15 Discourse : Language comprehension in context

Discourse
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Discourses.

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.Please improve this article if you can. (March 2007)

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:
Discourse

Philosophy Portal
Discourse (L. discursus, "running to and from") means either "written or spoken communication or debate" or "a formal discussion or debate" [1]. The term is often used in semantics and discourse analysis.
In semantics, discourses are linguistic units composed of several sentences; in other words, conversations, arguments, or speeches. In discourse analysis, which came to prominence in the late 1960s, the word "discourse" is shorthand for "discursive formation", which is what Michel Foucault called communication that involves specialized knowledge of various kinds. It is in this sense that the word is most often used in academic studies.
Studies of discourse have been carried out within a variety of traditions that investigate the relations between language, structure and agency, including feminist studies, anthropology, enthnography, cultural studies, literary theory and the history of ideas. Within these fields, the notion of discourse is itself subject to discourse, that is, debated on the basis of specialized knowledge. Discourse can be observed in the use of spoken, written and signed language and multimodal/multimedia forms of communication, and is not found only in 'non-fictional' or verbal materials.
Contents[hide]
1 The Social Scientific Conception of Discourse
2 Modernism
3 Structuralism
4 Postmodernism
5 Feminism
6 See also
8 References
9 External links


The Social Scientific Conception of Discourse

This section does not cite any references or sources. (April 2008)Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.
In the social sciences (following the work of Michel Foucault), a discourse is considered to be an institutionalized way of thinking, a social boundary defining what can be said about a specific topic, or, as Judith Butler puts it, "the limits of acceptable speech"—or possible truth. Discourses are seen to affect our views on all things; it is not possible to escape discourse. For example, two notably distinct discourses can be used about various guerrilla movements describing them either as "freedom fighters" or "terrorists". In other words, the chosen discourse delivers the vocabulary, expressions and perhaps also the style needed to communicate. Discourse is closely linked to different theories of power and state, at least as long as defining discourses is seen to mean defining reality itself.
This conception of discourse is largely derived from the work of French philosopher Michel Foucault (see below)

Modernism
Modern theorists were focused on achieving progress and believed in the existence of natural and social laws which could be used universally to develop knowledge and thus a better understanding of society [2]. Modernist theorists were preoccupied with obtaining the truth and reality and sought to develop theories which contained certainty and predictability [3]. Modernist theorists therefore viewed discourse as a being relative to talking or way of talking and understood discourse to be functional [4]. Discourse and language transformations are ascribed to progress or the need to develop new or more “accurate” words to describe new discoveries, understandings or areas of interest [5]. In modern times, language and discourse are dissociated from power and ideology and instead conceptualized as “natural” products of common sense usage or progress [6]. Modernism further gave rise to the liberal discourses of rights, equality, freedom and justice however this rhetoric masked the substantive inequality and failed to account for differences [7].

Structuralism
Structuralist theorists, such as Ferdinand de Saussure and Jacques Lacan, argue that all human actions and social formations are related to language and can be understood as systems of related elements [8]. This means that the “...individual elements of a system only have significance when considered in relation to the structure as a whole, and that structures are to be understood as self-contained, self-regulated, and self-transforming entities” [9]. In other words, it is the structure itself that determines the significance, meaning and function of the individual elements of a system. Structuralism has made an important contribution to our understanding of language and social systems. Saussure’s theory of language highlights the decisive role of meaning and signification in structuring human life more generally [10].

Postmodernism
Following the perceived limitations of the modern era, emerged postmodern theory [11]. Postmodern theorists rejected modernist claims that there was one theoretical approach that explained all aspects of society [12]. Rather, postmodernist theorists were interested in examining the variety of experience of individuals and groups and emphasized differences over similarities and common experiences [13].
In contrast to modern theory, postmodern theory is more fluid and allows for individual differences as it rejected the notion of social laws. Postmodern theorists shifted away from truth seeking and instead sought answers for how truths are produced and sustained. Postmodernists contended that truth and knowledge is plural, contextual, and historically produced through discourses. Postmodern researchers therefore embarked on analyzing discourses such as texts, language, policies and practices [14].
French social theorist Michel Foucault developed an entirely original notion of discourse in his early work, especially the Archaeology of Knowledge (1972). In Discursive Struggles Within Social Welfare: Restaging Teen Motherhood, [15] summarizes Foucault's definition of discourse as “systems of thoughts composed of ideas, attitudes, courses of action, beliefs and practices that systematically construct the subjects and the worlds of which they speak." He traces the role of discourses in wider social processes of legitimating and power, emphasizing the construction of current truths, how they are maintained and what power relations they carry with them.” Foucault later theorized that discourse is a medium through which power relations produce speaking subjects [16]. Foucault (1977, 1980) argued that power and knowledge are inter-related and therefore every human relationship is a struggle and negotiation of power. Foucault further stated that power is always present and can both produce and constrain the truth [17]. Discourse according to Foucault (1977, 1980, 2003) is related to power as it operates by rules of exclusion. Discourse therefore is controlled by objects, what can be spoken of, ritual, where and how one may speak and the privileged, who may speak [18]. Coining the phrases power-knowledge Foucault (1980) stated knowledge was both the creator of power and creation of power.

Feminism
Feminists have explored the complex relationships that exist among power, ideology, language and discourse.[19] Feminist theory talks about ‘doing gender’ and/or ‘performing gender’.[20] It is suggested that gender is a property, not of persons themselves but of the behaviours to which members of a society ascribe a gendering meaning. “Being a man/woman involves appropriating gendered behaviours and making them part of the self that an individual presents to others. Repeated over time, these behaviours may be internalized as ‘me’ – that is, gender does not feel like a performance or an accomplishment to the actor, it just feels like her or his ‘natural’ way of behaving”.[21] Feminist theorists have attempted to recover the subject and 'subjectivity'. Chris Weedon, one of the best known scholars working in the feminist poststructuralist tradition, has sought to integrate individual experience and social power in a theory of subjectivity.[22] Weedon defines subjectivity as 'the conscious and unconscious thoughts and emotions of the individual, her sense of herself, and her ways of understanding her relation to the world.[23] Judith Butler, also another well known post structuralist feminist scholar, explains that the performativity of gender offers an important contribution to the conceptual understanding of processes of subversion. She argues that subversion occurs through the enactment of an identity that is repeated in directions that go back and forth which then results in the displacement of the original goals of dominant forms of power.[24]

See also
Foucault's episteme
Critical discourse analysis
Political discourse analysis
Postcolonial literature
Parrhesia
Discourse Community


References
S. Best & D. Kellner (1997). The postmodern turn. The Guilford Press.
M. Foucault (1972). Archaeology of knowledge. New York: Pantheon.
M. Foucault (1977). Discipline and Punish. New York: Pantheon.
M. Foucault (1980). "Two Lectures," in Colin Gordon, ed., Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews.. New York: Pantheon.
M. Foucault (2003). Society Must Be Defended. New York: Picador.
D. Howarth (2000). Discourse. Philadelphia, Pa.: Open University Press.
J. Larrain (1994). "Ideology and cultural identity: Modernity and the third world presence". Cambridge: Polity Press.
I. Lessa (2006). "Discoursive struggles within social welfare: Restaging teen motherhood". British Journal of Social Work 36: 283–298.
A. McHoul & W. Grace (1993). A Foucault primer: Discourse, power, and the subject. Melborne: Melborne University Press.
J. Motion & S. Leitch (2007). "A toolbox for public relations: The oeuvre of Michel Foucault". Public Relations Review 33 (3): 263–268.
R. Mullaly (1997). Structural social work: Ideology, theory, and practice, 2nd ed, New York: Oxford University Press.
B. Norton (1997). "Language, identity, and the ownership of English". TESOL Quarterly 31 (3): 409–429.
Research as resistance: Critical, indigenous and anti-oppressive approaches.(2005). In Brown L. A., Strega S. (Eds.), Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press.
S. Strega (2005). The view from the poststructural margins: Epistemology and methodology reconsidered. In L. Brown, & S. Strega (Eds.), Research as resistance (pp. 199-235). Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press.
J. Sunderland (2004). Gendered discourses. New York: PalgraveMacmillan.

10 Lexical semantics

Lexical semantics

Lexical semantics is a subfield of linguistic semantics. It is the study of how and what the words of a language denote (Pustejovsky, 1995). Words may either be taken to denote things in the world, or concepts, depending on the particular approach to lexical semantics.
The units of meaning in lexical semantics are lexical units. One can continually add new lexical units throughout one's life, learning new words and their meanings. By contrast, one can only easily learn the grammatical rules of one's native language during a critical period when one is young.
Lexical semantics covers theories of the classification and decomposition of word meaning, the differences and similarities in lexical semantic structure between different languages, and the relationship of word meaning to sentence meaning and syntax.
One question that lexical semantics explores is whether the meaning of a lexical unit is established by looking at its neighbourhood in the semantic net (by looking at the other words it occurs with in natural sentences), or if the meaning is already locally contained in the lexical unit. Another topic that is explored is the mapping of words to concepts. As tools, lexical relations like synonymy, antonymy (opposites), hyponymy and hypernymy are used in this field.

See also
Lexical chain
Lexical markup framework
Lexicology
Ontology
Polysemy
Thematic role
Word sense

References
Philip Edmonds on near-synonyms (Chapter 4.1 Lexical semantics)
Bibliography of linguistics papers dealing with lexical semantics
The Lexical Semantics of a Machine Translation Interlingua by Rick Morneau
Lexical Semantics by D.A. Cruse. Cambridge University Press, 1986. ISBN 0-521-27643-8
Pustejovsky, James, The Generative Lexicon, 1995, MIT Press; presents a theory of lexical semantics.

This linguistics article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexical_semantics"


From Semantic Enhancement of Lexical-Semantic Resources


TLC:"The teachable language comprehender", a program designed to be capable of being taught to 'comprehened' English text.

3 The neuroanatomy of language -- Wernicke's area

Wernicke's area

"Oh Say Can You Say"--The Brain and Language

「談你如何說話」--大腦和語言

大腦一日遊

大腦皮質（Cerebral Cortex）

The Secret -- 秘密

The secret website

1. 秘密被揭露了 * "吸引力法則" : 所有來到你人生中的一切人事物, 都是你以心靈意象將之吸引過來的 (而"心靈意象"即是你的所思所想) * 你是自己人生的編劇.導演與演員

2. 如此簡單的秘密 * 宇宙會回應你內在感覺的頻率&本質 * 鼓勵您持續以美好的情緒生活: 則你會持續地吸引更多符合這樣快樂情感的情境與人 (當情緒低迷, 你要懂得改變來改運喔; 音樂. 振奮自己...) * 情緒指引系統的回饋: 當你的行動或某個想法有負面感覺時 表示此所想和你真正想要 (在不對的道途上)

3. 秘密的運用步驟 * Ask: 向宇宙下訂單吧! 列出你的願望清單! * Answer: 整個宇宙會重新安排來回應你. * Receive: 請讓自己的思言行維持在與所欲一致的感受頻率上

4. 秘密絕招: 身臨其境 & 感恩 * 僵化的思維使你不斷地重蹈覆轍,而得到不變的結果. * 帶來豐盛圓滿的思維絕招: 感恩! 感恩使你對焦於喜悅富足的頻率. * 創造的思維絕招: 身臨其境的觀想! 它使你產生強大的吸引力.

5. 財富的秘密 * 注意你內在對金錢的觀念和關注焦點, 你無法一腳煞車,一腳油門. * 你無法透過外在物質的追逐, 而得到內在的幸福 ; 而是必先能感到內在的幸福喜悅, 它會自然地吸引外在對應的豐盛富足.

. 關係的秘密 * 你先好好愛自己，才能夠真正的愛別人 * 專注與感謝他人的優點上,他人會反映更多其優點給你

7. 健康的秘密 * 我們思維與情感真的會決定身體的物質結構和功能 * 壓力和失衡是身體疾病的主要原因, 讓身心平衡愉快, 能量自然順暢

8. 世界的秘密 * 當你極力對抗不想要的事物, 你反而強化了它存在的力量 * 資源不足是謊言; 世界的資源是足夠的, 資源匱乏是因為人類不分享.

9. 你的秘密 * 拋開受害者心態吧! 停止責備與歸罪外在或他人 * 承認您是靈性存有! 是你創造了自己生活/生命的實相

10. 生命的秘密 * 生命沒有那麼多的必須和限制, 它的本質是愛.自由和喜悅 * 找到和你內心共鳴感到美好的人事物, 追隨讓你幸福快樂的事物, 自然能找到富足與快樂幸福的源頭.

http://www.soultw.com/st/

大腦 (Brain)

由結構來分類，大腦可分為下列各區域：





大腦皮質 (Cerebral cortex)
思考
自主性運動
語言
推理
知覺
--"cortex" 這個字在拉丁文中所代表的意思是 "樹皮", 這是因為大腦皮質是由神經細胞所組成厚約僅2～6公釐的組織, 左右半球的皮質區是靠胼胝體互相連接。



小腦 (Cerebellum)
運動
平衡
姿勢調整
--"cerebellum" 這個字在中所代表的意思是 "小腦", 位於腦幹的後方。 小腦和大腦皮質區一樣, 也有所謂的半球結構。



腦幹 (Brain Stem)
呼吸
心跳
血壓
--腦幹指的是位於丘腦與脊髓之間的區域, 其中包含了medulla, pons, tectum, reticularformation及tegmentum等部份。



丘腦 (Thalamus)
感覺
運動
--丘腦負責接收來自感覺器官的訊號, 並將之傳達至大腦皮質區。



丘腦下部(Hypothalamus)
體溫
情緒
饑餓
口渴
心跳節奏
--丘腦下部是人體內的溫度調節中心, 可以感應體溫變化並適時給予調整。





邊緣系統 (Limbic System)
情緒反應
邊緣系統包括了扁桃腺(amygdala), 海馬迴 (hippocampus), 乳頭狀體 (mammillary bodies) 以及cingulate gyrus等區, 此系統在情緒反應的控制上非常重要。



海馬迴 (Hippocampus)
學習
記憶
--海馬迴屬於邊緣系統的一部份, 在記憶和學習的腦部功能上扮演了極為重要的角色。



基底神經結 (Basal ganglia)
運動
--基底神經結實際上是globus pallidus, caudate nucleus, subthalamic nucleus, putamen和substantia nigra等區域的總稱, 在運動協調上有著重要的角色。 帕金森氏症的產生原因即是此區域發生病變所造成的。




中腦 (midbrain)
視覺
聽覺
眼球運動
身體運動
--中腦包含了superior colliculi, inferior colliculi及red nucleus等區域。





大腦：主宰活動思維的器官
在動大腦手術的時候，病人可能有知覺
對許多人來說，大腦的損傷會帶來致命的影響。可是，對著名畫家梵高而言，正是這給了他創作的靈感。

BBC一部新的電視系列片《大腦故事》調查了關於顳腦葉的損傷可能對著名後印象派畫家梵高的創作起了重要的作用這一說法。
這種損傷經常是由癲癇病導致。它同時還影響大腦處理視聽信息的方式。


梵高有癲癇病

就梵高的例子而言，專家們相信，大腦的損傷改變了他看世界的方式，可能直接使他形成極具個人風格的藝術形式。

哈佛醫學院的科斯本博士嘗試去解釋癲癇病對梵高的生活和藝術創作的影響。
在研究了顳腦葉有損傷的病人後，他發現他們看顏色和影像比實際上更為鮮艷且生動。

“傳感在這兒歸納。所以很容易看到在大腦這個地區發生障礙是可以如何創造另外一種完全不同的傳感經驗。”

節目的主持人--牛津大學的格林菲爾德教授是一位頂尖的神經科學家。她說顳腦葉的功能失調可能會導致強烈精神感覺的產生。


“我們知道如果你刺激那個地區的話，人們有時候會說他們覺得有一種神秘的體驗。”


對大腦的研究
大腦故事將會調查大腦對於我們從行動到感情各個方面的控制。
格林菲爾德教授戴上大腦掃描儀 <>

格林菲爾德教授說大腦是最令人著迷的人類器官，而這很大原因是因為它一直保持那麼神秘。

“大腦是你的精華。它是你身體最私人的部分。它給了你豐富而不被外人所窺視的的內心世界。”

“它使你成為一個獨特的個體。即使你做了肝臟或是心臟移植，你仍然是你自己。如果你移植了你的大腦，你就成了另外一個人了。”

化石紀錄顯示，人類的大腦在幾千年來並沒有重要的變化。
格林菲爾德教授說：“我們比任何體能上，尤其是大腦方面的改變都複雜。這主要是由於世世代代以來我們學習和適應的能力在不斷提高。”


“我們的大腦和五萬年前薩凡那人的大腦毫無區別。”

大腦控制各種行為
可是，格林菲爾德教授說，大腦的大小并不等同於大腦的能力的高低。
她說：“愛因斯坦的大腦就比常人的大腦稍微偏小。因此重要的是腦細胞之間的聯繫，而這給了你適應並進化成人的獨特能力。”

儘管如此，她否認了我們沒有使用大部分大腦的說法。她說：“這是不可能的。”

“從掃描儀上面你可以看到大腦是怎樣‘呼吸’，使用氧氣和葡萄糖，然後努力工作的。”

“我想人們有這種看法主要是因為在任何一個掃描的剎那都只有10%的大腦細胞是活躍的。可是這並不意味著我們只使用10%的大腦，因為一個大腦細胞可以是沉默但同時在工作著的。”

在電視片裡還採訪了一位婦女。她在接受大腦手術時仍然保持清醒。”
這是可能的，因為大腦並沒有痛覺傳感器。

另外一名失去了右手前手臂的病人則描述說，觸摸她的臉會使她感覺到那已失去的手的動作。
Reference " http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/835000

大腦半球的中心是有髓神經纖維，即白質；皮質有很多溝回，即灰質。人類的大腦皮質十分發達，這使人腦不同於其他哺乳動物的大腦。雖然某些白質結構也具有獨立的重要功能，但白質中的神經纖維主要用以聯結大腦皮質各功能區。由前到後有一條深裂溝將大腦分為兩個半球，每個半球調控其對側軀體的活動。其中一個半球在功能上占優勢，它集中了一些特化的神經中樞，如言語、思維的中樞，決定右利還是左利等決定空間趨向的中樞。另一側半球則支配更微妙、複雜的知覺，如識別不同的面孔。 　　兩側大腦半球由胼胝體連接，它是一塊白質的厚板，可聯繫來自身體兩側的感覺訊息和功能應答。大腦的其他重要結構有下視丘和視丘。下視丘控制代謝和內環境穩定。視丘是一個主要的感覺傳遞中樞，管理情緒和本能。這些結構團繞著一些空間(腦室)，腦室內充滿著腦脊液，它既向腦細胞供應營養，也有緩衝保護作用，使腦部避免衝撞的影響。****　　動物身體前端神經組織集中的結構。腦用以整合感覺信息並指導運動應答，從而在維持生命所必需的本能活動中起重要作用。在高等脊椎動物，腦也是學習的中心。 　　低等脊椎動物的腦為管狀，似高等脊椎動物腦發育的早期階段。腦分為3個明顯的區域︰後腦、中腦和前腦。雖然高等脊椎動物腦的腦形態在胚胎發育過程中經歷了很大的變化，這3個部分依然可以分辨出來。 　　後腦由延髓和橋腦組成。延髓在脊髓和腦的高級部分之間傳遞信號；也是心跳、呼吸等自主功能的中樞。橋腦的一部分由連接脊髓和腦高級部分的神經束構成。橋腦也包含將信息從大腦傳到小腦的神經細胞。中腦的背側部分來自視葉，在魚類和兩棲類是主要的感覺整合中心。在爬蟲類及鳥類中腦也起一個重要的整合作用。哺乳動物的中腦大為退化，主要聯繫後腦和前腦的作用。小腦通過大的神經束與延髓、橋腦、中腦聯繫。人的小腦相對較大，其功能為保持平衡及使肌群的運動適量和適時，從而動作協調。 　　前腦包括兩個大腦半球及其下方的間腦(包括視丘和下視丘)。視丘是延髓和大腦之間的主要轉接站；下視丘是性驅力、愉快、疼痛、飢餓、渴、血壓、體溫以及其他內臟功能的重要控制中心。下視丘產生控制垂體前葉分泌的釋放激素，也產生催產素和抗利尿激素，後兩種激素儲存於垂體後葉並由此釋出。 　　大腦最初是作為嗅葉的一部分而發揮功能，人的大腦則與更複雜的功能有關。人和其他高等動物的大腦發達，覆蓋在腦的其他部分之上，灰質表面形成溝回。溝回的複雜程度在一定程度上決定於身體的大小。小型哺乳動物(如小食蟻獸、狨)一般腦表面平滑，而大型哺乳動物(如鯨、象、海豚)的大腦則溝回複雜。 　　兩側大腦半球由一深溝，大腦縱裂(半球間裂)分開。大腦縱裂基部有很厚的神經纖維束組成的胼胝體，用以連接兩側大腦半球。因為神經纖維在延髓交叉，少數纖維在脊髓交叉，左側大腦半球控制身體的右半側，右側大腦半球控制身體左半側。左右大腦半球存在著重要的功能差異。例如，在許多人控制言語的區域位於左側半球，而控制空間知覺的區域在右側半球。 　　每側大腦半球被中央溝和大腦側裂分為4部分︰額葉、頂葉、顳葉及枕葉。中央溝又稱羅蘭多氏裂，又將皮質運動區(位於中央溝前方)與皮質感覺區(位於中央溝後方)分隔開。皮質運動區和感覺區始於半球的頂部，其上端部分控制身體的下端部分，而其下端部分控制身體的上端部分。大腦半球的其他功能區亦已確定，包括枕葉的視皮質和顳葉的聽皮質。靈長動物皮質的很大一部分並無明確的運動或感覺功能；這些所謂聯繫皮質似乎與高級精神活動有關，並構成人類大腦皮質的最大部分。

參考資料 大英百科全書。 2006年。 大英線上繁體中文版。

＊人的腦部構造分為大腦與小腦。大腦由大腦皮質(大腦新皮質)、大腦邊緣葉(舊皮質)、腦幹、腦樑所構成。大腦皮質從位置上可分為額葉、聶葉及枕葉三部分。此外，腦又分為左、右兩半部，右半球就是「右腦」，左半球就是「左腦」。而左右腦平分了腦部的所有構造。左腦與右腦形狀相同，功能卻大不一樣。左腦司語言，也就是用語言來處理訊息，把進入腦內看到、聽到、觸到、嗅到及品嚐到(左腦五感)的訊息轉換成語言來傳達，相當費時。左腦主要控制著知識、判斷、思考等，和顯意識有密切的關係。 右腦的五感包藏在右腦底部，可稱為「本能的五感」，控制著自律神經與宇宙波動共振等，和潛意識有關。右腦是將收到的訊息以圖像處理，瞬間即可處理完畢，因此能夠把大量的資訊一併處理(心算、速讀等即為右腦處理資訊的表現方式)。一般人右腦的五感都受到左腦理性的控制與壓抑，因此很難發揮即有的潛在本能。然而懂得活用右腦的人，聽音就可以辨色，或者浮現圖像、聞到味道等。心理學家稱這種情形為「共感」這就是右腦的潛能。 如果讓右腦大量記憶，右腦會對這些訊息自動加工處理，並衍生出創造性的訊息。也就是說，右腦具有自主性，能夠發揮獨自的想像力、思考，把創意圖像化，同時具有做為一個故事述說者的卓越功能。如果是左腦的話，無論是你如何的絞盡腦汁，都有它的極限。但是右腦的記憶力只要和思考力一結合，就能夠和不靠語言的前語言性純粹思考、圖像思考連結，而獨創性的構想就會神奇般的被引發出來。　 西元一九八一年，諾貝爾醫學生理獎得主羅傑‧史貝尼教授將左右腦的功能差異歸類整理如下： 右腦(本能腦‧潛意識腦)1.圖像化機能(企劃力、創造力 、想像力) 2.與宇宙共振共鳴機能(第六感 、念力、透視力、直覺力、 靈感、夢境等) 3.超高速自動演算機能(心算、 數學) 4.超高速大量記憶(速讀、記憶 力)左腦(意識腦)‧知性‧知識‧理解‧思考 ‧判斷‧推理‧語言‧抑制‧五感 ( 視、聽、嗅、觸、 味覺)

參考資料 http://www.tbetter.com.tw/left&rightbrain.htm