> If you also sense the lips, tongue articulators, and jaw, then general English decoding becomes possible with high accuracy
A bit OT but I see this frequently and I'm curious. Why do you English speakers (or just a US phenomenon?) tend to use the word "English" instead of "language", "linguistic" or one of its related words to refer to a general concept?
Not OP, but as a native English speaker and former scientist (though not in this area), I would interpret "x does y on English tasks" to mean "we tested this in English and don't know if the effect generalizes to other languages".
In this case we do know if the effect generalizes to other languages. It cannot fail to; the larynx, lips, tongue, and jaw are almost all there is. For example, vowels are conventionally defined by jaw position ("height"), tongue position ("frontness"), and lip configuration ("rounded" or not).
You might miss some things like creaky voice or ejectives, you'll probably miss aspiration, but all that does is give you a worst-case scenario analogous to a native speaker trying to understand someone with a foreign accent. Extremely high accuracy will be possible.
Sure, in the same sense that it would be "unscientific" to conclude that someone's amputated leg didn't regenerate by chance, because the sample size is only 1.
If you know how you're recognizing English, and you know that other languages do not differ from English in relevant ways, then you know you can recognize those other languages. Pretending you don't know something you do know is not scientific.
This seems like damned-either-way. If they had only tested English and asserted that it was universally applicable to all languages, it’s likely you (or someone else) would rightfully object that it’s annoying when English speakers assume that’s all there is.
That's not a similar claim. Anyone can be annoyed by anything; the idea that it's "unscientific" to state that a method of recognizing English by measuring the positions of the lips, tongue, and jaw alongside the activity of the larynx will apply to every other spoken language in the world is ludicrous on its face. It will, because those measurements capture nearly every dimension of phonetic variation that exists. No one could believe otherwise, except apparently for metabagel.
You don't know, though. You have a good working hypothesis and you can make reasoned predictions, but it remains untested. The core principle of science is that we test our hypotheses.
Well, no, they're minor elements everywhere. You don't need to be able to capture every phonemic distinction in a language to get a near-perfect transcription, as witnessed by the fact that people understand foreign accents without difficulty. The much larger problem in understanding foreign speech is the odd word choices and lack of grammaticality, but those problems don't arise when you're transcribing native speech.
For some comparisons, think about the fact that Semitic languages are traditionally written without bothering to indicate the vowels, or that while modern English has a phonemic distinction between voiced and unvoiced fricatives, this has a very uneven correspondence to the same distinction as it exists in the writing system. In the case of the interdental fricatives, the writing system does not even contemplate a distinction. And there's nothing particularly problematic about this; if you delete all the voicing information from a stretch of English speech, it stays about as intelligible as it was before. (A voicing difference in stops is not even audible to English speakers. It's audible in fricatives, but no one is going to be confused.)
> For some comparisons, think about the fact that Semitic languages are traditionally written without bothering to indicate the vowels, or that while modern English has a phonemic distinction between voiced and unvoiced fricatives, this has a very uneven correspondence to the same distinction as it exists in the writing system.
And there's a very uneven correspondence between vowels as they exist in speech, and as they exist in the English writing system. Thought dissent mannequin swipe them or bite roar a lie.
You're right that usually, in English, you can understand a sentence with aspiration information stripped out. But just because it's not (usually) significant in English, that doesn't mean that's universal across all languages! Wikipedia has a short lists of languages where aspiration makes a difference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirated_consonant#Phonemic
> In many languages, such as Armenian, Korean, Lakota, Thai, Indo-Aryan languages, Dravidian languages, Icelandic, Faroese, Ancient Greek, and the varieties of Chinese, tenuis and aspirated consonants are phonemic. Unaspirated consonants like [p˭ s˭] and aspirated consonants like [pʰ ʰp sʰ] are separate phonemes, and words are distinguished by whether they have one or the other.
x1798DE captured my intent well. For example, tonal languages like Mandarin or Cantonese may be more difficult to decode if vocal cords aren’t vibrating, and languages with more phonemes that have both a voiced and unvoiced version might be more difficult. I still think decoding will be possible for general language, but that’s a hypothesis whereas I know it’s true for English.
> and languages with more phonemes that have both a voiced and unvoiced version might be more difficult.
I had the understanding that English is unusually rich in phonemes that occur in both a voiced and unvoiced version. But as I've mentioned sidethread, this just isn't very significant as far as transcribing English goes.
English has an almost full series of stop and fricative phonemes that exhibit voicing contrasts:
- Bilabial, alveolar, and velar stops /p, b, t, d, k, g/, though the distinction between /t/ and /d/ disappears intervocalically in American English. [In practice, English speakers differentiate these phonemes more by the contrast of aspiration than by the contrast of voicing.]
- Interdental, labiodental, alveolar, palatal, but generally not velar, fricatives /θ, ð, f, v, s, z, ʃ, ʒ/, along with palatal affricates /tʃ, dʒ/.
- Nasals and approximants are always voiced.
Compare a language like Mandarin Chinese, where there are between zero and one pairs of phonemes that contrast by voicing (the sound represented by pinyin "r" may be a voiced fricative otherwise equivalent to "sh", or it may be an approximant; there is no contrasting voiceless approximant), or Spanish, where only the stops feature this contrast.
What are the languages that have more voicing contrasts than English does? It would almost be necessary for such a language to distinguish between voiced and unvoiced vowels. (Some quick research suggests that Icelandic at least has a comparable number of voicing contrasts, but it is not obviously more than English and appears to be actively shrinking.)
> tonal languages like Mandarin or Cantonese may be more difficult to decode if vocal cords aren’t vibrating
More difficult, yes, but in the sense that decoding may take more computation, not that the error rate will go up.
Again, we can already observe that e.g. Mandarin speakers do not have trouble understanding text that carries no information about tone, nor do they have trouble understanding songs, where lexical tone is overridden by the melody of the song.
(What happens here depends what you mean. If you want to decode speech into pinyin with tone marks omitted, the lack of ability to measure tones will fail to be a problem by definition. If you want to decode into Chinese characters, you'll need a robust model of the language, at which point lack of tones will also fail to be a problem - the language model will cover for it. If you want to decode into pinyin with tone marks, you won't be able to do that without using a language model.)
I'd speculate English speakers are used to being part of a society where non-English speakers are present and politically important. It is polite not to assume that English = language. Even on the British Isles English isn't a universal thing. Let alone somewhere like America where it isn't even native.
"Language" just doesn't mean "English". In Australia if someone is talking about "language" on its own I'd assume they're Aboriginal advocates.
In the instances where a person says "English" in this kind of context, it catches your attention and you infer that the person is an English-speaker, and possibly American.
But when a person uses the generic word "language", you don't notice it.
This leads you to believe that English speakers "tend to use the word English," when that's not the case necessarily.
I don't know what this perceptual fallacy is called, but there's probably a word. In English :-)
There are about 6000 spoken languages around the world with an extreme variety in how they produce meaning. How could you make sweeping statements about all of them?
To the north is the Black Sea, and the Russia-Ukraine war. To the east is Armenia and Azerbaijan (as well as Iran). To the south is the middle east. Also Cyprus with the frozen conflict, there.
> > Turkey has had a significant internal conflict with the PKK (Kurds)
> PKK the terrorist organization, yes. Kurds the ethnic group, no.
The Turkish government has a decades long history of discrimination against Kurds, including banning their language, even denying their existence as a people. If Turkey had treated Kurds better, PKK may well have never existed, and almost certainly would not have had as many Kurds supporting it even if it still had.
Turkish Government has had many high-ranking Kurdish officials, including multiple presidents and prime ministers.
There have been more Kurds served in the Turkish Army than all the other armed organizations combined.
Majority of Kurds in Turkey openly support the Turkish Government, especially against the PKK terror.
Several Kurdish organizations in Iraq, Syria, and Iran support the Turkish Government, especially against the PKK terror.
PKK kills Kurds. PKK kills Turks. PKK will happily kill you if doing so benefits the crime and propaganda business they have been profiting for decades.
Let's not parrot some politically charged material as facts without having any actual understanding about such sensitive matter.
> The Kurdish language was banned in a large portion of Kurdistan for some time. After the 1980 Turkish coup d'état until 1991 the use of the Kurdish language was illegal in Turkey.[52]
> Before August 2002, the Turkish government placed severe restrictions on the use of Kurdish, prohibiting the language in education and broadcast media.[55][56] In March 2006, Turkey allowed private television channels to begin airing programming in Kurdish. However, the Turkish government said that they must avoid showing children's cartoons, or educational programs that teach Kurdish, and could broadcast only for 45 minutes a day or four hours a week
It is true that over the last 20 years or so, the Turkish government has relaxed many (but not all) of its anti-Kurdish laws and policies. But that doesn't erase the reality of the decades of oppression which proceeded it.
In the 1980s, Iraqi Kurds were fleeing to Turkey for freedom and safety. The Prime Minister was of Kurdish origin. You could hear people speak Kurdish freely anywhere between the west and east end of the country.
There were no "anti-Kurdish" laws and policies. The pro-American coup d'état in 1980 came with a law to control non-Turkish publications, but it was never put into action.
You can't just dump links to 10,000-word political essays, and expect them to support your original premise that the PKK terrorism is justified.
You must have a knowledge about the history and currency of the topic to hold such strong opinions. You should also use your own words to articulate your arguments, so I can keep myself engaged in this conversation.
Nevertheless, I've read the report. It misinterprets the government's certain actions to protect the public against several jihadist, separatist, and other destructive movements, which are not exclusive to a specific ethnic group.
It also fails to recognize the newly founded republic's goal to build an inclusive Turkish citizenship identity, and to provide a progressive and secular education program to everyone regardless of their race, religion, and gender while preserving the cultural value of each.
"Kurdish" isn't a single language anyway. There is a reason Kurds use French in France, English in USA/UK/Canada, and Turkish in every part of Turkey to communicate with each other, unless they're from the same tribe. It's not realistically possible to institute a system to provide public service to every individual without establishing a common ground.
> and expect them to support your original premise that the PKK terrorism is justified.
I'm not defending attacks on innocent civilians. Consider Northern Ireland: the IRA's attacks on civilians were shameful and wrong. But, if it were not for the oppression of Catholics by the Stormont government, and the failure of the UK government to stop it, those attacks may well have never started.
You're trying to connect the dots between two separate phenomenons. This oversimplification will only mislead you.
You'd think that your left-wing instincts will guide you through this, but you will accidentally end up taking ugly sides in proxy wars in this part of the world.
PKK started out according to CIA's Operation Gladio to justify the 1980 coup, and continued operating in line with the Carter Doctrine. Its first actions were assassinating Kurdish and Turkish left-wing leaders (Zeki Ön, Mehmet Ongan, Adil Turan, Hasan Erkılıç to name a few).
Today, PKK follows the radical Islamist narratives (Şeyh Said, Seyit Rıza, etc. are often celebrated by them). PKK is in agreement with an Islamist terrorist organization (FETÖ) behind the 2016 coup attempt, whose leader (Fethullah Gülen) resides in the US. PKK conducts international drug trafficking at "cartel" scale (between Asia and Europe; ask your neighborhood drug dealer about it). PKK is backed by several crime syndicates and tribes who are responsible for countless human rights violations from systematic child/woman abuse to forced labour and human trafficking. PKK is currently taking part in the ethnic cleansing of Arabic, Turkish, Assyrian population in Syria and Iraq to make a space for an American-backed puppet state under "YPG" alias.
How is your IRA-PKK correlation shaping up now?
Your "reputable sources" are compilations of quotes by "usual suspects" anyway. Western organizations are not known for being the gold standard of social justice advocacy here, as they have a history of endorsing any "project" that fits their financial and political agenda; from cyanide process in gold mining, to civil warfare for carving up sovereign states.
A bit OT but I see this frequently and I'm curious. Why do you English speakers (or just a US phenomenon?) tend to use the word "English" instead of "language", "linguistic" or one of its related words to refer to a general concept?