A study into infant language acquisition has found that word "edges" - the first and last syllable of a word - are the parts of a word first remembered by infants.
If you're only seven months old, there's no difference between a "cinema" and a "cimena."
What infants accurately remember of a word is, in fact, only the first and last syllable. The middle syllables may even be jumbled, but to these little ears this will make virtually no difference.
Infants start to learn words very early, during the first months of life, and to do so they have to memorise their sounds and associate them with meanings. The study by Silvia Benavides-Varela and Jacques Mehler revealed the format in which infants remember their first words. In particular, the two scientists saw that infants aged about seven months accurately encode the sound and position of the first and last syllable, whereas they have difficulty retaining the order of syllables in the middle.
"The edges of words are important for the words to be recognised," explains Benavides-Varela. "In the sound of a word we can distinguish two sets of information: information about content, the actual sound of the single syllables, and information about the order in which the syllables are uttered. Our study demonstrates that the two formats, content and order, are dissociated from a very early age."
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Thursday September 11 2014, @01:00AM
In Japanese and Chinese there are no spaces between words, and many words are one character long (simple example: 私 is read "watashi" and means "me").
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Thursday September 11 2014, @01:08AM
TFA/S is about how infants start understanding spoken words, not written ones.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 11 2014, @01:20AM
Stop mocking the illiterate soylent scum, please, thank you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 11 2014, @02:49AM
This is talking about the syllables of spoken words, numbnuts.
(Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Thursday September 11 2014, @01:00AM
I don't see how a single word - namely edges - can be important for language acquisition.
(lame, I know. But that's how I parsed the title at first)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Archon V2.0 on Thursday September 11 2014, @03:55PM
Wait until Tim Langdell hears about this. He'll sue the concept of language acquisition for infringement.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by SlimmPickens on Thursday September 11 2014, @01:01AM
I guess it's a different slant but it's old news.
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny improetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by itslef but the wrod as a wlohe.
http://www.quora.com/Why-can-we-still-read-words-when-the-middle-letters-of-the-word-are-re-arranged [quora.com]
(Score: 2) by BradTheGeek on Thursday September 11 2014, @02:59AM
You baet me to it. Tihs is waht I was gnoig to psot. You feukcr you.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khedoros on Thursday September 11 2014, @06:22AM
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday September 12 2014, @03:28AM
Explains why so many little kids say "aminals" and if you say, "no, it's animals" they'll say "that's what I said!"
I've seen kids as old as 6 or 7 do this.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 11 2014, @09:00AM
While it can be deciphered, it still looks like gibberish. The original said the TWO first and two last letters - and that makes it almost not noticeable.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday September 11 2014, @09:37AM
http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/cambridge.asp [snopes.com]
So maybe, maybe not.
For ealmpxe, it's pbilossy not qitue so silmpe to uadennrstd a sceeennt wehn the caacehrrts in the caenrtl sceiotn of the wdors have been aaegnrrd into aaabcehilptl (or rvsreee atplihecbaal) oedrr. Uinsg saehmowt obcrsue wdinorg mghit aslo cfnosue tghins...
Or how about this? Is this as easy as the parent's example to read? It follows the same rules, but I've mostly reversed the middle letters from the example (or tried to, apologise for any typos):
Ainrdccog to a rcraeehcsh at an Esgnilh usitvreniy, it dnseo't meattr in waht oderr the lreetts in a wrod are, the olny inteorpmt tnhig is taht fsirt and lsat leettr is at the rihgt palce. The rset can be a ttaol mses and you can sltil raed it wihtuot a plebrom. Tihs is baesuce we do not raed eevry letetr by ielstf but the wrod as a wlhoe.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by lhsi on Thursday September 11 2014, @10:38AM
I could read both sentences with incorrect letter order, although slightly slower than the ones in the parent post.
(Score: 2) by mrchew1982 on Thursday September 11 2014, @01:23AM
If you're only seven months old, there's no difference between a "cinema" and a "cimena."
I'm over 30 years old and don't know the difference! Or more precisely, what the hell is a cimena?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday September 11 2014, @01:27AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday September 11 2014, @02:15AM
Do you know how "cinema" is?
No, but I know where cinema is, or at least was until they tore it down.
But I still don't know how "cimena" is.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday September 11 2014, @04:50AM
It's irrelevant what it actually is: if you know what cinema is, then you already have a specific difference between the two – one you know what it is, the other you don't.
Since a 7mo old knows neither, nor can s/he perceive (yet) any pronunciation difference, there's not difference to her/him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday September 11 2014, @05:54AM
Yes, colo, that clarifies everything. Sorry for mistyping your handle, but the first and last letters are correct? This makes me wonder, in several different directions, which is not all that unusual. First, if the edge of words is what makes the difference, it would explain the total lack of distinction between "then" and "than" on the itnertubes. Second, if this hypothesis is correct, longer words would allow for more variation to be ignored, and thus a longer learning curve for audical literacy. I find this to be a compelling argument for the revival of Old Entish, in which the words, not to mention syntax, are extremely long, and so encourages taking time to actually learn things. Or we could compromise on Welsh.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday September 11 2014, @06:30AM
Oh, did you? I wouldn't know, not enough time has passed for me to learn it ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by anubi on Thursday September 11 2014, @06:05AM
You remind me that as a little kid, I caused a lot of mirth at one of my older cousin's wedding.
I had no idea what a "fiance" was, and insisted on introducing the groom as my cousin's "finance".
But, looking back on the whole thing, I could not have been more correct. That was exactly his function.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by mrchew1982 on Tuesday September 16 2014, @06:13AM
I guess I'm just too fixated on the meaning of "cimena." Although I understand the point that they were trying to make and agree with your analysis, using what seems to be a made-up word in the example detracts from the point.
Although it does seem difficult to come up with a real example. Crickets and circuits is the only one that I can think of, but technically the first syllable isn't the same when pronounced right...
(Score: 4, Funny) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday September 11 2014, @07:49AM
> "In the sound of a word we can distinguish two sets of information: information about content, the actual sound of the single syllables, and information about the order in which the syllables are uttered."
Three! Three sets of information: Content, the sound of syllables and syllable order. And accent. Four! I'll come in again.
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Thursday September 11 2014, @08:40AM
Well it only makes sense. You can get by misinterpreting cimena for cinema, than say mistaking it for enema.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday September 11 2014, @12:43PM
I'd like to see how their results compare when different languages are used. For example, does it also apply to agglutinative languages. What about the innuit tongues that are so agglutinative there's effectively no difference between "word" and "phrase" or "sentence".
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by treeves on Friday September 12 2014, @03:58AM
How do they figure out what a seven month old is thinking?