Anne Karina Steen fremlægger sit speciale i lingvistik 19. februar kl 13. på Aarhus Universitet i lokale 1412-229. Foredraget holdes på engelsk

Nedenfor står foredragsholderindens eget resume af specialet:

Fokus for specialet er undervisning af ordblinde i Danmark, fordi ordblindhed er et stort problem for individet og dets muligheder for at vælge uddannelse og karriere og for samfundet.
Ordblindhed er et voksende problem for samfundet, fordi personer med ordblindhed og læsevanskeligheder er en voksende gruppe grundet det faktum at man alle steder i samfundet mødes med øgede læsekrav for, at kunne følge med i udviklingen i samfundet. Derudover er ordblindhed en byrde for samfundet i og med, at mange ordblinde ofte ender på pension til deres store ærgrelse. Nogle skøn siger, at mellem 2-10% af befolkningen er ordblinde og det er tydeligt, at det er et problem, hvis 2-10% ikke kan bidrage til samfundet.

Derfor er afhjælpning af ordblindhed så vigtig, for at personer med ordblindhed kan bidrage til samfundet og føle, at der er brug for dem, hvilket vil resultere i en øget følelse af selvværd hos den enkelte. De primære undersøgelsesspørgsmål for specialet er: Hvordan underviser speciallærere og ordblindeundervisere? Hvilke undervisningsstrategier bruges på de forskellige uddannelsesniveauer? Og hvad er undervisernes kvalifikationer for at arbejde med personer med ordblindhed? For at besvare disse spørgsmål, sender jeg spørgeskemaer ud til ordblindeundervisere på forskellige uddannelsesniveauer, dvs. folkeskolelærere, gymnasielærere og undervisere på specialiserede højskoler og aftenskoleundervisere. Endvidere har det været nødvendigt at klassificere de undervisningstilgange, som de danske undervisere bruger, disse tilgange har jeg kategoriseret i tre overordnede tilgange, en lyderingstilgang, en holistisk tilgang og en alternativ tilgang, disse tilgange vil kort blive eksemplificeret ved de tre mest udbredte undervisningsstrategier, som bruges indenfor dansk og engelsk sproget undervisning af ordblinde.

Den teoretiske basis for at forstå ordblindhed kræver en forståelse af læseindlæringen hos normalt udviklede børn, til dette formål bruger jeg Coltheart & Harris’ fire faser teori til og en forståelse af læseprocessen hos normalt læsende voksne, hvilket forklares vha. dual-route modellen. Ud fra de spørgeskemaer jeg allerede har fået retur er det tydeligt, at de fleste ordblindeundervisere bruger mange forskellige undervisningsstrategier, som de forsøger at tilpasse til den enkelte elev. Dog lader det til at de færreste af disse undervisere holder sig stringent til én undervisningstilgang eller i det hele taget er bevidste om, hvilken tilgang de vælger.

Et førstehåndsindtryk af de indkomne svar angående lærernes kvalifikationer viser, at størstedelen af underviserne har været på flere kurser omkring læseindlæring og ordblindhed. Det er dog en mulighed, at disse data er upræcise af den grund, at mange, specielt folkeskolelærere, undlader at besvare spørgeskemaet, og at dem der gjorde, muligvis har været dem der har de bedste kvalifikationer og uddannelse indenfor undersøgelsens område. Dette er et problem, som kræver nærmere undersøgelse.

(Kitteh speek vershun iz bilow! / Kitteh Pidgin version below.)

Some of us have kept a keen eye on Kitteh Pidgin since its very beginning. (Well, at least 2 of us have.) Since Happy Cat asked, “I can has cheezburger?” a lot has happened. The language has gained popularity over the internet (and spawned LOLCode and lolSQL among other things) and now Kitteh Pidgin has its very own bible (original LOLCat Bible online) — even a preacher (see video below).

Does this mean that Kitteh Pidgin can soon claim status as a living, spoken language?

Sum ov uz has keen ai on teh kitteh speek sins it happen n wus liek “OHAI!”! (Srsly, leest 2 uv uz has!) Lot iz happen sinz Happy Cat wus liek, “I can has cheezburger?“. Awl’z liek “DO WANT KITTEH SPEEK!!11″ on teh intarwebz (fer exampul LOLCode an lolSQL happen) an nao kitteh speek can has baibul (iz on intarwebs tu!) n preechur (let me show u him in videow abuv)!

Kitteh speek nao can has rekugnishun as reel speek? Kthxbai!

Currently there’s a conference called Language in Cognition – Cognition in Language going on here in Århus and I had the privilege to hear Paul Kay and Terry Regier speak about the laterelization of categorical perception. In itself a topic that has had my interest for a couple of years now, but the talk Kay and Regier gave was nothing but amazing. I was, at more than one point, tempted to jump up and yell “woohoo!” and start dancing a little happy celebratory dance.

The main point was, of course, about categorical perception, but the talk also delivered a very diplomatic and compelling point about the whole universalist/relativist discussion, that’s been going on ever since the 1950’s or so, namely that both may co-exist – even peacefully – and be perfectly compatible. In itself not a new idea, but Regier’s points about optimal partitioning of the color space, which seems to be near-universal, and the possibility for language specific deviations were really exciting and they definitely support the claim that there’s no ultimate universal or relativist truth within the domain of categorical perception.

Kay’s points about lateralization of categorical perception seem to support my feeling on the subject, namely that if you ask people to categorize something, they’ll do it by the means readily available. So when language already has color categories set up, why not use them when asked to categorize colors? Kay’s data seems to support this idea, which I’m absolutely thrilled about, since until recently I’ve had close to nothing to back up my feeling, but since Mr. Color Categorization himself seems to be on my side, I haven’t got the slightest reason to worry.

Should you want to check out Kay and Regier’s claims, read:

• Regier, T., Kay, P. & Khetarpal, N. (2007), Color naming reflects optimal partitions of color space, PNAS 2007 104: 1436–1441 (PDF)
• Gilbert, A.L., Regier, T., Kay, P. & Ivry, R.B. (2006), Whorf hypethesis is supported in the right visual field but not the left, PNAS 2006 103: 489–494 (PDF)

HOW TO MAKE A LINGUISTIC THEORY*

*This manuscript was found in an empty xerox-paper box at Harvard
University. Within the history of linguistic science we believe it
dates from the early medieval period, but we do not really care much.

Assemble a judicious amount of grammar, preferably English
grammar since you’re aiming at readers of English. (If you feel
there might be a market for linguistic theories written in Cebuano,
by all means, give it your best shot.) Be sure to include passive
constructions, accusative-with-infinitive constructions, and
constructions with front-shifting. Leave everything else to future
research (don’t worry, you’ll never have to actually do it).

Set up two levels of linguistic representation; call them
Level 1 and Level 2, or even better, Level Alpha and Level Beta.
This is to divide your explicanda into two conceptual domains so
you can let one explain the other. Leave these levels and all
constructs supporting them undefined; these will be your
Theoretical Primes. Define everything else, however, not only as
rigorously as possible but using as many symbols from the predicate
calculus as you can understand.

Be sure to leave undefined the notion “mu.” Now make “mu” a
unit at both undefined levels. For each “mu” use ordinary English
spelling, but in upper case letters on one level, and in lower case
letters on the other. Use abbreviations with upper case; for
example ERG, PRO, +ITAL for “ergative,” “pronominal,” “borrowed
from Italian.”

From this point on you need a graphics expert. Draw guitar
strings (don’t call them that, of course) from units on one level
to units on the other level. Count and classify the various
arrangements of strings you need for the amount of grammar you
began with; then pronounce all other logically possible
arrangements of strings forbidden by Universal Constraints.
Give each constraint a handy name, such as “The Adjustable Bridge
Constraint,” “The Open-String Pull-Off Constraint.” Always
capitalize and use “the” with constraints.

At this point it will be proper, though not absolutely
necessary, to bung in a bit of data from other languages. Since
ultimately theories like yours can be constructed only by trained
linguists who speak natively the languages they are examining,
frankly, the Second Coming will be upon us well before you’ll
really have to think seriously about other languages. Besides, you
have this neat argument:

Premiss 1: If my theory won’t account for English,
then it won’t account for all languages.

Premiss 2: My theory won’t account for English.

Conclusion: Bingo.

With regard to marketing your theory, this is a cinch because
of the way the academic world works. Your theory won’t work, even
for English, right? That’s a foregone conclusion. But for twenty
or thirty years, other people will make such a good living patching
it up that they’ll praise you as a genius even while they’re
bashing the daylights out of you, since without you, where would
they be?

Make occasional references to Kuhn.

– Metalleus

Source: http://www.umich.edu/~archive/linguistics/texts/papers/metalleus