’s common phonemes, you can see how even distant languages of the same family tree are related. Wikipedia lists several other ‘manners of articulation’ also that could all be modified simultaneously to produce new languages on the fly. Check out their wiki articles: Plosive, Nasal stop, Fricative, Affricate, Trill, Approximant.

As I mentioned above, about 50% of modern languages are in an immediate threat of extinction. Of course this is not something to be concerned about in the same way as say, endangered species. But the statistic is surely indicative of something. I believe it shows an unfortunate but unstoppable trend towards a global acculturation reducing cultures and religions on planet Earth to only a handful. I have an upcoming article about what I believe is the unfortunate contribution of the modern atheist to this phenomenon. I’m sure I’ll pick up a lot of lip for it!

What makes us Human?

Thursday, October 30th, 2008

Update: I learned only recently that some of the information in this article is outdated, and that plasticity is not what it immediately appeared to be. It is still something awesome, but some experiments have showed that it is not as powerful as it initially seemed. You can read about one of these in Karn Stromswold’s article found here. Original article follows ->

The brain is wider than the sky,
For, put them side by side,
The one the other will include
With ease, and you beside.

The brain is deeper than the sea,
For, hold them, blue to blue,
The one the other will absorb,
As sponges, buckets do.

The brain is just the weight of God,
For, lift them, pound for pound,
And they will differ, if they do,
As syllable from sound.
~ Emily Dickinson

For centuries we have tried to search for a homonculus within us, that center within our brains that makes us human. Traditionally, we expect this part to transcend all chemicals, and fall in the realm of infinite.

What makes us human? Several factors interacting in complex ways. But if there was one that played the primary role in making us “us”, it would be ‘Neuroplasticity’.

Plasticity allows our brain to break and reconstruct neural pathways. As we go through different experiences and learn new things, new synaptic connections are formed at the expense of old, unused ones. This process is not just limited to the memory organs of the brain, but even the functional ones. For example, if your visual cortex does not do any “learning” or is not exposed to the correct type of information during a critical period, your anatomically perfect eyes may never develop vision. Most likely in this case, your visual cortex which has so far gone unused would break with it’s quasi-predetermined circuitry, and reform to be used by a neighboring part of the brain.

Perhaps more amazingly, in recent decades, the brain has also been observed making recoveries after structural damage. People who suffer from any kind of mental injuries were thought to have completely and permanently lost those abilities. But with the help of MRIs and CAT-scans, researchers noticed that the injured or dead part of the brain can come back to life. It is a tragedy that this information is not yet widespread. Stroke patients who are left paralyzed or are unable to speak after their accident often never try to repeat those lost activities. However, recent cases have shown that often the “broken” part of their brain can recover in full, but since the activity previously assigned to it is no longer performed, it gives up it’s original function and becomes involved in something else.

People who undergo hemispherectomies can make amazing recoveries if their new minds are given the right exercises. It was until the early 1990s considered that the left hemisphere, primarily Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas were solely and exclusively responsible for language. The theory seemed shaky from day one. Not only could we not explain how these functioned (as we can’t yet), but perhaps more importantly, we were unable to recreate any disorders that seemed to emerge from them. But when patients left with only the right hemisphere of their brains defied current theory and produced from single worded to multi-phrased cogent sentences, the theory was just as well out the door.

It is now understood that this ability stays with us for our lifetimes. There are a few known critical periods during which specific functions are favoured. As babies, our mind’s first priority is to develop the key abilities  we use to navigate the world. After the age of two and a half or three, our brain devotes great attention to language learning, as well to sharpening the previously learned skills. After about six, we learn a tremendous amount of things about the world around us…how and why our parents behave, why the sky is blue, and in general how the world works. After about 10 – 12 we turn our attention to sexual maturity and of course the social concerns that come with it.

From this point on, the two sexes begin to differ. But now these changes are very relative, and hardly as crucial. The mind has fully developed, and the rest are the stages of our lives. Missing even one of these critical steps can tremendously change our lives. I personally know of no case where postponing something like language learning has eventually led to “normal” efficacy of that skill, and I can’t imagine it would ever happen. But again, as stated above, some recovery is still possible. It has been observed though that as we get older, neurogenesis occurs in fewer and fewer parts of the brain, being eventually left only in the hippocampus (short-term memory functions). So it is possible to understand why we eventually pass away.

Some recent experiments demonstrate the extreme ways is which our brain can change if subject to abnormal stimulus. One group of researchers cross-connected the audial and visual cortexes of the brain of a Ferret fetus. The experiment’s purpose was to test the permanence of these structures. The experiment’s hypothesis was that they are both very plastic. Indeed this was found to be the case. Visual signal being carried from the retina to the audial cortex produced very similar patterns to what the visual cortex of a normal Ferret would later produce. This implied that the modified audial cortex was now capable of “seeing” and the modified visual cortex was now capable of “hearing”.

One comfort I take from these flurry of discoveries is that they fit in perfectly and beautifully with the modern evolutionary theory. It is very difficult to explain how the brain got to be so complex if all parts evolved by individual selection. But if we understand that these parts are developed as much from their enviornment as from their genes, we see a much more reasonable and explicable world. Understanding neuroplasticity has opened a whole new field of medical care, and has revolutionzed the world of so many. Some have also found applications of it in the so-called Brain-Computer Interface technolgy. But perhaps the greatest reward this discovery holds for us is the secret of how the brain actually works.

…but on the other hand, you have different fingers

Saturday, October 25th, 2008

All our posts here @theEdger are shadowed by the editors after publication, and usually corrected for any grammatical errors. This is one post that requires none, even though the opposite might seem true. There are no grammatical errors here!

On another subject, did you know that Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. I mean, buffaloes from Buffalo that buffaloes from Buffalo buffalo (bully), buffalo other buffaloes from Buffalo. Okay, we all knew that one.

Here’s another one of my favourites: A bicycle cannot stand on its own, it is two tired.

It is not much of a surprise that we are capable of producing an infinite amount of such sentences. It is also not a surprise that we enjoy them so very much. A good chunk of humour comes from the breaking of known patterns. Language is one of those things that is totally rigid in it’s fluidity. Humour arising from sentence structure can take on many forms. It can come through homonymy as in the buffalo buffalo case above, it can come through homophony as in the bicycle case above, it can come through capitonymy, or much lesser so, through polysemes.

Chomsky gave us “colourless green ideas sleep furiously” to show that grammar definitely comes out of the brain, as opposed to the previous belief that it is elucidated by our surroundings. The fancy names mentioned above hardly matter to our brain. Whether we know them or not, we can still enjoy such words. So apparently it is really easy to violate the rules of language, or at least those of a language like English.

But sentences are always more fun than words. Limericks, some poetry, and those dreaded lists the Internet bemoaning the English language all try to make us laugh. Some can leave us captivated for hours. And nothing does this better than garden path sentences. These are those sentences that intentionally try to fool our parsers by usually laying out deceptive function words or words out of context. It always seems like they lack a ‘that’ or a ‘of’, but they don’t, and figuring out how they make sense is the fun part.

Probably the most common one is ‘The horse raced past the barn fell.’ We initially try to parse it as being about a horse that is racing past a barn. But when we reach the ‘fell’, we notice that not only does that word not fall in a verb phrase like it should, but it does not complete any traces either. We have been deceived. Then you read it over and convince yourself that all that’s needed to make sense of the sentence is punctuation. Then you read it over again, and in a flash realize that no commas or periods or connecting words are required. What is actually being said is: The horse (that was) raced past the barn…fell. Fun indeed!

Here are some other good ones, see if you can figure them out if you haven’t done them before.

Throw the cow over the fence some hay.
The cotton clothing is made from grows in Mississippi.
The old man the boat.
They told the boy that the girl met the story.
The tycoon sold the offshore oil tracts for a lot of money wanted to kill JR.

This final one I discovered last night, and not have yet been able to figure out. Help?

The daughter of king’s son admires himself.

EDIT ~ 10 minutes after initial post

k I just figured it out! I’ve striked out the answer so that it’s not easy to read and you can avoid it if you want to figue it out on your own.

The himself is used as a third person masculine reflexive pronoun. The third person is key. The himself refers to the king’s son. You can think of it in the same way someone asks you “How are you?” and you respond “Not so bad, yourself?” That ‘yourself‘ is a third person reflexive, just like the himself in the sentence. This usage probably comes from middle- or olde-English. The usage is now barely alive. Enough to help us generate sneaky gardenpaths I suppose.