Neuroscience

Articles and news from the latest research reports.

60 notes

Explaining the origins of word order using information theory
The majority of languages — roughly 85 percent of them — can be sorted into two categories: those, like English, in which the basic sentence form is subject-verb-object (“the girl kicks the ball”), and those, like Japanese, in which the basic sentence form is subject-object-verb (“the girl the ball kicks”).
The reason for the difference has remained somewhat mysterious, but researchers from MIT’s Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences now believe that they can account for it using concepts borrowed from information theory, the discipline, invented almost singlehandedly by longtime MIT professor Claude Shannon, that led to the digital revolution in communications. The researchers will present their hypothesis in an upcoming issue of the journal  Psychological Science.
Shannon was largely concerned with faithful communication in the presence of “noise” — any external influence that can corrupt a message on its way from sender to receiver. Ted Gibson, a professor of cognitive sciences at MIT and corresponding author on the new paper, argues that human speech is an example of what Shannon called a “noisy channel.”
“If I’m getting an idea across to you, there’s noise in what I’m saying,” Gibson says. “I may not say what I mean — I pick up the wrong word, or whatever. Even if I say something right, you may hear the wrong thing. And then there’s ambient stuff in between on the signal, which can screw us up. It’s a real problem.” In their paper, the MIT researchers argue that languages develop the word order rules they do in order to minimize the risk of miscommunication across a noisy channel.
[E. Gibson, S.T. Piantadosi, K. Brink, L. Bergen, E. Lim, and R. Saxe. A noisy-channel account of crosslinguistic word order variation. Psychological Science, accepted, 2012]

Explaining the origins of word order using information theory

The majority of languages — roughly 85 percent of them — can be sorted into two categories: those, like English, in which the basic sentence form is subject-verb-object (“the girl kicks the ball”), and those, like Japanese, in which the basic sentence form is subject-object-verb (“the girl the ball kicks”).

The reason for the difference has remained somewhat mysterious, but researchers from MIT’s Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences now believe that they can account for it using concepts borrowed from information theory, the discipline, invented almost singlehandedly by longtime MIT professor Claude Shannon, that led to the digital revolution in communications. The researchers will present their hypothesis in an upcoming issue of the journal Psychological Science.

Shannon was largely concerned with faithful communication in the presence of “noise” — any external influence that can corrupt a message on its way from sender to receiver. Ted Gibson, a professor of cognitive sciences at MIT and corresponding author on the new paper, argues that human speech is an example of what Shannon called a “noisy channel.”

“If I’m getting an idea across to you, there’s noise in what I’m saying,” Gibson says. “I may not say what I mean — I pick up the wrong word, or whatever. Even if I say something right, you may hear the wrong thing. And then there’s ambient stuff in between on the signal, which can screw us up. It’s a real problem.” In their paper, the MIT researchers argue that languages develop the word order rules they do in order to minimize the risk of miscommunication across a noisy channel.

[E. Gibson, S.T. Piantadosi, K. Brink, L. Bergen, E. Lim, and R. Saxe. A noisy-channel account of crosslinguistic word order variation. Psychological Science, accepted, 2012]

Filed under language information theory miscommunication communication word order neuroscience science

  1. alexdotexe reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  2. the-eternal-feminine-leads-us reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  3. tendersonthebaker reblogged this from thedefenderoftheearth
  4. withoutsurcease reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  5. roslagen reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  6. triskaidecagon reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  7. privatepersonalblog reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  8. jessepinkmanisdreamy reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  9. kid-scholar reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  10. theredknightelebuu reblogged this from neurosciencestuff and added:
    Might be a slight oversimplification of syntactical variation, but interesting nonetheless.
  11. cannothear-the-falconer reblogged this from malphalent
  12. trulydiscombobulated reblogged this from malphalent
  13. elisesdelaserres reblogged this from thedefenderoftheearth
  14. thedefenderoftheearth reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  15. ancora0imparo reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  16. malphalent reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
free counters