Gorillas in Our Midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events

"Inattentional Blindness" & Conspicuity

This column from the Chicago Tribune seems a bit counterintuitive. It reports the finding of a research study that shows that anger, though not blind rage, actually can be beneficial in making judgments and decisions. Apparently it helps you to weigh the arguments carefully.

Who'd have thunk it?

quote:

that shows that anger, though not blind rage, actually can be beneficial in making judgments and decisions.

I would agree with that. There are times when reasonableness just doesn't work and one need to show a bit of anger.

Not Polonius!

Babies Prove Sound Learners.

Interesting article.

quote:

About 6,000 sounds make up the languages spoken around the globe, but not every language uses every sound. For example, while the Swedish language distinguishes among 16 vowel sounds, English uses 8 vowel sounds, and Japanese uses just 5.

Just 8? It's more like between 14 and 20.

There you go Kalleh. You can finally hear what a schwa is.

(It's the one in "cinema")

14 and 20

I count more like 12 vowels and 8 diphthongs, but who's counting. I'm also suspicious of the number 6,000 and sounds is rather imprecise. But, overall, and interesting article.

You can finally hear what a schwa is.

That's funny. I've personally heard Kalleh use schwas. Shu, too. Matter of fact, everybody on this board whom I've met in real-life uses them.

A diphthong is a vowel phoneme.

Also Japanese long vowels are usually treated as separate phonemes, which makes 10.

A diphthong is a vowel phoneme.

Okeydokey. If we consider sounds to be phonetic, the number goes way up. What about voiceless vowels in Japanese? I suppose they're just allophones? ("'Allo?" "Who's on the phone?" "I dunno, who's on third?")

quote:

Originally posted by zmježd:
You can finally hear what a schwa is.

That's funny. I've personally heard Kalleh use schwas. Shu, too. Matter of fact, everybody on this board whom I've met in real-life uses them.

Of course you have. It is, after all, the most common vowel sound in English. It's just that it's only yesterday that there was a post from Kalleh saying that in spite of our having discussed it numerous times she still wasn't sure what it is.

Of course you have. It is, after all, the most common vowel sound in English. It's just that it's only yesterday that there was a post from Kalleh saying that in spite of our having discussed it numerous times she still wasn't sure what it is.

Yes, Bob, I know. I was just having a bit of fun at Kalleh's expense.

I was just explaining my reasoning. I know there's different ways of analyzing English vowels.

I was just explaining my reasoning. I know there's different ways of analyzing English vowels.

I agree with you, goofy. I find your analysis better. I was just changing my opinion.

quote:

There you go Kalleh. You can finally hear what a schwa is.

(It's the one in "cinema")

I just need to pay a little more attention, that's all. In looking up "schwa," the dictionary says,

quote:

the mid-central, neutral vowel sound typically occurring in unstressed syllables in English, however spelled, as the sound of a in alone and sofa, e in system, i in easily, o in gallop, u in circus.

Does that sound clear to you? Not to me. Some of those vowels sound similar, but not all of them. Are they all supposed to sound the same? Or is that not the point?

This is probably one of those concepts that I need to talk about in person. Too bad I didn't ask z when I recently saw him!

Does that sound clear to you? Not to me. Some of those vowels sound similar, but not all of them. Are they all supposed to sound the same? Or is that not the point?

They all sound the same to me: schwa.

"^" ... "^" ... "^" ... "^" sounds like a vowel movement to me .....

quote:

They all sound the same to me: schwa.

I've pretty much settled on 'uh' as my upside-down-e-less representation.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Does that sound clear to you? Not to me. Some of those vowels sound similar, but not all of them. Are they all supposed to sound the same? Or is that not the point?

They may not be the same for all speakers. I suppose some people might have /I/ in "easily". Or you might just think the vowels sound different because of the spelling.

I do say the "i" differently in "easily; I also say the "e" differently in "system." Are they very different? No. So I suppose I halfway get it, but now wholeway.

Have you tried the sound samples on that link?

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
Have you tried the sound samples on that link?

The two schwas in "away" and "cinema" sound the same to me.

I listened, and I agree, goofy. Those 2 sound identical.

As you know, I am somewhat a literalist. Is that first "a" in "away" a schwa? According to the definition it is a "midcentral" sound and yet the "a" in "away" is a beginning sound. Also, the dictionary describes it as a "neutral" sound. What exactly does that mean? Do all schwas sound alike (like the "e" in "cinema?"). Or do they sound differently, but neutral?

It probably is a good thing I haven't formally studied linguistics or I'd drive my professors to drink!

"midcentral" refers to the tongue position, not the position of the vowel in the word. "neutral" is a bit vague, but I assume it means short, unstressed, possibly mid central.

I don't know if all schwas sound the same. There might be some differences, depending on the surrounding sounds - that is, pulling the tongue up or down, changing the quality of the vowel.

a "midcentral" sound

Vowels are traditonally categorized by a number of articulatory features: height and backness. The usual chart of vowels one sees in a linguistics context correlates backness with the X axis and height with the Y axis. (Scroll in the Wikipedia article on vowels linked to above to see a picture, and you'll see a schwa near the center of the diagram.)

changing the quality of the vowel

That's right, goofy. All vowels tend to be colored by the consonants which proceed and follow them. If you look at a spectrogram of words containing schwas, I'm sure you'll see minor changes in the onset and offset of the schwa sound. But phonemically, a schwas a schwa, in English at least.

[Addendum: I have become a great fan of Google Books. As with other useful, online sources (viz. Wikipedia), it's come in for some shrill—and to my mind—uninformed bashing. Here's an interesting couple of books: Alexander Melville Bell's Visible Speech and George Philip Krapp's The Pronunciation of Standard English in America (1919).]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,