tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-520807396714463309.post287824114463063932..comments2024-02-12T02:22:30.561-05:00Comments on The Lousy Linguist: Shakespeare and the brain? maybe not...Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09558846279006287148noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-520807396714463309.post-77240895142162504432011-05-04T22:50:47.787-04:002011-05-04T22:50:47.787-04:00Reminds me of when I taught English in Korea. I ta...Reminds me of when I taught English in Korea. I taught a middle school class, and one day, the students started giggling, so I asked them what was so funny. The reply: "Teacher... Johnny [a student] is puberting."Brandon C. Loudermilkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09483373230250210234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-520807396714463309.post-5273217227905130632011-05-03T16:01:17.922-04:002011-05-03T16:01:17.922-04:00"...Shakespeare’s language does anything that..."...Shakespeare’s language does anything that other smart, well crafted language does not do."<br /><br />Case in point: Huck Finn. The book is filled with constructions of the type David labels "Shakespearean." For example, Twain has one of his characters say: "Won't he suspicion what we're up to?" Davis' supposed findings apply to any creative style of non-standard English, not just the Bard's.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17245217648756403006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-520807396714463309.post-19925417047016934732011-04-29T01:27:59.678-04:002011-04-29T01:27:59.678-04:00Nice thoughts, I did something of the sort in my b...Nice thoughts, I did something of the sort in my blog (Spanish).MGNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11557127959079200429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-520807396714463309.post-12945329931928406592011-04-28T23:50:43.839-04:002011-04-28T23:50:43.839-04:00Nice analysis of the stimuli. Goes to show how use...Nice analysis of the stimuli. Goes to show how useful serious peer review is ... how did this trash get published to begin with?<br /><br />Sadly, this seems to be a perfect example of Liberman's <a href="http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3114" rel="nofollow">recent lament</a>: <br /><br />"if you read or hear about a scientific result in the mainstream media, the odds are depressingly good that it's nonsense."Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09558846279006287148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-520807396714463309.post-50575172353889838782011-04-28T19:05:12.833-04:002011-04-28T19:05:12.833-04:00Nice find... what a load. In the Davis article he ...Nice find... what a load. In the Davis article he states: "we could not give our student-subjects undiluted lines of Shakespeare because too much in the brain would light up in too many places: that is one of the definitions of what Shakespeare-language does."<br /><br />It is also unclear where the EEG was time-locked to. Consider the example stimuli:<br /><br />A) I was not supposed to go there alone: you said you would accompany me.<br />B) I was not supposed to go there alone: you said you would charcoal me.<br />C) I was not supposed to go there alone: you said you would incubate me.<br />D) I was not supposed to go there alone: you said you would companion me.<br /><br />Stimuli (C) is supposed to be a grammatically correct, but semantically odd sentence. But, compare (D) the "syntactic" violation is violated at the word _companion_, but (C) is not violated at _incubate_, but rather at _me_, for example "you said that you would incubate the chicken eggs", would be a perfectly acceptable conclusion after incubate.Brandon C. Loudermilkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09483373230250210234noreply@blogger.com