And actually more applicable than I might even think when reading the textbook. Diagrams of how you breathe when you make sounds?! That’s so forgettable and not at all interesting to people who don’t have a Ph.D. in Linguistics, namely, the people taking intro to linguistics.
First, something I’ve been thinking about for the past couple of days: the schwa. Basically, it’s a mid-central laxly produced vowel - and it’s all over the place in tons of languages, though very few include it in their alphabet. North American english actually deletes it a lot (how do you pronounce chocolate - with or without an o? that letter o is actually a schwa), and that’s another neat thing about language - we’re optimizing for speed, so we throw away useless sounds and don’t pronounce things properly. Back to what mid-central laxly produced vowel means, it’s pretty much the very middle of your mouth. I’m assuming that would be the natural resting position for your tongue. So at any give time, if you were to just open you lips (no tongue movement allowed) and make a noise, it would likely be a schwa!
So the schwa is in tons of words because it makes them easier to pronounce, and a great example is foxes. Try to pronounce fox, and add a -zzz at the end for the s, WITHOUT any sound in between. Very difficult to produce, harder for the hearer to understand that you mean multiple foxes - so a schwa goes right in between those sounds as a transition and to make them more pronounceable.
I thought that was neat so if I explained it poorly just pretend it’s really cool.
Next thing is I’m going to write a paper about how communication on the internet is still communication. It’s a little bit rough because linguistics has proved that writing, whether it’s a letter or an “instant message” is not equivalent to pure language use, but I’ll just have to pick my thesis carefully. The reason I say “pure language use” as opposed to “speech” is because sign language is equivalent to spoken word, and actually ten times more amazing in certain ways. But suffice to say that sign language uses the language centric parts of your brain (a couple places in the left hemisphere) exactly like spoken language, AND it develops an extra part on the right hemisphere dedicated solely to understanding the spacial dimension of signed language. So, as far as your brain is concerned, speaking with your hands and speaking with your mouth are just as good.
What I want to somehow work into this paper is that communication over the internet is similarly equivalent to communication face to face - that’s not to say I don’t think there’s any point to meeting someone in person to discuss something with them, just that internet friends are as valid as friends who sit beside you in class.
Take vael’s post about a support system - who says a “support system” is restricted to people physically close to you? You want to see an internet support system, go to deviantArt or Gaia Online and see all the little peoples complimenting eachother and generally just making everybody feel good about being average. It’s as easy as that to prove. I don’t have the equipment to do brain scans and crap like that, but I’m willing to bet there’d be a lot of similarities between a kind word from an internet friend and a kind word from a friend in the same room. Maybe we internet kids (and don’t doubt that people who grew up on computers have differently developed brains from those who didn’t - look at 3D artists, a field requiring spatial knowledge that could never have existed before, and imagine trying to teach such a program to an older artist) connect avatars with our concepts of “others,” the vague sense that in fact someone does exist, as easily as other people connect faces.
This is what I’ve been learning at university.
This is optional reading, consider the post done, but what I meant by ‘concepts of “others”’ is by contrast to the concept of self. Turns out, concepts and exercises that relate back to your sense of self use distinct areas of your brain from ones that don’t. Which is to say that science is working on determining where in your brain YOU, as a person and an idea, exist. Based on that, I’d definitely say it’s possible there are similar areas in the brain related to other people, as concepts and as people with feelings and thoughts of their own, that I can guarantee would relate back to the monkeysphere.
The easiest way to test that would be to lesion someone’s brain and see if they stop understanding that other people exist just like they do. Easy way to figure out where I should try that would be to test people with severe autism. Now, I don’t necessarily need to cut/burn anyone’s brain for this (electromagnets and drugs can actually turn your brain off temporarily - god I love science - and see what would happen if we theoretically destroyed a part of your brain) but where would the fun be in that?
Line-up for electrodes in the brain starts to my right, folks. Don’t be shy, we’ve got enough for everyone!