December 05, 2005
Allie's Response to Jessica Yeich's Question
I am responding to Jessica Yeich's following question:
"If colloquilisms are created everyday and jargon accepted commonly, why is it wrong to use them in all situations as long as the listener is aware of the new colloquilism?"
I think that it may be considered "wrong" to use everyday jargon in certain situations, even though the meaning is understood, because of the connotation that comes along with it. The fact that the jargon is jargon itself implies a more casual, up-to-date, and therefore less formal tone. This could possibly be inferred as a sign of disrepect in what may be a formal conversation or situation. OFten more "sophisticated" and less causal conversations take place between people who are not one hundred percent familiar or comfortable with one another, and want to make the best impression of themselves and what they may be representing. The older style of conversation may stick to the "sophisticated" language because if it consisted of new jargon and colloquillisms, the speakers would have to be sure to stay on top of new slang, etc. Doing so would be difficult for those older, professional, "high-society" citizens who do not spend time out with younger people, who generally greatly contribute to new jargon, or in their environments. By sticking to the older, more conventional language as being what is accepted and proper in formal situations, or with someone a person does not know well, is a rule that can be followed throughout the years without drastic change or effort to keep up with something new.
Posted by lcisthur at 04:26 PM | Comments (0)
October 30, 2005
Behind the Scenes of Eliza
Eliza just seems like a frustrating robotic therapist once you get past the "coolness" when you first try her out.
All the same, she is rather impressive. I think there must be certain keywords that she searches for and certain sentence rules and formations.
I think it is hard for Eliza to work one hundred percent properly because she doesnt always have enough context to respond in the best way. She does not seem to have a lot of words that she understands the semantic meaning of.
All in all, it's interesting to see, and experience a computer program I can somewhat understand the workings (or lack there of). I'll take Smarterchild in the meantime and get word definitions while I'm at it!
Posted by lcisthur at 09:01 PM | Comments (0)
October 28, 2005
Java Jive Jokes Around!
I liked how this brief article really gets at what is not usually talked about or addressed. It does not really intend to fix anything or suggest solutions to problems, but it points out humorous random points about things we all do wonder and think about, but never bring up. It knows people know Starbucks, it knows people wonder about a semicolon... The fact that people get all so wrapped up in a whole different language of a coffee shop shows just how easily influenced we all are, and that we need to take a step back and look around at ourselves, and our grande lowfat triple shot maple carmel macchiattos. I've noticed these things too, but they never really were anything more than just things I wondered about; not anything I read about.
Posted by lcisthur at 12:00 AM | Comments (1)
October 24, 2005
Chapter 5 Meanings of Language
After reading this chapter, aptly titled, "Meanings of Language", I continue to learn that language has more and more and more meanings as I read on... more than I ever thought about, or would have ever thought even existed. I think it is very interesting, and complex, that there are so many different groups to classify certain words, and types of words, and phrases too, that are all different, yet can all overlap. Each category has its main point however, and understnding each one and their similarities and differences serves to provide further insight into language. We all use language all the time, subconciously, and as we learn more about it, we are made more aware of how amazing a thing it really is.
Posted by lcisthur at 12:51 AM | Comments (2)
October 23, 2005
Eliza turns your computer into a chatterbox! :)
I just tried out Eliza... and was amused, at least for a little while. I have actually seen something like this before, as an America Online screename of "SmarterChild." A few years ago when someone told me to instant message him, I couldn't believe it! I never heard anything about a "robot" like that before, and it was so... smart! However, it's been a while since I had the urge to message him again and see how he's doing, despite the fact he is always online. If any of you are interested, or if you haven't already heard about his one, just enter the AIM screenname SmarterChild! No offense to Eliza, but I'd say he's a bit more developed! And on top of that, you can play games with him, get the news, homework help, weather report, language translations! Probably the most useful friend on your buddy list!
Posted by lcisthur at 10:37 PM | Comments (0)
October 07, 2005
McCloud shows and tells
I have never read a comic strip, if this one even falls into that catagory, that was so complex before, and that made SO many points. "Show and Tell" really makes its readers (/viewers(?)) think about their everyday experiences on a whole new level. In our society, we cannot go a day without reading a word, or seeing a picture. But we do not spend these days connecting the two together. Words and pictures, as this comic emphasizes, have a long relationship. Cavemen wrote in pictures, and the earliest words were in picture form. However, words, over time, became less iconic and more abstract over time. Then there was a separation between the two, and then... a "collision"! The ironies of words and pictures was being presented more - through more symbolic paintings, etc.
The comic ends suggesting the differences of the affects of words being alone, pictures being alone, and the different ways they can work together, producing a variety of different impacts!
Posted by lcisthur at 12:39 AM | Comments (1)
Words and Pictures - and their blend!
I thought that this chapter reading handout, Words and Pictures, brought up a lot of points that we all experience each day of our lives, but do not recognize. If you asked me if there was a solid line between words and pictures, my first instinct would probably be "yes." Words are words and pictures are pictures, what's so complicated about that? Well... as with most things when you take a closer look, there is much more to it than we see on the day-to-day level. We realize that words go together in children's books, comic strips, newspaper articles, etc. Yet this article points out that pictures are usually ionic and words are usually symbolic. Even the size, boldness, and handwriting of words can have iconic affects; their visual characteristics have impacts on how we take in and analyze their meaning, and we do not even realize it until it's pointed out. Pictures still are important; this does not downplay their role. Pictures provide fundamental information words often do not. There are, however, overlaps in everything. Words and pictures can both be symbolic and iconic at the same time!
Posted by lcisthur at 12:25 AM | Comments (1)
October 05, 2005
Chapter 3 Question 2
The verb “to be” is different from verbs like “ask, tell, show, etc…” because it is a helping verb that connects a sentence together. The verb “to be” acts as a function word because it is used as an auxiliary verb to strengthen the use of a content verb.
It is definitely possible to invent new quantifiers; therefore they cannot be called closed class words. Words that can replace “very” and didn’t exist ten years ago are “mad” and “wicked.” Many quantifiers come and go and there is an unlikely chance that these slang quantifiers will continue to mean the same thing in the future.
Based on the difference between function verbs and content verbs it seems probable that they are stored differently in the brain. Function verbs are difficult to create, yet content verbs are constantly being added the open class.
Posted by lcisowens at 10:57 PM | Comments (0)
Fromkin Chapter 3 Question 2
a) I believe it should be listed as a function word because it is different to verbs like “ask” in use, conjugation and behavior and better suited by definition to function words. Function words or grammatical morphemes are used in relation to the syntax of a sentence they are therefore more constant, skeletal if you like, and are not being added to in the way that content words are. Functions words are therefore considered to be a closed class.
Auxiliary verbs like “to be” have a grammatical function in a sentence and function alongside other verbs like “ask”. They are unlikely to be drastically changed or added to, and so I think it is correct to list auxiliary verbs under function words.
b) I believe that quantifiers are not a closed class but that they can and are being added to. I believe that “mega” might be one such addition by appropriation in recent years. In addition the popular obscenities of the day are often used in place of “very.”
~ Nanette
Posted by lcissavides at 09:30 AM | Comments (0)
October 04, 2005
Fromkin Chapter 3, Writing Exercise #2
2.) The auxiliary verb “to be” is different from other verbs because its conjugation is not immediately obvious or what would be expected, especially to a foreign speaker. Its conjugations are arbitrary to the infinitive in structure. For example, the verb “to ask” is conjugated in a way that has more of an expected pattern we can decipher that makes more sense. The conjugations sound and appear like the infinitive: I ask, you ask, she asks, we ask, and they ask. In the irregular verb “to be”, the conjugations are completely arbitrary to the infinitive; I am, you are, she is, we are, and they are. None of the conjugated verbs are like the base of the verb infinitive “be”, whereas in a verb like “to ask”, they are.
I would not say that adverbs that quantify, like “very” are closed class. In my experience, I have seen new quantifiers being used – by different people, in different areas, etc. Some are slang, which goes to show that these types of words are opened class and that more can be created. For example, some of my friends and I would joke around and say “ouber”, like the German word, in the same context as “very”. An even more solid example is one of the amusing things I have noticed coming here to Massachusetts from California; people say “wicked”. I have never heard this word used in this context, meaning “very” or “really”, like it commonly is here! I suppose young Northern Californians are known for saying “hella” to mean “very”, which is (perhaps fortunately) not used here. These quantifiers were not used decades ago, and have probably been around only in the past five years or so.
The brain functions content and function words differently, and I think the above examples of the newer, slang-like quantifiers are evidence. Function words, like “very” and other quantifiers, have a grammatical function. They do not have a clear, specific meaning associated with them, or a specific concept that needs to really be thought about. As a result, function words are easier to create and slip in and out through our sentences and speech, as they seem to require less thought. However, function words are considered to be closed class, mostly because words such as “and,” “or,” “a”, “in,” “of,” “the”, and other conjunctions, prepositions, articles, and pronouns, are completely arbitrary and so far have been irreplaceable. In many ways, although considered open class, it may seem more difficult to create a content word, as it would mean creating a new word for concepts we think about – such as specific ideas, concepts, actions, or particular objects. When we create a quantifier, it does not denote anything too complex, and can be subconsciously slipped in and out of our speech. However, if one is raised knowing that, for example, “Kleenex” are tissues, relatively new content words do not require much thought or contemplation.
Posted by lcisthur at 10:54 PM | Comments (0)
Assignment 3, writing exercise
The advantages of morphological modifications are numerous. We can make our conversations more creative by using words like "unpretty" instead of "ugly" to put more emphasis and focus on the fact. Also, it gives those who are native to the language a wider range of lexicon to use without using complex words that a unintelligent or young person might not understand. It gives those who are not native to the language an easier time learning it because they could potentially use/learn half the words someone native would. For example, if a nonnative speaker of English knew the word pleasant but not horrid, he/she could put the prefix un- on pleasant and use a totally correct word without learning more vocabulary. This of course, depends on the person learning these suffixes and prefixes. It is relatively easy to learn these prefixes and suffixes, though. There aren't that many available to learn (at least not as much as content words).
We are able to plant more meaning in each word if we have these modifications and we can potentially understand any word as long as we know the little modification suffixes.
I found it really easy to pick up the different languages in the book exercizes. I am not saying that I understand the language and could repeat things back to you, but I understand how the words were set up and it seemed not so hard from the standpoint that the book gave.
Posted by lcisyeich at 09:33 PM | Comments (1)
Chapter 3 Morphological Modifications
Morphological modifications make a language more flexible to innovation, because it gives a langugage a more considerable amount of choices of words. These modifications permit people to use numerous morphological combinations so as to form new words or even to break down a word so that it can be more easily understood.
However, this can make any language all the more difficult to learn, especially if you are trying to learn a language that is not your own language. You would have to learn which words are root words, or which part of a word in not a root morpheme. Also when learning a new language it is difficult to tell which words include prefixes or suffixes. This is only possible if you know the root morpheme. Also there can be many complex or compound words in a language that can be hard for a person who doesn't know that language to understand. In order to understand another language a person has to have a lexicon of that language so that they will be able to understand the morphological modifications of the language.
Morphological modications in a persons native language are a lot easier however, because that person has a large lexicon for their own language and are able to use morphological modification. Morphological modifications in general give words a wide array of meanings, which why human language is so intricate and profoundly creative.
--Yasmin
Posted by lcisperez at 08:49 PM | Comments (0)
Number 1 for homework 3
I think that there are several of advantages in having morphological modifications to words in a language which makes the language easier to learn. People don't just learn words in a matter of a minute. In order to actually remember the meaning of a word it might take a few minutes for one person, but I know for myself it takes several of times reading the definition and using it in context. If people have a sense of what prefixes, suffixes, and circumfixes, you can create many words from just one root word. For example, I know what happy means, but if I say unhappy, I know that it is the opposite of happy becuase of the prefix un-...also I know that happyness is the noun form of happy because of the suffix -ness. These added suffixes and such allow our language to be more fun and diverse. It allows people to create words if they are stumped and can't think of the correct term, they can just turn a root word into that adjective or noun. I think without this ability to do this, our language would be pretty dull and consist of a million more words than it already does and make it even more complex.
Posted by lcisnelson at 04:07 PM | Comments (1)
October 02, 2005
Chapter 3 Morphology Question
• The advantage to having morphological modifications to words is someone who knows the meanings of bound morphemes in a language can learn a new word in that language and then attach prefixes or suffixes to the word to learn more words simply by knowing the bound morphemes. This is easier than learning individual words for each meaning a bound morpheme has. For example, if a student were learning English and they knew the meanings of the prefix “un” to be the opposite and the suffix “ness” to make an adjective a noun and learned the meaning of the adjective “desirable” they would know the meanings of “undesirable”, “desirableness”, and “undesirableness” merely through attaching the prefixes and suffixes to “desirable.” Making grammatical connections through bound morphemes is often easier to memorize than learning separate words for the opposite of “desirable”, the noun of “desirable”, and the noun of the opposite of “desirable.” As for flexibility, it seems in the English language bound morphemes are constantly added to content words whether it is true to the rules of prescriptive grammar or not.
Posted by lcisfreya at 10:32 PM | Comments (0)
Chapter Three Writing Exercise
Question 2
The verb "to be" is different from other verbs, such as "to ask," because it undergoes irregular morphological modification. Unlike most verbs that can be conjugated as the following: I, you, we, they ask; he/she/it asks, the verb "to be" changes form: I am; you, we, they are; he/she/it is. Based on this, the verb "to be" should be a content word because it does not follow the rules of morphology, but rather one must memorize its different, grammatically correct forms.
Quantifier words are not a closed class of words. An example of a quantifer word that is only used in the Boston area and probably wasn't around 50 years ago is "wicked," which is another way to say "really." People living in other regions of the U.S. are not familiar with this word, but perhaps someday it will become incorporated into their vocabulary of quantifier words. Another example of new quantifier words comes from a popular movie about future life in space. In this movie the characters use the terms "micro" and "macro" to express quantity as in "very" or "not very." Although they are not used in this way today, perhaps in the future they will be used like this as quantifier words.
The process in which the brain learns function words is a simple process of memorization. On the other hand, when the brain learns content words it only needs to learn the root and rules for morphological modifications, but does not need to memorize every single possible morphological variant of the word. The brain draws upon these components when they are needed and compiles them accordingly in a creative process, whereas when the brain needs to call upon a functional word, it simply needs to memorize the word, and use little to no creativity in applying it.
Posted by lcissullivan at 02:06 PM | Comments (0)
Morphological Modifications
Question 1:
Language in general must be able to withstand and make necessary transitions when changes occur. The advantages of having morphological modifications leaves the language freer and able to fit with the changing times. Another advantage is the flexibility for innovation- new words, suffixes, prefixes, and morphemes for instance can all be created freely. I am sure several hundred words are added to our dictionaries a year, with that number, language must be plastic enough to incorporate morphological modifications. Furthermore, without restrictions on morphological advances, accidental gaps in our lexicon (like unsad) are frowned upon but the meaning can still be revealed.
Posted by lcissearls at 01:13 AM | Comments (0)
Language Chapter 3 Assignment
Question #2
The auxiliary verb “to be” is different from other verbs, like the verb “ask”, because the verb is conjugated by using different words which have almost no similarity to one another. For example, the first person singular form of the verb “to be” is “am”. The third person singular is “is”. The third person plural is “are”. These verb forms follow no pattern and are very random. On the other hand, the verb “see” is conjugated by adding a suffix to the verb. For example, the third person singular form is “sees”. This is distinctly different from the way that the verb “to be” is conjugated. Thus, I have to conclude that although the verb “to be” may seem like an auxiliary verb, it is not. It has a very strong, straightforward purpose and definitely is not just a “helping verb”. The verb “to be” is often used along with other verbs, for example, “Johnny is playing with Suzy.”. However, it is also used by itself, for example, in the sentence “Maria is five years old”. Thus, I would definitely say that the verb “to be” is a content word.
Quantifiers are definitely not a closed class. Quantifiers are created every day and used differently by various groups. For example, as a Rhode Islander, I say “wicked” as a quantifier. For example, I commonly say, “This pasta is wicked good.”. For people from another region, this may seem odd, but for my friends and I this term is perfectly normal and part of everyday speech.
I definitely believe that this our brain handles function words differently than content words. Content words have a distinct purpose in our brain; we can attach a picture to the content word in our head. However, function words are much more ambiguous, and it is difficult for most people to attach a distinct meaning to function words. In the same way, function words are very difficult to translate into other languages. In my French course, that is one of the things I struggle with most because function words do not follow any finite rules, instead they are used interchangeably and without pattern. Thus, I think our brain does store these two types of words differently, simply because content words are easier to attach a concrete idea onto.
Posted by lciscotis at 12:17 AM | Comments (0)
October 01, 2005
Language Chapter Three
Question Number Two
The auxiliary verb “am” and other similar words should be considered function words because a word like “am” is usually only used before a more descriptive verb, or adjective, such as I am jumping, or I am skinny. A content word is what conveys the meaning of what is said and “am” seems to be used like an article or some other word that is not descriptive and is rarely used to develop a more complex idea.
Society invents new words constantly, including function words. “Very” is a word that doesn’t imply any particular meaning, it just adds to another word, like “I am very ill.” New quantifiers are invented with every new generation. A word like “super” was probably not used 50 years ago to describe quantity. Sentences like, “He is super cool”, or “I am super hungry” are now used in different context rather that just “Superman” or “This candy is super”. Also, the New England term “wicked” is used in place of “very”, like in the sentence, “I’m wicked thirsty.”
Posted by lcishagan at 08:15 PM | Comments (0)
Morphology
I think that having morphological modifications in a language makes the language much more flexible and open to new words. Since we are able to create different words from one root word by adding morphemes to it, we are able to create more new words than a language that didn’t have morphemes. I know sometimes I make up my own words by using a root word and a morpheme that doesn’t usually go with the root word. If I can’t find a word that I want, sometimes I can add “ish” or another morpheme to a word to create my own word. Morphemes give our language more variety, but I don’t think they make it easier to learn, because if I wasn’t fluent in English, I might get confused when someone added on to a root word and I wasn’t familiar with what the addition meant. There are so many prefixes and suffixes that I think it would be hard for someone who isn’t a native speaker of English to memorize them all.
Posted by lcismardin at 07:49 PM | Comments (0)
1. Morphological Modification
•“Part of our linguistic competence includes knowledge of the morphology of the language” (Fromkin 107) Words are units of meanings with internal organization. Under the rules of morphology, root morphemes combine with affixes to form more complex words. The morphological modifications make language easier to learn because once we know the lexical content, or root we recognize affixes that change the meaning (derivational) of the word. These rules help us to remember or recognize new words. Therefore, morphological modifications make it simpler for us to make new entries to our mental lexicon.
Posted by lcisbold at 06:01 PM | Comments (0)
Chapter 3: Morphology
What are the advantages of having morphological modifications to words in a language? Does this make the language easier to learn, more flexible to innovation? How?
The advantages of having morphological modifications to words in a language are numerous and make a language easier to learn. Having morphemes allows the speaker to know more words in the language by learning rules that will change the meaning of the root word slightly. The speaker would only need to learn the root words and all of the possible affixes. For example, if you take the word “mistreatment” the speaker would need to learn the root “treat” and the affixes “mis-” and “-ment.” Then the speaker could apply these affixes to a new root to make another word such as “misalignment” and the speaker’s vocabulary can expand immensely.
-Jessica F.
Posted by lcisfaria at 05:37 PM | Comments (0)
September 30, 2005
Morphology: The Words of Language
• Based on the specific examples above, do you have evidence that your brain might handle/learn/store function words different than content words? This question holds great validity and truth for me. After reading this chapter, I am convinced that the brain may handle/learn/store function words differently from content words. It just seems to make sense. We can turn content words upside down; add prefixes and suffixes to change the word into a completely different one with a completely different meaning. Function words do not have this ability. They are words that we know cannot be changed and switched. They always have the same meaning. These words must belong to a part of our brain that has to deal with memorization or logical thinking. When words are put together in a sentence, a function word helps to give the sentence grammatical structure as well as fluidity. Content words, on the other hand, seem to belong to a part of our brains that is responsible for part of our lexicon, but also our creativity. Having the ability to change words to form different meanings definitely has to deal with rearrangement and knowing what sounds right and wrong. This chapter of the open class of content words and the closed class of function words further solidifies the hypothesis that separate parts of the brain control each group. -Christina
Posted by lcisgancarz at 10:03 PM | Comments (1)