text:
User:Nathanael Crawford

= Short Bio = I am a fourth-year Psychology and French double-major at the University of King's College and Dalhousie University. I will be writing regular blog posts and contributing to Psycholinguistics on the mental lexicon for my third-year course in psycholinguistics.

Also, I have uploaded some images I have created for my contribution to the Wikimedia Commons. Here's the link to my user page there.

= Blog Posts =

Linguistic Determinism (January 14, 2011)
I've always been intrigued by the relationship between language and cognitive processes, such as thought, and where the distinctions lie between these. When I think, even as I write this blog post, I perceive my thought as occurring through words. Is this just the final stage of my thinking before oral or written production or does my language determine my thinking in some way? There is evidence that goes against this in terms of how people who speak different languages think about colours. Speakers of different languages with different numbers and types of colour words can all segment the colour spectrum equally well (Rabin and Cain, 1986, as cited in Jay, 2003). There is a caveat to this, however, in terms of how people think about odours. For example, since odour perception is far more ambiguous than colour perception, a person will think that a strawberry drink smells like a raspberry one if it is labeled “raspberry” (Engen, 1991, as cited in Jay, 2003). Also, odours with specific labels are remembered better than those with more vague ones. Thus, while different languages may not specifically determine what their speakers think, it seems to me that, language can be used in a top-down manner to help people with ambiguous perceptions and memories. Though language probably doesn’t determine thought, it does seem to help facilitate and organize it. This makes me wonder about people who grow up without any language. If language is involved in thought, is their thought impaired in some way? I remember learning about the Wild Boy of Aveyron in one of my classes, who grew up in the wild with no language. When he was found, he seemed to lack any sort of emotional regulation, screeching and grunting every time he didn’t get his way. Perhaps this was due to the fact that he didn’t have the necessary language to regulate his thoughts and mentally soothe himself. As he learned language, these episodes seemed to decrease. Of course, the fact that he wasn’t socialized by humans in the wild could be a confounding factor, for language is intimately linked with social behaviour. I’ll end this post with a final thought; “Can language, in and of itself, become associated with thinking without the social component?” --Nathanael Crawford 13:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thinking About the Mental Lexicon (January 21, 2011)
So, I’ve been working on my outline for the section in Psycholinguistics I’m writing on the mental lexicon. I’ve already done a fair amount of research on this topic for a research project I’m doing at Dalhousie on cognate words and how they are represented in the bilingual mental lexicon. The literature I’ve based my research on argues heavily for a “morphological” organization of the mental lexicon (both monolingual and bilingual) meaning that words are organized by their root word (Marslen-Wilson et al., 1994; Rastle et al., 2000; Lalor and Kirsner, 2001). In my course textbook, however, a broader view of the lexicon is presented, which seems to rely heavily on a semantic organization of words, whereby words that share meaning to a high degree are placed closer together and thus access each other faster (e.g. in priming studies) (Jay, 2003). What I want to know is, is there one main was words are organized in the lexicon (e.g. by a shared root form) and then all the other information (e.g. semantic, phonological etc.) is linked up to that representation, or are they all conflated together? A related question I have is, “Do words map directly on to the concepts they represent or are they completely separate?” Also, “Is conceptual knowledge different than semantic knowledge about a word?”  I'm looking forward to examining these questions further. --Nathanael Crawford 23:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The McGurk Effect (January 28, 2011)
We’ve been talking about speech perception in class for the past week, and we recently learned about a really neat perceptual effect known as the McGurk Effect. This effect occurs when the auditory and visual cues of a spoken phoneme do not match up. This effect primarily occurs with phonemes with formants that mirror each other on a spectrogram (e.g. /g/ and /b/ have first formants that mirror each other) (Newman, 2011a). The result: when one hears /b/ and sees the lips move to say /g/, is a phoneme with an intermediary first formant is perceived, in this case /d/. What I want to know is if this works for all consonant combinations, for example, if sounds more similar than /b/ and /g/ produce this effect, (e.g., /ʃ/ and /s/), and if it occurs between consonants voiced differently, (e.g., /z/ and /s/). It would seem to me that this effect would only occur for consonants that form distinct phonemes in a given language with distinct phonemes that fall in between them in terms of frequency/formant shape and place of articulation. Furthermore, they could only vary along one parameter, such as place of articulation. After having looked at the paper in which this effect was originally described (McGurk & McDonald, 1976), the effect is the same for the voiceless counterparts of /b/, /d/, and /g/ (/p/, /t/, /k/), but they also concluded that some consonant combinations work better than others. (Would this effect be seen for fully voiced, murmured, and aspirated words too?) --Nathanael Crawford 20:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Morphology and ASL (February 2, 2011)
In class on Monday, we learned about the typology of morphology in different languages. At one extreme, analytic languages have a 1:1 morpheme to word ratio, with a separate word to mark tense, aspect, number etc. At the other extreme, polysynthetic languages, such as Kivunjo, have a many:1 meaning to morpheme ratio and morpheme to word ratio. Number, tense, aspect and even subject and object, many of which are all expressed by one marker, can all expressed in the same word (Newman, 2011b). We also discussed how American Sign Language could be considered a polysynthetic language. Here, visual space is used in various ways to convey number, person etc. simultaneously. For example, we learned that the they way one says “you (2pers.sing.subj.) give (2pers.sing.) me(1 pers.sing.obj.),” by performing the sign for “give” and moving the hand straight outward simultaneously. To reverse subject and object, the same sign and motion are simply performed in reverse. We learned that adverbials can also be expressed simultaneously by facial expression. This makes me wonder how tense and aspect are marked and, more generally, if morphology works in the same way in the mind of a deaf person, who “sees” morphology all at once, as it does with those who hear morphology linearly. In short, I found an article that answers both these questions. Emmorey (1991) shows that the continuative aspect, for “give,” for example, is conveyed by performing the “give” sign in a circular motion. (Is this done at the same time as the action for number to say, for example, that, “I am giving you chocolate”?) Also, she found uniquely morphological priming for ASL signers, as there is for English speakers (Marslen-Wilson et al., 1994), but that is was stronger for aspect inflections, which are more semantically rich, than agreement inflections. --Nathanael Crawford 01:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Syntax and Working Memory (February 13, 2011)
In class on Friday, we discussed Chomsky’s Generative Grammar. Specifically, we looked at syntax (or sentence grammar), how it is different from semantics even though it contributes to understanding in many ways, and how Chomsky suggests that it is a distinct cognitive faculty. Our professor highlighted the fact that, despite the widespread acceptance of this model, Chomsky did not account for the limitations working memory imposes on syntactic processing. Perhaps I am jumping the gun for next class, but I am interested in what some of these limitations are. Though sentence grammar is indeed generative, theoretically allowing for an infinitely long “run-on” sentence (e.g., See the third paragraph of the introduction to the King James Bible), we can only store so much information in our brains for immediate processing at a time. Initially, I assumed that this simply meant that, like with digits in phone number memorization, there was only a maximum number of words or phrases that the working memory could hold. It is actually not as simple as that, from what I have read. One example that illustrates this point is that of individuals’ ability to process “center-embedded clauses.” King and Just (1991) found that individuals took less time to read subject-relative embedded clauses, like, “The bully who hit the boy yelled,” than object-relative embedded clauses, like, “The bully who the boy hit yelled”. This shows that phrase or clause positioning is more important than number in terms of the use of working memory's resources. Ultimately, this suggests that perhaps grammar is not as separate from other cognitive faculties (like working memory) as was initially assumed. --Nathanael Crawford 22:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Gesture and the Mental Lexicon (February 22, 2011)
Part of my course mark for my contribution to Psycholinguistics is based on a peer revision of another classmate’s chapter. I chose to review the chapter on gesture because I thought it would be fairly unrelated to my chapter on the mental lexicon and I wanted to learn something completely new. Well, I certainly did learn many new things, but I was most intrigued by a point made by the author that indirectly related gesture to my chapter topic. In one section of her chapter, the author makes the point that gesture has been shown to facilitate lexical access for certain types of words (specifically visuo-spatial words). Lexical access is intimately linked to the structure of the mental lexicon; how words are organized in the mind. While I contend that many aspects of words are represented in the mental lexicon, such as phonology, morphology and semantics, she implies (or I infer) that the gestures associated with a word are represented too. Indeed, as she cites, Morel-Samuels and Kraus (1992) have shown that the more familiar as person is with a word, the less time it takes for him or her to produce its associated gesture. This suggests that a gesture, a specific motor movement, not only facilitates access to, but is also represented along with the word it describes (i.e., its “lexical affiliate”).

There are a couple of points to be raised from this. First, one must remember to control for this when studying how the other aspects of words (mentioned above) are represented in the mental lexicon (e.g., Are we using confounding motor tasks to indicate responses like lexical decisions while assessing the role of morphology?). Second, what does this mean for people who communicate primarily by ASL? Are ASL signs represented like gestures in the mental lexicon or is it more complicated than this (which I suspect). Interesting things to think about… --Nathanael Crawford 13:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Music and Reading (March 6, 2011)
Recently in class we discussed a very interesting topic, the relationship between music and language in the brain. Do the brain regions responsible for processing in these areas overlap in any way? Are they the same or completely different? There is certainly good reason to believe that similar cognitive faculties are involved in both cases because there are many similar (if not the same) skills involved in musical and linguistic processing and production. For example, both language and music have phonology, differences in sounds indicating differences in meaning, and rules for combining those sounds appropriately. Also, there is an underlying grammar to both musical and linguistic phrases and even a symbolic notation for writing these phrases (and sounds) that must be mastered.

There is also reason to believe that music and language areas may be dissociated. A classmate of mine mentioned the movie that won the Academy Award for Best Picture this year, The King’s Speech. There is a great scene in this movie, where King George (played by Collin Firth), is having a great deal of difficulty reading a selection from Shakespeare. When his therapist puts earphones with music playing on his head and gets him to read, he does so flawlessly. The therapist even teaches him to use well-known tunes to sing what he wants to say to overcome his stuttering. This suggests that, when the normal speech production route is impaired, the musical route can compensate for this because it is distinct in some way.

Another thing that intrigued me was that King George, in this movie, was reading. In class, we focused mainly on the oral aspect of language, rather than the written… but what about reading and music? I found a very interesting article on this topic, specifically about how learning to read music can facilitate, and even enhance, children’s learning to read regular text (Henderson & Bernstorf, 2002). This paper, Linking Music Learning and Reading Instruction, cited a number of studies that showed a correlation between the various aspects of mastering music and learning to read. Specifically, the authors noted that one study showed that pitch skills and reading skills correlate highly. Though more research is needed in this area to make stronger conclusions, the authors highlighted one main benefit to retaining music programs in schools: It gets kids excited about reading in general! For example, when kids read lyrics underneath the notes, this reading of text becomes associated with the positive emotions elicited by singing/playing music. Thus, while the exact neural mechanisms that are involved in both music and language may still be unclear, it is clear that interest in music should not be discouraged if we want to promote the healthy development of reading skills in children. --Nathanael Crawford 02:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Speech Production and the Mental Lexicon (March 10, 2011)
In class on Monday, we discussed models of speech production. These models all try to explain the steps involved in going from the thought of a word, its semantics, to expressing it in the correct sequence of phonemes. As we went through these models, I noticed that many of them were very similar to many of the models of the mental lexicon I read about for my chapter contribution to Psycholinguistics. In particular, Levelt and colleagues’ (1999) model of speech production intrigued me. It built directly off the Bock and Levelt (1994) model of the mental lexicon, which is a spreading activation model that accounts for, what I consider to be, all the key components of word knowledge. These include the context in which it is used, its semantics, syntactical information, morphology, and phonological information. Typically, support for models such as this comes from various tasks that induce lexical access (such as lexical decision tasks). Support for models of speech production, on the other hand, come from the more spontaneous speech of people. While Levelt and colleagues’ two models are very similar, I have now realized that the Model of the Lexicon seems to be more static, or structural, while the Model of speech production is more dynamic. The former focuses more on the components of word knowledge, while the latter focuses more on how we actually move from component to component to get to speech output.

A question I have is: Is lexical access different when we are trying to achieve the complicated task of speech production compared to when we are making a more simple motor decision about a word? Related to this, do we have one mental lexicon that is accessed differently in speech (or text) perception and speech (or text) production or two separate lexicons for each that are interconnected? Should we go beyond mere lexical decision and semantic categorization tasks to model the lexicon to include tasks that require more spontaneous production rather than just split-second decisions? --Nathanael Crawford 14:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Revisiting Linguistic Determinism (March 19, 2011)
The first topic we covered in my psycholinguistics course was the degree to which the language(s) we know can determine the very way we think about the world. I’ve learned a few things since then, which have helped me to refine the way I approach this topic.

While researching my chapter on the mental lexicon I came across a very interesting quote, which I think is very applicable:

“Although words depend on the existence of concepts, the inverse is not true: concepts can, and do, lead a life independently of words.” -- Christiane Fellbaum

The concept conveyed in these elegant words is that the former do not need the latter: we do not need language to think! There is actually a lot of support for this. First, just think of abstract concepts like “love.” We all have an intuition of what love is, but we’d be hard pressed to find two people to agree on an exact, word-based definition of it. Secondly, when you look at people with tip-of-the-tongue disorder and certain types of aphasia (e.g. anomia) or elderly people who have word-finding problems, they can often eventually define a concept accurately through circumlocutions and long descriptions of the concept for which they cannot find the appropriate word. This takes a lot of effort, however, and people don’t want to have to expend this kind of effort often, so it is easier for them to just not talk. When words fail altogether, people can fall back on gestures to express their thoughts and feelings. Sometimes people can even know a word, but just lack the ability to express it verbally, as in the example of Carly Fleischmann, a severely autistic girl who could not speak, but began miraculously typing her thoughts out one day. Here is one very striking, yet very heartbreaking, thing she has to say,

''“It is hard to be autistic because no one understands me. People look at me and assume I am dumb because I can’t speak.”'' -- Carly Fleischmann

This highlights the one thing I find the most disturbing about the implications of the linguistic determinism hypothesis; that people who don’t have verbal language are stupid. Worf (the father of Linguistic Determinism) made the fatal error of assuming that people could only conceive of what their language allowed them to talk about. This is clearly not the case.

On Monday, we discussed in class how language has to develop within a critical period of development for people to be able to use it effectively. It seems to me that the specific language we learn during our formative years may determine the concepts we can convey to others through words, not necessarily the concepts as they are represented in our minds. Though there are certainly consequences to not learning language early in life and different outcomes for people who learn different languages, we need to remember that people who do not communicate in the ways we prefer are in no way cognitively inferior to us.

Getting back to my first post, and the Wild Boy of Aveyron, his body language clearly showed that there was so much going on in his head that he just could not convey with words. If anything, his acting out was probably more of a social phenomenon rather than a linguistic one; he was frustrated that he couldn’t communicate and hadn’t learned socially appropriate ways to deal with this frustration. In the end, he did learn more appropriate behaviours and alternative ways to communicate (e.g., cue cards), many of which are still used by clinicians today. --Nathanael Crawford 15:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Bilingualism, the Brain, and the Mental Lexicon (March 23, 2011)
Today in class we talked about bilingualism. Building off of our discussion on critical periods in language development, we discussed the effects of age of acquisition of a second-language on one’s proficiency in that language. One article that we discussed that piqued my interest was on the parts of the language areas of the brain that overlap in bilinguals. Kim et al. (1997) published a paper in Nature that showed that distinct parts of Broca’s area are activated (in fMRI) when late second-language learners perform internal descriptions of their day, depending on which language they use. Early second-language learners, however, showed a high-degree of overlap in the parts of Broca’s area that were activated for each of their languages while performing the same internal descriptions. Wernicke’s area, by contrast, shows overlap in the areas activated by each language irrespective of age of acquisition of the second language. The authors of this study were not terribly explicit about the specific linguistic function of these areas for bilinguals, and there were a number of important limitations to this study because it was so general in nature.

Turning to my personal interests in the mental lexicon, there are a number of studies that show that different areas of the brain light up depending on the specific properties (e.g., syntactic or semantic information, open or closed class) of words that are targeted by experimental tasks. I wonder if these same areas would overlap in bilinguals, with varying ages of second-language acquisition, if the same tasks and designs were used, but modified accordingly. There is conflicting information on this in the lexical decision, priming literature that does not use neuroimaging (Voga & Grainger, 2007), when looking at bilinguals reaction times to different types of words from the languages they know. I wonder if the type of imaging studies I mentioned could provide some clarification here. --Nathanael Crawford 01:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Reading Programs and Conflicts of Interest (March 30, 2011)
On Monday we began our group debates in various topics related to psycholinguistics. I was really intrigued by the today’s debate on the Fast ForWord® reading intervention program and how successful it has been reported to be (particularly by the Nevada Department of Education). Their report showed a 22% increase in children’s reading ability from one grade to the next, a result that puts it ahead of competing programs. There were so many competing programs that I couldn’t even count them all!

This leads right into one of the central issues debated; allegations of conflicts of interest between the creators of the Fast ForWord® program and many of the researchers who did studies that show results that show positive outcomes. My purpose here is not to argue for or against these allegations. In fact, I feel that people who use “conflicts of interest” as a main argument against the implementation of specific reading programs should think twice. Every reading program created by a private company could be accused having conflicts of interest associated with it. It would be hard for this not to be the case; creators of these programs have to work hard to design and manufacture them and then promote them to highly critical scientific, political, and educational communities. Also, it would be hard for a reading researcher, who knows how to help children who struggle, not to base a commercial product off his or her own research.

Furthermore, different studies of different regions even show varying results in terms of their success, and there is not so much “conflict of interest” that every study is impacted by it! To me, it seems more a matter of how these reading programs are implemented once they are purchased, rather than whether they are “good tools” or not, that determines how successful they are (in general). I don’t feel that antagonizing their promoters is helpful.

In fact, it seems to me that focusing solely on “conflicts of interest” in studies can actually hinder their effectiveness. The Reading First controversy in the United States comes to mind on this topic. Here, the United States government provided funding to schools to implement any reading programs as long as they were based on “scientifically-based reading research.” In some areas, it showed little success in terms of children’s reading comprehension and phonological awareness, while in others, it was hugely successful. The ultimate downfall of this program surrounded not the scientific studies on the program, but the allegations of conflicts of interest among those who spearheaded it in Washington. The leaders were accused of promoting or allowing into Reading First reading programs they were personally invested in. Being reading experts themselves, though, they were supporting researchers and programs that they knew were legitimate; programs that fit the strict scientifically-based criteria! It seems to me that sometimes “conflicts of interest” are really conflicts of common sense… isn’t it logical that experts are personally invested in programs that they know work and find that their research supports them? --Nathanael Crawford 01:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Language of Instruction Debate and Course Review (April 6, 2011)
The debate topic for today’s class concerned whether the dominant language of a country should be the only language of instruction for immigrants. The “for” side mainly argued that this should be the case for two key reasons: 1) First, studies show that the younger immigrants are when they begin to learn the dominant language, the more fluent they become in it. 2) Second, it is necessary for immigrants to learn the dominant language to be able to get jobs. The “against” side argued that this should not be the case because for a number of reasons. 1) “Motivation” is the key factor in terms of job success for immigrants, suggesting that it is important for them to be able to cultivate their native language to maintain their culture and drive to succeed in life. 2) They also stated that immigrants who maintain their native language, and learn the country’s dominant language secondarily become better bilinguals overall. 3) It was their third point that really got me, though. They argued that immigrants tend to cluster together in communities that promote their native language.  This means that there will be job opportunities immigrants in their native language in the larger of these communities.  Indeed, this is the case in large metropolitan areas here in Canada, like Toronto and Montreal.

The reason why this won me over is because it made me recall a sociolinguistics class I took last year where the professor highlighted the fact that this sort of “clustering” behaviour was actually the norm throughout the world, and that most countries are actually very linguistically diverse. Indeed, us North Americans often forget that the unilingual "world" we operate in is actually quite abnormal. Some countries in Africa don’t even have a “majority” language, but have multiple minority languages. Work may take place in any number of languages in these countries and people get along quite fine. My point: I think that we cannot generalize what we take for granted as the linguistic norm here in Canada, and I wish both debate teams could have addressed this issue.

Shifting focus completely to the course in general, I was really intrigued by it overall. I really liked the approach of having us contribute a chapter on Wikiversity for our main mark for many reasons. First, it allowed us to pick a psycholinguistic topic that we found interesting and delve deeper into it than we would normally in a course like this. Secondly, the fact that we were responsible for our own research and could write our chapter how we wanted really motivated me to work hard and engage with the material. Thirdly, I found it very rewarding to know that others all around the world would be able to benefit from my study, and not just the professor or TA that does the marking. The same goes for the blog posts. Because we could write about what we wanted, I felt I could just write pages (I would have liked to see them be worth a greater percentage of my mark, however, due to the effort I put into them). Anyway, the course was unique overall, and I wish more of my courses were like this (promoting a more liberal, personally relevant learning style). --Nathanael Crawford 17:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

= External Links =
 * Wild Boy of Aveyron
 * The McGurk Effect
 * Introduction to the King James Bible
 * Carly Fleischmann
 * Fast ForWord®
 * The Reading First Controversy

= References =

title: User:Nathanael Crawford


text:
User talk:Alicataroo

 Hello Alicataroo, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Ottava Rima (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Chinese VS English processing
I added : I haven't access to it, but sound nice. An emphasis on words also seems interesting. Cheer ! Yug (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Alicataroo


text:
User talk:Nathanael Crawford

 Hello Nathanael Crawford, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Ottava Rima (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nathanael Crawford


text:
User talk:AngelaTaylor

 Hello AngelaTaylor, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Ottava Rima (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:AngelaTaylor


text:
User talk:Megsmith

 Hello Megsmith, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Ottava Rima (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Megsmith


text:
User talk:Starfield~enwikiversity

 Hello Starfield, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Ottava Rima (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Diagram.pdf
Hi! Thanks for uploading the file File:Diagram.pdf. Unfortunately, it isn't currently in use and doesn't have any licensing information, so as part of a cleanup I've tagged it to be removed. If you would like to keep the file here, though, that would be great - all you need to do is add an appropriate license if the copyright belongs to you, or if it is otherwise available under a compatible free license. If you need any help, just ask - I'm very happy to assist. - Bilby 02:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Files Missing License Information
Thank you for uploading files to Wikiversity. See Media for copyright and license requirements for Wikiversity files. All files must have copyright and/or license information added to the file.

Instructions for adding copyright and/or license information are available at License tags. Files must be updated within seven days or they may be removed without further notice. See Requests For Deletion for more information.

The following files are missing copyright and/or license information:
 * File:Morphemetype.png

MaintenanceBot (discuss • contribs) 03:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Starfield. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Starfield~enwikiversity that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 00:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Starfield~enwikiversity


text:
User talk:Ectoombs

 Hello Ectoombs, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Ottava Rima (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ectoombs


text:
User:JuWenOu

Ju Wen Ou is an undergraduate student at the Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and is currently in her third year of Psychology major degree.

title: User:JuWenOu


text:
User talk:Cbrousseau

 Hello Cbrousseau, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Ottava Rima (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cbrousseau


text:
User talk:KittHoleman

 Hello KittHoleman, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Ottava Rima (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:KittHoleman


text:
User talk:Aslwin

 Hello Aslwin, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Ottava Rima (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Aslwin


text:
User talk:Doaney

 Hello Doaney, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Ottava Rima (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Doaney


text:
User talk:Samanathaarseneau

 Hello Samanathaarseneau, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Ottava Rima (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Files Missing License Information
Thank you for uploading files to Wikiversity. See Media for copyright and license requirements for Wikiversity files. All files must have copyright and/or license information added to the file.

Instructions for adding copyright and/or license information are available at License tags. Files must be updated within seven days or they may be removed without further notice. See Requests For Deletion for more information.

The following files are missing copyright and/or license information:
 * File:CrossWord.png
 * File:HIPS.jpg
 * File:Subitize.png

MaintenanceBot (discuss • contribs) 03:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

title: User talk:Samanathaarseneau


text:
User talk:Charliekramer

 Hello Charliekramer, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Ottava Rima (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Charliekramer


text:
User talk:Johnboudreau

 Hello Johnboudreau, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Ottava Rima (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Johnboudreau


text:
User talk:Joel Sardinha

 Hello Joel Sardinha, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Ottava Rima (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Joel Sardinha


text:
User talk:Stepheny

 Hello Stepheny, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Ottava Rima (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Stepheny


text:
User:Akvdh

3rd year at Dalhousie University. Major in psychology, minor in journalism. From Georgia.

title: User:Akvdh


text:
User:Jnvincent

Jacqueline Vincent is the author of the chapter on Reading in the collaborative Psycholinguistics textbook project, based out of Dalhousie University.

= The Author =

I am a third-year honours neuroscience student at the University of King's College and Dalhousie. After graduating, I plan to work and travel for awhile before eventually applying to medical school. My long-term goals at this point are to do a combination of clinical and humanitarian work, and help improve the structure and accessibility of the mental health care system. When not working or studying I enjoy brains, philosophy, vegan cupcakes, poetry, Garrison stout, and the things that Joss Whedon has seen fit to put into the world.

= The Blog =

January 16th, 2011
This week's readings and lectures were meant to set up a foundation for studying psycholinguistics: we discussed what language is, the history of linguistic theories, and how language shapes thought, and began looking at the neural basis of language. Attempting to think about the role of language in the nature of thought is a strange experience, to say the least. Not all of thought is linguistic - for example, emotional experiences or visualizing imagery are cognitive experiences that aren't initially constrained by language. In cases such as those, language is a constraint: trying to encompass a complicated emotional state in words can never quite get across the immediate, visceral aspect of experiencing it. But what is fascinating is that we choose to use a system that puts limits on our experiences, because the process of getting what happens in one person's mind into someone else's requires some medium of translation. We need to communicate, and this system of using symbols for other, often abstract things has been working well for us. Different cultures have different sets of symbols and combinatorial (syntactic) rules, but all are generative, recursive, agreed-upon systems for communicating ideas and desires. We use language to communicate things that are more abstract and beyond our immediate needs than in animal communication systems, and our symbols are highly complex and connotative. I really liked the phrase that Steven Pinker applies to human language: it is the "instinct to acquire an art," meaning that it is both innate and something that can be developed as a tool and a means of creative expression. It's interesting to wonder if we could have developed some other form of communication that wasn't linguistic. I personally doubt it - until the day comes when we can read each other's minds or directly transfer thoughts between people, we will need some system where publicly understandable signs stand for private thoughts.

January 22nd, 2011
This past week in class, we explored the implementation of language in the brain and various ways of measuring it using technology like EEG and fMRI, and began looking at speech perception in terms of how we understand a stream of sounds as cohesive speech. I found the discussion of all the various types of aphasias to be very interesting - as well as terrifying, to be honest. Most varieties of aphasia come with a mix of ability and disability depending on which area of the brain is damaged. For example, a person with damage to the left inferior frontal gyrus - the typical location of Broca's area - can usually comprehend speech, but has difficulty naming objects or verbally communicating. Conversely, damage to Wernicke's area (a temporoparietal lesion) results in someone who is excellent at producing speech but lacks semantic coherency, ending up with word salad. Most people's basic syntactic and semantic language abilities are localized in the left hemisphere (though not all, given that 27% of left-handed people are bilateral or left hemisphere-localized for language), and the more affective and prosodic aspects of language are localized in the right hemisphere. Something about this struck a chord with me: I had never before considered the possibility of losing abilities that seem more and more intrinsic to our humanity the more thought I give to the psychology of language. I don't want to fall into the trap of implying that those with brain injuries and linguistic disabilities are somehow lesser people or "broken" - perhaps differences in language ability is just another example of neurodiversity that hasn't been given much thought. It's more that in the context of my own life, the prospect of experiencing global aphasia or losing emotional affect would feel horrifically isolating from the rest of the world. I wondered how actual people with aphasias had dealt with them, and if they had built a new system of communication for themselves or if they had devised ways to integrate themselves back into "normal" linguistic society. I was unsurprised to find that the latter was more true: a quick search led to many tips for improved communication with those with aphasias, and working around linguistic disabilities to take more advantage of intact functions. For example, the Aphasia Institute in Ontario has devised a system called Supported Conversation, using trained intermediaries with a variety of textual and pictographic tools to help conversations happen. The general pattern for recovery from an injury or stroke seems to be consistent implementation of speech therapy, beginning with teaching a patient concrete, immediately useful words and moving on from there to gradually more complex ideas. The focus is on helping a person feel like they are able to communicate again.

January 29th, 2011
The most important thing we covered this week in class is the fact that chinchillas have categorical perception.

Well, perhaps that wasn't quite the take-home message of this week's lectures, which discussed aural and visual perception of language. Since the chapter I'm writing for the upcoming textbook is on reading and I've been immersed in background reading lately, I'm a little more excited by the new information about acoustic phonetics and perception. We looked at speech spectrograms, which illustrate the frequency and intensity of acoustic output over time. I found it so neat that even outside of unrealistic spy movies with voice-coded secret doors, human voices do indeed have "fingerprints" of a sort. Vocal output contains multiple formants or resonances, each of which varies in a significant way depending on which sounds are being articulated. F0 is the base formant, which is the relatively invariant sound that a person always has: this is the source of their distinctive voice. F1 and F2 are formants covering lower and higher frequency bands, respectively, and they vary with location of articulation in the vocal tract, providing most of the linguistic information in speech. Interestingly, if the two frequency bands with the most acoustic information are separated and played individually, very little information can be gleaned from either one. Only with simultaneous or binaural presentation do they become intelligible.

I study vocal music in my spare time, and all this information led me to wonder about what the spectrogram of a singer might look like, and how their formants would be different from a normal speaker or an untrained singer. Apparently, there exists a particular "singers' formant," with resonance around 2,500-3,000 Hz: if there is a major peak around 3 kHz in a voice, the singer is said to have this formant. Resonance at this frequency allows a singer to be heard over an orchestra, whose sound begins to lose amplitude with frequency higher than 450 Hz (the same range in which a normal speaking voice begins to lose intensity). Thus, projecting over accompaniment requires something extra from the singer in terms of frequency.

The other thing I found quite interesting this week was the idea of categorical perception, and how it varies from person to person based on linguistic upbringing. We perceive sounds on a continuum from one phoneme to another, and while we are excellent at distinguishing between categories, our within-category discrimination is quite poor. For example, modifying the voice-onset time of a consonant will produce a slightly different sound, but a listener will not detect a meaningful difference until the VOT change crosses a certain threshold point or boundary between categories. These points of discrimination vary widely, depending on which sound discriminations are necessary in a speaker's native language. The example given in class illustrated this with Hindi consonants, which would be easily distinguishable to native Hindi speakers, but much less so to speakers of a language such as English, in which the phonemes heard would all fall into the same perceptual category. This is a really neat application of linguistic relativity: native language may or may not have major influence on our conscious cognition, but it certainly shapes the way we hear every word we come into contact with. It would be interesting to investigate how bilingualism would play into this, and if late-life language learning can modify perception...

February 5th, 2011
Due to a snow day and a university holiday, this week was short on lecture material. Of course, given that the first drafts of our textbook chapters are due in less than a week, I’ve been traipsing through a virtual stack of PDFs about the psychology of reading that would kill many a tree if printed out. I knew that I would learn a lot about my chosen topic in the process of writing this chapter, but I didn’t realize how much insight it would give me into my own cognitive processes. I’ve been writing about the stages of reading, from logographic (recognizing words based on visual features) to alphabetic and logographic (recognizing words by identifying letters and letter patterns with pronunciations), and it’s strange how I can recall looking at distinctive logos and “reading” some semantically equivalent variation on the actual name of the company (McDonald’s was “the fry store,” as my parents never tire of reminding me), just like the children described in the studies I’ve read.

Even stranger to realize was the fact that English is so incredibly hard to learn in comparison to other Western languages! Probably the most interesting study I’ve read so far examined children learning to read in English, German, Dutch, Swedish, French, Spanish, and Finnish, and compared their progress over time and how quickly they could read and comprehend text. English readers were ludicrously far behind all the other languages for years of elementary school, while the Finns and Swedes were pulling ahead. The authors suggested that English readers were at a disadvantage because the relationships between written letters and sounds are so unreliable in comparison to the other languages. As well, English-speaking children tend to start reading instruction much earlier than in other countries, which seems intuitive but may actually just lead to confusion. I barely remember the process of learning to read, since it happened so early for me and my parents had been reading with me since I was born. But I do remember the process of trying to sound words out that simply couldn’t be sounded out, because English is such a confusing language – the day I tried to ask my parents what “psycho” meant was deeply confusing for everyone involved. It’s kind of surprising any of us end up literate at all…

February 12th, 2011
This week's lectures focused on word recognition and sentence processing. There are a variety of methods for measuring lexical access - our ability to use our existing knowledge of words to recognize and understand linguistic input - including lexical (word/nonword) decision tasks, word association, reaction time in object naming tasks, and the effects of semantic priming on output. As well, there are a number of factors that influence performance on measures like these, especially the frequency of the words involved, the type of word, and whether it refers to an abstract or concrete idea. The type of word refers to whether it is open- or closed-class, a distinction that makes perfect sense to anyone who speaks a living language, but is not often consciously considered. Open-class words such as English verbs and nouns can be added or deleted from a language, and are not part of the "core," unchanging linguistic basis. Closed-class words make up this core, and are usually function words such as conjunctions and pronouns. (Interestingly, in Japanese, verbs are closed-class words, since they are formed by simply appending the characters for the suffix "to do" to a noun. ) What I found most interesting about this was a different way of looking at our changing lexicon. Words are added and subtracted to our vocabularies more often than we (or I, at least) ever notice: the latest slang changes on a weekly or monthly basis, and even the most commonly accepted words in general society from fifty years ago might be met with a blank stare or a raised eyebrow today. To me, this is an entirely neutral observation, but it makes me wonder about the purpose of linguistic prescriptivism: isn't the end state of extreme prescriptivism just the eradication of any difference between closed- and open-class word use? (...and really, does that kind of viewpoint exist much outside of Orwell novels and totalitarian history?)

One of the other things I wondered about as a result of this week's material was the idea of a corpus, and how multiple corpora differ. Word frequencies and patterns of linguistic rules are examined in corpuses, which are representative samples of real-world text or speech. For example, we learned that Zipf's law (i.e. that the most frequent word in a corpus is twice as frequent as the next, which is twice as frequent as the next, and so on) was verified using a corpus from Wikipedia. That is fascinating, as is the idea of patterns like this emerging from a linguistic soup with no explanation (save for the fact that by the principle of least effort, people tend to use the most frequent and easily-understood methods of communication). But what is this sample of language that we base our investigations on? Online corpora come from search engines and compilations of articles, but a corpus of a living language is apparently compiled from many different sources. For example, the International Corpus of English is highly structured and includes a set number of texts from categories such as scripted/unscripted monologues and speeches, broadcasts, legal cross-examinations, press editorials, and letters. It would be interesting to listen in on the committee deciding how to structure a corpus sampling an entire language - of course, the widest variety of word use possible needs to be included, since linguistic changes between media (internet vs. print vs. spoken language) and register can be so drastic.

February 19th, 2011
This week, things got complicated. Understanding the individual parts of sentences and texts is complex enough, but the theories of how exactly we parse sentences (break them down into their constituents in order to comprehend them) is even more so. According to the Chomskyan X-bar theory, a sentence can be broken down into X-bar and a Y phrase: X-bar contains X, the head of the sentence to which everything else refers, along with a complementary Z phrase, and is followed by a Y phrase of modifiers and specifiers. This is a universal structure, but the parameter of the order of elements in X-bar depends on the speaker's native language (a neat example of linguistic relativity!) There are a lot of different models of parsing, from those based on people's reactions to garden path sentences to basic dependence on elements' location in the sentence. The garden path model seems to suggest that the parser commits to a particular sentence structure before the sentence is over, and uses that to comprehend incoming information. The module performing the parsing attaches as few new nodes as possible to the hierarchical "tree" of the sentence structure (a strategy called minimal attachment), and adds new input to the most recent open phrase (late closure) rather than putting in the extra effort to go back and attach new words to previous parts of the sentence. However, one study done in 1995 showed some context effects that seemed to point toward a much more open process of parsing, that didn't commit to one single interpretation until enough information had been provided. Under conditions showing two versions of a referent, but without information specific enough to point to one of them until after the referent had been mentioned in the sentence, subjects showed equal likelihood of looking at each before disambiguation (what a great word). Presumably this issue is still under debate, though the model that makes by far the most sense to me is definitely the competition model: it allows for variation in individual parsing strategies based on native language, which imposes different weighting on components like lexical information, phonological input, and syntax. This model theoretically also leaves room for individual variation based on previous experience, cultural and emotional context, and day-to-day variation.

Of course, these more individual factors come into play more when considering discourse, which can't be properly analyzed without taking into account the speaker/writer and the goals they have in communicating. The coherence of a text is entirely based within the interpreter's mind, with their ability to link ideas together sensically, a process that is inherently dependent on one's own perspective on the text and the constructive nature of memory. The effects of personal context and individual relationships with language are things that we don't see a lot in this material, and that I think would be really interesting to investigate further.

March 5th, 2011
I knew this week was going to be interesting as soon as I started the reading for the language and music lecture. It often feels to me as though music is just as complex and evocative a language as the one I speak the other 75% of the time. And, indeed, there are many similarities: spoken/written language and music are both generative systems, consisting of meaningful, recursive phrases that are built up from minimal sound units (phonemes and notes, respectively). As well, we have intuitive knowledge of both media. In terms of grammaticality, we understand syntactic combination and agreement in language, and nearly anyone – even a two-month-old infant – can discern between consonance and dissonance in musical ideas. And while we are certainly not as automatically fluent in musical production as we are in speech production, both appear spontaneously: children babble and make up songs even before they can reproduce music they hear.

Of course, language and music are not entirely the same thing: they have different basic functions, and music communicates much looser relationships and less universal propositions or meanings. A language is built upon a shared system of meaning that all its speakers agree upon, but music is fundamentally more an art form than a method of precise communication. Listeners may share very general ideas about the tone of music (e.g. in Western music, a minor chord evokes sadness), but ultimately the “meaning” of a piece is decided anew by each individual listener.

This distinction certainly makes sense in the context of Patel et al.’s 2003 paper, asserting that music and language share syntactic processing resources in the brain, but have separate syntactic representations. A spoken phrase and a musical phrase can both be processed by breaking down their hierarchical structure, but their syntax does not refer to meaning in exactly the same way. Patel et al. predicted that a study of those with Broca’s aphasia (usually showing grammatical deficits) would reveal processing impairment in both language and musical harmony. And indeed, they found that patients showed both impairment in processing complex sentences, and an absent increase in speed of response to chords harmonically closer to one another. This raises interesting possibilities about treatment. Could musical training become part of speech therapy for acquired aphasia? Would the combination of syntactic practice in two forms of communication help speed recovery? Perhaps treatment could take advantage of the brain plasticity demonstrated in professional musicians, who show increased grey matter volume in temporal areas associated with the mental lexicon. It would be interesting to see how much musical training would be necessary to see an effect, however, especially given that professional-grade ability does not come quickly or easily (or at all).

March 12th, 2011
By far the most fascinating part of this week was the time we spent covering the function and inner workings of speech-linked gestures. Although the models of speech production were quite interesting - involving much more strictly-ordered pathways than I had expected from general idea to specific lexical, syntactic, and articulatory choices - I really enjoyed considering an aspect of communication to which we very rarely pay any conscious attention. Considering gesture as intimately linked with speech allows us to think outside the box of what we normally consider linguistic or non-linguistic. It was particularly neat to learn about how people have categorized different types of gestures that occur under various circumstances or for certain purposes: for instance, the use of "beats" to emphasize certain points, which can be very useful in giving a speech or presentation. Iconics are obvious symbols that are linked to physical objects that the corresponding speech describes, e.g. a sweeping upward motion referring to a tall person or a steep hill. The gestures that seem most linguistic to me are the metaphorics, since they are inherently unrelated gestures attempting to convey abstract ideas and concepts. Of course, there are many more varieties of gesture, which coincide depending on the context and the speaker's intentions. It can serve multiple functions in communication to a listener: gestures can be substantive (giving information directly related to the content of the sentence) or pragmatic (pertaining to the sentence structure of the utterance, and how it fits into the social interaction).

Gesture is inextricable from spoken communication, it seems, whether a listener can benefit from it or not - multiple studies discussed in class showed that subjects continued to gesture as normal when visually separated from their conversational partner, whether on the phone or behind a screen. As well, people tend to gesture more when they are searching for a word on the tip of their tongue, indicating that gesturing assists lexical access. Thus, it not only serves as a method of communicating nonverbal information along with speech to a listener, but also assists the speaker in organizing their own output. The fact of gestural variation between speakers is also quite interesting: I love the idea that each person has a certain style of gesturing and set of go-to gestures that make up their library of physical expression. For example, my metaphoric gestures might have a different look than the opening, forward-moving gestures that Dr. Newman used in the lecture when giving a sort of meta-explanation of how he explains ideas. Similarly, cross-cultural differences apparently exist in type and frequency of gestures, the most well-known example of which is the preponderance of gestures (particularly emblems, gestures which have free-standing meanings independent of speech) among Italian speakers. I'd be interested to learn more about how other factors might affect gestures, such as introversion versus extroversion, situational context (performance, conversation, or talking to oneself), or use of mood-altering drugs. As well, in linguistic development, the complexity of gesture develops alongside language and reflects changes in cognition, potentially making it an interesting behavioural marker for developmental delays.

March 19th, 2011
I have always thought that neural development was among the most lovely things I got to learn about as a neuroscience student, and it turns out that cognitive development is pretty fascinating too. Many of the basic concepts covered in the linguistic development lectures this week were already familiar to me from other classes or outside knowledge (e.g. the idea of innate linguistic ability, and the fact that perceptual discrimination becomes tuned to one's native language during early development). However, I was unaware of just how early linguistic perception begins - the fact that very young infants can actually show a preference for familiar prosodic contours (whether of the language they hear most often, or found in the story they heard most often while in utero) is amazing. By only six months, infants begin to understand language patterns, and can detect similarities between types of stimuli even when they're presented in different voices or with different intonations. Perhaps what I found most neat about language development in young children was the amount of instinct that is involved on the part of both the child and the parent. "Motherese" - the distinctly exaggerated, slow, drawn-out style of speech that parents use when talking to infants - actually has a lot of instructional utility. Exaggerating the vowel sounds found in a child's native language eases the process of learning to distinguish and reproduce them. As well, infants spontaneously begin to produce vocalizations very early on, which develop into identifiable vowel sounds by 3 months or so. Canonical babbling (producing strings of nonsense sounds made up of syllables present in the child's native language) also begins without explicit prompting, around 7 months, and leads into the appearance of first real words around a year of age. How neat that we have developed so that parents and babies are naturally inclined to use language in the way most conducive to learning!

There are many interesting implications that come along with these early abilities, often hinging on the fact that (judging by studies showing longer gaze length on pictures matching matching the meaning of a presented sentence), infants understand much more than their verbal development allows them to express. This assumption gives rise to systems such as baby sign language, which teaches parents to set up a simple system of signs with their child that let them "talk" before true speech is possible. Baby signing has developed into a booming business, and is supported by highly positive anecdotal evidence. However, a 2005 review of baby-signing literature found that methodological shortcomings made it impossible to draw a firm conclusion regarding its benefits. Thus, until more research is conducted (particularly by researchers other than those profiting from publishing baby-sign guidebooks), I will take the miraculous potential of baby-sign with a grain of salt.

March 26th, 2011
I have always been slightly envious of my adorable French cousins, who grew up speaking English and French interchangeably with more ease than I ever attained through nine years of French class in an otherwise monolingual school. The focus of two of this week's lectures, bilingualism (or multilingualism), only increased this feeling - children who grow up bilingual may occasionally mix up words between languages, but enjoy a host of benefits on attentional control and metalinguistic awareness that benefit them later on. Unfortunately, there is a large difference between growing up speaking multiple languages and learning a new tongue later in life. It is far from impossible, as the many adult learners who achieve functional fluency can attest, but after an early sensitive period of acquisition in childhood, speakers' second-language (L2) performance varies wildly. Increased age of acquisition of L2 is associated with decreased scores on written L2 judgement tests, particularly between ages 2 and 16. Spoken L2 performance seems to show declines in grammaticality after age 7-8, and the presence of a noticeable accent when speaking L2 increases up to a plateau around age 20. Better performance with younger age of L2 acquisition may be associated with more exposure to an L2-speaking school system. There are a number of hypotheses for why fluency comes harder to adult learners of a second language: it may have to do with decreased motivation (as compared to a small child, who must learn their native language in order to be able to communicate), or with the difficulty in overriding previous neural programming for one language's rules, or a loss of neural plasticity due to hormonal changes...the list goes on. Regardless of the explanation, though, it does appear that later L2 learning is more difficult than L1 learning, and makes comprehension of syntactically complex/misleading linguistic stimuli more difficult than it would be in one's native language.

This pattern shows up in studies of neural function as well. One influential study (albeit one whose results should be interpreted cautiously, due to methodological limitations and the fact that they have never been replicated to the same extent) showed that later L2 learners had much more distinct areas of activation within Broca's area when imagining speech in each language. Conversely, early bilingualism was associated with significant overlap of each language's area of activation within Broca's area. However, later studies of language-related ERP components offer more hope to the prospective L2 learner. The LAN component (associated with fast, automatic processing and expectation of next word category) is most sensitive to advanced age of L2 acquisition, and both the N400 and P600 components also show declines with higher age of acquisition. However, a 2002 study of native Spanish speakers learning English as L2 found that when both native and L2 English speakers were divided into low- and high-proficiency groups, the changes in ERP components initially seen in late L2 learners actually developed with lower proficiency. This means that changes in neural activity are not due to a fundamental difference in the brains of people who learn a language later in life, but depend on how well the language is acquired. As well, the brain shows evidence of being able to comprehend and process new rules and vocabulary in an mostly-unfamiliar language even before the learner is consciously aware of these skills, as seen in an ERP study of lexical decision in new students of French as a second language.

These findings are comforting with respect to things I have been thinking about and investigating on my own recently. If achievement of proficiency is not due entirely to chance, then perhaps there are things I can do to ease the path to becoming fluent in German (despite, at the ripe old age of 20, having never spoken a word of it beyond schadenfreude and Eine kleine nachtmusik). In fact, it seems that one of the best things someone can do to increase performance on a new language is to learn another new one first! This effect has been found particularly with Esperanto: evidently, learning Esperanto first increases speed of acquisition of another language. One study from the mid-1960s found that high school students who studied Esperanto for one year and French for three years has significantly better command of French than students who studied French for all four years. It would certainly be interesting to continue investigating this possibility, and particularly to see if the beneficial effects of learning Esperanto (or another language) first extend into adulthood.

April 2nd, 2011
This past week's classes consisted of listening to our classmates debate current issues in the real-life application of research in the field of psycholinguistics. My own group presented on Wednesday afternoon, arguing that the Fast ForWord program for treating dyslexia is neither effective nor superior to any other treatment. My teammates and I were surprised to find, once we began our research, how overwhelming the evidence was to support our side of the story. The biggest issue for me was the fact that much of the research supporting the efficacy of FFW is published and/or sponsored by the company producing the program, and that the co-inventors are profiting hugely from the number of children using FFW as a result of their studies. It reminded me of a fascinating book I read last summer chronicling the development of the psychiatric health care system in America (Mad in America): much of the most shocking information was about the conflicts of interest involved in the original development and use of antipsychotic drugs. Researchers' financial ties to companies that can profit from favourable study results are often not disclosed, and this has a huge impact on the trustworthiness of results. The FFW situation is a fairly egregious example of this problem, but any partisan source of funding that isn't disclosed honestly is, in my mind, not okay.

The other two debates presented this week both focused on the practice of teaching minority languages: the first was about using Ebonics as the main language of instruction in a heavily African-American, Ebonics-speaking district, and the second was on teaching ASL to children with cochlear implants. There's a lot to think about following those presentations, but one particular thing has been on my mind. Although it was a necessary part of the presentations, given the demographics of the class, there were times when I was really uncomfortable that people were passing judgment on issues facing minority communities of which they were not members. A big part of working against oppression and discrimination is to give credence to voices that are often not listened to, and that means checking your own privilege and letting the viewpoints of, say, the African-American or Deaf community take the lead. Of course, this is difficult when many of the presenters are white, hearing folks, but I still think everyone needs to be aware of a) how our society affects who is usually listened to the most, and b) how to combat imbalances in that.

April 5th, 2011
Overall, I found this class both enjoyable and challenging. I'm glad that I've had class with Dr. Newman for this entire year, since he's an excellent professor who manages to make things interesting and convey his enthusiasm for the topics at hand without ever dumbing things down or condescending to us as undergrads. I also appreciated the departure from traditional class structure, especially with the goal of creating a real-world resource that other people could legitimately benefit from (rather than a term paper that will end up in the bottom of someone's filing cabinet and may as well have been written in a vacuum). The grading reflected the high standard of work that was expected of us, which I found completely fair.

My main issue with how this class was set up was the fact that so much of my experience of the course was predicated on a mostly-random choice of chapter topic at the very beginning of the semester. At that point, most of us had very little context for choosing a topic, and it soon became clear that whatever we ended up with was going to occupy the vast majority of our attention for the semester. That led to a lot of imbalance - there was so much fascinating material presented throughout the course, but aside from fodder to write blog posts about, there was pretty much zero motivation to actually study it or do the readings for topics unrelated to the chapter I was working on. While it was a really neat learning experience to complete a major writing assignment and see that finished product go out into the world, there's also a lot of appeal to the sample assignments from previous years that were posted on BLS. With the old format, I think my learning would have been much more well-rounded than it ended up being just from writing a paragraph or two of reflection every week. That's why I liked having the debates - though by this point in the semester we're all pretty burned out on work for this class, it was still an opportunity to learn about another topic.

Miscellaneous things: The online textbook doesn't seem like something that can be re-created year after year, so I'm not sure what to suggest in terms of next year's class. More clarity in terms of expectations would be nice, or just a return to the old format. Also, Sarah's feedback was consistently thorough and really helpful, and I love love love that she posted the info about person-centred language (so important!) on the BLS page. This was generally a positive class experience for me and I would recommend it to others for next year.

= References =

title: User:Jnvincent


text:
User talk:Jnvincent

 Hello Jnvincent, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Ottava Rima (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jnvincent


text:
User talk:Akvdh

 Hello Akvdh, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Ottava Rima (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Akvdh


text:
User talk:Ju wen Ou

 Hello Ju wen Ou, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Ottava Rima (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ju wen Ou


text:
User:Mabuabsdd/Aqib Aze character teller

The Record Wikiversity Founder page stands for [redacted] starring Aaqib Azeez

 * 1) REDIRECT User:Abd/IP Sandbox/Aqib Aze

A new storie has bin in User:Mabuabsdd/Aqib Aze page storie. It is: Polkigirl Haunted or Haunted Polkigirl

Jar= Jack R.
Is a crazy character of Aqib, Jar is one of the biggest stars of the Aqib. Well Jar is the 2nd person of some stories to be first to be shown, Jar can do something really crazy even he can do something bad to Aqib, Here`s the list of Aqib getting parts first Jar is one of the most amazing persons of Aqib. Jar plays sometimes with Aqib, There`s a new stories coming up on Aqib “Who will notice me of the lead”
 * 1) 1.	Operation of the Mystery
 * 2) 2.	Of lead with purple scheniscou

Fiss=Finn Griskauskaus
Finn is crazy allot and he pulled Aqib`s leg and Aqib fell on the ground. He has a enemie freind, "I hate Asht" said Aqib. "I hate you"

Sen= Sean M.
Sen was an Superhero during the time last time. We`ll Sen is a superhero X-person of Aqib (Superguy and the Mysty fog) = out deletion requested, At 2010, During there day of hotness, Wahoo!. New episodes with Sen in it:
 * 1) Who will know the Sen different
 * 2) Sen biulder
 * 3) Sen comes with ants
 * 4) Mashrooms with Sashrooms, (Shown storie)

News of Aqib
The operation of the News is different: So danger
 * 1) Jack gets crazy before one can come before
 * 2) User: Abd protecting Aqib Aze
 * 3) New storie to read "Who will notice me of the lead"
 * 4) A spooky lare has just arrive to Aqib`s real dreams
 * 5) Aqib dosen`t have 1000000$ or more $, Seriouslly
 * 6) New storie on User:Mabuabsdd/Aqib Aze page storie. That is called: Polkigirl haunted

Fans:

 * 1) User:-Benjamin-                              (I like Aaqib and Sean)
 * 2) User:Bhainbore                               (More likely, I love Jack)
 * 3) User:Aaqiby1                                (I`m the editor of Aqib Aze so I love Aaqib)
 * 4) User talk:Bhainbore                         (Go Mohamed)
 * 5) uSER:Mbaudsd                (Oh I love Aaqib and Finn rock Aaqib and Finn Rock!)
 * 6) User:Jtneil                                 (Love Aqib and Matthew) Bully time

The Aqib Aze Show staring Jar as no comic books but designing as one.


text:
Wikiversity:Playspace

"Playspace" is a user space place to hold files created by other users, often IP users, that are inappropriate for mainspace because of being out-of-scope, nonsense, or the like. Any user may decide to allow such files to "live" in their own user space, which then can make Wikiversity a friendlier place, especially for kids, but also for adults and others who might want to "play," by themselves or with others, or try out ideas in a more permanent way than Sandbox.

It is recommended that any user hosting such files watch them, and we can cooperate in this here, sharing in the labor involved or dividing it up. These sandbox pages should not be allowed to contain offensive material or apparent copyright violation, but generally the remedy would be to delete problem material from the pages, not to delete the pages themselves.

Playspace management should be kid-friendly and newbie-friendly. We should always try to encourage and guide good behavior, and should exemplify the welcoming treatment that we would ourselves appreciate if we come into a new environment and accidentally -- or even playfully -- break rules.

Volunteers
Please add your user name and any established playspace you are willing to monitor here. Please bold the name of a sandbox space where you are willing to allow other users to place files that might otherwise face deletion.
 * Abd 18:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Abd/Playspace contents

title: Wikiversity:Playspace