Learn How To Use Grammar Correctly
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 04. 2024
- In this episode of my show, we slide into the world of syntax, suffix, grammar and language structures. Join me as we explore the nuances of linguistic rules and uncover the secrets behind language acquisition and memorization. Ever wondered why some language rules seem quirky while others are more standard? Why is it that the past tense of climb is climbed but the past tense of come is came? Language is a mixture of almost mathematical rules and infuriating but fascinating exceptions. So, if you're ready to embark on a journey through this labyrinth with me, tune in to discover why grammar matters and how mastering it can enhance your understanding of the world around you.
#pinker #cognitivepsychology #podcast #psychology #science #stevenpinker #motivation #success #mindset #sound #mind #brain #imagination #languagedevelopment #language #grammar
Follow me:
Twitter: bitly.ws/3eEx6
Facebook: web. Stevenpinker...
Website: stevenpinker.org/
![tattoo printer tutorial[제품단순선물]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/g40_GwEJak0/mqdefault.jpg)
NOTE TO PRODUCERS: The intro audio is significantly out of balance (too loud) compared to the voice audio.
Good work! This dovetails nicely with what I've been thinking about lately. In neural networks reasoning is not functionally modular. It's sharded, redundant, and nonconforming. Activation pathways through subnetworks in different subject areas for various reasoning tasks are likely to be redundant. Neural nets don't learn the ways humans program. In programming we create a distinct function for things like comparison and call the same function from various subject areas. We don't learn this way however. We have the capability to modify rules in our human neural nets in subject areas for exceptions. In other words, we can have general rules, but we can connect exceptions directly to context signatures.
I wonder how much of the point pinker makes depends on English as the paradigm. (Genuine question)
Thanks!
I guess that means that even if you have a standard system, irregularities will almost certainly happen, because people misremember or misuse words. Still, most mispronunciations don't get picked up officially, because of grammarians and dictionaries that are there to correct people, but some words do get changed over time. Thanks for the video.
Irregular verbs usually comes whith the most useful words like" is are , can could .. and so on
Because those words need extra discrimination from the others . That helps the speakers to use it while speaking even though it is hard for learners
This was really interesting, Steven. Would also love to find out which authors most play around with language. Dickens and Dahl spring to mind. I'm also wondering about the consequence on language as a whole when one of the key meaning-governing words like 'literally' becomes popularised to mean the exact opposite (even if only informally)
This is commonplace. Wicked now means great, fantastic. That happened in my lifetime, and seems strange to me. Terrific once meant terrifying. Awful used to mean awe inspiring. Nice used to mean simple. Egregious used to mean distinguished, now it means bad. There are many other examples of words that literally change to the opposite meaning, or whose meaning has significantly shifted.
@@StillAliveAndKicking_ thanks for these examples! You’re absolutely right, they’re very similar cases to ‘literally’. I suppose that when the word is clearly being used in a slang way, the potential for disorientation isn’t so much of a problem as it is just an annoyance, at least for me personally
@@EmperorsNewWardrobe Yes it is annoying when it happens in one’s lifetime rather than centuries ago. Not all misuses become accepted of course. I hope this isn’t literally the case with literally.
This was interesting to listen to. 🎊
Interesting. Maybe something on the history of mnemonics would be cool. I before e except after c.
Peace and Ahev
You hypothesize that languages acquire their irregularities because of necessity to engage new speakers (native speakers), if I've grasped your assumption correctly.
The case of 'go-went' seems to undermine this hypothesis, because the form 'went' doesn't stem from shorter or handier pronunciation of 'goed.' Speakers just decided at some point that ēode or yode was irrelevant for past form of gān. Well, 'went' is no better morphologically but semantically 'go' and 'wend' are closer.
Thanks for this episode.
Can you explain why the past tense of explain = expained mmhhmm?
When my youngest son was 3 or younger he said to me one day "I wath my wath " ( I can't really spell his pronunciation). 'You what buddy?' 'I wath my wathk'. 'Oh ,your watch .What'd you do with it?'' 'I wath it.' "you what?' ' I woosED it..' with a look of exasperation that said 'Jesus man , you''re forty years old . Have you never heard an irregular verb before? '
Very interesting, but the title doesn’t match the content. You assume we only memorise a past tense form if it is irregular. Surely there’s no reason to suppose we don’t memorise it for every verb.
Pinker explained that a child (who has not yet learned all the exceptions) may say "keeped" instead of "kept". That shows the child knows the rule about adding "ed" because they can use words like that without ever having heard "keeped".
@@jonquil3015 Yes that proves that the child infers a rule, and that when they use a new verb, they may infer a past tense form, which might be wrong. However, it doesn’t prove that they always continue to use that rule for that verb. In other words, after they have inferred the regular past tense form a few times, they might then store the past tense form in long term memory even though it fits the general rule.
A lot of English weirdness is because it is a bizarre German-French-Latin creole.
You didn't mention how a small number of English words (often animals) have the same singular and plural: sheep, deer, elk, ...
I still say "clove." "Cleaved" sounds wrong to me. I also don't understand how anyone can say "proved" rather than "proved."
I love Steven Pinker and I want to enjoy these videos. But please, please, get rid of the image we see in every video (here at 0:06) of Dr. Pinker holding a brain and looking upwards. The image is simultaneously pretentious and ludicrous. I have to believe Steven cringed when he saw it, and I even wonder if this image is keeping this channel's subscriber numbers down much lower than I had anticipated.