A suggested topic is whether you think the psychological experiments covered today (visual world paradigm) validly test the way we comprehend language.
The visual world paradigm does not validly test the way we comprehend language but it is probably the only way now.
The visual world paradigm relies on the premise that people will predict the next word they hear and match it with an image on a field of images, causing eye movements. These eye movements are then recorded. The time taken for the eye movements is then compared among different groups of people.
Yet these results seem to be very dependent on the people involved. For example, if an image of a cow and a fly is produced and the word is ‘animal’ then the people involved might look at the fly instead of the cow, since flies are animals too. People might also not respond and produce the eye movements. In order to avoid these problems many people have to be tested.
A large sample size is required then, because of the above problems. Yet the standard way to get volunteers is to recruit psychology students – hardly the average person off the street. That already predisposes the subjects to certain biases which certainly could not be average.
Yet the alternatives are not very palatable either. The only viable alternative seems to be to scan the brain while the experiments are being conducted yet that seems to be expensive and also difficult to do as a large sample size is required again. This brings back the problem of the sample size not being representative of humans again. Also another problem is that the interpretation of brain signals can be flawed due to insufficient technology or understanding of the human brain.
Therefore I conclude that the visual world paradigm is flawed, but probably the best choice for conducting such psychological experiments today
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
A suggested topic is whether you believe Singlish should be discouraged in Singapore.
Singlish should be discouraged in Singapore. While it is arguably a language in its own right, it should not be encouraged or discouraged just because it is or is not a language. Instead, the role of the language should be considered. When that is considered, Singlish has no real reason to exist and thus should be discouraged.
The role of languages is to facilitate communication between humans. For this role, Singlish can easily be substituted with English, which is an acknowledged common language in Singapore. Singlish, which incorporates words from other languages, is actually inferior – one needs to know more words from multiple different languages in order to completely understand the Singlish speaker. Not everyone has the time or the inclination or ability to become a linguist, so most people can be assumed to have command of two languages at most. With Singlish having more than 4 languages contributing to its vocabulary, as well as new grammatical rules, learning Singlish is impractical. Thus Singlish is actually inferior to English or any other common language.
Of course, it could be argued that Singlish fosters communication by letting people who are not very fluent in English but stronger in their mother tongues to communicate but then again Singapore is not the entire world and cannot survive by itself. Yet most people who are not very fluent in English can understand most English while people who are not fluent in Singlish will get confused, as the more complicated words or phrases in Singlish are usually in a language besides English. To communicate with foreigners English is far more useful so Singlish is again supplanted by English.
Since Singlish is inferior to English in every role it should not be encouraged at all.
The role of languages is to facilitate communication between humans. For this role, Singlish can easily be substituted with English, which is an acknowledged common language in Singapore. Singlish, which incorporates words from other languages, is actually inferior – one needs to know more words from multiple different languages in order to completely understand the Singlish speaker. Not everyone has the time or the inclination or ability to become a linguist, so most people can be assumed to have command of two languages at most. With Singlish having more than 4 languages contributing to its vocabulary, as well as new grammatical rules, learning Singlish is impractical. Thus Singlish is actually inferior to English or any other common language.
Of course, it could be argued that Singlish fosters communication by letting people who are not very fluent in English but stronger in their mother tongues to communicate but then again Singapore is not the entire world and cannot survive by itself. Yet most people who are not very fluent in English can understand most English while people who are not fluent in Singlish will get confused, as the more complicated words or phrases in Singlish are usually in a language besides English. To communicate with foreigners English is far more useful so Singlish is again supplanted by English.
Since Singlish is inferior to English in every role it should not be encouraged at all.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
will newspeak work
Newspeak is the new language devised in the novel 1984 by George Orwell. Its role, one which it succeeds in carrying out, is to control the minds of the population by removing words from everyday life. By removing those words, it would prevent thought about those subjects and eventually eradicate them.
If it were to be put into practice in Singapore, regarding the issue of homosexuals (e.g. removing all words related to homosexual lifestyles from the dictionary), could it work? The answer would be: it would work, but it would not be overwhelmingly successful. The argument for it working is simple. By removing the words, people will stop thinking about them and eventually they will fade from memory.
Yet this can run into problems. People have a great tendency to invent new words, phrases to convey meaning. A great example of a person who routinely did it in the past would be the great playwright Shakespeare. Alternative ways of describing things would also be used so that would be another hole that newspeak will have to plug.
But that is assuming that newspeak is never outdated. Unfortunately for language and free thought, any new words will fall prey to its own success. As each word becomes more widely used, newspeak can always remove it. If a word stays obscure, it will not gain mainstream acceptance and therefore its use is limited. It may be impossible to curtail the thoughts of every person, but newspeak will succeed in preventing homosexuals from ever voicing their views openly – thats a way to judge success or failure, depending on your viewpoint.
Of course, all of this is assuming that newspeak is vigorously policed. But that is to be assumed – after all, it is pointless to speculate the consequences of a policy that is nonfunctional from the start.
To conclude, newspeak will succeed in banishing controversial issues from most people but the most it can do to a small minority would be to suppress their freedom of speech. There would be no complete success nor would it be a dismal failure.
If it were to be put into practice in Singapore, regarding the issue of homosexuals (e.g. removing all words related to homosexual lifestyles from the dictionary), could it work? The answer would be: it would work, but it would not be overwhelmingly successful. The argument for it working is simple. By removing the words, people will stop thinking about them and eventually they will fade from memory.
Yet this can run into problems. People have a great tendency to invent new words, phrases to convey meaning. A great example of a person who routinely did it in the past would be the great playwright Shakespeare. Alternative ways of describing things would also be used so that would be another hole that newspeak will have to plug.
But that is assuming that newspeak is never outdated. Unfortunately for language and free thought, any new words will fall prey to its own success. As each word becomes more widely used, newspeak can always remove it. If a word stays obscure, it will not gain mainstream acceptance and therefore its use is limited. It may be impossible to curtail the thoughts of every person, but newspeak will succeed in preventing homosexuals from ever voicing their views openly – thats a way to judge success or failure, depending on your viewpoint.
Of course, all of this is assuming that newspeak is vigorously policed. But that is to be assumed – after all, it is pointless to speculate the consequences of a policy that is nonfunctional from the start.
To conclude, newspeak will succeed in banishing controversial issues from most people but the most it can do to a small minority would be to suppress their freedom of speech. There would be no complete success nor would it be a dismal failure.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)