crowdsourcing workshop

Talking about crowdsourcing, this looks like it’s going to be an interesting workshop at this years LSA institute:

Full Title: Crowdsourcing Technologies for Language and Cognition

Date: 27-Jul-2011 – 27-Jul-2011
Location: Boulder, Colorado, USA
Contact Person: Robert Munro
Web Site: http://www.crowdscientist.com/workshop/

Linguistic Field(s): Computational Linguistics; Text/Corpus Linguistics

Call Deadline: 01-Mar-2011

Meeting Description:

This workshop will bring together linguists who are utilizing crowdsourcing technologies and those who want to know more about them. It combines a half-day ‘how-to’ session where participants will learn to conduct experiments using crowdsourcing platforms and a half-day workshop where researchers come together to share results, ideas, and strategies.

It is being held in conjunction with the 2011 LSA Summer Institute.

Call for Papers:

We are eliciting abstract submissions for afternoon presentations. They should present either:

a) Novel empirical results in linguistics or the language sciences that have been enabled by internet-based crowdsourcing technologies, or b) novel approaches to data collection and evaluation, especially when there are no ‘correct’ responses to a given stimuli. Crowdsourcing technologies could include technologies like Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, CrowdFlower, online games, collaborative platforms like instant messaging and Wikipedia, or custom software built for collecting language and cognition data. Talk slots will be 10-15 minutes, depending on scheduling.

Please send 250-word abstracts to crowdscientistgmail.com by March 1st, 2011. Do not include author names or affiliations in the abstracts as reviewing will be blind (but list the authors and affiliations in the email itself). Abstracts can be in plain text or PDF. You may optionally include figures, tables and/or references. They will not count towards the 250 words, but please limit the entire submission to one page.

Posted in news | Leave a comment

crowdsourcing academic integrity

Next time you’re walking out of a German supermarket with 302 items hidden in your coat that you didn’t pay for and you are faced with some uncomfortable questions by a security guard try the following: say that the suspicion of theft is absurd. Then, after your loot has been tallied by the security guard, admit that there may have been a few mistakes in your shopping procedure, but that you were incredibly busy thinking of other stuff, and stick to your original claim that the suspicion of deliberate theft remains an absurd one.

At least this seems to be working for German defence minister Karl Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Franz Joseph Sylvester Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg, who, even after 302 instances of copied or directly translated material have been spotted in his dissertation by a crowdsourcing wiki still denies having committed deliberate plagiarism. According to the wiki, over 20% of all lines of text in the dissertation have been taken from other publications without giving proper credit. The university has taken away his doctorate title yesterday, but stopped short of alleging deliberate plagiarism. And Guttenberg is adamant that there was no intent of fraud.

The above graph visualizes the findings of the wiki’s ‘intermediate report.’ On the x-axis are the pages. The table of contents and appendices are colored in blue. Black marks pages on which suspected plagiarized material has been found, red marks pages on which multiple instances of plagiarism have been found. Yellow is used for a substantial part which was probably ripped from a report prepared by employees of the parliament. White, finally, is used for pages on which there have so far not been any suspicious findings. The percentage of pages that are not white (excluding the blue pages in the total) is close to 70% (although the percentage of more than 20% of the lines seems more meaningful–not that the difference in percentages really matters).

Update March 3:
Guttenberg has resigned and admitted that his dissertation was ‘fehlerhaft’. The word means something like ‘it contained mistakes’, and clearly implies that there was no intent. This is a nice euphemism for what anyone who has looked at the findings on the wiki would call deliberate plagiarism using various tricks to conceal the original sources (either by Guttenberg or a ghostwriter). The resignation speech was emotionally charged, and did not stop short of enlisting fallen German soldiers in an attempt to raise anger against the naughty media who wouldn’t let go of this story, but was carefully crafted to only admit what even the strongest supporters of Guttenberg had to come to accept was true. The University of Bayreuth is still deliberating whether they can safely conclude that this was intentional plagiarism. The successor of Guttenberg’s advisor at Bayreuth has in the meantime called a spade spade, or rather, a con man a con man.

Posted in admittedly not on prosody | Leave a comment

mcclu

McGill Canadian Conference for Linguistics Undergraduates

Submission Deadline: February 25 2011
Date: 11-Mar-2011 – 13-Mar-2011

Call for Papers

Conference Webpage

The 5th Annual McGill Canadian Conference for Linguistics Undergraduates – McCCLU – will be held from March 11th until March 13th, 2011. It will again be hosted at McGill University, Quebec by the Society of Linguistics Undergraduates of McGill – SLUM. The aim of this conference is to encourage individual endeavors into the world of research as well as to enrich the present academic undergraduate community within the field of linguistics. Topics from all areas of linguistics will be covered, and we look forward to seeing you there!

Call for Papers:

We are now calling for undergraduate students to submit abstracts for presentation at the conference on any subject matter within the domain of linguistics.

Each abstract should detail material for a 20-minute presentation, with a 10-minute question period on issues raised afterward. Abstracts should be a maximum of one page in length and submitted as a Word document attachment online to mccclu2011gmail.com by February 25th.

Posted in conferences | Leave a comment

benchmarking academia

Malcolm Gladwell has an interesting article about college education rankings in the current New Yorker. The problem with college rankings, he argues, is that they try to accomplish too much at the same time: rank very different institutions along multiple dimensions. The effect is that decisions about the weighting of the different factors lead to very different rankings, and it is the interests or ideological biases of those who conduct the study and determine the weights.

The recent NRC study on the quality of doctoral programs in the US tried various ways to avoid these pitfalls, by asking faculty which criteria they think are most relevant, by allowing users of the results to determine their own weightings and explore the data, and by adding error bars to their rankings, a step away from the dubious exercise of assigning a single number to measure quality. But this also had the result that the data is unwieldy and more difficult to interpret (rather than having a particular rank, the department’s rank along a certain dimension is an interval, somewhere between 25 and 5). There have also been critiques that the release of the data took so long that they’re already out of date, and also that some of the results are based on inaccurate data or are non-sensical (see here for some discussion, and here if you want to play with the linguistics rankings–of course, Canadian universities do not figure into these stats).

Similar issues arise when assessing the quality of a university more generally, not just as place to receive a college or doctoral degree, which becomes important when trying to assure that the means are allocated in the best possible way. A recent article in the New York review of books on the research assessment exercise in Britain paints a rather gloomy picture of the attempts of quantifying academic value. The danger is that rather than measuring quality they just change the way in which people act in order to meet the superficial criteria of the research exercise.

And yet there is need for be some sort of reality check, not just from the public funding sources, but also from the universities themselves. But again, how do you compare very different programs and departments along multiple dimensions in a way that does not simply reflect the bias in the weighting of various criteria? McGill is currently embarking on a re-evaluation of its place in the world in the strategic reframing initiative, and part of it is to get some indicators of performance. The initiative seems to build on the expertise of the same consulting firm that helped shape the British evaluation mechanism, which has some people understandably worried.

Posted in admittedly not on prosody, news | Leave a comment

extended deadline: psycholinguistics in san sebastian

The 10th International Conference for Psycholinguistics, to be held at the Basque Center for Cognitive Science in Sebastian, extended the deadline until December 21.

Posted in conferences | Leave a comment

frown

Three weeks ago me and a good friend were standing in front a piece of art by Jon Pylypchuck at the museum of contemporary art in Montréal. The exhibition is still on until January 4th, and I recommend checking it out.

faces

So looking at one of the faces, my friend asked the following question, which to me was very confusing:

“Do you think this is a frown or a moustache?”

Whatever ‘this’ was, it was clearly below the eyes, and also, the facial expression was sad–so how could it be a frown? My understanding of frown was what I later found in Webster’s online dictionary:

1 : an expression of displeasure
2 : a wrinkling of the brow in displeasure or concentration

When I expressed my puzzlement, I learned that frown, in fact, also means the opposite of smile: a downward facing mouth expressing sadness, and that this is in fact the most common/salient meaning of the word, at least to some. What I found astonishing about this is that after ten years of living in North America I would have such a different notion of frown, especially since the second meaning expresses a completely different emotion—I think it’s rare that one is wrong about the basic emotion that a word stands for, there’s just usually a lot of information about what emotion is intended to be expressed in the context.

The sad and mouth-oriented reading of frown seems a recent development, at least it doesn’t seem to have made it into any dictionaries that I consulted. Charles Darwin, who wrote about frowns in The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, clearly didn’t think of the mouth when thinking of frowning:

The currogators, by their contraction, lower the eyebrows and bring them together, producing vertical furrows on the forehead—that is, a frown.

Darwin’s understanding of frown is also how the word is used in the study of facial expressions today. Here’s what Paul Ekman writes in the Oxford Companion to the Body:

frown Produced primarily by the action of the corrugator muscle, which lowers the brows and pulls them together. In adolescents and adults, a vertical wrinkle often appears on the brow, and there may also be a horizontal wrinkle across the bridge of the nose.

Charles Darwin in his book The Expression of Emotion in Man and Animals called the corrugator the ‘muscle of difficulty’. Darwin was quite correct: frowning occurs with many kinds of difficulty, mental or physical. People who lift something very heavy will frown when doing so, as will people who are having a difficult time remembering something or figuring out the answer to a difficult mental task. Frowning is shown during concentration, perplexity, and determination to accomplish a difficult task. Darwin noted that lowering the brow provides a natural sunshade, and indeed people do frown when they are in bright sunlight without sunglasses.

When people frown, they are often perceived by others to be feeling unpleasant, resentful, or angry, although this is often not the case. This interpretation may occur because the frown is part of the anger expression, which also typically involves glaring eyes and tense lips.

A poll among a bunch of other people revealed that every single non-native speaker present we asked had the dictionary definition of frown (as involving the brows and/or wrinkling the forehead and expressing disapproval or displeasure). and that every single Canadian reported the sad/opposite-of-smiling-mouth as the first expression that comes to mind. According to wikipedia the ‘mouth-meaning’ is more common in North America. Most of the foreigners we consulted (including me) started out learning British English, so that would make sense. But then, when polling various speakers from Donegal, Belfast, and London on a recent trip, I got very mixed results–the sad frown seems to be more wide-spread than wikipedia suggests. So there are two interesting questions: When did the sad frown emerge, and why are 2nd language learners not picking up on it?

A Google image search leaves little doubt that the sad frown is the dominant reading, at least among online images in Canada (the UK results weren’t any different), even though this meaning hasn’t made it yet into the dictionaries. This thread shows that we were not the only ones to have run into this puzzle. There is also a hypothesis that is mentioned in this thread: maybe it’s the internet emoticon, often labeled ‘frown’ :( that is responsible for the spread of the new reading. But virtually everyone we asked insisted that the sad reading predates their exposure to internet emoticons. One possible explanation is that the rise of the smiley in the early 70s created the need for an opposite, the frownie-face with a downward-pointing mouth. The word frown would have been a natural choice, since ‘displeasure’ as an emotion is already in an opposition with ‘pleasure,’ which is expressed by smiling, so extending the word to also include a sad expression may have been an easy stretch.

I thought the new Google database of word usage in books might help to shed more light on this. I learned among other things that at least since the 70s there are adhesive frownies (to prevent frown-lines between the eye-brows) and frownie-paste (same purpose), and some suggestive evidence that ‘frownies’ and ‘smilies’ have been on the rise for a few decades. But I also learned about mouth frowns that were treated as early as 1974 with facercises:

Keep sucking in the corners of your mouth and visualize the corners turning up in a tiny smile and then turning down in a tiny frown.

Overall, my impression is, that in writing (as opposed to labels of visual images), the use of frown in the ‘displeasure’ and furrowing-of-brows-sense is still the more common one today–maybe the reason why non-native speakers don’t seem to acquire the ‘sad’ meaning is because while they’re exposed to a lot of ‘frowns’ in novels and other written input, no one ever tells us: ‘And now draw a frown!’

[12/19/10] I found some instances of mouth-frowns predating the 70s, so maybe it’s not the marketing of the smiley that brought on this reading. However, the relation to drawing may have something to it. One of the earliest uses I could find is in a 1961 book on drawing for children, where I found this advice:

The mouth has a lot to do with expression. If the corners of the mouth are turned down, you get a frown.

The earliest mouth-frown I could find while browsing google books was, fitting with the season, in a 1955 xmas play called ‘Santa’s spectacles:’

Your mouth has been down in a frown for so long that you just couldn’t be happy, and you just couldn’t see.

Anyone with an earlier instance?

Posted in admittedly not on prosody | 3 Comments

does language shape thought?

You get to decide here.

Posted in news | Leave a comment

non-recoverable deletion

A post on mindhacks reports on a 1974 study on writer’s block, replicated in 2007. The study has a lot of parallels with Fiengo & Lasnik’s 1972 squib in Linguistic Inquiry on unrecoverable deletion in syntax. I wonder in how many fields similar studies were published, and when it started.

fiengolasnik

Posted in discussion | Leave a comment

scientific literacy

There have been two interesting blog posts on scientific literacy recently on the bps digest. The first addresses how to present findings in ways that minimizes a ‘scientific impotence response,’ where people discard scientific findings because they are incompatible with their world view by resorting to claiming that a certain topic cannot be properly studied scientifically. The second post discusses how one can try to present findings effectively in order to debunk pseudo-scientific beliefs.

Posted in news | Leave a comment

deadline extended: international seminar on speech production

The next International Seminar on Speech Production will take place next summer in Montreal. Here’s the call for papers:

We are pleased to announce that the the ninth International Seminar on Speech Production (ISSP’11) will be held in Montreal, Canada from June 20th to 23rd, 2011. ISSP’11 is the continuation of a series of seminars dating back to Grenoble (1988), Leeds (1990), Old Saybrook (1993), Autrans (1996), Kloster Seeon (2000), Sydney (2003), Ubatuba (2006), and Strasbourg (2008). Several aspects of speech production will be covered, such as phonology, phonetics, linguistics, mechanics, acoustics, physiology, motor control, neurosciences and computer science.

For this edition, a special session will be organized in honor of Dr. Joseph Perkell, for his contribution to the field.

THE DEADLINE FOR ABSTRACT SUBMISSION IS December 15th, 2010. Technical details will be posted soon on the conference website (www.issp2011.uqam.ca).

Posted in conferences, news | Leave a comment