Group items tagged

Our brain can crack codes, as in jumbled up letters or garbled nonsense or sentences consisting of digits and letters.

The BBC is helping English learners understand the news. Each article is in a "mad lib" format where people learn idioms and difficult vocab by matching up the words in a sentence.

New research suggests that dolphins may have a spoken language of their own; in a recent study by Russian researchers two dolphins communicated using a series of whistles and clicks (called pulses), and didn't ever interrupt each other. They also noted that the pulses sounded like sentences. With new recording technologies, the researchers were able to separate potential words from filler clicks, and the researchers hope to one day build a machine that will allow humans and dolphins to communicate.

While watching the first presidential debate, take note of Lester Holt and each presidential candidate's body language, facial expressions, tone of voice, poise of presentation, grammar, vocabulary, and sentence structure use. Additionally, performing a fact check on each candidate's remarks should also help you to distinguish a solid foundation of who to vote for: Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.

Study finds that positive self talk phrases improve performance, while positive self talk sentences and negative forms of self talk do not improve performance

This article talks about the evolution of profanity and how certain words came to be classified as taboo. Researchers have found that cursing, is a human universal. Every language studied, living or dead, have all left traces of forbidden speech. They have also discovered that cursing is often a mixture of raw, spontaneous feelings, as they are oftentimes used to place emphasis on a specific word or sentence.

The increased acceptance of the word "hopefully" to modify an entire sentence symbolizes a battle over the evolving English language: prescriptivism vs. descriptivism again.

By Leonardo VintiñiEpoch Times Staff Perhaps the most important job for a copy editor is to ensure that text is free of spelling mistakes. But is error-riddled text any less understandable? On repeated occasions researchers have found that people can still understand the meaning of sentences even if they are completely made up of jumbled words.

Blast from the past: diagramming sentences!

"You, hear me! Give this fire to that old man. Pull the black worm off the bark and give it to the mother. And no spitting in the ashes!" It's an odd little speech. But if you went back 15,000 years and spoke these words to hunter-gatherers in Asia in any one of hundreds of modern languages, there is a chance they would understand at least some of what you were saying. That's because all of the nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs in the four sentences are words that have descended largely unchanged from a language that died out as the glaciers retreated at the end of the last Ice Age. Those few words mean the same thing, and sound almost the same, as they did then. While traditionally, it's been thought that words can't survive for more than 8,000 to 9,000 years, a team of researchers from the University of Reading has come up with a list of two dozen "ultraconserved words" that have survived 150 centuries. It includes some predictable entries: "mother," "not," "what," "to hear" and "man." It also contains surprises: "to flow," "ashes" and "worm." The existence of the long-lived words suggests there was a "proto-Eurasiatic" language that was the common ancestor to about 700 contemporary languages that are the native tongues of more than half the world's people.

A new speed-reading app, Spritz, premiered in March 2014. Its makers claim that Spritz allows users to read at staggeringly high rates of speed: 600 or even 1,000 words per minute. (The average college graduate reads at a rate of about 300 words per minute.) Spritz can do this, they say, by circumventing the limitations imposed by our visual system. The author of this article argues that your brain has an even more superior "app": expertise, which creates a happy balance between speed and comprehension. In their forthcoming book, Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning, researchers Henry Roediger III and Mark McDaniel (along with writer Peter Brown) liken expertise to a "brain app" that makes reading and other kinds of intellectual activity proceed more efficiently and effectively. In the minds of experts, the authors explain, "a complex set of interrelated ideas" has "fused into a meaningful whole." The mental "chunking" that an expert - someone deeply familiar with the subject she's reading about - can do gives her a decided speed and comprehension advantage over someone who is new to the material, for whom every fact and idea encountered in the text is a separate piece of information yet to be absorbed and connected. People reading within their domain of expertise have lots of related vocabulary and background knowledge, both of which allow them to steam along at full speed while novices stop, start, and re-read, struggling with unfamiliar words and concepts. Deep knowledge of what we're reading about propels the reading process in other ways as well. As we read, we're constantly building and updating a mental model of what's going on in the text, elaborating what we've read already and anticipating what will come next. A reader who is an expert in the subject he's reading about will make more detailed and accurate predictions of what upcoming sentences and paragraphs will contain, allowing him to read quickly while filling in his alrea

This article discusses how the brain responds when hearing textural metaphors and literal sentences.

Twitter is awash with trolls, spammers and misanthropes, all keen to ruin your day with a mean-spirited message or even a threat that can cause you genuine fear. It seems all too easy to set up an account and cause trouble anonymously, but an emerging field of research is making it easier to track perpetrators by looking at the way they use language when they chat.

All the technology in the world can't stop you from leaving a trail behind you when you broadcast your thoughts online or via text message. We all have individual writing styles and habits that build to create a linguistic identity. Forensic linguistic experts can penetrate technological anonymity by interrogating the linguistic clues that you leave as you write. Everything from the way someone uses capitalisation or personal pronouns, to the words someone typically omits or includes, to a breakdown of average word or sentence length, can help identify the writer of even a short text like a Tweet or text message.

Comedian George Carlin once said, "Language is a tool for concealing the truth." In his short essay, "Count the Superfluous Redundant Pleonastic Tautologies," Carlin humorously employs pleonasms - instances where the user employs more words than are necessary to convey meaning (e.g., see with one's eyes), either as a fault of style or for emphasis.

Studies have proven that bilinguals are better at ignoring unnecessary words in a sentence. Since bilingual people are constantly sorting through one language and the other and picking which one to use and which one to ignore their brain is stimulated more than monolingual people. The monologuists' brains light up more than the bilinguals' brain in an fMRI scan. Researches said that this ment that the monologuists' brain had to work harder to do the same thing as the bilinguals.

Examining the results and methodology of a large Whorfian study (17 languages), which tested differences if there are differences in cognition between speakers of verb-frame languages (like Spanish, if the "Path is characteristically represented in the main verb or verb root of a sentence") and satellite-frame languages (like English, if the path is "characteristically represented in the satellite and/or preposition"). Important conclusion regarding study methodology: "Strong claims regarding the (in)validity of the Whorfian hypothesis in the encoding of motion events cannot be made on the basis of a limited number of languages or a restricted range of manner and path contrasts." They could have reached opposite conclusions if they only compared certain language pairs.  This is made in contrast with studies by, e.g., Boroditsky, which had relatively small sample sizes.