rionaleonhart: top gear: the start button on a bugatti veyron. (going down tonight)
THE BOOKENING TITLE #19: Because Internet: Understanding how language is changing, Gretchen McCulloch.

Let's look at the closest thing lolcat has to a peer-reviewed text: a translation of the Bible into lolspeak.

I love linguistics and I've enjoyed Gretchen McCulloch's Lingthusiasm podcast with Lauren Gawne, so I was excited to dive into this book! As with Thinking, Fast and Slow, I'm going to share some parts I found particularly interesting.

- p.76: The first year that over half of Americans used the Internet was 2000, according to Pew Research, although usage rates were already over 70 percent for those that were college-educated or between the ages of 18 and 29. In 1995, a mere 3 percent of Americans had visited a webpage, and only a third had a personal computer. In the space of just five years! I know I started using the Internet around the year 2000; I hadn't realised everyone did.

- p.83: this book raises an issue I've been thinking about myself: my generation, although we started using the Internet fairly young, don't know much about what it's like to have the Internet in your life as an actual single-digits child. I started using the Internet around the age of eleven, because... that's when we got the Internet; it wasn't a minimum age dictated by my parents. I can't look at my own childhood for guidance on when it's appropriate to let a child browse unsupervised, or whether it's right to share anecdotes about someone who's not yet old enough to give permission. I'm not expecting to have children myself, but friends of mine are starting to, so we're going to need to consider these questions.

- p.174: apparently the use of the arrow as a symbol for pointing is only a few hundred years old! What?? This book says it developed in the nineteenth century; this article says it was the eighteenth, but that's still far younger than I expected. (I suppose the book might have been talking about the version without fletching.)

- p.179, on the differences between Western emoticons :) and Japanese kaomoji ^_^: The emphasis on the eyes was important for kaomoji because of a broader cultural difference in how emotions are represented. When researchers show East Asian and Western Caucasian people photos of faces displaying different emotions, the Asian participants tend to make conclusions about the emotions based on what people are doing with their eyes, whereas the Western participants look to the mouth to read emotions ... Happy :) and sad :( emoticons can have the same eyes but must have different mouths, whereas happy ^_^ and sad T_T kaomoji can have the same mouths but must have different eyes.

- p.180: the words emoticon and emoji, despite the fact that they refer to very similar things and start with the same three letters, have completely different etymologies! Emoticon comes from emotion and icon; emoji comes from the Japanese e ('picture') and moji ('character').

- p.208, on conversational turn-taking (I knew some of this from university, but I remember finding it interesting then, so I thought I'd share in case someone finds it interesting now): How do we know when it's our turn? It would be easy to assume that we must pause after we're finished saying something, and that other people notice that pause and interpret it as an invitation to speak. But conversation analysts find that actually we don't pause much, any more than we normally pause between each word. If I ask you a question and you don't start answering immediately, I'll probably treat it as a break in communication. Even if just 0.2 seconds go by, I'm likely to repeat the question again, try a different way of phrasing it, or switch languages ... If you've ever found yourself unable to get a word in edgewise, or doing all the talking around someone frustratingly taciturn, it's probably because your cultural timings are ever so slightly miscalibrated for each other, points out the linguist Deborah Tannen.

(The answer to 'how do we know that someone's finishing talking and we can jump in?', if you're curious, is a combination of things: gesture, eye contact, intonation. When interruptions happen, they're usually at 'points when it seems like the main speaker could be finished talking but it turns out they aren't', rather than mid-sentence.)

- pp.234-5, on a German study of hostility in comments on football blogs: Researchers asked soccer fans to write a comment on a blog post about a controversial soccer issue that already contained six other comments. When the previous comments were hostile and aggressive, so was the new one. When the previous comments were thoughtful and considerate, the new comment again followed suit - and it didn't matter whether such comments were anonymous or linked to real-name Facebook accounts.

Overall, I found this book hugely enjoyable: very lively, very interesting, very surreal at points. (Have you ever seen lolcats or famous Tumblr posts reproduced in a printed book? It's weird!) It's reminded me of how much I enjoyed studying the English language at university. I'd recommend it to anyone who's interested in linguistics, or specifically in how the Internet has influenced language.
rionaleonhart: final fantasy viii: found a draw point! no one can draw... (you're a terrible artist)
THE BOOKENING TITLE #18: Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman.

A non-fiction book, for once!

This is about how our brains make decisions, the shortcuts they take, the pitfalls they're prone to, and it's probably the most interesting book I've ever read. I've always been interested in logical fallacies, heuristics and so on, but I think this is the best work I've encountered on the subject.

A few points I found particularly interesting:

- pp.117-118: on account of research showing that a disproportionate number of the best-performing schools are small, a lot of money and effort has gone into creating small schools or splitting up larger schools in the US. As it happens, a disproportionate number of the worst-performing schools are also small. Small schools aren't inherently better; their performance is just more likely to skew away from the average, because there are fewer data points involved. If you flip a coin four times, you're way more likely to get 100% or 75% heads than if you flip it fifty times.

- pp.43-44, on a study of eight parole judges in Israel: They spend entire days reviewing applications for parole. The cases are presented in random order, and the judges spend little time on each one, an average of 6 minutes. (The default decision is denial of parole; only 35% of requests are approved.) ... The authors of the study plotted the proportion of approved requests against the time since the last food break. The proportion spikes after each meal, when about 65% of requests are granted. During the two hours or so until the judges' next feeding, the approval rate drops steadily, to about zero just before the meal. As you might expect, this is an unwelcome result and the authors carefully checked many alternative explanations. The best possible account of the data provides bad news: tired and hungry judges tend to fall back on the easier default position of denying requests for parole.

- pp.125-126, on how we'll be influenced by any number that comes to mind when making estimates or other numerical decisions: The power of random anchors has been demonstrated in some unsettling ways. German judges with an average of more than fifteen years of experience on the bench first read a description of a woman who had been caught shoplifting, then rolled a pair of dice that were loaded so every roll resulted in either a 3 or a 9. As soon as the dice came to a stop, the judges were asked whether they would sentence the woman to a term in prison greater or lesser, in months, than the number showing on the dice. Finally, the judges were instructed to specify the exact prison sentence they would give to the shoplifter. On average, those who had rolled a 9 said they would sentence her to 8 months; those who rolled a 3 said they would sentence her to 5 months.

(This isn't terribly important, but I cannot get my head around how a pair of dice, assuming they're six-sided, can be loaded so every roll will result in either a three or a nine. Three or eight would be possible: you rig them so one always lands on two and the other can land on either one or six. Three or nine, though? I don't think it can be done. Maybe there were multiple pairs?)

- pp.175-176, on regression to the mean: the author once gave a talk to some air force flight instructors on how reward was more effective than punishment. One instructor objected, saying that cadets generally performed worse after he praised them and better after he screamed at them. But their performance would probably have changed regardless: Naturally, he praised only a cadet whose performance was far better than average. But the cadet was probably just lucky on that particular attempt and therefore likely to deteriorate regardless of whether or not he was praised. Similarly, the instructor would shout into a cadet's earphones only when the cadet's performance was unusually bad and therefore likely to improve regardless of what the instructor did.

- p.329, on the tendency to look at numbers alone and ignore what they're relative to: In one study, people who saw information about 'a disease that kills 1,286 people out of every 10,000' judged it as more dangerous than people who were told about 'a disease that kills 24.14% of the population.' The first disease appears more threatening than the second, although the former risk is only half as large as the latter! In an even more direct demonstration of denominator neglect, 'a disease that kills 1,286 people out of every 10,000' was judged more dangerous than a disease that 'kills 24.4 out of 100.'

I enjoyed this book a lot, and it's worth checking out if you're interested in the weirdness of the human brain.
rionaleonhart: final fantasy x-2: the sun is rising, yuna looks to the future. (just gonna reload while talkin' to you)
I'm playing Assassin's Creed: Unity!

And I've barely progressed the story at all. I'm spending so much time just arsing around in the streets of Paris, climbing up buildings, trying to solve murders, gazing in awe over the city. It's a ridiculously beautiful game.

I've been making disjointed notes as I go along, and I'm going to dump them here:


Notes on the first few hours of Assassin's Creed: Unity. )


There's an interesting new approach to language in this game. In previous Assassin's Creed games set in non-English-speaking locations, the speech would all be in English, but the accents would help to give a sort of linguistic sense of place. In Unity, where the major characters seem to speak mainly with British accents, the linguistic sense of 'this is France' comes from the fact that all the people you pass on the street are speaking French. I'm a bit sad about this, because I can't understand what they're saying, and I loved some of the passer-by quotes in previous games. I fondly remember the time I (as Ezio) knocked a box out of a guy's hands and he said, 'This is the third delivery I've lost this week. You're ruining my business. Please go away.'

Finally, a couple of interesting historical titbits from the in-game database:

- During the French Revolution, the statues of the biblical kings of Judah on Notre-Dame Cathedral were beheaded; the revolutionaries had mistaken them for kings of France.

- The game says that 'By 1789, the Bastille was deemed useless, and was costly to maintain, with 250 soldiers for a mere nine prisoners.' How did all the guards occupy themselves? Why not have fewer guards? Were there actually cells, or were the prisoners kept in by a solid wall of men? I'm having trouble finding another source to confirm this, though; it's definitely true that the number of prisoners was in single figures at points in the 1780s, but I can't find anything solid on the number of guards.

(I might post more Occasionally Unverifiable Eighteenth-Century France Facts in the future, if people are interested.)
rionaleonhart: final fantasy x-2: the sun is rising, yuna looks to the future. (don't cross me)
It's been a while, but I watched some more Final Fantasy XIII today! ('Watched' isn't meant to be a snide comment on the gameplay-to-cutscene ratio; I am literally watching a playthrough on YouTube, as I don't have the right console to play the game myself.) Here are my reactions from Palumpolum to the aftermath of the Byrnhildr fight.


Final Fantasy XIII thoughts; spoilers up to the end of Chapter Eight. )


If you're not a Final Fantasy person, you may wish to read or contribute facts in yesterday's Entry of Interesting Things. [livejournal.com profile] chamekke has taught me that a golden poo is a popular Japanese good-luck charm (linking me to a website containing the greatest GIF I have ever seen); [livejournal.com profile] luna_manar taught me that fire ants lock together and make rafts out of themselves to avoid drowning, what the hell, the world is incredible. This is only a fraction of the unnecessary but fascinating knowledge that awaits you!

Possibly my favourite, though: [livejournal.com profile] culf taught me that J.M. Barrie once wrote ridiculous self-insert Sherlock Holmes fanfiction as a gift for Arthur Conan Doyle, in which he and Doyle visited Holmes to find out why their opera had failed. [livejournal.com profile] fialleril has actually posted it over here. It is amazing. I particularly enjoy the fact that Watson describes Barrie as 'the handsomer of our visitors'. ALSO:


'The other is obviously a Scotch author.'

'How can you tell that?'

'He is carrying in his pocket a book called (I clearly see) "Auld Licht Something". Would anyone but the author be likely to carry about a book with such a title?'

I had to confess that this was improbable.



THIS IS BARRIE WRITING ABOUT HIMSELF, YOU GUYS. I want to marry him.
rionaleonhart: final fantasy x-2: the sun is rising, yuna looks to the future. (let's go)
!!!

Dear whoever just anonymously bought me paid time: who are you? You are the best, that's who you are. Thank you so much! ♥!

I'd like to do something in return, but obviously as I don't know who you are I don't know what you'd like. What I've decided to do, therefore, is make a new Entry of Interesting Things (here is the one from last year, where I learnt, amongst other things, that eleven of the twelve men who've walked on the moon were in the Boy Scouts and it's legal to duel in Paraguay as long as both parties are registered blood donors). If people contribute, there should be something to interest you, kind anonymous person, and with any luck there should be things to interest everyone else as well.

Therefore!

Tell us something interesting in the comments of this entry. Multiple interesting things are, of course, more than welcome! And then you can read the other comments and learn new things and, assuming you like learning, it will be great.

Some starting facts for you:


- The 'lb' abbreviation for the pound stands for libra, which is Latin for 'scales' (as in the measuring device, hence the name of the astrological sign) and the name of an ancient Roman unit of mass, roughly three quarters of the modern pound.

- The shape of the ampersand (&) derives from that of the word 'et', Latin for 'and' (Wikipedia, that great fount of accuracy, has a visual comparison of ampersands through the ages).

- I don't have the book from which I learnt this with me (The Upside of Irrationality by Dan Ariely), so I'm afraid I can't tell you who actually performed this study, but here it is: if you place a rat in a box with a food-dispensing lever and then introduce a bowl of food, the rat won't just eat from the bowl, even though that takes less effort; at some point it'll go back to press the lever. Animals like to work for their food. This held true for every animal tested except cats, who cannot be bothered with that 'effort' business.

- From Kevin Dutton's Flipnosis: an experiment held by George Bizer at New York's Union College required participants to read mocked-up news reports about two fictitious political candidates, Rick and Chris, on opposite sides of the political spectrum. Half the participants had to choose between the statements 'I support Rick' and 'I oppose Rick', the other half between 'I support Chris' and 'I oppose Chris'. The groups then read a news report criticising their chosen candidate; let's take Chris as the example. The people who said 'I oppose Rick' were less likely to change their stance than the people who said 'I support Chris'. They were more reluctant to change their views purely because of the language in which they had been made to express those views. I think that's really interesting.


Any fields are welcome, from mathematics to linguistics to psychology to history to obscure references in videogames. Directing other people to this entry so we can get a wider pool of knowledge would get a hearty thumbs-up but is absolutely not compulsory. Let education commence!
rionaleonhart: final fantasy x-2: the sun is rising, yuna looks to the future. (oh very well)
I recently looked up 'oh dear' in Wiktionary, hoping to find information about the phrase's origin. Whilst it was not terribly informative, I was amused by the example sentence: Oh dear, you seem to have forgotten to wear clothes.

This is an entry about language! Here are some facts about language that I enjoy.


- Children just beginning to learn to speak will often correctly use irregular verbs: for example, I went. However, when they are slightly older, they will begin to say I goed before returning to I went.

The theory is that at first the children are simply repeating what they hear. However, at some point they realise that adding -ed onto the end of a verb puts it into the past tense, and so they apply that rule universally, saying not only I looked and I wanted but I goed. Later, they realise that some verbs are exceptions to this rule and begin to say I went again.

This is interesting because it shows that children aren't simply parroting back what they hear; they are actually learning and applying grammatical rules. Awesome.


- In a verb string, the form of each verb is determined by the verb preceding it. For example:

I ride the unicorn
I am riding the unicorn - the use of am, a form of the progressive auxiliary to be, puts ride into the progressive form, riding.
I have ridden the unicorn - to have puts ride into the past/perfect* participle, ridden. (The past participle is not necessarily the same as the simple past (I rode the unicorn), but in regular verbs the two forms are the same (I licked the unicorn; I have licked the unicorn.))
I have been riding the unicorn - to have puts to be into the past participle, been, and that in turn puts to ride into the progressive participle, riding.

* This is also called the passive participle, because it is used with to be to form the passive voice: The unicorn was ridden by me.

What fascinates me about this is the fact that it all seems so complicated, and yet people follow all these convoluted grammatical rules without really thinking about it. Does it occur to you, when you ask 'Does Riona realise how boring this is?', that what you're essentially doing is taking the sentence 'Riona realises how boring this is', adding the optional auxiliary to do to make 'Riona does realise how boring this is', and then switching the subject and auxiliary around to form a question? (German can do this without the auxiliary verb: 'liebst du mich?' is essentially 'love you me?', but because in English we can only switch auxiliary or modal verbs with the subject we have to add a 'do'.)

...well, I think it's interesting. I love grammar! I can't help it!


- I imagine many of you will already know about pidgins and creoles, but they're so fascinating that I want to mention them anyway. A pidgin is a simplified language, developed as a means of communication between groups of people who don't share a common tongue. It doesn't really have grammatical rules; the idea is just to convey meaning. However, if the speakers of a pidgin have children, and if those children grow up hearing the pidgin, they will spontaneously give the pidgin grammatical rules. It will become a full-blown language, called a creole. Without consciously knowing what they're doing, these children will give the pidgin a whole new level of consistency and complexity, just in the process of learning it. THAT'S CRAZY.

(I should note that my knowledge of the pidgin-creole relationship came from Stephen Pinker, rather than my course, and as Pinker is an advocate of Chomsky's theory that language is innate he may have an interpretive bias.)
rionaleonhart: top gear: the start button on a bugatti veyron. (going down tonight)
A couple of nights ago, I dreamt that I was being strangled by a Furby. They don't even have arms!

Anyway, I have been musing on the wonders of the Internet. One of the things I like most about the Internet is the way you can learn all sorts of pointless trivia as you leap about from page to page.

Therefore, here is a pointless trivia entry! Tell me something interesting in the comments, and then everyone who comes by can read it and go 'ooh, I never knew that'. (If your interesting fact comes from a particular field, such as 'biology' or 'linguistics' or 'literature', you could put that in the comment title so people can see at a glance whether it's something in which they would be particularly interested, but that's entirely optional.)

A couple of things to start us off:

- The reason the letters 'i' and 'j' have dots: in Latin texts written in the first millennium AD, 'm' and 'n' were each formed entirely of downward strokes, called 'minim strokes': three for 'm', two for 'n'. 'i' was a single minim stroke, and so the dot was introduced, because otherwise an 'n' and an 'i' next to each other would look exactly the same as an 'm'. 'j' was derived from 'i' (it was originally simply 'I' with a flourish) and therefore kept the dot. (The dot over a lowercase 'i' or 'j' is called a 'tittle', incidentally.)

- It's recently been bothering me that many clock and watch faces inconsistently use 'IIII' rather than 'IV' to represent four whilst still using 'IX' to represent nine. It seems that nobody knows exactly why this is the case, but here is a page of interesting theories.


Feel free to link to this entry if you'd like to draw from a wider pool of knowledge (you should, of course, feel equally free not to link to this entry; there's no pressure). Let's make this the best collection of potential pub quiz answers ever.
rionaleonhart: final fantasy x-2: the sun is rising, yuna looks to the future. (NOOOOOOOOO)
Right! I have a rather nasty exam for Communication Analysis on Tuesday. It is one hundred per cent of the mark for the module, and I find myself forced to teach myself more or less everything, because the tutor, although I am sure she is lovely as a person, has generally failed to impart any actual knowledge. I have actually been staying in bed until ten for the past couple of days (it's late for me) because I can't face getting up and confronting all that revision.

So I don't like revising. On the other hand, I like updating my Livejournal, and typing out and rephrasing the things I've learnt will probably help me get them clear in my head.


Just dumping some revision notes on Conversation Analysis (one of several communication analysis approaches) here. Probably not of much interest to any of you, apart from the one other person taking this exam, but feel free to read them if you'd like. Grice's Cooperative Principle is quite interesting. )


I cannot express how little I am looking forward to this exam. It seems as if communication analysis deals with potentially interesting stuff, but it simply hasn't been made clear enough. I have attended every lecture and almost every seminar, but I feel I could have skipped them all and still found myself beginning my revision from the same point. Doubleplusungood!
rionaleonhart: final fantasy x-2: the sun is rising, yuna looks to the future. (WILSON WROTE THIS)
Right. On the one hand, I have an exam on the history of the English language on Wednesday, for which I need to revise. On the other, I really just want to hang around on Livejournal.

THE OBVIOUS SOLUTION: COMBINE THE TWO.

YOU ARE GOING TO LEARN THE HISTORY OF THE BRITISH ISLES AND ITS IMPACT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF LANGUAGE AND YOU ARE GOING TO LIKE IT.

(Note: you do not actually have to read this entry. It's really just for my use. But you're welcome to peek if you think you might be interested. Also, if you have any questions about anything, please ask them; answering them would be excellent revision!)


Basic list of topics to revise:
- The early sociolinguistic history of Britain
- The Old English period: 600 - 1066
- The Norman conquest and its linguistic consequences
- The linguistic situation in early mediaeval England
- Late Middle and Early Modern: consciousness of English
- Renaissance and Reformation
- Shakespeare's vocabulary: innovation and popularisation
- Scots: language shift and what drives it
- The drive for standardisation: officialdom and private enterprise
- Modern English


(Seriously, these are just my revision notes. You don't have to read them.)


The early sociolinguistic history of Britain. )

The Christianisation of England and its linguistic consequences. )


And this was the point at which I realised that revising in this fashion was taking far too long, and that the level of interest on my flist is probably not high enough to justify persevering. However, I'm still going to post it, just because it's good to have it around and because I know I have someone else on my flist who's going to be taking this exam. Good luck to both of us.

(If you would like to ask questions about the history of the language post-Christianisation, particularly if those questions relate to any of the topics on the list at the top of this entry, please do! It would be very helpful for my revision.)