Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

In spoken language, especially in conversations, people are prone to using filler words or - as linguists call them - discourse particles. By inserting these semantically and syntactically neutral words in an utterance, they allow for a speaker to pause while collecting their thoughts while preserving the position of speaker, a coveted social role.

There are numerous positive effects of writing in a journal. The action of writing our thoughts, ideas and feelings benefits us in numerous aspects of our lives. One benefit of writing in a journal is that is boosts memory and comprehension. This is because there is a relationship between our hands and brains created by writing thoughts and ideas. Words are representation of ideas and the formation of letters causes the mind to compose or re-compose ideas while journaling. The second benefits is emotional, physical and psychological healing. This is because translating an experience into language makes the experience graspable and allows you to free yourself from emotional blockages and lowers anxiety, stress and induces better sleep. These are two out of ten benefits of writing in a journal that is proposed in this article.

What can you recite by heart? Your times tables? German verb formations? The Lord's Prayer? Novelist Salman Rushdie thinks it should be poetry. Speaking at the Hay Festival, the writer described memorising poems as a "lost art" that "enriches your relationship with language". David Whitley, a lecturer at Cambridge University, Whitely, whose Poetry and Memory project surveyed almost 500 people, says: "Those who memorised poems had a more personal relationship [with the poem] - they loved it for the sound and meaning, but it also connected with their life currents - people they loved, or a time that was important to them. "For people who memorise a poem, it becomes a living thing that they connect with - more so than when it is on a page. Learning by heart is often positioned as the opposite of analysis. But for many people who know a number of poems, their understanding grows over time and changes." Psychotherapist Philippa Perry agrees. She points out that memorising anything, from poems to music, means you always have it with you. She thinks that memorising poems can also be good for the health of our brains. "The way we 'grow' our brains is that we make connections between our brain cells - neural pathways. The more you exercise that network, the more you strengthen it. If you learn things by heart, you get better at it."

A whistling language like that quoted in "Tree of Codes," she said, speaks to "how we humans adapt to and interact with our environment, not being separate, but really being in a merged relationship with everything around us." That positive attitude sets Ms. Lim apart from some of the other musical-linguistic ventures.

There are ways to reduce your risk of having a stroke - for example, you can exercise more and not smoke. But should a stroke occur, you might also be able to reduce your risk of losing brain function if you are a speaker of more than one language.

Dr. Thomas Bak, one of the study's authors, posits that language learning helps brains build "cognitive reserve": a rich network of neural connections - highways that can can still carry the busy traffic of thoughts even if a few bridges are destroyed, as via a stroke. "People with more mental activities have more interconnected brains, which are able to deal better with potential damage," Bak says. He likens language learning's effect on the brain to swimming's ability to strengthen the body. Learning a language at any stage in life provides a thorough workout, but other cognitive "exercises," such as doing puzzles or playing a musical instrument, might also benefit stroke recovery, he said. The research applies to the larger concept of neuroplasticity, in that the brain is dynamic and can adapt to new challenges when properly conditioned,

Offering a written expression of condolence (from the Latin word condolere, to grieve or to suffer with someone) used to be a staple of polite society. "A letter of condolence may be abrupt, badly constructed, ungrammatical - never mind," advised the 1960 edition of Emily Post. "Grace of expression counts for nothing; sincerity alone is of value." But these days, as Facebooking, Snapchatting or simply ignoring friends has become fashionable, the rules of expressing sympathy have become muddied at best, and concealed in an onslaught of emoji at worst. Just over two and a half million Americans die every year, according to the National Center for Health Statistics, and we buy 90 million sympathy cards annually, a spokeswoman for Hallmark said. But 90 percent of those cards are bought by people over 40. Take-away tips from the article: 1. BEING TONGUE-TIED IS O.K. 2. SHARE A POSITIVE MEMORY 3. NO COMPARISONS 4. DON'T DODGE THE 'D' WORDS 5. GET REAL. 6. FACEBOOK IS NOT ENOUGH

Suppose you are preparing for a potentially contentious meeting with someone with whom you've worked closely for years. She could be a fellow manager you want to convince to support an initiative but whose position in the matter differs from yours: how do you convince that person? While coercion and logic are not effective, "relationship-raising" is. According to a 2002 psychology study by Oriña, Wood, and Simpson, before making a request for change, mention your existing relationship with the other person and any mutually-shared goals/objectives, before delivering your appeal. " Or, in the most streamlined version of the relationship-raising approach, incorporate the pronouns "we," "our," and "us" into the request. The outcome? The relationship partners exposed to this technique shifted significantly in the requested direction. Similarly, in a British longitudinal study of effective professional negotiators, researchers found that the most successful bargainers spent 400% more time looking for areas of mutuality (e.g., shared interests) than did their mediocre counterparts.

Three separate experiments were conducted which all showed that individuals in the open body position took more action than those who were constricted. "Going into the research, we figured role would make a big difference. But shockingly, the effect of posture dominated the effect of role in each and every study," Li Huang, a doctoral student at Kellogg and co-author of the study, said.

"The pure traditionalist and pure revisionist positions are both oblivious to what is at stake in arguments over language. The traditionalists claim they are just asking us to play by the rules of the game; revisionists say they are just asking us to accept the fact that language is always changing. But both sides ignore the profound consequences of how we speak."

Positive effect of technology on language

"Retailers would like you to believe that it's the day when stores turn a profit on the year, thus "going into the black." But don't you believe it: the true origins come from traffic-weary police officers in Philadelphia in the early 1960s. ... Resulting traffic jams are an irksome problem to the police and, in Philadelphia, it became customary for officers to refer to the post-Thanksgiving days as Black Friday and Black Saturday. ... the story of businesses getting "back in the black" on Black Friday doesn't start appearing until the 1980s. So the "back in the black" explanation was clearly a way to rebrand Black Friday with more positive connotations."

"...a new study from the University of California, Berkeley, suggests rumor-mongering can have positive outcomes such as helping us police bad behavior, prevent exploitation and lower stress. ... Overall, the findings indicate that people need not feel bad about revealing the vices of others, especially if it helps save someone from exploitation, the researchers said. ... The study focused on "prosocial" gossip that "has the function of warning others about untrustworthy or dishonest people," said Willer, as opposed to the voyeuristic rumor-mongering about the ups and downs of such tabloid celebrities as Kim Kardashian and Charlie Sheen."

This is an interesting video that I found about two young kids trying to learn how to pronounce certain sounds correctly in Korean. The title is a reference to the Gyeongsangdo dialect (a Korean dialect); the poster of the video seems to think that people from Gyeongsangdo speak that way, but it is really not true (I know because I speak that dialect). The children are attempting to pronounce the ㅆ sound correctly ("ss" a very hard "s" sound) but instead seem to be using the ㅊ ("ch" sound) or the ㅅ sound (normal "s" sound). They also seem to have a little trouble with the ㄹ sound (a cross between an "r" and an "l" sound), which can be seen when one of the children changes his tongue positioning while saying 쌀 ("ssal" or rice). I'll put up a translation and transcript soon if anyone is interested. Thought it was relevant because of those readings we got last week...

I put up a transcript with a translation, but it got shortened every time I refreshed the page, so I gave up :/

Joshua Greene, Harvard psychologist, posits that we have two competing moral circuits in our brains: a utilitarian, rational, cost-benefits circuit and an emotional circuit. Both circuits battle for dominance in the brain's ventromedial prefrontal cortex. When dilemmas produce vivid images in our heads, we tend to respond emotionally, due to our natural wiring. Take away the pictures - the brain goes into rational, calculation mode. In another experiment, Greene and a colleague, Amit, also found that people who think visually make more emotional moral judgments, whereas verbal people make more rational calculations.

In 2010, two articulate powerhouse linguists, Lena Boroditsky, of Stanford, and Mark Liberman, of U. Penn., squared off on the above topic. Boroditsky advanced the Neo-Whorfian position that language does indeed shape thought. Liberman countered, noting that thought also shapes our language we speak, and the way we live shapes both language and thought. When we encounter or create new ideas, we can usually describe them with new combinations of old words. And if not, we easily adapt or borrow or create the new words or phrases we need. As Edward Sapir once put it, "We may say that a language is so constructed that no matter what any speaker of it may desire to communicate … the language is prepared to do his work."

Dan Jurafsky's book, The Language of Food: A Linguist Reads the Menu, explores the history and origin of common food terms like "ketchup." Jurafsky also contemplates how menu wording can reflect the relative upscaleness of a restaurant. "Expensive restaurants are 15 times more likely to tell you where the food comes from - to mention the grass-fed things or the name of the farm or greenmarket cucumbers, but expensive restaurants also use fancy, difficult words like tonarelli, or choclo [large-kernaled corn] or pastilla," Jurafsky says. But they are also generally shorter in length. The really long menus, which he says are "stuffed with adjectives like fresh, rich, mild, crisp, tender and golden brown," are found at the middle-priced restaurants. And the cheapest restaurants use "positive but vague words - 'delicious,' 'tasty,' 'savory,' " he says. If an expensive restaurant used words like "fresh" and "delicious," that "implies you have to be convinced." Cheaper restaurants are also likely to say that the food should be served "your way." "The more expensive the restaurant, the more it's all about the chef," he says.

Maltz and Borker argue that "American men and women come from different sociolinguistic subcultures, having learned to do different things with words in a conversation, so that when they attempt to carry on conversations with one another, even if both parties are attempting to treat one another as equals, cultural miscommunication results." Their article also provides a literature review of various studies examining male-female miscommunication. Here's the synopsis of the differences discovered in female vs. male conversation. Women generally 1. Display a greater tendency to ask questions. 2. Tend to facilitate and elicit interaction more. 3. Make greater use of positive minimal responses, e.g. "mm...I see", and insert them mid-conversation. 4. More likely to adopt a "silent protest" response to interruption 5. Greater tendency to use the pronouns "you" and "we", explicitly acknowledging the presence of the other. In contrast, men are 1. More likely to interrupt 2. More likely to challenge or dispute their partners' utterances 3. more likely to ignore the comments of the other speaker, that is, to offer no response or acknowledgment at all, or respond reluctantly 4. Utilize more mechanisms for controlling the topic of conversation 5. more likely to make direct declarations.

Without understanding the 'referential function' of language (words as 'verbal labels', symbolizing other things) it is impossible to learn a language. Is this implicit knowledge already present early in infants? Marno, Nespor, and Mehler of the International School of Advanced Studies conducted experiments with infants (4 months old). Babies watched a series of videos where a person might (or might not) utter an (invented) name of an object, while directing (or not directing) their gaze towards the position on the screen where a picture of the object would appear. By monitoring the infants' gaze, Marno and colleagues observed that, in response to speech cues, the infant's gaze would look faster for the visual object, indicating that she is ready to find a potential referent of the speech. However, this effect did not occur if the person in the video remained silent or if the sound was a non-speech sound. "The mere fact of hearing verbal stimuli placed the infants in a condition to expect the appearance, somewhere, of an object to be associated with the word, whereas this didn't happen when there was no speech, even when the person in the video directed the infant's gaze to where the object would appear, concludes Marno. "This suggests that infants at this early age already have some knowledge that language implies a relation between words and the surrounding physical world. Moreover, they are also ready to find out these relations, even if they don't know anything about the meanings of the words yet. Thus, a good advice to mothers is to speak to their infants, because infants might understand much more than they would show, and in this way their attention can be efficiently guided by their caregivers."

Negative vs. Positive Language