text:
User talk:Kariba~enwikiversity

 Hello Kariba, 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.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.

 * 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.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twitter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Leutha 23:32, 10 February 2011 (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 Kariba. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Kariba~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 23:40, 17 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) 06:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kariba~enwikiversity


text:
User talk:Schlafly

 Hello Schlafly, 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.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.

 * 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.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twitter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --mikeu talk 23:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Greetings
Hi Roger,

I'm glad you found your way here.

Wikiversity is a collaborative learning community that occasionally pushes the boundaries of academic subjects that make some people nervous. I came here in the summer of 2008, after spending a year battling IDCab at Wikipedia. With the help of User:JWSchmidt and User:SB Johnny, a few of us launched a project on Wikimedia Ethics. We exposed a lot of corruption, most of which User:JWSchmidt has documented here and on his external blog. At the behest of one of the corrupt admins in IDCab, Jimbo came to Wikiversity and threatened to shut it down. In the process, Jimbo declared the study of Wikimedia Ethics to be "beyond the scope" of WMF-sponsored projects. There has been an uneasy relationship between Wikiversity and Wikipedia ever since. Moulton 23:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

 * My brother switched to a new wiki encyclopedia, Conservapedia I do not think that the FeloniousMonk crowd can be reasoned with. They might even just ban me for talking to you. Schlafly 03:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

 * They are one of the nastiest bunch of bullies on the site. When ArbCom smacked FM down, it looked like their days were numbered.  But power just passed down the line to his deputies, who continued the same atrocious practices he had taught them.  You are right that they cannot be reasoned with.  Nor can they be educated.  At FM's behest, Jimbo site-banned me over satirical parodies of them that I had crafted on my personal blog.  —Moulton 04:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I am staying out of this. First, I am not a creationist or ID advocate, so I have no special interest in the matter. Second, whenever I edit an evolution page, they retaliate by putting nasty things into my mom's WP page. It is not worth it. I see now they have just locked my WP user page for a week. Schlafly 08:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Yes, they are a nasty bunch. They act as if they are playing an MMPORG like Mafia Wars on Facebook.  They are corrupt to the core.  But that gives us a chance to study how corruption works in WikiCulture.  It's a fascinating study.  —Moulton 19:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

A Classic
Here is a classic from WAS 4.250 ...

Moulton 01:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Content Issues
Hi Roger,

Regarding the issue of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in the content of Wikipedia articles, you wrote:

Yes, I am expressly promoting the objectives of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media. Those objectives of mine have been prominently posted on my user page since the beginning of my epic sojourn here.

Fundamentally, what it's all about is the practice of PoV-pushing, which in the real world is called spin, PR, or propaganda. Joshua Zelinsky has allied himself with IDCab, a notoriously corrupt gang of thugs who, for reasons unbeknownst to me, insist on publishing their haphazard and astonishingly erratic theories of mind regarding the belief systems of total strangers whom they have never met and never conversed with.

Notice, by the way, that JZ and Rd232 took exception to your theory of mind regarding Rd232's motivation. My view is that much of the drama in WikiCulture arises from misreading the beliefs, desires, intentions, and motivations of others, and then acting as if one's haphazard and unconfirmed theories of mind about rival editors is the ground truth.

That kind of churlish hubris is a classic recipe for Greek tragedy. Moulton 12:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Moulton, I agree with you that faulty theory of mind causes much misunderstanding. I have made the same point on my own personal blog many times. However, I was careful not to make any assumptions about Rd232's motivations. I was merely taking exception to JoshuaZ's statement that "Edits removed here were removed by an admin I've never even talked to before." I made the comment that those edits appeared to be in response to comments by JoshuaZ on BLPN and ANI. After some discussion, Rd232 claimed that he made those edits in response to JoshuaZ's comments on BLPN, but before he read JoshuaZ's request on ANI. I accepted his explanation, and take it as a confirmation of my original point. Rd232 was not acting independently, but on a communication from JoshuaZ against you. I know nothing about his motivations beyond that.
 * I did say that JoshuaZ was on the warpath against Moulton, but I did not present any assumptions for why he was. I let him give his own explanation. I have argued with JoshuaZ on WP before, so I do know more about him, but I forget the details. Schlafly 18:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Yes, Joshua Zelinsky is on the warpath against me and anyone else who dares to question the authority of the allied editors of IDCab — or their remnants since the departures of Paul Mitchell (FeloniousMonk / Odd nature / Centaur of attention), Bob Stevens (Filll), ConfuciusOrnis, and perhaps a few others.

 * Here is what I wrote previously on that:

 * Moulton 19:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The subpage "/David Berlinski" has been deleted and suppressed at the request of person due to its containing personal information 2012111110003352 — billinghurst  sDrewth  06:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Schlafly


text:
Identities and their enactments in human life

Davies, A. (2003) The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality. 2nd ed, 237 s. Clevedon: Multilingual matters (Preface, chapters 1, 2, 3 & 4)
In the preface of the book the author starts mentioning an experience he had as a non-Welsh speaking South Walian: he decided in his forties that it was time to test his Welshness by learning the language and he spent a summer taking a language course in a Welsh town. Davies, by telling this story, refers to the experience of the feeling of asserting identity trough language: “we all want to belong, we all want to be native speakers […] I was expected to choose my identity. I had always vaguely assumed that, like masks, identities could be added on” (2003, vii). The aim of the book lies also in its title: The native speaker: myth and reality. Davies’ purpose is to try to give an answer to the question, what does it mean to be a native speaker of a language? Davies attempts to define the native speaker facing the issue from different perspectives: psycholinguist aspects, linguistic aspects and sociolinguistics aspects. Already in the preface Davies provides a possible definition of who a native speaker is: Davies adds that being a native speaker is not only that: “it is also, and in my view more importantly, about groups and identity” (2003, viii). This means that when we define ourselves as native speakers of one or more languages, we agree on our belonging to that specific group of speakers, including the culture and habits that come along with it. According to Davies, identities and belonging is both something that we did not choose from the beginning, but also something that we can choose to change, joining new groups. Nevertheless, the concept of native speaker is of interest in applied linguistics since it represents both the product and the process to which one appeals in language learning and teaching. It is the product because it is the main goal we want to achieve, to become as near as possible a native speaker in our proficiency of the target language, and it is a process because the native speaker becomes the specimen we want to focus on when we study the process of language learning and native-speaker-like behaviors. (2003, ix)
 * 1) The speaker of a language by virtue of place or country or birth (sociolinguistic attributes)
 * 2) A native speaker of a language does not choose to be or cannot help her/himself being a native speaker (psycholinguistic attributes) (2003, viii)

The complexity of the native speaker
Drawing from Ferguson’s comment about the “whole mystique of native speaker and mother tongue” as something that should be “dropped from the linguistics set of professional myths about language” (2003, 2), Davies argues that the question still remains, of whether the native speaker is also a reality, the concept raising the issue of the relation between the particular and the universal. The author accompanies us in a literature review about the notion of native speaker, starting with Ferguson (the native speaker is a myth), and continuing with Chomsky bearer of the universalist position (everyone is a native speaker). Chomsky’s position affirms the realization of a unitary language competence in the native speaker at a linguistic level. In order words, the individual has the language latent in his or her own mind (competence): the language will then be performed as a result of the unitary language competence in the form of the native speaker. This means that everyone has to be native speaker of the particular language, or rather; there is no difference between native and non-native, since we all have the competence and the potential to develop a native-like language performance. As a theoretical linguistic, Chomsky is not interested in the individual with his/her repertoire of language performance. What Chomsky studies is language, the competence of the idealized native speaker, who is both the arbiter of a grammar (being able to “feel” the correctness or not of the language) and the model of the grammar. This leads is forward to the notion of intuition, also raised but Richards et al. and Davies stating the importance of intuition in defining the native speaker (2003, 5). Halliday refers to language of the native speaker as mother tongue and states that no languages ever completely replace it. It is difficult (but yet not impossible) for an adult to acquire native-like abilities in the target language. Bloomfield’s position is quite more definite in this point: he does not leave much of a hope to the adult language learner stating that native speakers need to get started at their mother’s knee. In order to be able to define the native speaker, we need to define what the learner, or rather to highlight the importance of the connection between the native speaker and the second language learner. It seems to me that the one could not be defined and thus exists without the other. The native speaker is not a learner and vice versa. The question raised by Davies is whether the latter can ever become the former (2003, 6).

The prestige model – an issue of identity
The native speaker, being a person in flesh and blood or an idealized entity, defines the choice of a model, “raising issues of acceptability, of currency and intelligibility […] compelling social consensus in favor of the use of a model type” (2003, 7). Here we have the connection between the flesh and blood and the idealization of the native speaker: a general consensus is achieved by the speech community in the use of a model and an individual native speaker is used as an exemplar of such a model. Davies raised the issue that this is problematic in the perspective of applied linguistics, since this process of sampling native speakers as performers of the “right” model is not without faults if it is at all possible. Who is the native speaker, who defines him or her? Davies argues that “Either you are a native speaker or you are not. It is a matter of self ascription. This implies responsibilities in terms of confidence and identity” (2003, 8). To ascribe oneself as a native speaker brings along the fact that we belong to a certain community and this means that we have to be accepted by the other members. This, according to Davies, “is exactly what is required in acquiring any new ethnicity” (2003, 8). A natural question that raises at this point is, where do the boundaries go? As for any other community, the boundaries are defined both by those who belong to that community and by those who do not. In the same way native speakers and non-native are likely to define each other’s belongings on that matter.

The importance of attitudes
Going back to norm and intelligibility, Davies raises the question on what status do norms have in terms of intelligibility and correctness. Taking stands from Ryan and Giles, Davies affirms the importance of attitudes in informing our reactions to language (2003, 13). Attitudes are here defined in terms of two sociostructural determinants: standardization and vitality. This implies the struggle between native speakers’ notion about norms and the norms themselves. In other words, there is a divide between what we actually say and what we should say. That divide is called correctness and it always depends on the context. This is, in my view, what brings together but also splits competence and performance or langue and parole in Saussurian terms: as native speakers we know how to use our language competence in a way that is “proper” to all different possible contexts. A learner of the language does not yet masters that competence. This is because language is also made of habits, attitudes and it is a bearer of prestige, an image that the learner wants to undertake or to refuse. Again, being a native speaker is a matter of self-ascription. This is also relevant when discussing the existence of a language outside people. Some kind of system, or structure that is pre-programmed in our brains and that lead is back to Chomsky’s notion of Universal Grammar and competence.

Competence
Davies attempts to characterize competence ascribing the following points to it (2003, 34): Competence applies, in other words, to the idealized native speaker, not depending on context or different varieties of a language. In that sense, the native speaker is the goal of an “explanatory model, rather than an operable one” (2003, 34). The field of study of linguistics is then the system, the competence, rather than the performance. Davies argues that linguistics is about all systematic language behavior, including grammar. But which grammar is to be considered? The Universal Grammar, as a set of cognitive and innate developmental processes incorporate in our brain and that gradually fail with age, in favor of other processes? Felix argues that there are two different cognitive systems at work: The former is active before the onset of puberty and the latter after that moment (2003, 35). Felix argues thus for the existence of the critical period hypothesis since adult learners fail in their attempt to achieve a native-like competence in L2 using the wrong system. The language specific system does not disappear in adulthood, but rather it is overruled by the problem-solving system.
 * 1) Competence means performing without thinking
 * 2) Competence is not the level of performance
 * 3) Competence means knowing, being familiar with all structural resources of a code, being able to make judgments about structural realizations
 * The language specific system
 * The problem-solving system

What grammar?
When dealing with linguistics aspects of the native speaker, Davies starts his discussion by providing a definition of different kinds of grammars (2003, 40): Grammar 1: What an individual has in terms of his/her own language Grammar 2: What an individual shares with others Grammar 3: the grammar of the human faculty of language, which is what all speakers have. The question now is what is sampled in SLA research? According to Davies it tends to be on the one hand well-educated native speakers, on the other we have the non-native speakers who tend to be active learners. Davies argues that SLA research is not about native and non-native speakers but about language learning. This means that the focus should not be on whether the learners are different from the native speakers (because they are), but rather if this difference is unique and permanent. Davies focuses on grammar 2 when dealing with sociolinguistics aspects of the native speaker. Going back to the issue of identity, the author claims that “in the case of language it may be more sensible to say that the sense of identity comes from a source of a perceived ethnicity” (2003, 55). The language thus gain a symbolic rather that a communicative value. This symbolic value can be illustrated by the intersection of different factors: Accordingly, sharing a language does not guarantee understanding. Davies attempts to define languages (2003, 54): The politicization of the native speaker is a result of the symbolic value of a language for the speech community. It is a valuable way to differ ‘us’ (native speakers and thus members of the community) from ‘them’ (non-native speaker, non-members). In this perspective, the effort made by the members of the community to define a standard language as opposed to dialects or other less-prestige full varieties makes sense. In its process of self ascription, the speech community defines its own norms, its own perceived ethnicity. It is in this context that expressions like “the language of power” make sense: if there is a language of power mastered by some individuals, it means that there is a language of disempowerment that pushes the speakers lower down on the wrong side of the continuum dialect/variety-standard language.
 * The speech community
 * The standard language
 * The stereotypes of language use
 * Linguistically
 * Sociolinguistically (comprehension, intelligibility)
 * Politically (attitude, identity and power)

Issues for further discussion:

 * What does it mean to be a native-speaker in these times of high mobility between different speech communities?
 * Can native-speakerness be seen as negative when performed by an immigrant, or a person considered as an immigrant by the community?
 * Considered the first two questions, is it plausible or wishful to train language learners with the native speaker as the norm? What other “norms” of correctness are possible?
 * If language is also a category to define identity, what is the identity of the non-native speakers? Can they choose to belong more or less to the community? Is it necessary for them to master the language as a native speaker first in order to “play” with the language and therefore their identity/ies? This can also be related to the article by Jonsson and Milani “Youth styles in Sweden”.

Jonsson, R. (2007). Blatte betyder kompis: Om maskulinitet och språk i en högstadieskola. Ordfront Förlag
I de första tjugo sidorna av hans avhandling beskriver Jonsson bakgrunden av sitt arbete. Han berättar om omständigheterna, det fösta mötet med informanterna och miljön, och Jonsson delvis beskriver sitt tillvägagångssätt samt om den överenskommelsen som han gör men gruppen: ”På så vis är vi överens: jag får följa dem i skolan och de vill medverka i min studie” (2007, 17). Det är svårt att inte fångas av Jonssons inledande kapitel. Man får lust och intresse att följa med eleverna i den svenska skolan Jonsson befinner sig i. Det finns olika aktörer i Jonssons forskningsfält: Det är först på sidan 20 som Jonsson beskriver problematiken med sin forskning och samhällsdebatten om skolan som en förenklat moraliserande. Jonsson vill med sin studie försöka förstå vad som pågår utan moraliserande ögon, och istället titta på hur några killar använder sig av olika språkliga uttryck för att positionera sig i skolvardagen eller ”hur maskulinitet konstrueras i skolvardagen” (2007, 20). Jonsson använder ord som iscensättas, tilltalas och manifesteras vad det gäller killarnas konstituering av en gemenskap. Denna gemenskap kommer till uttryck genom: Det är viktigt att killarna ropar på Jonsson och be honom att slå sig ner. På det sättet blir han en del av den gemenskapen, han får vara en av dem som får slå sig ner i gruppen (och det är inte alla som får det, tillägger Jonsson) (2007, 22). Gruppen definierar sig själv, eller skapar sig själv men blir även skapad av världen utanför den. Ordet ”invandrare” används för att definiera gruppen, trots att de flesta killarna i den är födda i Sverige. Vad betyder då invandrare? Svårt att definiera. Det enda vi vet är att adjektivet svensk är motsatsen. Jonsson kommer in i begreppet etnicitet för att säga att det som killar gör är att definiera sig som en gemenskap vars samhörighet går över etniska gränser. Killarna i studien iscensätter sin identitet utifrån vissa markörer, utan att relatera sig till vad de markörerna betyder från början. En invandrare behöver inte vara en person som kommer från ett annat land, så som en svensk kan vara invandrare från början men agerar utifrån ett ”annat manus”: ”avgörande för medlemskap i gruppen är regel om att vara sig själv i enlighet med de diskurser som definiera vem man är” (2007, 77). Det handlar om en kategorisering genom språket, en indexering som för med sig att man finns för att man talar eller bli inropad. Detta leder mig vidare till begreppet social närvaro i en grupp, där medlemmarna i gruppen bekräfta varandras rätt att finnas genom att inropa varandra, ställa frågor som inte förväntar sig ett svar (t. ex. Är du här? Är du också med! Etc.). Detta intresserar mig särskilt eftersom det är just aspekten av social närvaro och dess påverkan i gruppen som är svårt att identifiera när gruppen möts i en virtuell kontext som till ex. en videochatt som Skype eller liknande, där en synkron kommunikation är möjlig. Olika forskaren attribuerar en stor vikt till social närvaro och olika sorter bekräftelse när det gäller t.ex. kursen som är online, just för att det har visats att den är oerhört viktig för att minska ”distansen” när kroppen och kanske inte rösten finns. (se även White, Murphy & Collins, Garrison & Anderson and Östlund). Killarna kan kommunicera en gemenskap eftersom (2007, 24): Jonssons studie riktar sin fokus mot det sistnämnda och förklarar att språket innehåller ”talhandlingar” eller ”performativer”. Studiens perspektiv blir riktat mot killarnas språkande, alltså det de gör men språket snarare än av vad de talar om. Språket är ett verktyg för att skapa ett gemskap och en förståelse om vem ”vi” är eller ”andra” är (2007, 24). Viktigt att komma ihåg här är att killarna kan ingå i många olika gemenskaper, och intressant blir då att se hur de olika gemenskaperna uppstår ”mot olika vardagliga aktiviteter, med språket som utgångspunkt” (2007, 25). Det performativa perspektivet kan bli ett intressant och givande sätt att närma sig de språkliga uttryck och se dem som en iscensättning av sin roll i just den stunden och den kontexten: ”det finns inte någon fast identitet. Dessa positioner (som man eller kvinna) skapas genom språket. Eller det som inte låter sig sägas och de namn eller historier som aldrig blir uttryckta” (2007, 36). Ord som maskulinitet eller etnicitet är inte längre ett adjektiv, utan ett verb. Det den performativa teorin vill göra är att komma bort från indelningar efter biologi (2007, 87).
 * En svens skola
 * Några killar
 * Ett klassrum
 * En lärare
 * En elevassistent
 * Forskaren
 * Vänskapliga kroppskontakter
 * I samtalen
 * Genom att bli inropad i gruppen med ett namn
 * De har växt tillsammans i samma område
 * Genom att dela gemensamma språkliga uttryck

Syfte med studien (2007, 38)

 * 1) Undersöka hur några killar använder språket som verktyg i arbetet att iscensätta maskulinitet, hur stereotypen ”invandrare” växer fram i vardaglig kommunikation i skolan och vilken mening fylls denna kategori med;
 * 2) Undersöka vad killarna inte kan eller får säga och göra, att studera vad som blir förbjudet språk i skolvardagen, och hur det outtalade och det förbjudna är del i konstruktionen av maskulina positioner

Den dolda läroplanen (2007, 42)
Jonsson tar upp begreppet när han talar om de mekanismer i en skola som är dolda och outtalade i ett evigt skapande av normer och avvikelser. Det gäller för eleverna att lära sig vad den dolda läroplanen står för och därmed lyckas i skolan. Jonsson refererar till Bourdieu som påstår att eleverna måste lära sig bemästra skolans språkliga kapital eller klassrummets språkliga norm om de vill lyckas. På det sättet blir skolan ett instrument som befäster makrelationerna. Detta kan stämma för alla institutionella arenor och det är också ett bevis på det som vi sa i den föregående loggen om språkets makt eller maktens språk: att bemästra ett språk betyder att bemästra den situation och kunna dra den största nytta utav det och viceversa. Men denna process är knappast en process som förmiskar maktens roll: den snarare befäster den. Jonsson påstår att ”jämställdhetsdiskursen upprätthåller samma ordning som den vill förändra” (2007, 47). Ord kan betyda olika saker beroende på vem som uttalar dem, eller snarare vilken position den personen som uttalar orden har. Olika dikotomier blir ännu mer komplexa eftersom genus och etnicitet genomkorsar varandra. Jonsson refererar inte till intersektionalitet men det är det det handlar om när han pratar om komplexiteten i att vara killen, och invandraren (laddad) eller svensk (normen). Men Jonsson påpekar att ”invandrarkillen” är ingen egenskap utan en position som skapas genom språket. Faktum är att genom att använda sig av språket, man kan befästa den normen och stereotyper som skapades av en gemensam historia och kultur. Det är svårt att komma ifrån en stereotypisering. Men en position är inte bara där av självt utan vi måste sätta den i ett sammanhang: vem säger vad? Vem lyssnar på vad? (2007, 50-51)

Metod
Jonssons arbete beskrivs som en etnografisk forskningsansats ”som intresserar sig för vardaglig kommunikation” (2007, 53). I det utförliga fotnotssystemet beskriver Jonsson hans tillvägagångssätt vad det gäller etik och etiska övervägande såväl som val av metod och fältets olika förutsättningar. Fotnoterna följer i övrigt hela avhandlingen och utgör ett viktigt komplement till det som knappast går att undvika. Där hittar man relevanta aspekter som kompletterar och fördjupar Jonssons resonemang i avhandlingens kropp. Enligt Jonsson handlar etnografi om ”att närma sig människor i deras vardag, att undersöka hur de ordnar och skapar mening där" (2007, 53). Syftet med avhandlingen var att undersöka hur killarna använder sig av olika språkliga uttryck i skolvardagen, för att skapa, iscensätta sin maskulinitet. Som deltagande observatör, följer Jonsson eleverna några dagar i veckan under ett läsår, är med dem under rasterna, på lektionerna och använder sig av olika metoder för att skapa sin empiri:	Jonsson uttrycker att han ”influeras av etnometodologins sätt att uppmärksamma de kommunikativa resurser som används av deltagarna i ett samtal” (2007, 55). Jonsson studera en skolvardag med en forskare på besök och han har inga ambitioner på att försöka förstå vad eleverna egentligen tycker och tänker under samtalen och intervjuerna: vad som återstår är att reflektera över de diskurser som eleverna och lärarna såväl som forskaren själv använder (2007, 56-57).
 * Fältanteckningar
 * Inspelningar (spontana)
 * Gruppintervjuer (arrangerade)

Centrala poäng i Jonssons avhandling (att diskutera tillsammans)

 * I den här avhandlingen handlar frågorna oftast om hur eleverna agerar, hur de använder sig av språkliga uttryck
 * Språket är det verktyget som killarna använder för att iscensätta maskulinitet. Hur växer då den stereotypa fram om invandrarkillen i vardaglig kommunikation?
 * Det är ett spel där alla iscensätter sina roller enligt några regler (det är viktigt att känna till reglerna och normerna för att kunna bryta mot dem). Det handlar om en relation mellan de olika uttrycken. En relation mellan stereotypen och den individen i sammanhanget.

=== Fishman, J & Garcia, O. (2010) Handbook of language and ethnic identity. Disciplinary and regional perspectives. Volume 1/Second edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press (Foundations, Conclusions, chapters 6, 7, 8) ===

Fishman’s main point in the Foundation is that language, ethnicity and identity do not exist as independent labels but they are contextual. Language is described as covering a set of varieties of codes, attitudes, behaviors, social conventions that typify each of them (2010, xxii). Fishman describes four attributes that characterize language varieties (2010, xxiv): The different language varieties enumerated by Fishman are the following: Literary standard (LS), Vernacular (V), Dialect (D), Creole (K), Pidgin (P), Classical (C), Artificial (A), and Transformation (T). According to Fishman, all varieties can be politically and ideologically hindered and all varieties are the accidental result of historical fortunes or misfortunes (2010, xxv). Language varieties and their success or dead is not an issue which can be discussed during the course of this “fortune” or “misfortune”. Ethnicity is a term with an interesting history. Fishman describes the different connotations (more or less negative) ascribed to the word. It was not until in the 90-ies that the term ethnicity was considered fully legitimated in the USA, as opposed to the term “race” and therefore gaining a less negative connotation Also identity is a contextualized term (maybe the most contextualized of the three): identity “depends essentially on circumstances and contrast that play upon it, modify it and create or recreate it” (2010, xxviii). What is identity? Is there a “True identity”? Fishman would argue that no, there is not. Identity is contextualized and situational: there are more or less effective identities in a specific context. Fishman describes three different points of view to look at identity (2010, xxix): In the Conclusion Garcia goes back to these fields and the terms that define them: the title of the conclusion is Languaging and Ethnifying. She chooses to name language and ethnicity as verbs instead of nouns. This brings us back to the notion of “performativity” we met when dealing with Jonsson’s text. For Garcia this is important because it brings up the dialogic relationship between languaging and ethnifying as practices. Going from noun to verb the term looses a deal of its abstractness: languaging refers thus to the discursive practice of people. This dialogic relationship defines also the process of cultural change and continuity, the process of how individuals and groups have transformed themselves or remained the same by making languaging practices the focal center of their acts of identity. Garcia and Zakharia mention Herder for whom language was the way to safeguard the authenticity that people had inherited from their ancestors as well as to pass it on to the young and future generation (2010, 521). To Sapir, language, culture and ethnic identity are connected and according to Whorf the language influences the individual’s thoughts and way of understanding the world. To conclude, postmodern identity is no longer about “sameness” but also about “otherness”. Bilinguals engage in practices which are multiple discursive and in which they act to make sense of their world as translanguaging, meaning the fractured and fracturing identities of the postmodern world.
 * 1) Standardization, the internal uniformation of the language across all educated members of the speech community. It includes a uniformed spelling, an agreed-upon grammar, consensual punctuation and orthoepy systems.
 * 2) Autonomy, the internal within-group evaluation of varieties in relation to the external evaluation of the same varieties
 * 3) Historicity, the view that the variety has a long and distinguished history
 * 4) Vitality, the convinction that the variety has a large numbers of speakers, readers, writers and people who understand it
 * The “insider” point of view (“what is the ethnolinguistics self-view of the Chinese themselves?”)
 * The outsiders’ perspectives (on the Chinese view of their own language and ethnicity).
 * The “experts’” perspective (most related to theoretically relevant questions and issues in the fields of language and ethnicity).

Literature (besides Davies, Jonsson and Fishman & Garcia)
Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. 2003. E–Learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: Routledge/Falmer.

Murphy, K.L, Collins, M. P. 1997. Communication Conventions in Instructional Electronic Chats. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois, March 24-28, 1997 at http://www.firstmonday.org/org/issues/isseu2_11/murphy/index.html

White, C. 2003. Language Learning in Distance Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Östlund, B. 2008. Vuxnas lärande på nätet – betingelser för distansstudier och interaktivt lärande ur ett studentperspektiv. Umeå: Barn- och ungdomspedagogik, specialpedagogik och vägledning

Giulia Messina Dahlberg 23:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


text:
User:Eml5526.s11.team2/hwk3

=Problem 3.1: Rework Problem 2.9 using the given polynomial basis.=

Given

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle 2\frac{d^2u}{dx^2}+3=0 $$     (3.1)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }

Boundary Conditions:
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle u(x=1)=0 $$     (3.2)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle -\frac{du}{dx}(x=0)=4 $$     (3.3)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle b_j=(x+1)^j $$     (3.4) The exact solution to Eq.3.1:
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle u(x)=-\frac{3}{4}x^2-4x+\frac{19}{4} $$     (3.5)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }

Find
We want to find an approximation to Eq.3.5 in the form of
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle u^h(x)=\sum_{i=0}^n a_ib_i $$     (3.6) as well as investigate how the accuracy of our approximation changes with n going from 2 to 4 and then 6.
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }

Case:n=2
First let's expand Eq.3.6 out to n=2 terms.
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle u^h(x)=a_0b_0+a_1b_1+a_2b_2 $$     (3.7) Now consider Eq.3.4, and substitute the appropriate terms into Eq.3.7.
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle u^h(x)=a_0(1)+a_1(x+1)+a_2(x+1)^2 $$     (3.8) Let's rewrite this equation in terms of a product between 2 vectors.
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle u^h(x)=\left[1\quad x+1\quad (x+1)^2\right ]\begin{bmatrix} a_0\\a_1\\a_2\end{bmatrix} $$     (3.9) In order for us to solve for the unknown $$a_i's$$ in Eq.3.9, we must have 3 linearly independent equations describing linear combinations of the $$a_i's.$$Two of the equations are easily obtained directly from the given boundary conditions in Eq.3.2 and Eq.3.3. It only makes practical sense that if we want our approximation to closely resemble our exact solution, we must require identical behavior between Eq.3.5 and Eq.3.8 at the boundaries.
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \begin{align} u^h(x=1)=a_0(1)+a_1(1+1)+a_2(1+1)^2&=0\\ a_0(1)+a_1(2)+a_2(2)^2&=0 \end{align} $$     (3.10)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle a_0+2a_1+4a_2=0 $$     (3.11)
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 *
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \frac{du}{dx}(x=0)=a_1+a_22(0+1)=-4 $$     (3.12)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle a_1+2a_2=-4 $$     (3.13) Now we just need one more linearly independent equation and we can then readily solve for the $$a_i's.$$ To develop another set of equations which are linearly independent of Eq.3.11 and Eq.3.13, we take the inner product between our approximation of u(x), Eq.3.9 and our basis set of functions Eq.3.4. Before getting to the inner product first, let's define our linear differential operator as the following
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 *
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle P(\cdot)=\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+\frac{3}{2}=0 $$     (3.14) Now, using our operator in Eq.3.14, we can now operate on our approximation in Eq.3.9.
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \begin{align} P(u^h)=\frac{d^2}{dx^2}\left[1\quad x+1\quad (x+1)^2\right ]\begin{bmatrix} a_0\\a_1\\a_2\end{bmatrix}+\frac{3}{2}&=0\\ \left[0\quad 0\quad 2\right ]\begin{bmatrix} a_0\\a_1\\a_2\end{bmatrix}+\frac{3}{2}&=0 \end{align} $$     (3.15) Which we can then rewrite Eq.3.15 as
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \left[0\quad 0\quad 2\right ]\begin{bmatrix} a_0\\a_1\\a_2\end{bmatrix}=-\frac{3}{2} $$     (3.16) Now, we are in a position to take the inner product of Eq.3.16(our approximation) with the basis set in Eq.3.4 with $$ n=2.$$
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \left \langle b_j, P(u^h) \right \rangle =\int_0^1b_jP(u^h)=0 $$     (3.17)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \int_0^1\begin{bmatrix} 1\\x+1\\(x+1)^2\end{bmatrix} \left[0\quad 0\quad 2\right ]\,dx\begin{bmatrix} a_0\\a_1\\a_2\end{bmatrix}=-\frac{3}{2}\int_0^1\begin{bmatrix} 1\\x+1\\(x+1)^2\end{bmatrix}\,dx $$     (3.18)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \int_0^1\begin{bmatrix} 0&0&2\\0&0&2(x+1)\\0&0&2(x+1)^2\end{bmatrix}\,dx\begin{bmatrix} a_0\\a_1\\a_2\end{bmatrix}=-\frac{3}{2}\int_0^1\begin{bmatrix} 1\\x+1\\(x+1)^2\end{bmatrix}\,dx $$     (3.19)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \begin{bmatrix} 0&0&2\\0&0&3\\0&0&14/3\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix} a_0\\a_1\\a_2\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix} -3/2\\-9/4\\-7/2\end{bmatrix} $$     (3.20) We can use any one of the above expressions as our $$3^{rd}$$ equation to solve for our unknown $$ a_i's$$, along with Eq.3.11 and Eq.3.13. Let's randomly just choose the $$3^{rd}$$row in Eq.3.20 as our $$3^{rd}$$ relationship and then, using Eq.3.11 and Eq.3.13, we can form the following matrix equation.
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \begin{bmatrix} 1&2&4\\0&1&2\\0&0&14/3\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix} a_0\\a_1\\a_2\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}0\\-4\\7/2\end{bmatrix} $$     (3.21) Let's solve for the inverse of the matrix in Eq.3.21 using the Gauss-Jordan Method. Letting the matrix above in Eq.3.21 equal $$\mathbf{K}$$, we can find $$\mathbf{K^{-1}}$$ by
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \begin{align} \mathbf{K}\cdot\mathbf{I}&=\begin{bmatrix} 1&2&4&1&0&0\\0&1&2&0&1&0\\0&0&14/3&0&0&1\end{bmatrix}\\ &=\begin{bmatrix} 1&0&0&1&-2&0\\0&1&2&0&1&0\\0&0&14/3&0&0&1\end{bmatrix}\\ &=\begin{bmatrix} 1&0&0&1&-2&0\\0&1&0&0&1&-6/14\\0&0&14/3&0&0&1\end{bmatrix}\\ &=\begin{bmatrix} 1&0&0&1&-2&0\\0&1&0&0&1&-6/14\\0&0&1&0&0&3/14\end{bmatrix} \end{align} $$     (3.22)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \therefore \mathbf{K^{-1}}=\begin{bmatrix}1&-2&0\\0&1&-6/14\\0&0&3/14\end{bmatrix} $$     (3.23) Now using Eq.3.23, we can solve Eq.3.21 for our unknown $$a_i's.$$
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \mathbf{K^{-1}}\cdot \mathbf{K}\begin{bmatrix} a_0\\a_1\\a_2\end{bmatrix}=\mathbf{K^{-1}}\begin{bmatrix}0\\-4\\-7/2\end{bmatrix} $$     (3.24)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \begin{bmatrix} a_0\\a_1\\a_2\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}1&-2&0\\0&1&-6/14\\0&0&3/14\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}0\\-4\\7/2\end{bmatrix} $$     (3.25)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \begin{bmatrix} a_0\\a_1\\a_2\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}8\\-5/2\\-3/4\end{bmatrix} $$     (3.26) Egm5526.s11.team-2.langpm 14:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 *

 * }

Solution

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \therefore u^h(x)=8-\frac{5}{2}(x+1)-\frac{3}{4}(x+1)^2 $$     (3.27) Now. let's check the absolute error between our approximate solution above in Eq. 3.26 and our exact solution in Eq.3.5.
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \begin{align} \Delta \mathbf{E_{abs}}=u^h(x=0.5)-u(x=0.5) \end{align} $$     (3.28)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \begin{align} u^h(x=0.5)&=8-\frac{5}{2}(0.5+1)-\frac{3}{4}(0.5+1)^2\\ &=41/16 \end{align} $$     (3.29)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \begin{align} u(x=0.5)&=-\frac{3}{4}(0.5)^2-4(0.5)+\frac{19}{4}\\ &=41/16 \end{align} $$     (3.30)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \therefore \Delta \mathbf{E_{abs}}=0 $$     (3.31) Therefore, we can see from both the graph and the absolute error that our approximation in Eq.3.26 to the solution of the differential equation (Eq.3.1) gives the same results as our exact solution. Egm5526.s11.team-2.langpm 14:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 *

 * }

Graphical Comparison Between Exact and Numerical Approximate Solutions
Egm5526.s11.team-2.langpm 14:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Case:n=4
We will follow exactly the same methodology as we have above, leaving out the explanations for each step.
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle u^h(x)=a_0b_0+a_1b_1+a_2b_2+a_3b_3+a_4b_4 $$     (3.32)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle u^h(x)=a_0(1)+a_1(x+1)+a_2(x+1)^2+a_3(x+1)^3+a_4(x+1)^4 $$     (3.33)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle u^h(x)=\begin{bmatrix}1 & x+1 & (x+1)^2 & (x+1)^3 & (x+1)^4 \end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}a_0\\a_1\\a_2\\a_3\\a_4 \end{bmatrix} $$     (3.34) Using our given boundary conditions to obtain our first 2 linearly independent equations.
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \begin{align} u^h(x=1)&=a_0(1)+a_1(1+1)+a_2(1+1)^2+a_3(1+1)^3+a_4(1+1)^4\\ &=a_0(1)+2a_1+4a_2+8a_3+16a_4 \end{align} $$     (3.35)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle a_0(1)+2a_1+4a_2+8a_3+16a_4=0 $$     (3.36)
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 *

 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \frac{du^h}{dx}(x=0)=a_1+2a_2+3a_3+4a_4 $$     (3.37)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle a_1+2a_2+3a_3+4a_4 =-4 $$     (3.38) Using our predefined linear differential operator in Eq.3.14.
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle P(u^h)=\frac{d^2}{dx^2}\begin{bmatrix}1 & x+1 & (x+1)^2 & (x+1)^3 & (x+1)^4 \end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}a_0\\a_1\\a_2\\a_3\\a_4 \end{bmatrix} + \frac{3}{2} $$     (3.39) Because this time we have 5 unknown $$a_i's,$$ we will have to choose 3 equations from our inner product operation.
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \left \langle b_i,P(u^h) \right \rangle =\int_0^1b_iP(u^h)=0 $$     (3.40)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \int_0^1\begin{bmatrix}1\\x+1\\(x+1)^2\\(x+1)^3\\(x+1)^4\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}0 & 0 & 2 & 6(x+1) & 12(x+1)^2 \end{bmatrix}\,dx \begin{bmatrix}a_0\\a_1\\a_2\\a_3\\a_4\end{bmatrix}=-\frac{3}{2}\int_0^1\begin{bmatrix}1\\x+1\\(x+1)^2\\(x+1)^3\\(x+1)^4\end{bmatrix}\, dx $$ (3.41)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \int_0^1\begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 & 2 & 6(x+1) & 12(x+1)^2\\ 0 & 0 & 2(x+1) & 6(x+1)^2 & 12(x+1)^3\\ 0 & 0 & 2(x + 1)^2 & 6(x+1)^3 & 12(x+1)^4\\ 0 & 0 & 2(x+1)^3 & 6(x+1)^4 & 12(x+1)^5\\ 0 & 0 & 2(x+1)^4 & 6(x+1)^5 & 12(x+1)^6 \end{bmatrix}\,dx \begin{bmatrix}a_0\\a_1\\a_2\\a_3\\a_4\end{bmatrix}=-\frac{3}{2}\int_0^1\begin{bmatrix}1\\x+1\\(x+1)^2\\(x+1)^3\\(x+1)^4\end{bmatrix}\, dx $$ (3.42)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 & 2 & 9 & 28\\ 0 & 0 & 3 & 14 & 45\\                                       0 & 0 & 14/3 & 45/2 & 372/5\\                                         0 & 0 & 15/2 & 186/5 & 126\\                                         0 & 0 & 62/5 & 63 & 1524/7 \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}a_0\\a_1\\a_2\\a_3\\a_4\end{bmatrix}=-\begin{bmatrix}3/2\\ 9/4 \\ 7/2 \\ 45/8 \\ 93/10 \end{bmatrix} $$     (3.43) Now we can use the bottom three rows of Eq.3.43, along with Eq.3.36 and Eq.3.38 to develop a system of equations
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 2 & 4 & 8 & 16\\ 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4\\                                       0 & 0 & 14/3 & 45/2 & 372/5\\                                         0 & 0 & 15/2 & 186/5 & 126\\                                         0 & 0 & 62/5 & 63 & 1524/7 \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}a_0\\a_1\\a_2\\a_3\\a_4\end{bmatrix}=-\begin{bmatrix} 0 \\ 4 \\ 7/2 \\ 45/8 \\ 93/10 \end{bmatrix} $$     (3.44)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

Using a MATLAB script which I wrote (the code is detailed below) to solve for the unknown $$a_i's$$ we can then solve for our approximate expression and see if we get better results than in the $$ n=2$$ case.

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \begin{bmatrix}a_0\\a_1\\a_2\\a_3\\a_4\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix} 8 \\ -5/2 \\ -3/4 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{bmatrix} $$     (3.45) Egm5526.s11.team-2.langpm 14:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

Solution

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \therefore u^h(x)=8-\frac{5}{2}(x+1)-\frac{3}{4}(x+1)^2 $$     (3.46) We can see from above in Eq.3.46 that our solution did not improve at all by an increase in n from 2 to 4. Egm5526.s11.team-2.langpm 14:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 *

 * }

Graphical Comparison Between Exact and Numerical Approximate Solutions
Egm5526.s11.team-2.langpm 14:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Case:n=6

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \begin{align} u^h(x) &= a_0b_0+a_1b_1+a_2b_2+a_3b_3+a_4b_4+a_5b_5+a_6b_6\\ &=a_0+a_1(x+1)+a_2(x+2)^2+a_3(x+1)^3+a_4(x+1)^4+a_5(x+1)^5+a_6(x+1)^6 \end{align} $$     (3.47) Using the given boundary conditions in Eq.3.2 and Eq.3.3 we have the following to restrictions on our approximated solution.
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \begin{align} u^h(x=1)=&a_0+a_1(1+1)+a_2(1+1)^2+a_3(1+1)^3+a_4(1+1)^4+a_5(1+1)^5+a_6(1+1)^6=0\\ &a_0+2a_1+4a_2+8a_3+16a_4+32a_5+64a_6=0 \end{align} $$     (3.48)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle a_0+2a_1+4a_2+8a_3+16a_4+32a_5+64a_6=0 $$     (3.49)
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 *

 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \frac{du^h}{dx}(x=0)=a_1+2a_2+3a_3+4a_4+5a_5+6a_6=-4 $$     (3.50)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle a_1+2a_2+3a_3+4a_4+5a_5+6a_6=-4 $$     (3.51) Using the same linear differential operator as we have for the past 2 cases, Eq.3.14 we have the following.
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle P(u^h)=\frac{d^2}{dx^2}\begin{bmatrix} 1 & x+1 & (x+1)^2 & (x+1)^3 & (x+1)^4 & (x+1)^5 & (x+1)^6\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix} a_0 \\ a_1 \\ a_2 \\ a_3 \\ a_4 \\ a_5 \\ a_6 \end{bmatrix} +\frac{3}{2} $$     (3.52) Forming the inner product.
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \left \langle b_i,P(u^h) \right \rangle = \int_0^1 b_iP(u^h)\,dx = 0 $$     (3.53)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \int_0^1\begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 & 2 & 6(x + 1) & 12(x + 1)^2 & 20(x + 1)^3 & 30(x + 1)^4\\ 0 & 0 & 2(x + 1) & 6(x + 1)^2 & 12(x + 1)^3 & 20(x + 1)^4 & 30(x + 1)^5\\ 0 & 0 & 2(x + 1)^2 & 6(x + 1)^3 & 12(x + 1)^4 & 20(x + 1)^5 & 30(x + 1)^6\\ 0 & 0 & 2(x + 1)^3 & 6(x + 1)^4 & 12(x + 1)^5 & 20(x + 1)^6 & 30(x + 1)^7\\ 0 & 0 & 2(x + 1)^4 & 6(x + 1)^5 & 12(x + 1)^6 & 20(x + 1)^7 & 30(x + 1)^8\\ 0 & 0 & 2(x + 1)^5 & 6(x + 1)^6 & 12(x + 1)^7 & 20(x + 1)^8 & 30(x + 1)^9\\ 0 & 0 & 2(x + 1)^6 & 6(x + 1)^7 & 12(x + 1)^8 & 20(x + 1)^9 & 30(x + 1)^{10}\end{bmatrix}\, dx \begin{bmatrix} a_0 \\ a_1 \\ a_2 \\ a_3 \\ a_4 \\ a_5 \\ a_6 \end{bmatrix}=-\frac{3}{2} \int_0^1 \begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ x+1 \\ (x+1)^2 \\ (x+1)^3 \\ (x+1)^4 \\ (x+1)^5 \\ (x+1)^6 \end{bmatrix} $$     (3.54)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 & 2 & 9 & 28 & 375/4 & 186\\ 0 & 0 & 3 & 14 & 45 & 155 & 315\\ 0 & 0 & 14/3 &  45/2 & 372/5 &  525/2 &   3810/7\\ 0 & 0 &  15/2  & 186/5 &    126 &  3175/7 &   3825/4\\ 0 & 0 &  62/5 &    63 & 1524/7 &  6375/8 &     5110/3\\ 0 & 0 &    21 & 762/7 &  765/2 & 12775/9 &  3069\\ 0 & 0 & 254/7 & 765/4 & 2044/3 &  5115/2 & 61410/11\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix} a_0\\ a_1\\ a_2\\ a_3\\ a_4\\ a_5\\ a_6\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix} -3/2\\   -9/4\\    -7/2\\   -45/8\\  -93/10\\   -63/4\\ -381/14\end{bmatrix} $$     (3.55) We take the bottom 5 rows from Eq.3.55 and build a system of equations with Eq.3.49 and Eq.3.51.
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 2 & 4 & 8 & 16 & 32 & 64\\ 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6\\ 0 & 0 & 14/3 &  45/2 & 372/5 &  525/2 &   3810/7\\ 0 & 0 &  15/2  & 186/5 &    126 &  3175/7 &   3825/4\\ 0 & 0 &  62/5 &    63 & 1524/7 &  6375/8 &     5110/3\\ 0 & 0 &    21 & 762/7 &  765/2 & 12775/9 &  3069\\ 0 & 0 & 254/7 & 765/4 & 2044/3 &  5115/2 & 61410/11\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix} a_0\\ a_1\\ a_2\\ a_3\\ a_4\\ a_5\\ a_6\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix} 0\\   -4\\    -7/2\\   -45/8\\  -93/10\\   -63/4\\ -381/14\end{bmatrix} $$     (3.56) As in the $$n=4$$ case, we use a MATLAB code I wrote to determine the unknown $$ a_i's$$ to determine the final form of our approximation to the solution of the differential equation 3.1.
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \begin{bmatrix} a_0 \\ a_1 \\ a_2 \\ a_3 \\ a_4 \\ a_5 \\ a_6 \end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix} 8 \\ -5/2 \\ -3/4 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{bmatrix} $$     (3.57) Egm5526.s11.team-2.langpm 14:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

Solution

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \therefore u^h(x)=8-\frac{5}{2}(x+1)-\frac{3}{4}(x+1)^2 $$     (3.58) We can see from above in Eq.3.58 that our solution did not improve at all by an increase in n from 2 to 6. So we can see that indeed, the polynomial basis function converges much quicker to an exact solution than the cosine base functions we used in Problem 2.9. Egm5526.s11.team-2.langpm 14:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 *

 * }

Graphical Comparison Between the Exact and Numerical Solutions
Egm5526.s11.team-2.langpm 14:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

MATLAB Code for n=6 case
=Problem 3.2: ADD TITLE HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!=

Solution
=Problem 3.3: ADD TITLE HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!=

Solution
=Problem 3.4: ADD TITLE HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!=

Solution
=Problem 3.5: ADD TITLE HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!=

Solution
=Problem 3.6: ADD TITLE HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!=

Solution
=Problem 3.7: ADD TITLE HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!=

Solution
=Problem 3.8: ADD TITLE HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!=

Solution
=Problem 3.9: ADD TITLE HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!=

Solution
=Problem 3.10: ADD TITLE HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!=

Solution
=Problem 3.11: ADD TITLE HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!=

Solution
=Contributing Members=

=References=

title: User:Eml5526.s11.team2/hwk3


title: File:Fe1.s11.team3.HW3.3.fig1.jpg


title: File:Fe1.s11.team3.HW3.6.fig1.jpg


text:
Psycholinguistics/Speech Errors

Errors in Speech Production
“A Tanadian from Toronto”. We are all guilty of producing such speech errors and other slips of the tongue in our day-to-day communications. Speech errors have long been a source of amusement for many, a source of frustration for some, and more recently a source of serious study in the field of psychology. Although these errors are good for a laugh now and then, they prove to be of much greater value to the field of linguistics. Speech errors are providing linguists with insight into the mechanisms behind speech production. There are limitations to how much is available for study; the process of speech production is largely inaccessible for observation. However, by analyzing errors individually and in the context of their surroundings, we may better learn the underlying mechanisms that occur to produce our speech, and investigate the reality of speech production units in word formation. This chapter will introduce the different types of commonly documented speech errors, the rules that govern error-generation, and how these errors provide insight into some of the proposed speech production models. The nature of speech errors in this chapter will be based on speakers who have no pre-existing speech delays or disorders. These are errors made by speakers whose language and speech production systems are thought to be fully intact. First, let us start by introducing the smaller errors and then work our way up through a hierarchy based on size of units subject to the error.

An Overview of Speech Errors
Early estimates suggested upwards of 10 000 different speech errors are committed in the English language. These errors have become the source of investigation and experimentation in search of explanation of the basic processes that conduct speech production; from the basic stages of planning to the finished motor plan that produces audible speech . A preliminary finding from error observations is that errors occur mainly within the same level of speech production rather than between levels of production. For example, this means in the occurrence of units being exchanged that one phoneme will change with another phoneme, but will not change with a syllable as it is a speech unit existing on a separate level of production. First, let us familiarize ourselves with nine commonly documented speech errors:

Addition: adding a unit "optimal number→ moptimal number"

Anticipation: a later speech unit takes place of an earlier one "reading list→leading list"

Blends: two speech units are combined person+people=perple

Deletion: a unit is deleted specific→ pacific

Exchange: two units swap positions thunder and lightning→lunder and thightning

Misdeviation: a wrong unit is attached to a word Intervening node→intervenient node

Perseveration: speech unit is activated too late Rule of thumb→ rule of rum

Shift: affix changes location she decides to hit it→she decide to hits it

Substitution: unit is changed into a different unit Set the table→set the chair

All different types of speech units are victims of speech error. Above we see changes in features, syllables, morphemes, affixes, words, and syntax. It must be acknowledged that classification of errors is no easy task as some errors are co-occur between different units of speech. Classification can at times be ambiguous. For example, an error such as "hit the spot" (as opposed to the intended word pot) could be considered a phoneme addition, or also a word substitution.

Phoneme Errors
Errors made at the level of the phoneme, whether it be substitution, addition, deletion, or any others for that matter, are by far the most common speech errors. An error at this level can occur within a word but more frequently will occur between separate words. The majority of these phonemic errors are anticipations, in which a substitution occurs of a sound that is supposed to occur later in the sentence. In this case, the speaker produces the target phoneme earlier than intended and it interferes with the intended original phoneme; the interfering segment follows the error.

a)	also share→ alsho share

b)	sea shanty→ she shanty

Second in frequency to phonemic anticipation errors are perseverance errors (the interfering segment precedes the error), which are as follows:

a)	walk the beach→walk the beak

b)	Sally gave the boy→Sally gave the goy

The very nature of these errors, and the fact that they occur indicate that speech is well planned before it is articulated. As words get confused, like we saw above, we could speculate that all words of a sentence exist as part of a single representation in production and are therefore susceptible to being mixed at that stage in planning. Of course this is intuitive as a sentence could not be created if words were held as separate representations; at some point down then line the words must be integrated and related to create and complete the sentence. Dell et al., noted a difference between perseverations and anticipations depending on the context of the sentence. If one is speaking a novel sentence, they are more prone to perseverations, where as anticipations are more common amongst practiced and recited phrases.

Another possible phonemic error is the exchange of two segments, where the order of sound segments gets changed. Exchange errors have been interpreted as the possible combination of an anticipation and a perseverance.

a)	feed the dog→ deed the fog

b)	left hemisphere→ heft lemisphere

These phonological errors always involve the exchange of like units; a vowel exchanges with a vowel and a consonant with another consonant. Never is there an exchange between a vowel and a consonant. This is known as the consonant-vowel category effect.

Beyond vowels and consonants
All of the above examples involved the anticipation, perservation, or exchange of single segments. Errors consisted of small segments such as a vowel or a consonant. These individuals segments can further be combined. As individual segments, two consonants can be transposed. By addition of a consonant to a word, a cluster can be produced as opposed to an intended single segment, as follows:

Fish grotto→ Frish gotto

This is similar in all respects to the previously shown single segmented errors, the only difference now being that the affected segment has become a consonant cluster. A cluster however is not a single unit in speech production, but consists of a sequence of separable segments.

Syllable Errors
Although our focus on speech errors has thus far been on small-segment phonemic errors, this does not mean that errors amongst phonemes are the only source of speech error. Larger than phonemes are syllables that are also units of speech performance and susceptible to error. Nooteboom (1969) was the first to suggest that syllables could be a unit of measure in speech programming. He found that speech errors generally occur within seven syllables distance between the origin and target. This corresponds and fits with our understanding of a short-term memory span that allows us to comfortably remember seven consecutive items. Anything beyond this magic number of seven becomes challenging. Nooteboom supported the notion that segmental slips yield to a structural law of syllable placement. If we have two words, each with an equal amount of syllables, the corresponding syllables will be the ones to exchange in the event of an error. The first syllable of the origin word will replace the first syllable of the target word. Likewise, the final syllable of the origin word will exchange with the final syllable of the target word.

Moran and Fader→ Morer and Fadan

In further support of syllables being a unit of articulation, syllabic errors also occur as blends, substitutions, deletions, and additions.

Tremendously→tremenly (deletion of syllable)

Shout+yell= shell (blending of syllables)

Morpheme Errors
As we continue up our hierarchy of speech units, we now see that units of meaning are susceptible to speech errors. Such errors tend to happen subsequent to the syntactic planning of the sentence. Even units as large as an entire word can be subject to an error such as exchange.

Bowl of soup→soup of bowl

Plant the seeds→plan the seats

Substitutions and exchanges of whole words occur but do so with like-constituents. A noun will take place of a noun, and the same goes for an adjective or verb. When there is a change in word placement but no change in morphemes, the error is said to consist of inflectional morphemes. However, when the root of the words remains and there is an error due to a morpheme addition or substitution, the error is known as a derivational morpheme error.

Bed time→time bed (inflectional)

Easily enough→easy enoughly (derivational)

Such derivational speech errors show that semantic intentions are intact, however, the choice of semantic features has been incorrect. Substitutions can also occur where the substituted word is structurally similar but semantically different from the intended word.

Affix Substitution
He was very productive→ he was very productful

Documentation of errors involving word affixes provides us with insight as to how words are stored and later produced in speech. An error such as the one above leads one to believe that the word 'productive' may be stored in the mental lexicon as two separate constituents. It is possible that the correct version is stored as product + ive, which is suggestive of rules for word formation. From such errors we may infer that there exists separate vocabularies for stems and affixes. The improper pairing of an affix (product+ful) then leads to a word that is impermissible by the rules of our language. This evidence supports the hypothesis that affixes are a source of speech error and that they may exist as a separate component of one’s lexicon.

Syllable Stress
In articulation of a sentence, there is a segment of primary stress at which one syllable will be stressed more than the others. Regardless of whether it is a vowel, a whole syllable, part of a syllable, or even a whole word being involved in substitution, the pattern of stress within the sentence does not change. Take for example the following error:

How great things were→ how things were great

In articulation of a sentence, there is a segment of primary stress at which one syllable will be stressed more than the others. Boomer and Laver suggest that despite an error of word exchange, the position of the primary stress in the sentence remains the same (in this case on the second word of the sentence).

Freudian Slips
Freud focused on the common errors we make in our day-to-day processes and made these errors a central point of his studies. Verbal errors (or more commonly: slips of the tongue) have since been titled Freudian slips. These are errors in speech (or memory and physical action) that are said to occur due to the interference of an unconscious wish, need, or thought. For example, a man calling his spouse by the name of his previous partner.

At first glance, Freudian slips seem like a gold mine for speech error research, however, they pose some difficulty in regards to research with the model of speech production. With our current linguistic tools, we are unable to tap into the unconscious processes of language production. With no access; we do not know the intentions that lie behind these errors, unlike the other speech errors we previously examined. Therefore, we cannot make any inference about these errors. To use these slips would require a vast knowledge of the inner-self of the speaker, something that is currently largely inaccessible. Until we develop such methods to do so, this resource of unconscious errors will remain largely untapped.

Speech errors in support of Language Production Models
A general consensus exists amongst linguistic theorists that words and sentences exist as a combination of structure and content. A complete sentence requires words to create meaning, and that the syntax and relation amongst words be permissible within the language. Meaning and syntax reflect content and structure, respectively. The content of words contains a series of phonological features and the structure entails the combination of these features into larger units of speech organization. Modern psychological theories stress the importance of separation between structure and content. Chomsky (1957) stated that creating a sentence requires different levels of representation. Agreeing with later theorists, it is suggested that a semantic representation is created first. Succeeding this representation are two linguistic representations, one with syntactic information and the other with phonological information. These representations are what eventually direct motor activity in the production of speech. The following evidence from speech provide support for this theory of language production:

Phonotactic Regularity Effect
Errors at the level of the phoneme habitually end up being sound sequences that are possible within the rules of that given spoken language. This effect was established to be the “first law” of speech errors by Wells (1951) and has been a central focus of speech error research since. There are,however, violations to this first law. There are 37 found examples of violations (Stemberger 1983), but this amounts to less than one percent of all noted phonological speech errors. This proves the phonotactic regularity effect to be significant as its prevalence is seen in such a vast majority (99%) of errors.

a) A reading list→ a leading list	(no violation of English rule)

b) dam→ dlam			(a rare case of violation)

In consideration of speech production theories with the phonotactic regularity affect, frames are created with only letter combinations that are permissible within the language. Impossible sound sequences are prohibited in word construction. It is assumed that there is no available frame for an illegal sequence such as 'dlam' to be created. This is understood as concrete evidence that phonological rules are actively considered in the process of speech production.

Consonant-Vowel Category Effect
As mentioned earlier, like-units are prone to exchange, but not differing units. A noun slips with another noun, and a verb with another verb. In a similar fashion, vowels and consonants (basic phonological units) only slip with their similar partner; a vowel for a vowel, and a consonant for a consonant. The rate at which this occurs in speech errors is even greater than the phonotactic regularity effect, meaning there are even fewer exceptions to the consonant-vowel category effect (<1%). Instances of cross-category errors are extraordinarily rare, in fact, some say they do not occur at all. The consonant-vowel category effect is considered to be evidence of labeled slots in the frame for production. Labels indicate whether a vowel or a consonant will be accepted into a particular slot, and will only accept the segments (consonant or vowel) that correspond with the correct category. This is a preventative measure that disallows the event of a cross-category error.

Initialness Effect
Initial consonants (onset consonants) are consonants that begin a syllable or word. There is a far greater inclination for word-initial consonants to slip than those from other regions of the word, with 80% of consonant slips coming from word-initial consonants. In explanation of this effect, MacKay (1972) and Shattuck-Hufnagel (1987) hypothesize that initial consonants of syllables and words have a distinct representation in the phonological frame. This idea suggests that initial consonants in syllables and words are more detachable from the remainder of the word and would therefore be more susceptible to error and exchange. For example, in the word 'fog', the f-sound is more easily extracted and isolated than the sound of the g. The ease with which the initial consonant f can detach is thought to be in correspondence with a principal division in the structure of the word frame. Segments following the division prove to be less accessible and more buried in the word.

Syllabic Constituent Effect
The syllabic constituent effect occurs when a neighboring vowel and consonant are exchanged as a VC or CV unit with another similar pair. The sequence of vowel-consonant proves to be more susceptible to error than the sequence of consonant-vowel. Nootboome (1969) noted that of 24 collected phonological errors, 19 involved a VC sequence and only four involved a CV sequence. This effect provides support for a phonological frame that has structure within its syllables. A typical sequence of consonants and vowels follows the CVC pattern, where the first consonant is the onset consonant of the syllable, and the succeeding vowel and consonant combine to form a single unit; the rhyme constituent of the syllable. The fact that VC slips are far more common than CV slips provides further evidence that phonological structure plays a role in the production of the speech frame.

Taken into consideration separately, each of these effects unveil the functioning of different phonological rules and structures that may be at work in language production. Evidence from the corpus of naturally occurring speech errors and the underlying effects within speech errors supports multiple levels of linguistic analyses in the process of speech production. This growing body of evidence from naturally occurring speech errors suggests that speech production begins begins with a semantic and structural plan. Following this foundation is the progression to accessing the proper words, and finally the application of proper phonological information. With a greater understanding of speech errors comes an understanding of the speech production process. This will ultimately lead to an increased understanding or our means of communication; language.

Part 1
Identify the type of errors shown in the following sentences as one of the nine possible errors in speech production (ex substitution, preservation). It is possible for a sentence to contain more than just one type of error. If so, identify the multiple types of errors.

a.	Walk the beach→ walk the beak

_______________________

b.	Hop on one foot→ Fop on one foot

_______________________

c.	Pat put the pot on the table

_______________________

d.	On the computer→ on the commuter

_______________________

e.	He had an upset tummy

_______________________

f.	The adds up to→ that add ups to

_______________________

Part 2
The following story was written by Tommy, a grade two student at Atlantic Memorial Elementary. It is a recount of his trip to the store on a beautiful weekend day. He plans to submit his story as part of his year end project. Tommy has called upon you to proof read his story!

Identify the types of errors made by Tommy (i.e. perseverance, shifts, deletions, additions etc.) and at which level of production these errors occur (i.e. phonemes, syllables, morphemes). Make the appropriate corrections so he can get the A+ he so greatly desires.

Tommy woke up to a bright sun-shining say. He bate his eggs-benny and got dressed as fast as possible, with an itch to break out the front door into the sunshine. He decide to gos for a walk to Mable’s Country Store. Off he went, with his walking stick in hand, along the trail to the tore. He had the lovely company of the morning birds springing their tune to him along the way, and the river at his side. Not too far along the trail, Tommy realized he had forgot aboutten his money. Being in such a rush, he realized he forgot to deed the fog too! He would need some money to buy a treat at Mables Mountry More, so he turned around and dashed back dome! He shelled at the top of his lungs when the neighborhood hound chased him down the road, but he made it back in the nick of nime. He gathered his money and decided he would bake his ticycle this time to make up for lost time. He made his was along the trail, through the trees birch and at last to the store. For sake of his Saturday morning tradion, he purchased two scoops of strawbry ice cream. Delicious!

Part 3
In the week following the reading of this chapter, closely listen for and document any speech errors made by yourself and others. Return to this chapter to analyze and relate your documented errors to the content of this chapter. Which types of errors did you find to be most common from this time? Are there any types of errors you have heard frequently in past? Deletions, anticipations, exchanges, or others? Indicate how your documented errors agree, or disagree with such theories as the phonotactic regularity effect or the consonant-vowel category effect. Make note of whether the speaker makes an effort to correct their error, or if it goes unnoticed. Can any conclusions be drawn regarding the level of speech production at which an error has occurred?

Part 1
a.	Walk the beach→ walk the beak (Persevaration)

b.	Hop on one foot→ Fop on one foot (Anticipation)

c.	Pat put the pot on the pable (persevaration)

d.	On the computer→ on the commuter (deletion)

e.	He had an upset stummy (blend)

f.	The adds up to→ that add ups to (shift)

Part 2
Sun shining say→ sun shining day 	(Perseverance. Level: phoneme)

Bate eggs-benny→ ate eggs benny 	(anticipation: Phoneme. Addition: phoneme)

Decide to go→ decided to go	(shift: affix)

Trail to the tore→ trail to the store	(perseverance: phoneme)

Springing their tune→ signing their tune	(Addition: phoneme. Subtitution: morpheme)

Forgot aboutten→ forgotten about		(Shift: morpheme)

Deed the fog→ feed the dog		(anticipation and perseverance: phoneme. Combination of anticipation and perseverance= exchange)

Mables Mountry More→ Mables Country Store	(Perseverance: phoneme. Substitution: morpheme)

Shelled→ yelled			(Blend: syllable)

Nick of nime→ nick of time		(Perseveration: phoneme)

Bake his ticycle→ take his bicycle	(exchange: phoneme. Substitution: morpheme)

Treed birch→ birch trees		(exchange: morpheme)

Tradion→ tradition			(Deletion: syllable and phoneme)

Strawbry→strawberry			(Deletion: syllable)

title: Psycholinguistics/Speech Errors


text:
Template talk:Information technology

Bad image
It seems as though there is an error with the image. When attempting to view the image directly by link, I receive a message saying:

As a result, the pages which include a transclusion of this template are affected. I propose the replacement (changing) of the image used.  Hazard-SJ  ±   03:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see no problem. Clicking on the image involved pulls up the Commons icon. Any specific example where it is transcluded and breaks the page? I looked at a number of pages. --Abd 15:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Information technology


text: File:Eml5526.s11.team4.ccook.hw3.problem2.fig1.png


text: File:Eml5526.s11.team4.simko.h3.problem1.fig2.gif


text: File:HP Pavillion P6185L.png

title: File:HP Pavillion P6185L.png


text: File:HP Pavillion P6672L.png

title: File:HP Pavillion P6672L.png