20 August 2010

Words worth thinking

I think that I should bring this to your attention. Now recall that I am/was a linguist so the language thing is very engaging for me, but I think that you will find this so even if you're not a language buff of some kind. Not least because part of my reaction was to the sheer artistry of the programme. This isn't just the straight talking of Radio 4 style talk radio; rather there is a clever interweaving of sound and voices which has some rap-style effects but without being yeuchy about it and also which reminded me of a sound equivalent of collage using semi-transparent overlaps. Very nice example of good use of sound which upped the engagingness of it.
So go and listen: WNYC - Radiolab: Words (September 10, 2010). I listened to the whole thing straigt through but it looks (and sounded) as if it is actually in three parts (it's just under an hour it total) If you were just to check out one part, I'd suggest the second which they accurately summarise thus:
"Charles Fernyhough doesn't think that very young children think--at least not in a way he'd recognize as thinking. Charles explains what he means by walking us through an experiment in a white room. And Elizabeth Spelke weighs in with research from her baby lab--which suggests a child's brain begins as a series of islands, until it can find the right words and phrases to bridge the gaps."
Though the final part reprises the consideration of the adult who learnt to sign to make the point that he 'said' that he couldn't really remember how it was before language because he just didn't think the same any more. The contrast was with some of his former friends who still hadn't 'got' language: they communicated by elaborate mimes which took ages to put over simple points. The time taken was simply too much for the guy who acquired ASL. Though I have to note that the miming described does have a symbolic thing about it: something (ie bodily movements) is being described as standing for something else (in this case part of a bull-fight). What seemed to be missing is a way of abstracting further or even making certain kinds of abstract concept which can carry a lot more semantic freight.

 

No comments:

"Spend and tax" not "tax and spend"

 I got a response from my MP which got me kind of mad. You'll see why as I reproduce it here. Apologies for the strange changes in types...