Aitchison on inherent causes of language

Ramblings on academic-related matters. For information on my research see https: ERP time-frequency analysis blog:

Aitchison on inherent causes of language

Bearden Adapted from personal correspondence Foreword: Though deliberately informal, this is a very difficult paper, both to write and to read.

We are struggling to explain and correct one of the great, pervasive flaws in physics foundations, which is the confusion of cause and effect, both in mechanics and particularly in electrodynamics. The reader is likely to find the going very rough; indeed, one will need to continually reflect very deeply on the "operational observation situation applying or not applying to what is being discussed at this moment".

I apologize for the density of the subject matter and that in a single sentence it is necessary to switch between two opposite operational situations. The "implicitly assumed" operational situation has been largely hidden and misunderstood for more than a century, and is still vastly confused in the extant physics literature.

We attempt to point out how these assumptions often quite unconsciously were included by the older pioneering physicists. Some foundations quotations are added to show the problem and that it has not been solved.

Aitchison on inherent causes of language

So we advise patience if the reader is truly interested in this important foundations issue and a possible resolution.

We urge the reader to heed Einstein's excellent advice, which he stated so beautifully as: He uses this conceptual material, or, speaking more exactly, these conceptual tools of thought, as something obviously, immutably given; something having an objective value of truth which is hardly even, and in any case not seriously, to be doubted.

Nevertheless it should be the endeavor of the physicist always to drag them out into the light of day, so that it may be perfectly clear what we are actually doing. The whole history of physics appears as a struggle to either clarify or escape from this either or dichotomy.

Even in recognizing the duality of a theory, however, physicists often have not clearly recognized that they confuse effect as cause in their use of the field concept itself. So they have not resolved the issue, even with the "duality" principle which was just an agreement to quit fighting and use either the particle view or the wave view, as one wished, if it worked.

It did not address or solve the confusion of wave and particle, and of cause and effect. The field concept itself is perhaps the most primary example of dual use of a concept for two precisely contradictory things. The concept of a force—which is an effect and never a cause, but is used nearly universally as a cause—is also a fundamental part of the confusion.

Force is an observable, and all observables are effects of the observation process a priori. Insofar as questioning the "dual field concept" is concerned, the problem certainly has been long debated, but not resolved.

As we mentioned, there is fundamental duality involved even in the notion of force itself. Hence it could not exist in empty space where no observable charged mass exists. They did not include mass as a component of force, but stopped short of it.

They attempted to correct electrodynamics by advancing an EM model based on absorber theory. However, the fields used in their theory still maintained their unacceptable dichotomy, so the theory—though quite valiant—did not succeed.

In various places Feynman specifically pointed out that the field as conceived could not and did not exist in mass-free space, but only the potential for the field existed there, should there be some charged mass there to interact with.

It clearly reveals the dichotomy of using the word "field" as both the entity existing in spacetime before the interaction and thus the cause, and as the entity the "effect field" existing after the interaction of that "causal field" with charged mass.

That is very much like saying the field—an effect—is also its own cause. Also note that Feynman still uses the charges as the "cause" of the fields.


Yet since charged mass is an observable, it is an effect. Here again we meet the fact that an "effect" is considered to be a cause. This problem of the "association of the field with its source" has long been recognized as a formidable problem. Again quoting Sen ibid.

It is solved by reinterpreting and extending Whittaker's decomposition of the scalar potential as between the ends of a dipole and by treating the charge with its clustered virtual charges of opposite sign as a set of composite dipoles.

Most electrodynamicists have taken a pragmatic approach to the "duality of the field concept" and simply "bypassed" that tough problem. One can be very sympathetic to this view! After all, eventually one must use the electrodynamics model to do practical things and get practical results, i.

As an example, one of the finest electrodynamics books for two decades is J. Jackson avoids confronting the field dichotomy in this fashion:Changes in Newspaper Language explored as Changes in Cultural Norms By Thore Roksvold, Oslo University College Nonetheless, these norms are always changing as time goes by.

Jean Aitchison () finds "They simply make use of inherent tendencies which reside in the physical and mental make-up of human beings" (Aitchison, , p. Preoccupation with proximate causes: It is strange to note the extent to which the problems of society are primarily blamed on proximate causes -- for which responsibility may be framed as elusive.

This is most obviously the case with respect to increasing exposure to flooding. Aitchison's paper is followed by an essay by David Denison who exposes weaknesses in S-curves as a model to describe the shape of language change.

Before illustrating the problems of S-curves in a number of syntactic and stylistic examples, Denison critically analyses the theory and origin of the term.

Buddhism & Social Action WH In modern Western society, humanistic social action, in its bewildering variety of forms, is seen both as the characteristic way of relieving suffering and enhancing human well-being and, at the same time, as a noble.

Aitchison on inherent causes of language

ABSTRACT. Mental models are personal, internal representations of external reality that people use to interact with the world around them. They are constructed by individuals based on their unique life experiences, perceptions, and understandings of the world. The First Amendment has two provisions concerning religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.

The Establishment clause prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion.

Ecology and Society: Mental Models: An Interdisciplinary Synthesis of Theory and Methods