LL-L "Language programming" 2009.01.17 (01) [E]

Sat Jan 17 19:39:29 UTC 2009

=======================================================================

 L O W L A N D S - L * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226

 http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands.list at gmail.com

 Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.php

 Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org - lowlands.list at gmail.com

 Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.net

 Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html

 Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html

 Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]

 Administration: lowlands.list at gmail.com or sassisch at yahoo.com

 You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
 To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
 text from the same account to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or
 sign off at http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.

 A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
 L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
 S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West) Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)

=======================================================================

===========================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 17 January 2009 - Volume 01
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please set the encoding mode to Unicode (UTF-8).
If viewing this in a web browser, please click on
the html toggle at the bottom of the archived page
and switch your browser's character encoding to Unicode.
===========================================

From: M.-L. Lessing <marless at gmx.de>
Subject: LL-L "Language programming" 2009.01.16 (08) [E]

So calling computers "electronic brains" or "thinking machines" is a wrong
metaphor. And this metaphor, so widely used today, has programmed our brains
to think of a human brain in a wrong way... oops, language can't program
brains... :-)

Marlou

----------

From: Mark Dreyer <mrdreyer at lantic.net>
Subject: LL-L "Language programming" 2009.01.16 (08) [E]

Hi, Sandy:

Subject: LL-L "Language programming"

Right: If complicated numeral terminology made for mathematical genius, then
the metric system is a retrograde step, & the Chaldeans should have made it
to Space, to say nothing of Imperial weights-&-measures Old England.

We didn't have TV yet, & I missed the series 'Connections' in my youth, but
I got the book of the series: Glorious!

The author follows the evolution of mechanical calculators from the
Jacard-loom to the Eniac. On the basis of that preparation I can only agree
with you.

Yrs,

Mark

----------

From: Sandy Fleming <sandy at scotstext.org>
Subject: LL-L "Language programming" 2009.01.15 (05) [E]

> From: Andrys Onsman <Andrys.Onsman at calt.monash.edu.au>
> Subject: LL-L "Language programming" 2009.01.15 (01) [E]
>
> Wouldn't recognition be an aspect of a sense of number? And vice
> versa?

No. The human brain (though not necessarily the duck brain) can
recognise objects but it has a specialised centre for recognising faces.

I think that when you talk about numeracy, recognition and so on you
have to be aware of some basic brain science because it's not always as
your common sense might tell you (it's the same in for most areas of
science - you can't rely on common sense).

You need to know what sort of areas the brain has for what sort of
skills, and this sort of research is often done with subjects who have
experienced some brain damage or otherwise lack certain of the usual
functions.

For example, there are people who are "number dyslexic" (this doesn't
seem to me like an appropriate description but it's the one I've heard
used) and can't so much as compare two prices in a shop to see which is
cheapest, but their ability to recognise faces is fine.

On the other hand there are people who have had the face-recognition
centre of the brain damaged but it doesn't affect their numeracy or
their ability to recognise other shapes.

All this suggest that recognition is not an aspect of numeracy and in
fact concepts such as "recognition" and "numeracy" are our
interpretation of manifestations of the way the brain works, and without
brain science we can only go so far in our thinking about these things.

I think that this sort of research can be very useful for linguists or
even just language teachers and learners. In designing a BSL course a
while ago, I was planning on teaching three kinds of space:

   o    topographic (use of all three dimensions in front of you)
   o    cartographic (use of a flat vertical area as an imaginary
blackboard)
   o    syntactic (use of an abstract space where placement gives
grammatical information).

In brushing up on the literature, however, I discovered that as far as
brain activity went, signing in syntactic space doesn't activate the
visual processing areas of the brain, while signing in topographic space
does.

While I'm not sure where "cartographic space" lies in this scheme, I
realised that perhaps it would be advisable to teach only topographic
and syntactic space, and let cartographic space disappear into an aspect
of topographic space.

I then reasoned that since syntactic space involved less brain activity,
learners would find it easier so I should teach it first. In actual
practice I found that it's the other way round: the class found
topographic space much easier to deal with. Maybe it just goes to show
that the human brain is much more comfortable with processing large
amounts of data in three dimensions than things that you'd think were
simpler.

But the clarity of knowing how the brain actually works with such things
did enable me to focus on real distinctions and I knew exactly what I
had to switch round in order to improve the course.

By the way Mike, what did you mean by "surrogate space" and so on, and
what's the significance of these terms? I assume they just correspond to
my topographic and syntactic space, but the terms were interesting.

Sandy Fleming
http://scotstext.org/

•

==============================END===================================

 * Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.

 * Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.

 * Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.

 * Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l")

   are to be sent to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or at

   http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.

*********************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20090117/b8738809/attachment.htm>