Mind hacks: inside the mind of an autistic savant Thread poster: Vito Smolej
|
|---|
Vito Smolej
Germany
Local time: 23:06
Member (2004)
English to Slovenian
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Niraja Nanjundan (X) 
Local time: 02:36
German to English
Thanks for the link to this fascinating topic. The connection made between language and numbers is particularly interesting to me, as I was never any good at maths, but always got good grades in languages at school.
I much prefer this kind of topic to the constant cribbing about rates and CAT tools on ProZ. Please keep posting
| | | |
This kind of thing has always amazed and fascinated me. Thanks for the post!
| | | | Tim Drayton
Cyprus
Local time: 00:06
Turkish to English
+ ...
| He learned Icelandic in a week | Jan 10, 2009 |
"He learned Icelandic in a week."
This assertion is meaningless unless we are told the level of competence that he achieved in that time. Did he learn Icelandic such that he was indistinguishable from a native speaker, or did he manage to memorise a dozen stock phrases? I think this makes a lot of difference!
| | |
|
|
|
| Interesting, but... | Jan 10, 2009 |
Unfortunately there are several aspects of language that autistic subjects can't handle.
Language is not just semantics, I would rather say that meaning is much more related to the context than it is to words.
As you may know, there are three fundamental parts of language: Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics. The first two are pretty famous, but the third is extremely interesting.
Pragmatics is the part of meaning which is related to the context, and that involves a lot of... See more Unfortunately there are several aspects of language that autistic subjects can't handle.
Language is not just semantics, I would rather say that meaning is much more related to the context than it is to words.
As you may know, there are three fundamental parts of language: Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics. The first two are pretty famous, but the third is extremely interesting.
Pragmatics is the part of meaning which is related to the context, and that involves a lot of automatic (and not) mechanisms we use everyday in conversations. So, for instance, when we use a pronoun, we refer to something that the context (linguistic and non linguistic, as the environment or the situation) determines. Or, whether we use a number in a precise rather than in an approximative way, is still the context that is determining it.
Or when we say something implicitly, the hearer can grasp our "hidden" meaning through some consideration about the context. This is also valid for lies, irony, metaphor comprehension, focus, etc...
In my thesis in Philosophy of language (Pragmatics) I wrote about some studies on autistic people and their capability of handling implicit meaning.
The experiments conducted on children showed that autistic subjects can't handle implicit, contexual meaning. This mostly because these subjects can't have a clear idea about other people's state of mind (they could have difficulties in understanding the meaning of a smile, or of a facial expression), since they cannot build a representation of a social behaviour.
This is really sad, after all. This guy says anyway that he has a mild form of autism and he grew up in a very social environment so he had to speak. Really impressive that he learnt, among the others, Finnish and Icelandic.
I think I am going to buy the book anyway.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some references of the studies I was talking about:
Cummings, L. (2005) Pragmatics: a multidisciplinary perspective, Edinburgh University Press.
Mitchell, P. & Isaacs, J.E. (1994) Understanding of verbal representation in children with autism: The case of referential opacity. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12, 439-453.
Sodian, B. & Frith, U. (1992) Deception and Sabotage in Autistic, Retarded and Normal Children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Volume 33 Issue 3, Pages 591 - 605 ▲ Collapse
| | | | Vito Smolej
Germany
Local time: 23:06
Member (2004)
English to Slovenian
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER SITE LOCALIZER
Livia Formisani wrote:
....
Pragmatics is the part of meaning which is related to the context
....
contextual disambiguation of the underlying grammatical rules?
The experiments conducted on children showed that autistic subjects can't handle implicit, contexual meaning. This mostly because these subjects can't have a clear idea about other people's state of mind
Brilliant. Or - Si non e vero, e ben trovato (g)
| | | | | Not Only...But Also... | Jan 13, 2009 |
Not just contextual disambiguation: pragmatics does much more.
Let's say that contextual disambiguation is the first step, the first process, then there are many others, described differently along with the pragmatic theory we follow. But all pragmatic processes except disambiguation (and even the same disambiguation, when it's not matter of grammatic, but let's say of polysemy) go far beyond grammatic.
The first account was given by Grice in the 1957 with "Meaning" and above ... See more Not just contextual disambiguation: pragmatics does much more.
Let's say that contextual disambiguation is the first step, the first process, then there are many others, described differently along with the pragmatic theory we follow. But all pragmatic processes except disambiguation (and even the same disambiguation, when it's not matter of grammatic, but let's say of polysemy) go far beyond grammatic.
The first account was given by Grice in the 1957 with "Meaning" and above all with the William James Lectures of 1967 titled "Logic and conversation".
For the first time, he gave an explanation of how and how much does the context determine our meaning. He argued that there is a principle who all the participants in conversation follow, the Principle of Cooperation: "Make your contribution such as it is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged".
Along with this principle there are various maxim, as "Do not say what you believe to be false", or "Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.", etc (they are 10).
So he says all the participants in conversation respect the Principle and the maxims, although they don't know it, and they assume that the other is respecting them as well. From these assumptions and what the speaker says, we are able to draw part of the meaning.
For instance, one of Grice's examples was (more or less):
A: "That old lady is so nasty"
B: "Beautiful weather, isn't it?"
From B's answer, A can deduce that B doesn't want to talk about that topic. So B is openly not respecting the principle (assuming that normally he would), and for this behaviour there is just one explanation: he doesn't want to talk about that.
The same happens in case of irony, metaphor, focus, lies...The speaker/hearer could openly violate one or more of the various maxims or the principle.
After Grice there have been a lot of theories which tried to explain how we retrieve this additional meaning. It can appear all "implicit" meaning, but many philosophers argue that a big part of what we call semantic is after all pragmatic.
For instance, it has been argued from Grice that our use of logical connectives (and, or, if and only if) differs from the use in logic exactly because we, with our deductions about them, add some meaning to their (the use of "or" in logic is inclusive, in everyday conversation is exclusive: this, according to Grice, depends from the maxims).
Or, even more astonishing, that our use of quantifiers as "some, many, most, all" has an additional meaning which comes from the implicit meaning: the use of "some" in a sentence carries the implicit meaning "but not all" which wouldn't exist in the case of the quantifier "∃" in a logical formula (e.g. if it's not just some, but all individuals who have the property in question, the sentence is all the more so true).
This is just a bit of what pragmatic does.
Some famous theories have been developped (and are developed) by Sperber and Wilson, Recanati, Bach, Horn, Levinson and recently Jaszczolt.
P.S.= Dear Vito, I don't think I got the rest you wrote... ▲ Collapse
| | | | Vito Smolej
Germany
Local time: 23:06
Member (2004)
English to Slovenian
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER SITE LOCALIZER | Vito asks for more (g)... | Jan 13, 2009 |
Livia Formisani wrote
P.S.= Dear Vito, I don't think I got the rest you wrote...
well, yes, It was all I have written - it's my Socratic principle: shut up and listen to what the others have to say. You may learn something new.
Before I can start with any reasonable discussion, I have to catch up on the literature. I'll retire for the day with the 2-page H. Paul Grice: Logic and Conversation. [In: Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, Speech Acts]. Which you have - by the first look at it- pretty much abstracted in extenso.
Regards
Vito
| | |
|
|
|
| | Arnaud HERVE
France
Local time: 23:06
English to French
+ ...
| Arni Jonsson says | Jan 13, 2009 |
Tim Drayton wrote:
"He learned Icelandic in a week."
This assertion is meaningless unless we are told the level of competence that he achieved in that time. Did he learn Icelandic such that he was indistinguishable from a native speaker, or did he manage to memorise a dozen stock phrases? I think this makes a lot of difference!
Yes. Think so too.
I think I can understand Icelandic grammar in a week. And memorize some vocab. Especially the words that sound like other Germanic words I know.
Now applying that skillfully and speaking in a way that would make me "indistinguishable from a native speaker", I would have to spend at least a year with the natives. At the very least.
That is, if the natives don't eat me. You never know with those terrible dark norse polar wild alienated monstruous countries. All sorts of monstruous crimes happening during the polar night.
But understanding, yes, that is feasible. Or if you ask me to explain how Korean writing works, although I don't know now, if you give me a week I'll be able to give you the basic principles.
Speaking Korean? Writing Korean? Maybe in five years...
Liva Fomisani said:
For instance, it has been argued from Grice that our use of logical connectives...
Liva, it is forbidden to be more intelligent than average here.
I will make a request for you being excluded from Proz. Because I can't follow 5 lines of what you say.
Can't you step down a few grades and make useless, casual comments like the rest of us? You make me feel stupid.
[Edited at 2009-01-13 17:28 GMT]
| | | |
Sorry, I never find someone to talk about that
I guess I had to take the chance
| | | | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Mind hacks: inside the mind of an autistic savant | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
| | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
