I realize this title doesn’t make sense, but unlike me, you have not recently watched a TED talk by Erin McKean (you can correct that problem here). Because I like dictionaries, however, I did watch it. And it was cool. Very cool. She suggests the idea that dictionaries are limited by paper and manpower. In other words, there is no way that the people hired to write dictionaries have enough time or paper to realistically write down every new word in the English language, especially given that English is very prone to borrowing and creating new words. So she proposes a solution: the Internet as a dictionary, edited by the masses. I see everyone instantly thinking of urbandictionary.com and the fact that “prostiboots” (boots that are leather, higheeled, and thigh high just like ones found on a prostitute) is probably not a real word. However, McKean argues two excellent points: 1) there is no such thing as a word that is not a real word and 2) in order to create an effective online dictionary, we need to allow all contributions; but they need to be tagged, dated, and accounted for, as in any scientific project. Like any other amateur stumbling on a major discovery, lexicographers, linguists and the like will be there to make sure that everything is going along as planned. As a new word is created, or a word is used in a different form or sense, the beauty of an online dictionary is that whoever was witness to the event is now able to document it.
And, as a sidenote, my link to a classmate’s blog. She’s had some interesting insights into computers and language.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
So this post is actually from my notes last week, but hey! now I have internet, so I figured I’d post the notes late rather than never. It’s from the day we talked about windows and books as technology. The idea really clicked once we talked about the difference between literature and literary studies. (Because as long as we can tie it back to English and linguistics, I can understand it. Anything else, no.) Literary studies provide us with a frame in which to study literature, but literature is still independent in itself. It reminded me of this book I saw, called How to Read a Book. It seems conterintuitive. If you can’t read, you can’t learn how to read by reading, and if you can read, why bother? Yet the book exists, and at least one person bought it, so there must be more. In fact, its like a user’s manual for book “technology”. So many people think they know how to read, but are they getting the full potential from their books? It’s the same as Engelbart’s idea that the computer can be so much more than what we are currently using it for. It has the potential to grow exponentially, but no one has tapped into that potential yet. We are, in effect, still learning how to read.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
While I would like to say that the teleconference method drastically changed the style of the class last Tuesday, I found that this was not actually the case. One would expect that a lack of actual face-to-face interaction would limit both the understanding and communication between teacher and students, however, the beauty of the teleconference was the “tele” part. Because I could see facial expressions, hand gestures, etc. the non-verbal cues were not lost. In some ways, it even improved my understanding, but that might be because it was such a novelty. This is the only class I’ve ever had were distance did not preclude coming to class. In the end, I can’t say that the teleconference would be the ideal way to conduct a class on a daily basis, but it certainly beats University of Phoenix.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
So this week I didn’t have any Internet. Not only was it uncomfortable to be sitting in my room, wondering what to do, but I also found that a) my inbox was overflowing and b) I spent a lot more time talking to people. Which got me thinking about the idea of language as a medium. (because that’s what I do) I suppose part of my linguistic mind has always realized that language is a medium, and were I sitting in my Syntax class, the answer would come to my mind immediately. However, for some reason, I have always thought of the Internet as being above or outside of language. A silly idea, given that the Internet is really just an explosion of language available to everyone. But it was curious to me that I seemed to view language as the opposite of technology. Part of me views technology as a decline of the English language, like I’m some sort of linguistic purist stuck in time. But language is the ultimate technology. It’s always changing, being updated and revised, bugs being fixed.
J. C. R. Licklider’s (3 initials? Really?) article on the man-computer, while somewhat outdated in terms of the modern technology that has now been created, posits some interesting questions about how man and machine might work together. As a linguist, the most interesting of these hypotheses, to me, was the idea that computers could recognize and produce recognizable human speech. In modern times, there are in fact, multiple speech recognition software programs, and computerized speech can be found in GPS navigation systems and various other computerized items. However, the question for me, as a linguist, is how a computer can be truly taught to understand language when we as humans do not fully understand it. English has one of the most expansive vocabularies of any language in the world, and furthermore, it is very adaptable to new words through the addition of prefixes and suffixes. Furthermore, there are a large number of synonyms, homophones, and words with multiple meanings. Intonation, speed, and non-verbal cues also provide a context for definition. Lastly, if one accepts the Universal Grammar hypothesis, language is not a learned behavior but an intuitive one, much like birds learn to fly, in which case, computers cannot be taught intuition. And while one tends to think of the human mind as finite, much like RAM in a computer, language has the ability to be infinite. (I spotted a cat on a mat under the stairs with my binoculars…) Can the computer process infinity? Can it understand odd sentence structure or questions based on intonation rather than wh-movement? I know that they have created computers that can reasonably mimic human language; however, to have the truly symbiotic relationship that Licklider imagines, I cannot envision a computer that is capable of processing language in the same way that humans do.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
The first thing I thought of when I read this short story was those Choose Your Own Adventure books with various hypotheticals and endings. And they are actually somewhat similar, though I suppose Choose Your Own Adventure is a much less sophisticated version of the hypertext novel. However, once I passed my childhood reminiscing, I initially had trouble connecting this story to the idea of the internet as a hypertext. It wasn’t until I read the introduction to Ted Nelson’s article, “A File Structure for the Complex, the Changing, and the Indeterminate” that I begin to see what hypertext really is. The idea that a reader can jump from various locations and scenarios within a hypertext novel posits itself perfectly with the idea of the functions of the internet. Within an internet hypertext, one can move to various other areas, search for alternate definitions and realizations of any one topic or story, and that lends great power and creativity to the internet. And while one can view it as being free of time and place constraints, it also, most significantly, is free of author constraints. Because it can be viewed and edited by anyone, it is free from the constraints that having only a single author lend. The internet hypertext is free to jump around anywhere, and this lack of decisiveness and finality creates a type of ultimate, never-ending story.
After class the other day, I was thinking about how the Internet is the first truly international creation. More than the International Space Station, more than the United Nations. The Internet is the first space that is created not by diplomats and politicians, but by everyone. Anyone, at anytime, can edit, comment, create, and destroy the Internet. It isn’t monitored by the government or by parents. And something so chaotic leads one to wonder what it is comprised of. The answer, of course, is that is is made up of anyone and everyone. Not just WASPS, as we Baylor students tend to think when someone says “anyone”, but a community that crosses borders and cultures. It breeds a new culture, an Internet culture. And not just gaming and blogging communities, but culture of communication with anyone, anywhere, at anytime. So many “any” prefixes just goes to show how open the Internet is. And is raises the question now of what culture really is. Is it a fixed community with a fixed set of values? Is is a common border or ethnicity? Anthropologically speaking, yes, it is. But the Internet proposes the idea that everyone is part of a common culture. And it makes one wonder if the idea of a culture means anything anymore.
