Talk by Andy Blunden 23/24th February 2001
The Vygotsky School“Spirit, Money and Modernity” Seminar
The Vygotsky School
轉去當英文家教
12 年前
2009年3月17日 星期二
Jacob Kasanin (1897~1946)
Jacob Kasanin (1897~1946)
Jacob Sergi Kasanin was born in Slavgorod, USSR, on May 11, 1897. He came to the United States in 1915, and received his M.D. from the University of Michigan in 1921 and his M.S. in Public Health in 1926. As Senior Research Associate at the Boston Psychopathic Hospital and as Director of the Department of Mental Hygiene of the Federated Jewish Charities in Boston, his interest centered around the study of blood sugar curves in epidemic encephalitis, in mental disease, in emotional states, etc. Then he turned to the study of psychoses in children, which became his favorite topic throughout the years from 1931, when he became Clinical Director of the Rhode Island State Hospital, and later as Director of the Department of Psychiatry at the Michael Reese Hospital in Chicago, from 1936 to 1939. His first papers on Personality Changes in Children Following Cerebral Trauma (Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1929), and A Study of the Functional Psychoses in Children
資料來源: PEP Web
圖片來源: KASANIN
Eugenia Hanfmann (1905-1983)
Eugenia Hanfmann (1905-1983)
Marianne L. Simmel, Ph.D. *
Harvard University, College of Medicine, University of Illinois
Eugenia Hanfmann's life encompassed a childhood during the Russian revolution through studies in Germany to a distinguished career in the United States. She did research in Kurt Koffka's laboratory at Smith College, later at Worcester State Hospital, and then in Chicago where she developed, with Jacob Kasanin, the Hanfmann-Kasanin test. She taught at Mount Holyoke College before she joined the staff of the OSS Assessment Program in 1944. After the war she became a member of the Department of Social Relations at Harvard and also the Russian Research Institute there. In 1953 she went to Brandeis University as Professor of Psychology and Director of the Counseling Center, which she established and guided for many years. Hanf mann's interests ranged from investigations of cognitive functions to studies of personality and psychotherapeutic issues.
資料來源: Wiley InterScience
James-Lange Theory
James-Lange Theory
The James-Lange theory refers to a hypothesis on the origin and nature of emotions developed independently by two 19th-century scholars, William James and Carl Lange. The theory states that within human beings, as a response to experiences in the world, the autonomic nervous system creates physiological events such as muscular tension, a rise in heart rate, perspiration, and dryness of the mouth. Emotions, then, are feelings which come about as a result of these physiological changes, rather than being their cause. James and Lange arrived at the theory independently. Lange specifically stated that vasomotor changes are emotions. (Ex. A person rationalizes that because they are crying, they must be sad.)
James elucidated his concept as:
" My theory ... is that the bodily changes follow directly the perception of the exciting fact, and that our feeling of the same changes as they occur is the emotion. Common sense says, we lose our fortune, are sorry and weep; we meet a bear, are frightened and run; we are insulted by a rival, are angry and strike. The hypothesis here to be defended says that this order of sequence is incorrect ... and that the more rational statement is that we feel sorry because we cry, angry because we strike, afraid because we tremble ... Without the bodily states following on the perception, the latter would be purely cognitive in form, pale, colorless, destitute of emotional warmth. We might then see the bear, and judge it best to run, receive the insult and deem it right to strike, but we should not actually feel afraid or angry.”
The notion of causality is a difficult one. The theory has been largely disfavored in modern times. Some evidence to support it, however, may come from the fact that sufferers of various psychological challenges such as panic disorders often experience psychoemotional trauma after physiological responses arise in the body, responses which individuals are conditioned to associate with a particular emotional state but which can, via therapy, be dissociated.
This theory was challenged in the 1920s by psychologists such as Walter Cannon and Philip Bard, who theorized that physiological changes are caused by emotions (collectively known as the Cannon-Bard theory of emotion).
The third theory of emotion is called the Schachter & Singer's Two factor theory of emotion. This theory states that emotions are a direct result of an analysis of the surroundings.
資料來源: Wikipedia
The James-Lange theory refers to a hypothesis on the origin and nature of emotions developed independently by two 19th-century scholars, William James and Carl Lange. The theory states that within human beings, as a response to experiences in the world, the autonomic nervous system creates physiological events such as muscular tension, a rise in heart rate, perspiration, and dryness of the mouth. Emotions, then, are feelings which come about as a result of these physiological changes, rather than being their cause. James and Lange arrived at the theory independently. Lange specifically stated that vasomotor changes are emotions. (Ex. A person rationalizes that because they are crying, they must be sad.)
James elucidated his concept as:
" My theory ... is that the bodily changes follow directly the perception of the exciting fact, and that our feeling of the same changes as they occur is the emotion. Common sense says, we lose our fortune, are sorry and weep; we meet a bear, are frightened and run; we are insulted by a rival, are angry and strike. The hypothesis here to be defended says that this order of sequence is incorrect ... and that the more rational statement is that we feel sorry because we cry, angry because we strike, afraid because we tremble ... Without the bodily states following on the perception, the latter would be purely cognitive in form, pale, colorless, destitute of emotional warmth. We might then see the bear, and judge it best to run, receive the insult and deem it right to strike, but we should not actually feel afraid or angry.”
The notion of causality is a difficult one. The theory has been largely disfavored in modern times. Some evidence to support it, however, may come from the fact that sufferers of various psychological challenges such as panic disorders often experience psychoemotional trauma after physiological responses arise in the body, responses which individuals are conditioned to associate with a particular emotional state but which can, via therapy, be dissociated.
This theory was challenged in the 1920s by psychologists such as Walter Cannon and Philip Bard, who theorized that physiological changes are caused by emotions (collectively known as the Cannon-Bard theory of emotion).
The third theory of emotion is called the Schachter & Singer's Two factor theory of emotion. This theory states that emotions are a direct result of an analysis of the surroundings.
資料來源: Wikipedia
2009年3月4日 星期三
Russian Formalism
Russian Formalism
1. Russian formalism was an influential school of literary criticism in Russia from the 1910s to the 1930s.
2. It includes the work of a number of highly influential Jewish Russian and Soviet scholars such as Viktor Shklovsky, Yuri Tynianov, Boris Eichenbaum, Roman Jakobson, Grigory Vinokur who revolutionised literary criticism between 1914 and the 1930s by establishing the specificity and autonomy of poetic language and literature.
3. Russian formalism exerted a major influence on thinkers like Mikhail Bakhtin and Juri Lotman, and on structuralism as a whole. The movement's members had a relevant influence on modern literary criticism, as it developed in the structuralist and post-structuralist periods. Under Stalin it became a pejorative term for elitist art.
4. "Russian Formalism" describes two distinct movements: the OPOJAZ Obscestvo Izucenija Poeticeskogo Jazyka - Society for the Study of Poetic Language in St. Petersburg and the Linguistic Circle in Moscow.
5. It is more precise to refer to the "Russian Formalists", rather than to use the more encompassing and abstract term of "Formalism". The term "formalism" was first used by the adversaries of the movement, and as such it conveys a meaning explicitly rejected by the Formalists themselves. In the words of one of the foremost Formalists, Boris Eichenbaum: "It is difficult to recall who coined this name, but it was not a very felicitous coinage. It might have been convenient as a simplified battle cry but it fails, as an objective term, to delimit the activities of the "Society for the Study of Poetic Language."
Related areas:
1. Mechanistic Formalism
2. Organic Formalism
3. Systemic Formalism
資料來源: Wikipedia
Edward Gordon Craig (1872-1966)
Edward Gordon Craig
(1872-1966)
1. Edward Gordon Craig (16 January 1872 – 29 July 1966), sometimes known as Gordon Craig.
2. A English modernist theatre practitioner; he worked as an actor, producer, director and scenic designer, as well as developing an influential body of theoretical writings.
3. As a producter, director and senic disigner, Graig's style is to keep the designs simple so as to set off the movements of the actors and of light, and introduced the idea of a "unified stage picture" that covered all the elements of design.
3. Lev Vygotsky was fascinated by the innovative interpretation of Hamlet produced in Moscow by Gordon Graig.
Vygotsky's Work (1930)
Vygotsky's Work (1930)
“The Biological Base of Affect.” I Want to Know Everything, 1930, nos. 15-16, pp. 480-481.
Foreword to materials collected by workers of the Institute of Scientific Education, April 13, 1930. Archives of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences, USSR, fol. 4, vol. I, no. 103, pp. 81-82.
“Is It Possible to Simulate Extraordinary Memory?” I Want to Know Everything, 1930, no. 24, pp. 700-703.
“Imagination and Creativity in Childhood.” Private archives of L. S. Vygotsky. Manuscript.
Problems of Defectology, VI. L. S. Vygotsky, ed. 1930. (With D. I. Asbukhin and L. V. Zankov.)
Foreword to The Essay of Spiritual Development of the Child by K. Buhler. Moscow: The Worker of Education Publishing House, 1930.
“Extraordinary Memory.” I Want to Know Everything, 1930, no. 19, pp. 553-554.
“The Question of Speech Development and Education of the Deaf-Mute Child. Report to the Second National Conference of School Workers. Archives of the Institute of Defectology, Academy of Pedagogical Sciences, USSR. Manuscript, 2 pp.”
“The Problem of the Development of Interests in Adolescence.” Education of Workers, 1930, nos. 7-8, pp. 63-81.
“The Cultural Development of Abnormal and Retarded Children.” Report to the First Meeting for Investigation of Human Behavior, Moscow, Feb. 1, 1930. In Psychological Sciences in the USSR, pp. 195-196. Moscow-Leningrad: Medgiz, 1930.
“New Developments in Psychological Research.” Report to the Third National Meeting of Child Care, May 1930. The Internat, 1930, no. 7, pp. 22-27.
“Psychological Systems.” Report to the Neurology Clinic of the First Moscow State University, Oct. 9, 1930. Private archives of L. S. Vygotsky. Stenography.
“Tool and Sign.” Private archives of L. S. Vygotsky. Manuscript.
“The Behavior of Man and Animals.” Private archives of L. S. Vygotsky, 1929-1930. Manuscript.
“The Connection between Labor Activity and the Intellectual Development of the Child.” Pedology, 1930, nos. 5-6, pp. 588-596.
“The Behavior of Man and Animals.” Private archives of L. S. Vygotsky, 1929-1930. Manuscript.
Foreword to Teachers’ Guide to the Investigation of the Educational Process by B. R. Bekingem. Moscow: The Worker of Education Publishing House, 1930.
Foreword to Investigation of the Intellect of Anthropoids by W. Köhler. Moscow: Publishing House of the Communist Academy, 1930.
“The Problem of the Higher Intellectual Functions in the System of Psychological Investigation” Psychology and Psychophysiology of Labor, vol. 3 (1930), no. 5, pp. 374-384.
“The Mind, Consciousness, Unconsciousness.” In Elements of General Psychology, 4th ed., pp. 48-61. Moscow: Extension Division of the Second Moscow State University, 1930.
“The Development of the Highest Patterns of Behavior in Childhood.” Report to the First Meeting of Human Behavior, Jan. 28, 1930. In Psychoneurological Sciences in the USSR, pp. 138-139. Moscow-Leningrad: Medgiz, 1930.
“The Development of Consciousness in Childhood.” Private archives of L. S. Vygotsky. Stenography.
“Sleep and Dreams.” In Elements of General Psychology, pp. 62-75. Moscow: Extension Division of the Second Moscow State University, 1930.
“The Communist Reconstruction of Man.” Varnitso, 1930, nos. 9-10, pp. 36-44.
“Structural Psychology.”In Main Trends in Contemporary psychology by L. S. Vygotsky and S. Gellershtein, pp. 84-125. Moscow-Leningrad: Government Publishing House, 1930.
“Eidetics.” In Main Treads in Contemporary Psychology by L. S. Vygotsky and S. Gellershtein, pp. 178-205. Moscow-Leningrad: Government Publishing House, 1930.
“Experimental Investigation of the Highest Processes of Behavior.” Report to the First Meeting for Studying Human Behavior, Jan. 28, 1930. In Psychoneurological Sciences in the USSR. Moscow-Leningrad: Medgiz, 1930.
2009年2月25日 星期三
Preface of 《The Psychology of Art》 (My Notes)
Preface of 《The Psychology of Art》 (My Notes)
1. The Psychology of Art which presented Vygotsky’s results of his work in the years 1915~1922 was published in 1926.
2. Vygotsky’s main analyses in this book were base on Krylov, on Hamlet, and on the composition of the short story.
3. Vygotsky’s purpose of this book was to reexamine the traditional psychology of art and to try to delineate a new field of investigation for objective psychology. And his goal was to offer a program, not a system.
4.
a) Vygotsky agreed with Lipps that aesthetics can be defined as a discipline of applied psychology.
b) Socialogical view of art with in Marxist (Plekhanov)
c) Vygotsky also shared Utitz 's view that art goes beyond the limits of aesthetics and even has features that are fundamentally different from aesthetics values, but that it begins with the aesthetic element and remains with it to the end.
d) Hennequin said a work of art as a combination of aesthetic symbols aimed at arousing emotion in people.
e) Müller Freienfels said that the psychologist of art resembles the biologist who can make a complete analysis of living matter and break it down into its component parts but is unable to recreate the living whole out of these parts or to discover the laws that govern this whole.
f) Spinoza
5. The central idea of the psychology of art, Vygotsky believed, was the recognition of the dominance of material over artistic form, or what amounts to the same thing, the acknowledgement in art of the social techniques of emotions.
6. The essence of the problem was: the theoretical and applied psychology of art should bring to light all the mechanisms that operate through art and should also provide the basis for all disciplines concerned with art.
7. Vygotsky thought that we should never be able to reconstruct authors’ psychology, and the psychology of his readers, but we can, by analyzing the art work, discover the psychological law on which it is based, the mechanism through which it acts; this we may call the psychology of a certain art work.
1. The Psychology of Art which presented Vygotsky’s results of his work in the years 1915~1922 was published in 1926.
2. Vygotsky’s main analyses in this book were base on Krylov, on Hamlet, and on the composition of the short story.
3. Vygotsky’s purpose of this book was to reexamine the traditional psychology of art and to try to delineate a new field of investigation for objective psychology. And his goal was to offer a program, not a system.
4.
a) Vygotsky agreed with Lipps that aesthetics can be defined as a discipline of applied psychology.
b) Socialogical view of art with in Marxist (Plekhanov)
c) Vygotsky also shared Utitz 's view that art goes beyond the limits of aesthetics and even has features that are fundamentally different from aesthetics values, but that it begins with the aesthetic element and remains with it to the end.
d) Hennequin said a work of art as a combination of aesthetic symbols aimed at arousing emotion in people.
e) Müller Freienfels said that the psychologist of art resembles the biologist who can make a complete analysis of living matter and break it down into its component parts but is unable to recreate the living whole out of these parts or to discover the laws that govern this whole.
f) Spinoza
5. The central idea of the psychology of art, Vygotsky believed, was the recognition of the dominance of material over artistic form, or what amounts to the same thing, the acknowledgement in art of the social techniques of emotions.
6. The essence of the problem was: the theoretical and applied psychology of art should bring to light all the mechanisms that operate through art and should also provide the basis for all disciplines concerned with art.
7. Vygotsky thought that we should never be able to reconstruct authors’ psychology, and the psychology of his readers, but we can, by analyzing the art work, discover the psychological law on which it is based, the mechanism through which it acts; this we may call the psychology of a certain art work.
2009年2月24日 星期二
[新聞] 美研究：大腦對美的反應 男女有別
研究發現，人類大腦在接收到美的事物時可能出現的反應，男女有別。男性使用右腦來處理美，女性則是用全腦來做這個工作。（夏明珠報導）
美其實是非常主觀的，大家不是常說，情人眼裏出西施，不過，大家也知道，兩性在美的認知上，確實存在某些差異，這種差異究竟從何而來，研究有新的發現。
加州大學的研究團隊使用磁振造影技術，記錄20個實驗對象在看到美麗的畫作，以及醜陋的城市相片時，腦部產生的變化，它們發現兩性對於美的反應，有很明顯的差異。
女性在接收到美的事物時，多半是用整個腦來反應，男性多數時間，只使用右腦。
研究人員說，這種差異可能和男性與女性腦部處理空間資訊的方法不同有關，而且這樣的差異可能是人類特有的。
腦部的認知功能，男女有別，這是早就知道的。在面對美的事物時，這樣的差異又如何陳現。研究發現，女性在接觸視覺目標的時候，腦部會把它和語言做連結，男性則比較專注在物體的空間樣貌上。研究人員解釋說，它有可能和人類進化過程中，兩性在社會角色上漸漸產生的分別有關。
人類是一種複雜的動物，還好拜科學日新月異之賜，我們才得以對許多知其然，不知其所以然的本性有更多了解。
資料來源: 中廣新聞網
2009年2月18日 星期三
Thought and Language (中英文版目錄對照)
Thought and Language
by Lev Semenovich Vygotsky
Introduction, Jerome S. Bruner
Translator's Preface (Eugenia Hanfmann)
Authour's Preface
俄文版原序
中文版譯序
英文版序言
英文版譯序
Chapter 1: The Problem and the Approach
第一章 : 問題與方法
Chapter 2: Piaget's Theory of Child Language and Thought
第二章 : 皮亞傑關於兒童語言和思維的理論
Chapter 3: Stern's Theory of Language Development
第三章 : 斯特恩的語言發展理論
Chapter 4: The Genetic Roots of Thought and Speech
第四章 : 思維和語言的發生之源
Chapter 5: An Experimental Study of Concept Formation
第五章 : 概念形成的實驗研究
Chapter 6: The Development of Scientific Concepts in Childhood
第六章 : 童年時期科學概念的發展
Chapter 7: Thought and Word
第七章 : 思維與語言
Bibilography
參考文獻
Index
2009年1月27日 星期二
利維·維谷斯基 Лев Семёнович Выготский, Lev Semenovich Vygotsky (1896-1934)
利維·維谷斯基 (1896-1934)
Лев Семёнович Выготский,
Lev Semenovich Vygotsky
3. 由於他的政見與史達林相左，以及其理論不為當時蘇聯的心理學家所認同，他的作品在蘇聯一直被人忽視，並不為外人所瞭解。直到八十年代前蘇聯文件被解封之後，他的理論才廣為西方所知，並迅即被翻譯成各國文字；而他的學生亦借此機會前往美國講學，並宣揚他的理念。
4. 維谷斯基認為語文是兒童心智發展佔有主導的地位。他提出了「Constructive Theory」來描述兒童認知的發展過程。相對於皮亞傑的四個階段，維谷斯基提出了思想發展的四個過程：
(1) 知識構架
(2) 從學習帶領發展
(3) 與社會不可分割的發展，及
(4) 語言在認知發展所佔的主導角色。
(1) 知識構架
(2) 從學習帶領發展
(3) 與社會不可分割的發展，及
(4) 語言在認知發展所佔的主導角色。
5. 著作:
(1) Psychology of Art (1925)
(2) Language and Thought (1934)
(3) Mind in Society
相關連結: Vygotsky's texts online
資料來源: Wikipedia Wikipedia-1
圖片來源: Vygotsky
2009年1月6日 星期二
LB 105-107 勝芬 T
LB 105-107 T
Actual X-ray studies of speech illustrate the importance of the articulatory preplanning. Figure 3.14 based on research by Öhman (1963), shows the position of the tongue at the moments marked by arrows on the accompanying spectrograms. The position and shape of the tongue at the time we hear the stop consonant d is different for various vocalic environments. The same is true of the palatal stop g.
實際利用X光來測試說話的樣子，顯示出發音前置動作的重要，圖表3.14根據Öhman (1963) 的研究，利用有箭頭標記的光譜圖，來展示每個時間點下舌頭的位置，當我們聽到塞音子音/d/的時候，發音者的舌頭位置和形狀與其他母音的發音環境有很大的不同，發出上顎塞音/g/的時候亦是如此。
The most important complication, not properly represented so far, arises from the hierarchical interdependence of all speech events on phrase ordering. The total time required for the activation of all muscles that enter into the production of a single speech sound may be as much as twice as long as the duration of the sound itself. This is represented in diagrammatic form in Fig. 3.15a. If we now consider a belonging to different phones again becomes apparent. Figure 3.15b is merely a simplification of Fig. 3.12. Such interdigitation of fragments of a higher unit is characteristic of all sequencing in speech and language. On the lowest level, muscular contractions belonging cannot be programmed without considering the order of the speech sounds to which they belong. But the choice and sequencing of speech sounds cannot take place without knowledge of the sequence of morphemes to which the sounds belong. This is not only evident from the material presented in Fig. 3.14 but also from rules of morphophonemics. The definite article the is pronounced with a /ə/ vowel if it is followed by a consonant but with /i/ if followed by a vowel. Examples of this type occur frequently in all languages. On the next higher level, the level of morphemes, we encounter again the phenomenon of intermingling of elements and an impossibility to plan the sequence without insight into the syntactic structure of higher constituents. Examples of discontinuous, intermingling morphemes are the is, -ing of the gerund, or the has, -ed of the past participle. (For more powerful arguments of this point see Chomsky’s appendix.) On a still higher level, the level of immediate constituent, we find a similar phenomenon which is best illustrated by turning our attention to our understanding of sentences. Consider the first two words of the sentences:
The floor is brown.
The floor is waxed.
These words are understood to be the subject of the sentences. However, in the sentence:
The floor is waxed once a week by charwomen.
the same words are at once understood as the object of the sentence. The mechanism of understanding is essentially no different from the mechanism of planning a sentence for production. This example illustrates also that the highest syntactic elements cannot be ordered without knowledge of the entire sentence.
最主要的複雜現象，還不適合在這裡呈現，這種現象起因於說話行為和詞組順序之間階層性的相互依賴。讓臉部肌肉活動並發出單音所需的時間，可能是個單音本身持續時間的兩倍長，我們可以參照圖表3.15a。若我們現在考慮不同聲音間緊密的關係，它們就會再次變得更為明顯，圖表3.15b僅是圖表3.12的簡化，這種在較高單位的片段交叉，是說話和語言順序性的特點。在最低階層中，若沒有考慮說話聲音所屬順序，則肌肉收縮的相互關係無法運作，不過若是聲音該屬於哪個語素序段的知識不足時，說話聲音的選擇和順序則無法產出，這樣的概念不只在圖表3.14中提出實質上的證據，並形成詞素音位學的原則。定冠詞the若出現在子音之前，則發母音/ ə /；出現在母音之前則發/i/，這種例子可以在所有的語言之中找到。再往上一個階層是為語素 (morpheme)，我們再次遇到一種混合的現象，混合的是部分要素和沒有深刻理解句法結構中更大的語段，則無法排定的順序的可能性，片段性的例子像是語素的混合，動名詞is, -ing，或是過去分詞has, -ed (更詳盡的論述請參閱喬姆斯基的附錄)。再更上一個階層是為直接成份 (immediate constituent)，我們也發現一個類似的現象，為了提供最好的解釋辦法，我們必須先把焦點在語句上，請注意下列語句的前面兩個字：
地板是褐色的。
地板有打過蠟。
前兩個相同的字都是語句的主詞，但是請看下一個句子：
女傭人每週打蠟地板一次。
但在個語句裡，相同的字「地板」馬上就變成了受詞。理解的機制本質上和組織一個語句的機制並沒有不同，這個例子也顯示了最高階層的句法要素，若無整個語句的知識，就無法排序。
In summary, we see that a sequential chain model fails to account for the facts in more than one way and that a sequential chain model with hierarchical dominance, such as shown in Fig. 3.16, is more satisfactory. The most interesting implication of this discussion is that formal aspects of purely physiological processes seem to be similar to certain formal aspects of grammatical processes: it appears, in fact, as if the two, physiology and syntax, were intimately related, one grading into the other, as it were.
總而言之，我們看到了順序鍊模型 (sequential chain model) 的不足，這歸咎於很多因素，中央組織模型 (sequential chain model) 的階層性支配香較之下較為充足，就像是圖表3.16所顯示。在這段討論當中最有趣莫過於生理過程的規範和文法過程的規範似乎有相似之處：實際上出現的方式，似乎是生理和句法兩者緊密的相連，一者畫分另一者。
Lashley has pointed out that the problems illustrated by the study of syntax are indeed universal problems of the sequencing of any patterned motor behavior. Thus the foreshadowed a fundamental theme of this book: the foundations of language are ultimately to be found in the physical nature of man－anatomy and physiology－and that language is best regarded as a peculiar adaptation of a very universal physiological process to a species-specific ethological function: communication among members of our species.
Lashley曾指出句法研究所提出組織語序行為的問題的確是普遍性的問題，剛好預示了本書的主旨：語言的基礎最終奠基於人類生理的本質－生理與構造－而且語言最好被視為一種獨特的適應能力，以普遍性的生理過程去適應種族特有的行為功能：與我們的種族成員溝通。
Actual X-ray studies of speech illustrate the importance of the articulatory preplanning. Figure 3.14 based on research by Öhman (1963), shows the position of the tongue at the moments marked by arrows on the accompanying spectrograms. The position and shape of the tongue at the time we hear the stop consonant d is different for various vocalic environments. The same is true of the palatal stop g.
實際利用X光來測試說話的樣子，顯示出發音前置動作的重要，圖表3.14根據Öhman (1963) 的研究，利用有箭頭標記的光譜圖，來展示每個時間點下舌頭的位置，當我們聽到塞音子音/d/的時候，發音者的舌頭位置和形狀與其他母音的發音環境有很大的不同，發出上顎塞音/g/的時候亦是如此。
The most important complication, not properly represented so far, arises from the hierarchical interdependence of all speech events on phrase ordering. The total time required for the activation of all muscles that enter into the production of a single speech sound may be as much as twice as long as the duration of the sound itself. This is represented in diagrammatic form in Fig. 3.15a. If we now consider a belonging to different phones again becomes apparent. Figure 3.15b is merely a simplification of Fig. 3.12. Such interdigitation of fragments of a higher unit is characteristic of all sequencing in speech and language. On the lowest level, muscular contractions belonging cannot be programmed without considering the order of the speech sounds to which they belong. But the choice and sequencing of speech sounds cannot take place without knowledge of the sequence of morphemes to which the sounds belong. This is not only evident from the material presented in Fig. 3.14 but also from rules of morphophonemics. The definite article the is pronounced with a /ə/ vowel if it is followed by a consonant but with /i/ if followed by a vowel. Examples of this type occur frequently in all languages. On the next higher level, the level of morphemes, we encounter again the phenomenon of intermingling of elements and an impossibility to plan the sequence without insight into the syntactic structure of higher constituents. Examples of discontinuous, intermingling morphemes are the is, -ing of the gerund, or the has, -ed of the past participle. (For more powerful arguments of this point see Chomsky’s appendix.) On a still higher level, the level of immediate constituent, we find a similar phenomenon which is best illustrated by turning our attention to our understanding of sentences. Consider the first two words of the sentences:
The floor is brown.
The floor is waxed.
These words are understood to be the subject of the sentences. However, in the sentence:
The floor is waxed once a week by charwomen.
the same words are at once understood as the object of the sentence. The mechanism of understanding is essentially no different from the mechanism of planning a sentence for production. This example illustrates also that the highest syntactic elements cannot be ordered without knowledge of the entire sentence.
最主要的複雜現象，還不適合在這裡呈現，這種現象起因於說話行為和詞組順序之間階層性的相互依賴。讓臉部肌肉活動並發出單音所需的時間，可能是個單音本身持續時間的兩倍長，我們可以參照圖表3.15a。若我們現在考慮不同聲音間緊密的關係，它們就會再次變得更為明顯，圖表3.15b僅是圖表3.12的簡化，這種在較高單位的片段交叉，是說話和語言順序性的特點。在最低階層中，若沒有考慮說話聲音所屬順序，則肌肉收縮的相互關係無法運作，不過若是聲音該屬於哪個語素序段的知識不足時，說話聲音的選擇和順序則無法產出，這樣的概念不只在圖表3.14中提出實質上的證據，並形成詞素音位學的原則。定冠詞the若出現在子音之前，則發母音/ ə /；出現在母音之前則發/i/，這種例子可以在所有的語言之中找到。再往上一個階層是為語素 (morpheme)，我們再次遇到一種混合的現象，混合的是部分要素和沒有深刻理解句法結構中更大的語段，則無法排定的順序的可能性，片段性的例子像是語素的混合，動名詞is, -ing，或是過去分詞has, -ed (更詳盡的論述請參閱喬姆斯基的附錄)。再更上一個階層是為直接成份 (immediate constituent)，我們也發現一個類似的現象，為了提供最好的解釋辦法，我們必須先把焦點在語句上，請注意下列語句的前面兩個字：
地板是褐色的。
地板有打過蠟。
前兩個相同的字都是語句的主詞，但是請看下一個句子：
女傭人每週打蠟地板一次。
但在個語句裡，相同的字「地板」馬上就變成了受詞。理解的機制本質上和組織一個語句的機制並沒有不同，這個例子也顯示了最高階層的句法要素，若無整個語句的知識，就無法排序。
In summary, we see that a sequential chain model fails to account for the facts in more than one way and that a sequential chain model with hierarchical dominance, such as shown in Fig. 3.16, is more satisfactory. The most interesting implication of this discussion is that formal aspects of purely physiological processes seem to be similar to certain formal aspects of grammatical processes: it appears, in fact, as if the two, physiology and syntax, were intimately related, one grading into the other, as it were.
總而言之，我們看到了順序鍊模型 (sequential chain model) 的不足，這歸咎於很多因素，中央組織模型 (sequential chain model) 的階層性支配香較之下較為充足，就像是圖表3.16所顯示。在這段討論當中最有趣莫過於生理過程的規範和文法過程的規範似乎有相似之處：實際上出現的方式，似乎是生理和句法兩者緊密的相連，一者畫分另一者。
Lashley has pointed out that the problems illustrated by the study of syntax are indeed universal problems of the sequencing of any patterned motor behavior. Thus the foreshadowed a fundamental theme of this book: the foundations of language are ultimately to be found in the physical nature of man－anatomy and physiology－and that language is best regarded as a peculiar adaptation of a very universal physiological process to a species-specific ethological function: communication among members of our species.
Lashley曾指出句法研究所提出組織語序行為的問題的確是普遍性的問題，剛好預示了本書的主旨：語言的基礎最終奠基於人類生理的本質－生理與構造－而且語言最好被視為一種獨特的適應能力，以普遍性的生理過程去適應種族特有的行為功能：與我們的種族成員溝通。
2009年1月5日 星期一
LB 023-025 勝芬 T
LB p.023-025
Chapter 1- V. Relationship between Form and Behavior
When the term learning theory is used, it is ordinarily applied to universal aspects of learning. Psychologists who concern themselves with such theories point out sometimes that there are some aspects of behavior to which the theories do not apply, as, for instance, the swallowing mechanisms in pigeons, the peculiarities of a buzzard’s flight, or the phonetic differences between meowing and barking. These phenomena are considered to be appropriate subjects for the biologist but not for the behaviorist. The distinction between biological and psychological aspects of behavior may be possible in certain instances, particularly in behavioral phenomena observed in laboratory experiments, but in many more instances there is no way of telling whether a given phenomenon ought to be explained (or investigated) in terms of psychological or biological mechanisms. We have criticized this distinction throughout this chapter, but we must add one more reason for abolishing the distinction.
當我們提及「學習理論」(Learning theory) ，通常講得是學習的世界觀。心理學家涉及這些理論時，有時候會指出這些理論不適用於一些動物行為當中，例如：鴿子吞嚥的機制；鷲鳥飛行的獨特性；或是貓叫和狗吠聲韻上的不同。這些現象恰如其分的被視為生物學家研究的課題，而非行為學家。動物行為在生理層面和心理層面的差別，或許在某些情況中能有所區別，但在大部分的狀況裡，我們無法單用生理結構或心理結構來解釋(或研究)某種現象。我們已經在整個章節中批評此種區別，但我們能必須再加上一項屏除此種區別的理由。
It is often thought that behavior which is executed by or is dependent upon a peculiar structure typical of a certain type of animal must therefore be biologically based. The grasping movements of an elephant are of no particular relevance to learning theory; they are said to be species-specific and biological! A corollary to this kind of reasoning is that the absence of a special structure or organ should be a criterion for the psychological nature of the behavior. Thus it has been pointed out time and again that man has evolved no special organ for speech, the implication being that we are simply making use of the organs for eating and breathing in our efforts to communicate. This is seriously offered as evidence for the arbitrary, learned, artifactual nature of language.
我們通常會認為某種特定的行為，是依賴某種特定生物的獨特構造所操控，因此和生物學脫不了干係。大象抓握的動作和學習理論沒有特別的關係，他們說這就是物種特性和生物本能。這種推論的必然結果，就是特殊構造或器官應該當作行為的自然心理標準。因此，人類物種屢次被指出，並沒有發展出特殊的器官來說話，這些器官只簡單被用來進食和呼吸進而努力嘗試來溝通。這種說法的證明了語言的任意性、可學性、人造性。
The reasoning here is poor, however. The relationship between the outer form of an animal to its species-specific behavior repertoire is not always clear. So many factors influence this relationship that no canonical truths about innateness may be inferred from it.
但是理由還是不夠充足，動物的外在形體和種族特有的行為表現之間的關聯總是不夠明確，有太多的因素會影響這層關係，因此所謂標準真正的天性無法從而推測得來。
Certainly, there are some instances of amazing degrees of adaptation streamlining of fishes, the physical characteristics of feathers ideally suited to conditions of flight, or the specialized mechanisms of claws in cats. The first of these is particularly interesting because it developed once more and independently in dolphins and whales. Convergences of this type occur with many different variations and certainly tell us that there must be mechanisms operating in evolution which optimize the functional relationship between form and behavior. The most flawless discussions of this topic are found in D’Arcy Thompson’s essay on Form and Mechanical Efficiency (1942). Here he applies the principles of engineering to skeletal structures and generally shows how mechanical principles and phenomena and their mathematical description give some objective insight into over-all morphology. It is D’ Arcy Thompson holds the belief that form is always the expression of greatest adaptation to the environment and therefore is of greatest “utility” to the organism, and consequently form and behavior should be demonstrably adapted one to the other. Actually, Thompson did not draw this latter inference. He was one of the greatest critics of Darwinian thought: he was not convinced that form is explained by utility to the animal. He believed that mathematics and the laws of natural science are applied to biology as descriptive tools but that they do no explain ontological problems of life. In his own unexcelled language:
動物外在形體適應自然環境的部分例子仍然存在，像是魚類的流線體型；覆有羽毛的軀體完美的適合飛行；貓爪的特殊功能等。這些例子第一次變得這麼有趣，因為動物特性再次且獨立發展於海豚與鯨類之中，這些特性以許多不同的變化形式出現，明確的告訴我們一定有某種用以進化的操作機制，將動物的形體和行為之間達到最好的效能關係。關於這個議題提出最完善討論的是D’Arcy Thompson在《Form and Mechanical Efficiency》(1942)一書中的論文，他提出如何以骨骼結構的工程學原則、機械原則和現象，以及數學的描述去客觀的觀察形態學的整體。D’Arcy Thompson也相信動物的形體所代表的就是適應環境的最大表現，也是生物體效能的極致，因此動物形體與行為表現應當相互適應。實際上，Thompson而後並沒有做出這種推斷，他是批判達爾文主義一位最重要的論者，他不認同能用效能來解釋動物形體構造，他相信的是數學和自然科學法則對生物學來說只是敘述的工具，但並不能用來闡釋生命本體論的問題，Thompson無懈可擊的論述如下：
“It is certain that the question of phylogeny, always difficult, becomes especially so in cases where a great change of physical or mechanical conditions has come about, and where accordingly the former physical and physiological constraints are altered or removed. The great depths of the sea differ from other habitations of the living, not least in their eternal quietude. The fishes which dwell therein are quaint and strange; their huge heads, prodigious jaws, and long tails and tentacles are, as it were, gross exaggerations of the common and conventional forms. We look in vain for any purposeful cause or physiological explanation of these enormities; and are left under a vague impression that life has been going on in the security of all but perfect equilibrium, and that the resulting forms, liberated from many ordinary constraints, have grown with unusual freedom.”
「種系發展史總是難懂的，尤其是生理和運作狀態的巨大改變，以及解除或改 變先前對身體與生理上的限制。深海與其他生物的棲息地有很大的不同，最 少不只是其永恆的寂靜。生活在深海的魚類長得很奇特有趣，牠們有巨大的頭，很大的嘴巴、很長的尾巴與觸角，長得就是一副標準的誇張模樣，我們無法給予這些奇特誇張任何果斷的原因或生理上的解釋，只能對於這些生命在幾近完美平衡的安全中持續，以及從一般限制中解放並獨特自由生長的形體，徒留一絲模糊的印象。」
Similar views are expressed by other biologists (Bertalanffy, 1952). Simpson (1949) gives a beautiful example paralleling the great variations of fishes living in the identical environment: the horns of antelopes living in the Belgian Congo. Discussing the variations in shape, he says:
其他的生物學家也有相似的看法(Bertalanffy, 1952)，Simpson (1949) 對應於在相同環境下魚類生長的差異，他給了我們這樣一個完美的例子：生長在比利時剛果的羚羊與其羊角，他討論了羊角形狀的變異：
「“… there must be some one type of horn that would be the most effective possible for antelopes, with some minor variations in proportions or shape in accordance with the sizes or detailed habits of the animals. Obviously, not all of these antelopes have the “best” type of horns, and probably none of them has.”
…一定有某種形式的羊角對羚羊來說最有效益，為了羚羊的體型大小或複雜的生活習性，其羊角可能某些部分或形狀會有輕微的變異。很明顯的，並不是全部的羚羊都長有最好的角，可能沒有任何一隻長有最好的角。」
Any serious search for correlation between outer form and animal behavior is limited not only by strictly logical considerations such as those of Thompson and Simpson but also by a heuristic problem. The human observer at times is forced to make predictions about what would be useful to a certain way of life, but the prediction may be purely the result of his anthropocentric outlook. For instance, utilitarian considerations would lead us to expect to find spiders with a given anatomy to build quite different webs from what is actually found. Duncan (1949) points out that ghost spiders weave webs out of very short strands, yet have tremendously long legs which, to the human observer, seem to get in the way both during weaving and moving around in the web. On the other hand, orb spiders have very short leg, but they spin very long cables and spokes which force them to make long journeys on which long legs would appear, from our point of view, to be an advantage.
任何關於外在形體與動物行為相互關係的嚴謹研究，不只被嚴格的邏輯思維所限制，就像是Thompson和Simpson提出的反駁，而且更受限於觀察上的難題。人類觀察者有時候不得不去揣測何種方式對某種生物是有益的，但這些揣測單純只是以人類為中心的觀點出發，舉例來說，功利主義者的想法會引導我們去預測因為蜘蛛的生理結構，會讓我們在真實世界找到牠們該結出的網。Duncan (1949)指出鬼蛛科的蜘蛛用很短的絲來結網，但牠們卻有很長的腳，這讓人類觀察者以為牠們結網與移動好像都被卡住了。另一方面，圓蛛科蜘蛛的腳很短，但牠們卻結出很長的網線和輪輻狀的網，這使得圓蛛科蜘蛛必須長距離移動來結網，在我們看來，結這種網對長腳的蜘蛛較占有優勢。
Behavioral traits that have been demonstrated experimentally to be based on genetic differences and that are inherited from generation to generation within a given strain are rarely correlated with morphological differences between such strains. Airedale terriers look different from German shepherds, but there is nothing in their structure that explains why the latter is more prone to assume a “passive defensive reaction” than the former. Nor could we have guessed that pointers can be trained much more easily to retrieve than spaniels from a mere study of their body-build (Krushinskii, 1962).
經過實驗驗證並奠基在基因不同的行為特徵，與世代遺傳而來的行為特徵，都和形態的不同沒有甚麼相互關係，愛爾得兒犬看起來和德國牧羊犬不一樣，但以牠們的生理結構並不能解釋為什麼後者更傾向於做出「被動防禦反應」；我們也無法從身體結構推測出指示獵犬比長毛垂耳獵犬更易於訓練找回獵物。
Chapter 1- V. Relationship between Form and Behavior
When the term learning theory is used, it is ordinarily applied to universal aspects of learning. Psychologists who concern themselves with such theories point out sometimes that there are some aspects of behavior to which the theories do not apply, as, for instance, the swallowing mechanisms in pigeons, the peculiarities of a buzzard’s flight, or the phonetic differences between meowing and barking. These phenomena are considered to be appropriate subjects for the biologist but not for the behaviorist. The distinction between biological and psychological aspects of behavior may be possible in certain instances, particularly in behavioral phenomena observed in laboratory experiments, but in many more instances there is no way of telling whether a given phenomenon ought to be explained (or investigated) in terms of psychological or biological mechanisms. We have criticized this distinction throughout this chapter, but we must add one more reason for abolishing the distinction.
當我們提及「學習理論」(Learning theory) ，通常講得是學習的世界觀。心理學家涉及這些理論時，有時候會指出這些理論不適用於一些動物行為當中，例如：鴿子吞嚥的機制；鷲鳥飛行的獨特性；或是貓叫和狗吠聲韻上的不同。這些現象恰如其分的被視為生物學家研究的課題，而非行為學家。動物行為在生理層面和心理層面的差別，或許在某些情況中能有所區別，但在大部分的狀況裡，我們無法單用生理結構或心理結構來解釋(或研究)某種現象。我們已經在整個章節中批評此種區別，但我們能必須再加上一項屏除此種區別的理由。
It is often thought that behavior which is executed by or is dependent upon a peculiar structure typical of a certain type of animal must therefore be biologically based. The grasping movements of an elephant are of no particular relevance to learning theory; they are said to be species-specific and biological! A corollary to this kind of reasoning is that the absence of a special structure or organ should be a criterion for the psychological nature of the behavior. Thus it has been pointed out time and again that man has evolved no special organ for speech, the implication being that we are simply making use of the organs for eating and breathing in our efforts to communicate. This is seriously offered as evidence for the arbitrary, learned, artifactual nature of language.
我們通常會認為某種特定的行為，是依賴某種特定生物的獨特構造所操控，因此和生物學脫不了干係。大象抓握的動作和學習理論沒有特別的關係，他們說這就是物種特性和生物本能。這種推論的必然結果，就是特殊構造或器官應該當作行為的自然心理標準。因此，人類物種屢次被指出，並沒有發展出特殊的器官來說話，這些器官只簡單被用來進食和呼吸進而努力嘗試來溝通。這種說法的證明了語言的任意性、可學性、人造性。
The reasoning here is poor, however. The relationship between the outer form of an animal to its species-specific behavior repertoire is not always clear. So many factors influence this relationship that no canonical truths about innateness may be inferred from it.
但是理由還是不夠充足，動物的外在形體和種族特有的行為表現之間的關聯總是不夠明確，有太多的因素會影響這層關係，因此所謂標準真正的天性無法從而推測得來。
Certainly, there are some instances of amazing degrees of adaptation streamlining of fishes, the physical characteristics of feathers ideally suited to conditions of flight, or the specialized mechanisms of claws in cats. The first of these is particularly interesting because it developed once more and independently in dolphins and whales. Convergences of this type occur with many different variations and certainly tell us that there must be mechanisms operating in evolution which optimize the functional relationship between form and behavior. The most flawless discussions of this topic are found in D’Arcy Thompson’s essay on Form and Mechanical Efficiency (1942). Here he applies the principles of engineering to skeletal structures and generally shows how mechanical principles and phenomena and their mathematical description give some objective insight into over-all morphology. It is D’ Arcy Thompson holds the belief that form is always the expression of greatest adaptation to the environment and therefore is of greatest “utility” to the organism, and consequently form and behavior should be demonstrably adapted one to the other. Actually, Thompson did not draw this latter inference. He was one of the greatest critics of Darwinian thought: he was not convinced that form is explained by utility to the animal. He believed that mathematics and the laws of natural science are applied to biology as descriptive tools but that they do no explain ontological problems of life. In his own unexcelled language:
動物外在形體適應自然環境的部分例子仍然存在，像是魚類的流線體型；覆有羽毛的軀體完美的適合飛行；貓爪的特殊功能等。這些例子第一次變得這麼有趣，因為動物特性再次且獨立發展於海豚與鯨類之中，這些特性以許多不同的變化形式出現，明確的告訴我們一定有某種用以進化的操作機制，將動物的形體和行為之間達到最好的效能關係。關於這個議題提出最完善討論的是D’Arcy Thompson在《Form and Mechanical Efficiency》(1942)一書中的論文，他提出如何以骨骼結構的工程學原則、機械原則和現象，以及數學的描述去客觀的觀察形態學的整體。D’Arcy Thompson也相信動物的形體所代表的就是適應環境的最大表現，也是生物體效能的極致，因此動物形體與行為表現應當相互適應。實際上，Thompson而後並沒有做出這種推斷，他是批判達爾文主義一位最重要的論者，他不認同能用效能來解釋動物形體構造，他相信的是數學和自然科學法則對生物學來說只是敘述的工具，但並不能用來闡釋生命本體論的問題，Thompson無懈可擊的論述如下：
“It is certain that the question of phylogeny, always difficult, becomes especially so in cases where a great change of physical or mechanical conditions has come about, and where accordingly the former physical and physiological constraints are altered or removed. The great depths of the sea differ from other habitations of the living, not least in their eternal quietude. The fishes which dwell therein are quaint and strange; their huge heads, prodigious jaws, and long tails and tentacles are, as it were, gross exaggerations of the common and conventional forms. We look in vain for any purposeful cause or physiological explanation of these enormities; and are left under a vague impression that life has been going on in the security of all but perfect equilibrium, and that the resulting forms, liberated from many ordinary constraints, have grown with unusual freedom.”
「種系發展史總是難懂的，尤其是生理和運作狀態的巨大改變，以及解除或改 變先前對身體與生理上的限制。深海與其他生物的棲息地有很大的不同，最 少不只是其永恆的寂靜。生活在深海的魚類長得很奇特有趣，牠們有巨大的頭，很大的嘴巴、很長的尾巴與觸角，長得就是一副標準的誇張模樣，我們無法給予這些奇特誇張任何果斷的原因或生理上的解釋，只能對於這些生命在幾近完美平衡的安全中持續，以及從一般限制中解放並獨特自由生長的形體，徒留一絲模糊的印象。」
Similar views are expressed by other biologists (Bertalanffy, 1952). Simpson (1949) gives a beautiful example paralleling the great variations of fishes living in the identical environment: the horns of antelopes living in the Belgian Congo. Discussing the variations in shape, he says:
其他的生物學家也有相似的看法(Bertalanffy, 1952)，Simpson (1949) 對應於在相同環境下魚類生長的差異，他給了我們這樣一個完美的例子：生長在比利時剛果的羚羊與其羊角，他討論了羊角形狀的變異：
「“… there must be some one type of horn that would be the most effective possible for antelopes, with some minor variations in proportions or shape in accordance with the sizes or detailed habits of the animals. Obviously, not all of these antelopes have the “best” type of horns, and probably none of them has.”
…一定有某種形式的羊角對羚羊來說最有效益，為了羚羊的體型大小或複雜的生活習性，其羊角可能某些部分或形狀會有輕微的變異。很明顯的，並不是全部的羚羊都長有最好的角，可能沒有任何一隻長有最好的角。」
Any serious search for correlation between outer form and animal behavior is limited not only by strictly logical considerations such as those of Thompson and Simpson but also by a heuristic problem. The human observer at times is forced to make predictions about what would be useful to a certain way of life, but the prediction may be purely the result of his anthropocentric outlook. For instance, utilitarian considerations would lead us to expect to find spiders with a given anatomy to build quite different webs from what is actually found. Duncan (1949) points out that ghost spiders weave webs out of very short strands, yet have tremendously long legs which, to the human observer, seem to get in the way both during weaving and moving around in the web. On the other hand, orb spiders have very short leg, but they spin very long cables and spokes which force them to make long journeys on which long legs would appear, from our point of view, to be an advantage.
任何關於外在形體與動物行為相互關係的嚴謹研究，不只被嚴格的邏輯思維所限制，就像是Thompson和Simpson提出的反駁，而且更受限於觀察上的難題。人類觀察者有時候不得不去揣測何種方式對某種生物是有益的，但這些揣測單純只是以人類為中心的觀點出發，舉例來說，功利主義者的想法會引導我們去預測因為蜘蛛的生理結構，會讓我們在真實世界找到牠們該結出的網。Duncan (1949)指出鬼蛛科的蜘蛛用很短的絲來結網，但牠們卻有很長的腳，這讓人類觀察者以為牠們結網與移動好像都被卡住了。另一方面，圓蛛科蜘蛛的腳很短，但牠們卻結出很長的網線和輪輻狀的網，這使得圓蛛科蜘蛛必須長距離移動來結網，在我們看來，結這種網對長腳的蜘蛛較占有優勢。
Behavioral traits that have been demonstrated experimentally to be based on genetic differences and that are inherited from generation to generation within a given strain are rarely correlated with morphological differences between such strains. Airedale terriers look different from German shepherds, but there is nothing in their structure that explains why the latter is more prone to assume a “passive defensive reaction” than the former. Nor could we have guessed that pointers can be trained much more easily to retrieve than spaniels from a mere study of their body-build (Krushinskii, 1962).
經過實驗驗證並奠基在基因不同的行為特徵，與世代遺傳而來的行為特徵，都和形態的不同沒有甚麼相互關係，愛爾得兒犬看起來和德國牧羊犬不一樣，但以牠們的生理結構並不能解釋為什麼後者更傾向於做出「被動防禦反應」；我們也無法從身體結構推測出指示獵犬比長毛垂耳獵犬更易於訓練找回獵物。
2008年12月14日 星期日
LB 060-063 勝芬 T
LB 060-063
(Thanks for the typing from YUCEBEY & ALEKSANDRA)
Penfield and Roberts state that not every stimulation in the critical area interferes with speech. However, they have not published maps of the ineffectual stimulations.
潘菲爾(Penfield)和羅勃茲(Roberts)聲明並不是每一種在關鍵區裡的刺激都會干涉語言，但他們仍未發表無效刺激的對應圖(map)。
If we survey the collected evidence, we cannot fail to be puzzled. Why do patients who had normal brain function up to the time of catastrophe sometimes have aphasia from lesions in relatively uncharted areas, whereas Penfield’s patient who had abnormal brain function have aphasic symptoms when stimulated in the “orthodox” speech areas? Why is there, in Penfield’s patients, such a relatively poor correlation between the stimulation points (where transient aphasia can be produced) and the cortical excisions in the vicinity of the same areas? Could this discrepancy be an artifact resulting from the indiscriminate pooling of cases for the construction of the map? If there were so, we would have to conclude that there is a great deal of individual variation.
如果我們研究收集而來的證據，我們依然非常困惑。為什麼當腦部功能正常的病患受到腦部損傷時，有的時候其失語症是來自相對的未標記區塊；反之，潘菲爾所研究的腦部功能不正常的病患，其失語症狀是來自「正統」的語言區塊？為什麼潘菲爾的病患就有這種現象，刺激點（短暫失語症能被觸發）和同個區塊的表皮切除之間的關係如此薄弱？這樣的差異是否來自不加區分案例的人為結果，就為了對應圖的建構？如果是這樣，我們能下的結論是這關乎個體的變異。
Penfield and Roberts have also published distribution of stimulation points arranged according to the type of aphasic symptom produced: complete arrest of speech, hesitation and slurring, distortion and inability to name objects with retained ability to speak. There is no evidence, however, that any one of these symptoms is correlated with any sharply delimited cortical area.
潘菲爾(Penfield)和羅勃茲(Roberts)根據失語症狀的類型，也發表了刺激點的分布區域：完全無法說話；口吃和口齒不清；扭曲和無法使用保有的語言來命名。然而，還沒有證據來說明任何一樣症狀跟皮質區域明確的界定有交互關係。
Direct stimulation of the cortex may sometimes do more than simply interfere with ongoing speech. It may also elicit fractions of the motor speech act. Penfield and Roberts show a region in which stimulation would occasionally cause the patient to vocalize, namely, either margin of the left (and also the right) Rolandic fissure. The sounds are described as a vowel, and the vocalization will last for the duration of the stimulation; if the patient runs out of breath, he will quickly inhale and continue. The patient is usually aware that he is making sounds, but he is unable to bring this under voluntary control. Besides voicing, pursing of the lips and movements of tongue and jaw may be observed. These movements are not caused by random contraction of one or the other muscle but are well-integrated components such as might enter into chewing, speaking, or swallowing activities.
腦皮層的直接刺激不僅單單妨礙語言的進行，有時候甚至影響更多，這種刺激也可能會引發片斷的運動性言語障礙(motor speech)。潘菲爾和羅勃茲指出能讓病患間歇發聲的區域，就在中央溝(或稱羅蘭度氏裂 Rolandic fissure)右側或左測的邊緣，而刺激發出的聲音是我們所稱的母音，刺激的期間都能持續發聲，若病患氧氣不足時，他會趕緊吸氣再繼續發聲，病患通常會意識到自己在發出聲音，但是他無法隨意控制自己的發聲。除了聲音之外，雙唇的縮攏開合，舌頭和下顎的動作也都能觀察得到，但是這些動作並不是任意由某種肌肉就能做到，而是需要各種肌肉良好的合作，像是咀嚼、說話、吞嚥等動作。
Interesting as the stimulation experiments are, their relevance to our understanding of the speech mechanism is only limited. Stimulation is a thoroughly abnormal interference with brain function; here nervous activity is initiated on the surface of the cortex from a single anatomic location. In the normal state, however, neuronal activity for speech may consist of modulation of ongoing activity in various parts of the left parietal and frontal cortex.
就如同這個有意思的刺激實驗一般，其相關性對於我們對語言機制的了解其實是被限制住的，刺激對大腦功能來說，完全是種不正常的干擾，神經活動是從單一結構的腦皮質表面開始，然而，在正常的情況下，說話的神經活動是由左顱頂骨(left parietal)和額葉皮質(frontal cortex)裡，各種區域正在進行的模組所組成。
a) Summary: Language and Cortex. The discussion leads us to the following conclusions.
摘要：語言與腦皮質。這些討論帶給我們以下的結論。
Cortical maps of language disorders vary, depending to some extent on the mapping method and on the types of lesions adduced as basic source material.
根據對應方法和語言損害案例的實驗素材，語言障礙的腦皮質對應圖會有所改變。
There is no evidence for an “absolute” language area, but the language function may be localized in statistical terms. Although there is no one area which is necessarily, and exclusively involved in language disturbances in all individuals, there are some regions which are very frequently so involved and other regions which are never involved in either speech or language.
沒有任何證據顯示語言在腦部的絕對對應位置，但是語言功能卻可能由統計術語來局部化分，雖然說沒有任一區域是必要或絕對的牽涉語言混亂，但是就有些區域會經常性的牽涉其中，而有些區域則永遠不會。
Lesions on either margin of the left Rolandic fissure and convolutions anterior to it frequently interfere with speech production. Comprehension of language is primarily interrupted through lesions in the left parietal lobe and the rostral aspects of the temporal lobe (Wernicke’s area).
在左羅蘭度氏裂的邊緣和其前部迴旋的損害，經常會妨礙語言的產出(language production)，而在左頂葉(left parietal lobe)和顳葉(temporal lobe)吻部(韋尼克區(Wernicke’s area))的損傷，主要會干擾語言的理解。
There is no clear-cut evidence that Broca’s area is more specifically related to speech than areas adjacent to it.
相較於波卡區(Broca’s area)的鄰近區域，我們也沒有明確的證據指出波卡區和語言有更為特別的關連。
The “language maps,” established on a statistical basis, are not histologically homogeneous. There is no cytoarchitectural pecularity of the cortical areas involved in language.
以統計為本所建構的語言對應圖，並不是組織同質性，而牽涉語言的皮質區域亦沒有細胞建構的特性。
Broca’s area consists of large cells in the third and fifth cortical layer, but it is doubtful that this is relevant to language.
波卡區是由第三和第五皮質層的大細胞所組成，不過是否和語言有所關聯仍須存疑。
The histological maps of cerebral cortices of subhuman primates have somewhat different lines of demarcation than man. This is true or cortical areas which in man have relevance to language; it is also true of Broca area. The cytoarchitecture of Broca’s is also found in some roughly homologous areas in the cortices of some subhuman primates.
近似人類的靈長類，其大腦皮質的細胞分布約略和人類有不同的界線，從人類皮質區域跟語言的相關性以及波卡區就可看出，不過在靈長類的波卡區細胞建構中，也可以找到大致與人類同源的皮質區域。
It would be circular or meaningless to state that only man has a cortical speech area, because cortical language maps are based on observation of behavior. We cannot observe language interference in an animal that does not speak. Such an animal, by definition, lacks speech areas.
聲稱只有人類有語言皮質區是種迂迴或無意義的的說法，因為語言皮質分布是建立在行為觀察的基礎之上，我們無法觀察不會說話動物的語言干擾，在這種定義下的動物是缺乏語言區域的。
(1) Subcortical Structures Traditionally, all intellectual functions including speech and language have been through to be located in the cerebral cortex, and more speculations have been directed to this thin sheet of tissue than toward any other cerebral component. However, there are many other structures that are demonstrably connected with the cortex and with each other (often only by circuitous routes). Every structure of the brain is physiologically active and at least some of the structures have been hypothesized to play a part in the same intellectual functions that are more frequently imputed to the cortex. These speculations have been going on for over a generation. As an example, we may cite Campion and Elliot-Smith (1934) who proposed that thought consisted of corticothalamic circulation of impulses. Penfield has suggested the existence of a centrencephalic integrating system, which he has definedas that central system within the brain stem which is responsible for integration of varied specific functions from different parts of the hemispheres. Occasionally, he has defined it even more loosely as that system which includes all those areas of subcortical gray matter, together with their connecting tracts, serving the purpose of intra- and interhemispheral integration. This formulation, as it stands, would include all gray matter beneath the cortex. It reflects our lack of knowledge regarding the cognitive functions of the subcortical ganglia, a state of affairs for which we can hardly hold Penfield responsible. Recently, Penfield has attributed a major role in the execution of speech to a certain part of the centrencephalic system. “It is proposed,” he writes (Penfield and Roberts, 1959, p. 207) “as a speech hypothesis, that the function of all three cortical speech areas (that is, Broca’s, Wernicke’s, and the supplementary motor speech area) in man are coordinated by projections of each to parts of the thalamus, and that by means of these circuits, the elaboration of speech is somehow carried out.” Penfield finds evidence for this supposition (a) in the fact that the superficial excisions performed by him do not cause permanent aphasia, whereas deep trauma and cerebro-vascular accidents do cause aphasia, both as a rule affecting subcortical structures; and (b) in the demonstration of fiber tracts running from the so-called speech areas to part of the thalamus. It is well to bear in mind, however, that it has never been demonstrated that all lesions causing irreversible language disorders interrupt those particular cortico-thalamic connections to subcortical centers.
(1)皮質下組織 依慣例來說，所有智力功能包含說話和語言能力，就遍佈在大腦皮質的區域之中，更多的推測直接表示，這些功能就落在這層薄如紙片的組織之上，而非其他的大腦物質。然而還有很多其他的組織與腦皮層相連結或相互連結 (通常只有迴圈路徑)。大腦每一種組織在生理上都很活躍，而且至少有一部分被假定成為在同一種智力功能中扮演了某種角色，更常歸因於皮質層。這些特性已經有好幾十年了，讓我們引用Campion and Elliot-Smith (1934) 提出的論點為例，他們認為思考是由皮質丘腦(corticothalamic)的刺激循環所造成，潘菲爾提出中央頭部(centrencephalic)統合系統的存在，他把這個系統定義成腦幹的中央系統，負責不同大腦半球中各種特殊功能的整合，潘菲爾的說法使得這個系統的定義更為鬆散，以潘菲爾的定義來說，這個系統包含所有皮質下的灰色神經組織(subcortical gray matter)和其間的連接通道，並負責大腦半球內部的整合。若以這種想法來看，皮質層底下就會包含所有灰色神經組織，這反映了我們對於認知功能的皮質下神經節(subcortical ganglia)的知識缺乏，因此我們很難對潘菲爾提出疑問。最近潘菲爾認為中央腦部系統是說話能力執行的主要角色，他寫道(Penfield and Roberts, 1959, p. 207)：「我們提出一個說話能力的假說，那就是三個說話能力區域(波卡氏區、韋尼克氏區、次要運動性語言障礙區)的功能，是由丘腦(thalamus)的各個部分所調節，而藉由這種迴路，語言能力的精巧就這樣呈現了。」潘菲爾所找到證據來支持他的論點 (a)事實上，他將皮質表面的切除發現並不會產生永久性的失語症，而深層的創傷和腦血管的傷害則會產生失語症，兩者皆有影響皮質下組織的慣例。 (b)纖維管道從語言能力區到一部分丘腦的運作，也是一種證據。然而，值得我們銘記在心的是，仍沒有證據說明所有的損傷所引起的不可逆語言障礙，會阻礙特定皮質丘腦(cortico-thalamic)和皮質下中心(subcortical centers)的連結。
The exact cortico-thalamic correspondences in man are not fully known (Feremutsch, 1963; Clark, 1932; Walker, 1938). Our conceptions are based on extrapolations from research on monkeys and apes. According to the most recent and reliable investigations the lateroventral nucleus of the thalamus sends fibers into those cortical sectors which are most clearly involved with motor speech (together with other motor functions). The temporo-parietal regions of the cortex which are implicated in nonmotor aspects of language are connected by fibers to the latero-posterior nucleus of the thalamus and the pulvinar.(see Fig 2.23).
人類皮質丘腦到底如何連繫仍然未知(Feremutsch, 1963; Clark, 1932; Walker, 1938)，我們的概念是建立於猴子和人猿的實驗之上。根據最新且最可靠的研究，丘腦的腹側腺核(lateroventral nucleus)會發送纖維進入皮質區域，最明顯的就是牽動了運動性言語障礙 (同時牽動其他運動功能)，皮質層牽連非運動性言語的顳頂區(temporo-parietal regions) 會藉由纖維連接丘腦的側後核(latero-posterior nucleus)與丘腦後結節(pulvinar)。
(Thanks for the typing from YUCEBEY & ALEKSANDRA)
Penfield and Roberts state that not every stimulation in the critical area interferes with speech. However, they have not published maps of the ineffectual stimulations.
潘菲爾(Penfield)和羅勃茲(Roberts)聲明並不是每一種在關鍵區裡的刺激都會干涉語言，但他們仍未發表無效刺激的對應圖(map)。
If we survey the collected evidence, we cannot fail to be puzzled. Why do patients who had normal brain function up to the time of catastrophe sometimes have aphasia from lesions in relatively uncharted areas, whereas Penfield’s patient who had abnormal brain function have aphasic symptoms when stimulated in the “orthodox” speech areas? Why is there, in Penfield’s patients, such a relatively poor correlation between the stimulation points (where transient aphasia can be produced) and the cortical excisions in the vicinity of the same areas? Could this discrepancy be an artifact resulting from the indiscriminate pooling of cases for the construction of the map? If there were so, we would have to conclude that there is a great deal of individual variation.
如果我們研究收集而來的證據，我們依然非常困惑。為什麼當腦部功能正常的病患受到腦部損傷時，有的時候其失語症是來自相對的未標記區塊；反之，潘菲爾所研究的腦部功能不正常的病患，其失語症狀是來自「正統」的語言區塊？為什麼潘菲爾的病患就有這種現象，刺激點（短暫失語症能被觸發）和同個區塊的表皮切除之間的關係如此薄弱？這樣的差異是否來自不加區分案例的人為結果，就為了對應圖的建構？如果是這樣，我們能下的結論是這關乎個體的變異。
Penfield and Roberts have also published distribution of stimulation points arranged according to the type of aphasic symptom produced: complete arrest of speech, hesitation and slurring, distortion and inability to name objects with retained ability to speak. There is no evidence, however, that any one of these symptoms is correlated with any sharply delimited cortical area.
潘菲爾(Penfield)和羅勃茲(Roberts)根據失語症狀的類型，也發表了刺激點的分布區域：完全無法說話；口吃和口齒不清；扭曲和無法使用保有的語言來命名。然而，還沒有證據來說明任何一樣症狀跟皮質區域明確的界定有交互關係。
Direct stimulation of the cortex may sometimes do more than simply interfere with ongoing speech. It may also elicit fractions of the motor speech act. Penfield and Roberts show a region in which stimulation would occasionally cause the patient to vocalize, namely, either margin of the left (and also the right) Rolandic fissure. The sounds are described as a vowel, and the vocalization will last for the duration of the stimulation; if the patient runs out of breath, he will quickly inhale and continue. The patient is usually aware that he is making sounds, but he is unable to bring this under voluntary control. Besides voicing, pursing of the lips and movements of tongue and jaw may be observed. These movements are not caused by random contraction of one or the other muscle but are well-integrated components such as might enter into chewing, speaking, or swallowing activities.
腦皮層的直接刺激不僅單單妨礙語言的進行，有時候甚至影響更多，這種刺激也可能會引發片斷的運動性言語障礙(motor speech)。潘菲爾和羅勃茲指出能讓病患間歇發聲的區域，就在中央溝(或稱羅蘭度氏裂 Rolandic fissure)右側或左測的邊緣，而刺激發出的聲音是我們所稱的母音，刺激的期間都能持續發聲，若病患氧氣不足時，他會趕緊吸氣再繼續發聲，病患通常會意識到自己在發出聲音，但是他無法隨意控制自己的發聲。除了聲音之外，雙唇的縮攏開合，舌頭和下顎的動作也都能觀察得到，但是這些動作並不是任意由某種肌肉就能做到，而是需要各種肌肉良好的合作，像是咀嚼、說話、吞嚥等動作。
Interesting as the stimulation experiments are, their relevance to our understanding of the speech mechanism is only limited. Stimulation is a thoroughly abnormal interference with brain function; here nervous activity is initiated on the surface of the cortex from a single anatomic location. In the normal state, however, neuronal activity for speech may consist of modulation of ongoing activity in various parts of the left parietal and frontal cortex.
就如同這個有意思的刺激實驗一般，其相關性對於我們對語言機制的了解其實是被限制住的，刺激對大腦功能來說，完全是種不正常的干擾，神經活動是從單一結構的腦皮質表面開始，然而，在正常的情況下，說話的神經活動是由左顱頂骨(left parietal)和額葉皮質(frontal cortex)裡，各種區域正在進行的模組所組成。
a) Summary: Language and Cortex. The discussion leads us to the following conclusions.
摘要：語言與腦皮質。這些討論帶給我們以下的結論。
Cortical maps of language disorders vary, depending to some extent on the mapping method and on the types of lesions adduced as basic source material.
根據對應方法和語言損害案例的實驗素材，語言障礙的腦皮質對應圖會有所改變。
There is no evidence for an “absolute” language area, but the language function may be localized in statistical terms. Although there is no one area which is necessarily, and exclusively involved in language disturbances in all individuals, there are some regions which are very frequently so involved and other regions which are never involved in either speech or language.
沒有任何證據顯示語言在腦部的絕對對應位置，但是語言功能卻可能由統計術語來局部化分，雖然說沒有任一區域是必要或絕對的牽涉語言混亂，但是就有些區域會經常性的牽涉其中，而有些區域則永遠不會。
Lesions on either margin of the left Rolandic fissure and convolutions anterior to it frequently interfere with speech production. Comprehension of language is primarily interrupted through lesions in the left parietal lobe and the rostral aspects of the temporal lobe (Wernicke’s area).
在左羅蘭度氏裂的邊緣和其前部迴旋的損害，經常會妨礙語言的產出(language production)，而在左頂葉(left parietal lobe)和顳葉(temporal lobe)吻部(韋尼克區(Wernicke’s area))的損傷，主要會干擾語言的理解。
There is no clear-cut evidence that Broca’s area is more specifically related to speech than areas adjacent to it.
相較於波卡區(Broca’s area)的鄰近區域，我們也沒有明確的證據指出波卡區和語言有更為特別的關連。
The “language maps,” established on a statistical basis, are not histologically homogeneous. There is no cytoarchitectural pecularity of the cortical areas involved in language.
以統計為本所建構的語言對應圖，並不是組織同質性，而牽涉語言的皮質區域亦沒有細胞建構的特性。
Broca’s area consists of large cells in the third and fifth cortical layer, but it is doubtful that this is relevant to language.
波卡區是由第三和第五皮質層的大細胞所組成，不過是否和語言有所關聯仍須存疑。
The histological maps of cerebral cortices of subhuman primates have somewhat different lines of demarcation than man. This is true or cortical areas which in man have relevance to language; it is also true of Broca area. The cytoarchitecture of Broca’s is also found in some roughly homologous areas in the cortices of some subhuman primates.
近似人類的靈長類，其大腦皮質的細胞分布約略和人類有不同的界線，從人類皮質區域跟語言的相關性以及波卡區就可看出，不過在靈長類的波卡區細胞建構中，也可以找到大致與人類同源的皮質區域。
It would be circular or meaningless to state that only man has a cortical speech area, because cortical language maps are based on observation of behavior. We cannot observe language interference in an animal that does not speak. Such an animal, by definition, lacks speech areas.
聲稱只有人類有語言皮質區是種迂迴或無意義的的說法，因為語言皮質分布是建立在行為觀察的基礎之上，我們無法觀察不會說話動物的語言干擾，在這種定義下的動物是缺乏語言區域的。
(1) Subcortical Structures Traditionally, all intellectual functions including speech and language have been through to be located in the cerebral cortex, and more speculations have been directed to this thin sheet of tissue than toward any other cerebral component. However, there are many other structures that are demonstrably connected with the cortex and with each other (often only by circuitous routes). Every structure of the brain is physiologically active and at least some of the structures have been hypothesized to play a part in the same intellectual functions that are more frequently imputed to the cortex. These speculations have been going on for over a generation. As an example, we may cite Campion and Elliot-Smith (1934) who proposed that thought consisted of corticothalamic circulation of impulses. Penfield has suggested the existence of a centrencephalic integrating system, which he has definedas that central system within the brain stem which is responsible for integration of varied specific functions from different parts of the hemispheres. Occasionally, he has defined it even more loosely as that system which includes all those areas of subcortical gray matter, together with their connecting tracts, serving the purpose of intra- and interhemispheral integration. This formulation, as it stands, would include all gray matter beneath the cortex. It reflects our lack of knowledge regarding the cognitive functions of the subcortical ganglia, a state of affairs for which we can hardly hold Penfield responsible. Recently, Penfield has attributed a major role in the execution of speech to a certain part of the centrencephalic system. “It is proposed,” he writes (Penfield and Roberts, 1959, p. 207) “as a speech hypothesis, that the function of all three cortical speech areas (that is, Broca’s, Wernicke’s, and the supplementary motor speech area) in man are coordinated by projections of each to parts of the thalamus, and that by means of these circuits, the elaboration of speech is somehow carried out.” Penfield finds evidence for this supposition (a) in the fact that the superficial excisions performed by him do not cause permanent aphasia, whereas deep trauma and cerebro-vascular accidents do cause aphasia, both as a rule affecting subcortical structures; and (b) in the demonstration of fiber tracts running from the so-called speech areas to part of the thalamus. It is well to bear in mind, however, that it has never been demonstrated that all lesions causing irreversible language disorders interrupt those particular cortico-thalamic connections to subcortical centers.
(1)皮質下組織 依慣例來說，所有智力功能包含說話和語言能力，就遍佈在大腦皮質的區域之中，更多的推測直接表示，這些功能就落在這層薄如紙片的組織之上，而非其他的大腦物質。然而還有很多其他的組織與腦皮層相連結或相互連結 (通常只有迴圈路徑)。大腦每一種組織在生理上都很活躍，而且至少有一部分被假定成為在同一種智力功能中扮演了某種角色，更常歸因於皮質層。這些特性已經有好幾十年了，讓我們引用Campion and Elliot-Smith (1934) 提出的論點為例，他們認為思考是由皮質丘腦(corticothalamic)的刺激循環所造成，潘菲爾提出中央頭部(centrencephalic)統合系統的存在，他把這個系統定義成腦幹的中央系統，負責不同大腦半球中各種特殊功能的整合，潘菲爾的說法使得這個系統的定義更為鬆散，以潘菲爾的定義來說，這個系統包含所有皮質下的灰色神經組織(subcortical gray matter)和其間的連接通道，並負責大腦半球內部的整合。若以這種想法來看，皮質層底下就會包含所有灰色神經組織，這反映了我們對於認知功能的皮質下神經節(subcortical ganglia)的知識缺乏，因此我們很難對潘菲爾提出疑問。最近潘菲爾認為中央腦部系統是說話能力執行的主要角色，他寫道(Penfield and Roberts, 1959, p. 207)：「我們提出一個說話能力的假說，那就是三個說話能力區域(波卡氏區、韋尼克氏區、次要運動性語言障礙區)的功能，是由丘腦(thalamus)的各個部分所調節，而藉由這種迴路，語言能力的精巧就這樣呈現了。」潘菲爾所找到證據來支持他的論點 (a)事實上，他將皮質表面的切除發現並不會產生永久性的失語症，而深層的創傷和腦血管的傷害則會產生失語症，兩者皆有影響皮質下組織的慣例。 (b)纖維管道從語言能力區到一部分丘腦的運作，也是一種證據。然而，值得我們銘記在心的是，仍沒有證據說明所有的損傷所引起的不可逆語言障礙，會阻礙特定皮質丘腦(cortico-thalamic)和皮質下中心(subcortical centers)的連結。
The exact cortico-thalamic correspondences in man are not fully known (Feremutsch, 1963; Clark, 1932; Walker, 1938). Our conceptions are based on extrapolations from research on monkeys and apes. According to the most recent and reliable investigations the lateroventral nucleus of the thalamus sends fibers into those cortical sectors which are most clearly involved with motor speech (together with other motor functions). The temporo-parietal regions of the cortex which are implicated in nonmotor aspects of language are connected by fibers to the latero-posterior nucleus of the thalamus and the pulvinar.(see Fig 2.23).
人類皮質丘腦到底如何連繫仍然未知(Feremutsch, 1963; Clark, 1932; Walker, 1938)，我們的概念是建立於猴子和人猿的實驗之上。根據最新且最可靠的研究，丘腦的腹側腺核(lateroventral nucleus)會發送纖維進入皮質區域，最明顯的就是牽動了運動性言語障礙 (同時牽動其他運動功能)，皮質層牽連非運動性言語的顳頂區(temporo-parietal regions) 會藉由纖維連接丘腦的側後核(latero-posterior nucleus)與丘腦後結節(pulvinar)。
2008年12月3日 星期三
跨顱磁刺激在認知神經科學研究的角色
跨顱磁刺激在認知神經科學研究的角色
應用心理研究 第28期 2005冬 51-74頁
中央大學認知神經科學研究所--阮啟弘
陽明大學認知神經科學實驗室--呂岱樺
陽明大學神經科學研究所 認知神經科學實驗室--楊巧雲
資料來源: 應用心理研究
應用心理研究 第28期 2005冬 51-74頁
中央大學認知神經科學研究所--阮啟弘
陽明大學認知神經科學實驗室--呂岱樺
陽明大學神經科學研究所 認知神經科學實驗室--楊巧雲
資料來源: 應用心理研究
2008年11月5日 星期三
罕見的動物，你認識牠們嗎？
亞馬遜角蛙 (Amazon-horned-frog)
紅眼樹蛙 (Red-eyed-tree-frog)
黃金箭毒蛙 (Golden-poison-dart-frog)
墨西哥蠑螈 (美西螈) (Axolotl)
雪兔 (Arctic-hare)
非洲食蟻獸 (Aardvark)
藍馬林魚 (Blue-marlin)
駱馬 (Llama)
儒艮 (Dugong)
穿山甲 (Pangolin)
青鳥 (Bluebird)
圖片來源: National Geographic
趣味動物小品
Kawabunga~
Do I love biolinguistics? Let me think about it!
Oh~feel sooooo good!
What?! A cat, not a mat?
I'm a graceful frog prince.
How's my new hair style?
It's a bird. It's an airplane. No~It's a superman!
I am king of the world.
Preface (paragraph 4 +5 ) T 勝芬
Biological Foundations of Language
By Eric H. Lenneberg
By Eric H. Lenneberg
Preface (Paragraph 4+5)
This book attempts to reinstate the concept of the biological basis of language capacities and to make the specific assumptions so explicit that they may be subjected to empirical test. In many instances I have not been able to do more than to formulate questions and to show that they are not spurious. There is no research as yet that provides answers to them. But I hope that I have been able to show what type of investigations might lead to new insights and thus, perhaps, give new directions to old inquiries. A particularly promising approach seems to be the systematic evaluation of patients with various deficits, especially the deaf and the mentally retarded. Modern advances in technology and methodology in behavior research are likely to lead to new knowledge about language function, and thus the patients whose misfortune serves as source material for new studies may, hopefully, eventually profit from the new advances in our understanding of language.
在本書中，我試著重申生物基礎在語言能力中的概念，並嘗試讓可能在觀察性實驗中所證實的特定假說更為明白，有時候，我只能明確的列舉出問題來，並證明它們不是虛構的，但是這些問題目前仍然沒有研究結果。不過我還是希望能告訴大家，哪些研究會為我們帶來新的視野，並可能給予舊有的疑惑一些新的方向，像是系統性的評估有缺陷的患者，尤其是對耳聾和智能障礙的患者，就似乎是一個很被看好的研究領域。現代技術和方法理論的發展，可能會為行為研究帶來語言功能方面的新知，而病患的缺陷可能成為最新研究的素材，希望這些新的發展，最終能幫助我們對語言的了解。
This book must be understood as a discussion rather than a presentation of the biological foundations of language. The exact foundations are still largely unknown. On the other hand, I have considered this common claims relating to the biological nature of language. In those instances where I found myself to be in disagreement with widely held opinions, the argument may have taken on a predominantly iconoclastic character, as, for instance, in Chapter six; in other cases the topic seemed to me important enough to warrant d detailed discussion although the data do not lead to new ideas on the nature or origin of language, as, for example, the discussion of peripheral anatomy in Chapter two. However, both the negative and the positive contributions uniformly led me to quite a specific point of view, which I have attempted to summarize in Chapter nine, and which may, some day in the future, become the foundation to a new theory on language.
本書旨在於探究而非完整呈現語言的生物基礎，這些確切基礎的絕大部分仍然未知。另一方面，我把這本書當成一個很好的機會，來對一些廣泛的生物語言主張，做些批判性的評論。我的論點若和這些主張相左時，我顯然就扮演一種破除因襲的角色，就如同第六章所論述的狀況。另一種情況是，若某個主題對我來說非常重要，但自然層面或語言起源方面的資料都沒有新意時，我仍會仔細討論，例如第二章器官周邊的解剖學。然而，無論是正面或負面的貢獻，均讓我有了獨特的見解，因此我試著在第九章作個總結，或許在未來的語言研究領域之中，能當作另一個新學說的基礎。
2008年11月4日 星期二
George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)
George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)
【生平與著作】
1. 美國古生物學家。他的專長為滅絕的哺乳類，與牠們在大陸之間的遷徙。
2. 現代綜合理論的奠基者之一。
3. 在演化領域的主要著作包括《演化的節拍和調式》（Tempo and Mode in Evolution）與《分類規則與哺乳類分類》（Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals）等。
【現代演化綜論（Modern evolutionary synthesis) 】
- 也稱為新綜合、現代綜合或是新達爾文主義。起源是達爾文解釋演化的天擇理論，與孟德爾遺傳定律的結合。同時也將基本的孟德爾遺傳學，改造為數學化的群體遺傳學。
- 現代綜合理論將兩個重要發現結合，也就是演化單位（基因）與演化機制（天擇）。也統合了許多生物學的分支，例如遺傳學、細胞學、系統分類學、植物學與古生物學等等。
建立並發展現代綜合理論的科學家，包括了數學家費雪（R.A. Fisher）、生物學家萊特（Sewall Wright）與霍爾登（J. B. S. Haldane），以及摩根（T. H. Morgen）、杜布藍斯基（Theodosius Dobzhansky）、朱利安·赫胥黎、恩斯特·麥爾（Ernst Mayr）、辛普森（G. G. Simpson）、斯特賓斯（G. L. Stebbins）等人。 - 由於現代綜合理論相對原來的進化論較為溫和與合理，有不少反對進化論的基督教團體都表示願意接納這理論。
資料來源: Wikipedia-1 Wikipedia-2
圖片來源: Simpson
Karl Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1901-1927)
Karl Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1901-1927)
【生平】
1. 奧地利生物學家，一般系統論創始人。他生於奧地利首都維也納附近的阿茨格斯多夫，曾經在倫敦、加拿大及美國等地工作。
2. 貝塔郎非出身自一個有很多學者及法官的不平凡家族。貝塔郎非家族是16世紀匈牙利貴族的後裔。他曾祖父查理·約瑟夫·馮·貝塔郎非(Charles Joseph von Bertalanffy)在奧地利定居，擔任奧地利南部的克拉根福(Klagenfurt)劇院院長。他外曾祖父則是維也納出版商及皇家顧問－約瑟夫·佛格爾。
3.
1926年，貝塔朗非在維也納大學考獲哲學博士學位，畢業後便在該校任教。
1937年前往美國芝加哥大學任教。
1948年，轉投加拿大渥太華大學擔任醫療系任系主任及教授。
1954年至1955年，參加國際史丹福研究所行為科學研究會。
1954年，建立一般系統論研究會並且出版了《行為科學》雜誌和《一般系統年鑑》。
【研究與貢獻】
1. 他在20世紀人類智慧歷史中佔了一個重要的地位。他的貢獻超越了生物學的範疇，更觸及控制論、教育、歷史、哲學、精神科、心理學及社會學。推崇貝塔郎非的人士相信一般系統論能夠為所有領域提供概念性架構。
● 一般系統論（或稱普通系統論）是由貝塔郎非（Ludwig von Bertalanffy）創立的一門邏輯和數學領域的科學，其目的在於確立適用於一切系統的一般原則。他于1948年出版的《生命問題》一書標誌一般系統論的問世。
資料來源: Wikipedia-1 Wikipedia-2
圖片來源: Bertalanffy
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)
