Ajuriaguerra, J. de and Hécaen, H. (1949), Le Cortex cerebral; étude neuro-psychopathologique. Masson, Paris.
Bailey, P., and Bonin, G. v. (1951), The Isocortex of the Chimpanzee. Univ. of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Bailey, P., Bonin, G.v., and McCulloch, W. S. (1950), The Isocortex of the Chimpanzee. Univ. of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Bailey, P., Buchanan, D. N., and Bucy, P.C. (1939), Intracranial Tumors of Infancy and Childhood. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Bailey, P. and Davis, E. W. (1942), Effects of lesions of the periaqueductal gray matter in the cat, Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol, and Med. 51:305-306.
Bok, S.T. (1959), Histonomy of the Cerebral Cortex. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Bonin, G. von (1950), Essay on the Cerebral Cortex. C Thomas, Springfield, Illinois.
Bonin, G. von (1962), Anatomical asymmetries of the cerebral hemispheres, in Interhemispheric Relations and Cerebral Dominance. V.B. Mountcastle (ed.), The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore.
Bonin, G. von and Bailey, P. (1961), Pattern of the cerebral isocortex, in Primatologia; Handbook of Primatology. H. Hofer, A. H. Schultz, and D. Starck (eds.), Karger, Basel.
Braus, H. (1954), Anatomie des Menschen, ein Lehrbuch für studierende Ärzte fortgeführt von Curt Elze (3rd ed.), Vol. I. Springer, Berlin.
Brodnitz, F. S. (1960), Speech after glossectomy, Curr. Probl. Phoniat. Logoper. 1:68-72.
Campion, G. G. and Elliot-Smith, G. The Neutral Basis of Thought. Harcourt, Brace and Co., New York, 1935
Clark, W. E. Le Gros (1932), The structure and connections of the thalamus, Brain 55:406-470.
Conrad, K. (1954), New problems of aphasia, Brain 77:491-509
Coppoletta, J. M. and Wolbach, S. B. (1933), Body length and organ weights of infants and children, Am. J. Pathol. 9:55-70.
Critchley, M. (1962), Speech and speecj-loss in relation to duality of the brain in Interhemispheric Relations and Cerebral Dominance, V. B. Mountcastle (ed.), pp.208-213. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Dodgson, M.C. H. (1962), The Growing Brain; An Essay in Developmental Neurology. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore.
DuBrul, E. L. (1958), Evolution of the Speech Apparatus. C Thomas, Springfield, Illinois.
Duckworth, W. L. H.(1910), A note on sections of the lips of the primates, J. Anat. And Physiol. 44: 348:-353.
Feremutsch, K. (1963), Thalamus, in Primatologia; Handbook of Primatology, H. Hofer, A. H. Schultz, and D. Starck (eds.), Vol. II, part 2, fasc. 6. Karger, Basel.
Fink, B. R. and Kirschner, F. (1959), Observations on the acoustical and mechanical properties of the vocal folds, Folia Phoniatria 11: 167-172.
Goldstein, K. (1942), After-effects of Brain Injuries in War; Their Evalution an dTreatment, Grune and Stratton, New York.
Guiot, G., Hertzog, E, Rondot , P., and Molina, P. (1961), Arrest or acceleration of speech evoked by thalamic stimulation in the course of stereotaxic procedures for Parkinsonism, Brain 84:363-380
2008年10月31日 星期五
2008年10月28日 星期二
Karl Lashley
Karl Spencer Lashley (1890–1958), born in Davis, West Virginia, was an American psychologist and behaviorist well-remembered for his influential contributions to the study of learning and memory. His failure to find a single biological locus of memory (or "engram", as he called it) suggested to him that memories were not localized to one part of the brain, but were widely distributed throughout the cortex.
While working toward his Ph.D. in genetics at Johns Hopkins University, Karl Lashley became associated with the influential psychologist John B. Watson. During three years of postdoctoral work on vertebrate behavior (1914-17), he began formulating the research program that was to occupy the remainder of his life.
In 1920 he became an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, where his prolific research on brain function gained him a professorship in 1924. He was later a professor at the University of Chicago (1929-35) and Harvard University (1935-55) and also served as director of the Yerkes Laboratories of Primate Biology, Orange Park, Florida from 1942 to 1955.
His work included research on brain mechanisms related to sense receptors and on the cortical basis of motor activities. His major work was done on the measurement of behavior before and after specific, carefully quantified, induced cortical damage in rats. He trained rats to perform specific tasks (seeking a food reward), then lesioned varying portions of the rat cortex, either before or after the animals received the training depending upon the experiment. The amount of cortical tissue removed had specific effects on acquisition and retention of knowledge, but the location of the removed cortex had no effect on the rats' performance in the maze. This led Lashley to conclude that memories are not localized but widely distributed across the cortex.Today we know that distribution of engrams does in fact exist, however, the distribution is not equal across all cortical areas, as Lashley assumed. His study of the V1 (primary visual cortex) led him to believe that it was a site of learning and memory storage (i.e an engram) in the brain. He reached this erroneous conclusion due to imperfect lesioning methods.
By 1950, Lashley had distilled his research into two theories. The principle of "mass action" stated that the cerebral cortex acts as one—as a whole—in many types of learning. The principle of "equipotentiality" stated that if certain parts of the brain are damaged, other parts of the brain may take on the role of the damaged portion.
While working toward his Ph.D. in genetics at Johns Hopkins University, Karl Lashley became associated with the influential psychologist John B. Watson. During three years of postdoctoral work on vertebrate behavior (1914-17), he began formulating the research program that was to occupy the remainder of his life.
In 1920 he became an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, where his prolific research on brain function gained him a professorship in 1924. He was later a professor at the University of Chicago (1929-35) and Harvard University (1935-55) and also served as director of the Yerkes Laboratories of Primate Biology, Orange Park, Florida from 1942 to 1955.
His work included research on brain mechanisms related to sense receptors and on the cortical basis of motor activities. His major work was done on the measurement of behavior before and after specific, carefully quantified, induced cortical damage in rats. He trained rats to perform specific tasks (seeking a food reward), then lesioned varying portions of the rat cortex, either before or after the animals received the training depending upon the experiment. The amount of cortical tissue removed had specific effects on acquisition and retention of knowledge, but the location of the removed cortex had no effect on the rats' performance in the maze. This led Lashley to conclude that memories are not localized but widely distributed across the cortex.Today we know that distribution of engrams does in fact exist, however, the distribution is not equal across all cortical areas, as Lashley assumed. His study of the V1 (primary visual cortex) led him to believe that it was a site of learning and memory storage (i.e an engram) in the brain. He reached this erroneous conclusion due to imperfect lesioning methods.
By 1950, Lashley had distilled his research into two theories. The principle of "mass action" stated that the cerebral cortex acts as one—as a whole—in many types of learning. The principle of "equipotentiality" stated that if certain parts of the brain are damaged, other parts of the brain may take on the role of the damaged portion.
LB27伊津
LB27
A methodological general principle emerges from these considerations. Morphological characteristics of a species may be understood as a specialize form of the general (abstracted) type characteristic of the genus; each genus represents a special modification from the general structural pattern of the superordinate family; each family represents special deviations from the more general structural pattern of the order, etc. On the other hand, the systematic of behavior do not have the same hierarchical relationships. Discontinuities and unique traits are common; specializations of behavior seem to deviate more markedly from general patterns, and in many cases the specializations are so pronounced that the abstraction of general behavior types is impossible or hazardous.
This difference in structural as opposed to behavioral systematic may be entirely due to the limitations of human observation and insight. We can discern, visually, the relationship between forms; but the relationship of behavior escapes our powers of observation more easily. However this may be, it leads to the following methodological principle:
Knowledge of structure alone cannot lead to exact inference of behavior patterns (only general modes of life); but once behavior patterns are known, we can understand and explain by hindsight certain specialization of morphology.
This is a methodological formulation. It does not give clues to the direction of causality; it does not assert that behavior is prior to form or vice versa.
A methodological general principle emerges from these considerations. Morphological characteristics of a species may be understood as a specialize form of the general (abstracted) type characteristic of the genus; each genus represents a special modification from the general structural pattern of the superordinate family; each family represents special deviations from the more general structural pattern of the order, etc. On the other hand, the systematic of behavior do not have the same hierarchical relationships. Discontinuities and unique traits are common; specializations of behavior seem to deviate more markedly from general patterns, and in many cases the specializations are so pronounced that the abstraction of general behavior types is impossible or hazardous.
This difference in structural as opposed to behavioral systematic may be entirely due to the limitations of human observation and insight. We can discern, visually, the relationship between forms; but the relationship of behavior escapes our powers of observation more easily. However this may be, it leads to the following methodological principle:
Knowledge of structure alone cannot lead to exact inference of behavior patterns (only general modes of life); but once behavior patterns are known, we can understand and explain by hindsight certain specialization of morphology.
This is a methodological formulation. It does not give clues to the direction of causality; it does not assert that behavior is prior to form or vice versa.
LBT 26 伊津
The same is true of species-specific behavior. The form of spinnerets with their glands does not give any clue to the type of web a spider wives. From the beaver’s anatomy we could not have guessed that he builds dams. The architecture of a birds nest is, in most instances, unrelated to the animal’s morphology. Thus, types of behavior which no one would hesitate to call essentially biologically given are not determined simply by the animal’s form.對物種特有的行為而言也是如此，蜘蛛吐絲器以及其腺體的形式對蛛網的類型
，並沒有留下任何線索。從水獺的解剖學來看，我們猜不到他會建築水堤。鳥巢的建築結構，在多數的情形下，與鳥類的型態無關。於是，雖然任何人都會毫不猶豫的認為行為的類型本質上是由生物基礎決定的，但是行為的類型並非僅取決於動物的形式。
The reverse is true also. Certain morphological distinctions may exist between species which do not correspond to clearly related behavioral differences. The outer ear in primates is an example (see Fig. 1.2). With the exception of some specialized ear forms of certain prosimians, the auricles of primates developed in a number of directions that have no obvious adaptive value (to the human observer) and no relevance to any of the behavioral characteristics that distinguish these species.
反之亦然，某些形態的區別可能存在於不同物種之間，而這些區別並沒有清楚的對應到行為上的不同。靈長類的外耳即為一例。(見圖1.2)除了某些原猴類，他們特化的耳朵形式是例外，靈長類的耳廓朝著許多方向發展，這沒有明顯的適應性價值(對人類觀察者而言)，而且與區別這些物種的任何行為特徵也毫無相關。
It is clear, therefore, that neither our conviction that tissues and behavior constitute an organismic unity because of their common developmental history nor the established fact that genetic changes and speciation always affect form as well as function makes it necessary to assume a correlation between specialized organs and species-specific behavior. There are many types of instinctive behavior which have no structural correlates; and there are many structural distinctions between species which have no behavioral correlates. Thus there is necessarily a historical but not necessarily a casual relationship between gross structure and over-all behavior pattern. This point is important because it emphasizes once more the difficulty, if not complete impossibility, of setting up common sense criteria for the distinction between innate and acquired types of behavior.
因此，很清楚的，我們的兩個確信：1.基於共同的發展史，組織和行為構成有機的整體；2.基因改變和物種形成總是同時影響形式與功能，都不會讓我們非得認定特化的習慣和物種特有的行為有相互關係。有很多種本能性的行為是找不到相關聯的結構；而許多物種之間結構上的區別也找不到相關聯的行為。因此，在粗略的結構與整體的行為模式之間，必然有個歷史的但未必是因果的關係。這一點很重要，因為對於建立一個常識性的標準來區別天生的和習得的行為種類而言，以上的觀點再次的強調其困難，即便不是完全不可能。
，並沒有留下任何線索。從水獺的解剖學來看，我們猜不到他會建築水堤。鳥巢的建築結構，在多數的情形下，與鳥類的型態無關。於是，雖然任何人都會毫不猶豫的認為行為的類型本質上是由生物基礎決定的，但是行為的類型並非僅取決於動物的形式。
The reverse is true also. Certain morphological distinctions may exist between species which do not correspond to clearly related behavioral differences. The outer ear in primates is an example (see Fig. 1.2). With the exception of some specialized ear forms of certain prosimians, the auricles of primates developed in a number of directions that have no obvious adaptive value (to the human observer) and no relevance to any of the behavioral characteristics that distinguish these species.
反之亦然，某些形態的區別可能存在於不同物種之間，而這些區別並沒有清楚的對應到行為上的不同。靈長類的外耳即為一例。(見圖1.2)除了某些原猴類，他們特化的耳朵形式是例外，靈長類的耳廓朝著許多方向發展，這沒有明顯的適應性價值(對人類觀察者而言)，而且與區別這些物種的任何行為特徵也毫無相關。
It is clear, therefore, that neither our conviction that tissues and behavior constitute an organismic unity because of their common developmental history nor the established fact that genetic changes and speciation always affect form as well as function makes it necessary to assume a correlation between specialized organs and species-specific behavior. There are many types of instinctive behavior which have no structural correlates; and there are many structural distinctions between species which have no behavioral correlates. Thus there is necessarily a historical but not necessarily a casual relationship between gross structure and over-all behavior pattern. This point is important because it emphasizes once more the difficulty, if not complete impossibility, of setting up common sense criteria for the distinction between innate and acquired types of behavior.
因此，很清楚的，我們的兩個確信：1.基於共同的發展史，組織和行為構成有機的整體；2.基因改變和物種形成總是同時影響形式與功能，都不會讓我們非得認定特化的習慣和物種特有的行為有相互關係。有很多種本能性的行為是找不到相關聯的結構；而許多物種之間結構上的區別也找不到相關聯的行為。因此，在粗略的結構與整體的行為模式之間，必然有個歷史的但未必是因果的關係。這一點很重要，因為對於建立一個常識性的標準來區別天生的和習得的行為種類而言，以上的觀點再次的強調其困難，即便不是完全不可能。
2008年10月14日 星期二
LB100伊津
(P.100)
Each row corresponds to a specific muscle, label from a to f. Naturally, there are many more muscles involved in the speech act, just as an utterance consists usually of more than six speech sounds. This is merely a schema. A plus sign means contraction, zero means relaxation. If we assume silence and relaxation of all muscles before and after the production of each sound (for the sake of discussion), the matrix indicates that in order to produce soundⅠit will be necessary to contract muscles a, c, d, and e, for sound Ⅱ muscles a, b, c, f, etc.每一列對應到一個特定的肌肉，標記從a到f。當然有更多肌肉涉及了說話的動作，就如同說話通常是由多於六個語音組成。這只是一個圖式。加號意指收縮，0意指舒張。如果我們假設在每一個語音產出之前與之後，所有的肌肉是舒張的話(為了討論的需要)，那麼這個矩陣指出，為了要發出soundⅠ，必須要收縮肌肉a,c,d和e，要發出sound Ⅱ，必須收縮肌肉a,b,c,f，以此類推。
If the respective muscles are to be ready to contract simultaneously, that is, the motor action is to come in time to produce a given sound, impulses to some of the muscles will have to be fired earlier than others. Suppose we grouped all muscles into classes, alpha, beta, gamma, delta, in accordance with the time it takes impulses to reach them from the brain stem; the alpha class of muscles has an activation latency that is four time as long as the delta class, and beta and gamma three and two times as long respectively. *This is the operation performed in Fig. 3. 11. Since the activation latency is constant for each muscle, all entries in a given row in Fig. 3.10 are equally affected by it. The classification of muscles in Fig. 3.11 allows us to rearrange the entries of Fig. 3.10 in such a way as to show which muscular event must occur at which point in time (assuming equal duration of all sounds). All we need to do is to shift each row leftward by a given factor, and now we have a matrix in which the columns are consecutive time segments. This matrix indicates that if a string of sounds I to VI is to be produced consecutively and if the muscles fall into latency classes as shown to the left of the matrix, then the first neuronal event to occur is the firing of impulses for contraction of muscle e during time segment 1; the next event during time segment 2, is contraction of muscles b and c, but relaxation of e. During the following time segment, muscles b, c, d, and e must be contracted, but not f; and so forth down the dimension of time, that is, down the columns from left to right.
如果個別的肌肉必須要準備好同時收縮，也就是說運動活動(motor action)要及時產出一個特定的語音，流向某些肌肉的神經衝動得要較早發出。假諾我們把所有肌肉按照神經衝動到達它們的時間分組為alpha, beta, gamma, delta四組，alpha組的肌肉激活延遲所需時間四倍於delta組，而beta組和gamma組個自為三倍和兩倍。這是圖3.1呈現的作用。因為激活延遲對於每個肌肉是恒定的，所以會相同地影響特定一列的全部項目。圖3.11中的肌肉分類讓我們得以重新安排圖3.10來表明在哪個時點上，哪個肌肉事件必定會出現(假設所有語音有相同的長度)。我們只需要把每一列往左移動特定的數量，於是我們就有了一個矩陣，在這之中欄位是連續的時間區塊。這個矩陣指出，如果要連續地發出一串從I to VI的語音，同時，如果涉及的肌肉在延遲分類落內矩陣的左端，那麼將發生的第一個神經事件是在時間區塊1發出肌肉e收縮的神經衝動；在時間區塊2發生的下一個事件是是肌肉b和c的收縮，但肌肉e舒張了。在接下來的時間區塊當中肌肉b,c,d和必須收縮，但f不需要；在時間面向上以此類推，也就是說，自左至右窮盡每一欄。
LB393T伊津
Recognition of syntactic patterns cannot be accomplished on basis of probability statistics (Chomsky and Miller, 1963; Chomsky 1963; Miller and Chomsky, 1963). The rules that underly syntax (which are the same for understanding and speaking) are of a very specific kind, and unless man or mechanical devices do their processing of incoming sentences in accordance with these rules, the logical, formal, analysis of the input will be deficient, resulting in incorrect or random responses. When we say rules must have been built into the grammatical analyzer, we impute the existence of an apparatus with specific structure properties or, in other words, a spectic internal organization.辨示句法樣式不能以機率統計為基礎而達成(Chomsky and Miller, 1963; Chomsky 1963; Miller and Chomsky, 1963)，構成句法之基礎的規則(和用來理解和說話的規則相同)屬於一種非常特定的規則，除非人類或者是機械儀器按照這些規則來處理接收到的句子，對於這些輸入的邏輯、形式的分析將會是不足的，因而導致不正確或者隨機的反應。當我們說規則必須內建於語法分析器時，我們設想存在一個器官，它具有特定結構的特性，或者換言之，具有特定的內在組織。In a certain sense all organisms are self-organizing systems. And, therefore, the question that faces us is, “What is the degree of freedom with which the specific organization necessary for language processing comes into being.” If the freedom were unlimited, the nature of man would unlimited in its capacities. This must be rejected for obvious reasons. There is no other organism with unlimited capacities and we no longer believe that man is different from other creatures in such fundamental ways. In fact, there is no possible way in which we could think of a device, natural or artificial, that is free from all structural limitations. At best we may assume that a certain mechanism has the capacity to organize itself in more than one way (that is, depending on certain conditions of input, it may eventually be operating in any one of a number of possible modes). This formulation makes it clear that in any case we must assume a biological matrix with specifiable characteristics that determines the outcome of any treatment to which the organism is subjected. Thus the search for innate properties is well within the scope biological inquiry.在某種意義上，所有的有機體都是自我組織的系統。於是，我們面對的問題就是，”一個特定的組織得要有什麼樣的自由度，才能夠處理語言。”如果這項自由度沒有設限的話，那麼人類的天性會有無限的能力。這種情形基於一些很明顯的理由會被駁斥。世上沒有其他有機體具有無限制的能力，而我們也不再相信人類和其他生物有什麼根本上的不同。事實上，我們找不到可能的方法去設想出一個裝置能夠免於所有結構上的限制，無論其屬於自然或人工的。我們最多只能推想有某種機制，它有能力以不只一種方式來組織自己(也就是說，根據某些輸入的條件，它最終會以許多可能模式中的一種來運作)。這個構想說明了，在任何情況下，我們都必須假設有一個生物學的矩陣，它具有可加以特定的特徵，而這樣的特徵可以決定有機物所受的任何遭遇會有何結果。於是，對於內在能力的探索是包含在生物學研究的範圍之內。
Each row corresponds to a specific muscle, label from a to f. Naturally, there are many more muscles involved in the speech act, just as an utterance consists usually of more than six speech sounds. This is merely a schema. A plus sign means contraction, zero means relaxation. If we assume silence and relaxation of all muscles before and after the production of each sound (for the sake of discussion), the matrix indicates that in order to produce soundⅠit will be necessary to contract muscles a, c, d, and e, for sound Ⅱ muscles a, b, c, f, etc.每一列對應到一個特定的肌肉，標記從a到f。當然有更多肌肉涉及了說話的動作，就如同說話通常是由多於六個語音組成。這只是一個圖式。加號意指收縮，0意指舒張。如果我們假設在每一個語音產出之前與之後，所有的肌肉是舒張的話(為了討論的需要)，那麼這個矩陣指出，為了要發出soundⅠ，必須要收縮肌肉a,c,d和e，要發出sound Ⅱ，必須收縮肌肉a,b,c,f，以此類推。
If the respective muscles are to be ready to contract simultaneously, that is, the motor action is to come in time to produce a given sound, impulses to some of the muscles will have to be fired earlier than others. Suppose we grouped all muscles into classes, alpha, beta, gamma, delta, in accordance with the time it takes impulses to reach them from the brain stem; the alpha class of muscles has an activation latency that is four time as long as the delta class, and beta and gamma three and two times as long respectively. *This is the operation performed in Fig. 3. 11. Since the activation latency is constant for each muscle, all entries in a given row in Fig. 3.10 are equally affected by it. The classification of muscles in Fig. 3.11 allows us to rearrange the entries of Fig. 3.10 in such a way as to show which muscular event must occur at which point in time (assuming equal duration of all sounds). All we need to do is to shift each row leftward by a given factor, and now we have a matrix in which the columns are consecutive time segments. This matrix indicates that if a string of sounds I to VI is to be produced consecutively and if the muscles fall into latency classes as shown to the left of the matrix, then the first neuronal event to occur is the firing of impulses for contraction of muscle e during time segment 1; the next event during time segment 2, is contraction of muscles b and c, but relaxation of e. During the following time segment, muscles b, c, d, and e must be contracted, but not f; and so forth down the dimension of time, that is, down the columns from left to right.
如果個別的肌肉必須要準備好同時收縮，也就是說運動活動(motor action)要及時產出一個特定的語音，流向某些肌肉的神經衝動得要較早發出。假諾我們把所有肌肉按照神經衝動到達它們的時間分組為alpha, beta, gamma, delta四組，alpha組的肌肉激活延遲所需時間四倍於delta組，而beta組和gamma組個自為三倍和兩倍。這是圖3.1呈現的作用。因為激活延遲對於每個肌肉是恒定的，所以會相同地影響特定一列的全部項目。圖3.11中的肌肉分類讓我們得以重新安排圖3.10來表明在哪個時點上，哪個肌肉事件必定會出現(假設所有語音有相同的長度)。我們只需要把每一列往左移動特定的數量，於是我們就有了一個矩陣，在這之中欄位是連續的時間區塊。這個矩陣指出，如果要連續地發出一串從I to VI的語音，同時，如果涉及的肌肉在延遲分類落內矩陣的左端，那麼將發生的第一個神經事件是在時間區塊1發出肌肉e收縮的神經衝動；在時間區塊2發生的下一個事件是是肌肉b和c的收縮，但肌肉e舒張了。在接下來的時間區塊當中肌肉b,c,d和必須收縮，但f不需要；在時間面向上以此類推，也就是說，自左至右窮盡每一欄。
LB393T伊津
Recognition of syntactic patterns cannot be accomplished on basis of probability statistics (Chomsky and Miller, 1963; Chomsky 1963; Miller and Chomsky, 1963). The rules that underly syntax (which are the same for understanding and speaking) are of a very specific kind, and unless man or mechanical devices do their processing of incoming sentences in accordance with these rules, the logical, formal, analysis of the input will be deficient, resulting in incorrect or random responses. When we say rules must have been built into the grammatical analyzer, we impute the existence of an apparatus with specific structure properties or, in other words, a spectic internal organization.辨示句法樣式不能以機率統計為基礎而達成(Chomsky and Miller, 1963; Chomsky 1963; Miller and Chomsky, 1963)，構成句法之基礎的規則(和用來理解和說話的規則相同)屬於一種非常特定的規則，除非人類或者是機械儀器按照這些規則來處理接收到的句子，對於這些輸入的邏輯、形式的分析將會是不足的，因而導致不正確或者隨機的反應。當我們說規則必須內建於語法分析器時，我們設想存在一個器官，它具有特定結構的特性，或者換言之，具有特定的內在組織。In a certain sense all organisms are self-organizing systems. And, therefore, the question that faces us is, “What is the degree of freedom with which the specific organization necessary for language processing comes into being.” If the freedom were unlimited, the nature of man would unlimited in its capacities. This must be rejected for obvious reasons. There is no other organism with unlimited capacities and we no longer believe that man is different from other creatures in such fundamental ways. In fact, there is no possible way in which we could think of a device, natural or artificial, that is free from all structural limitations. At best we may assume that a certain mechanism has the capacity to organize itself in more than one way (that is, depending on certain conditions of input, it may eventually be operating in any one of a number of possible modes). This formulation makes it clear that in any case we must assume a biological matrix with specifiable characteristics that determines the outcome of any treatment to which the organism is subjected. Thus the search for innate properties is well within the scope biological inquiry.在某種意義上，所有的有機體都是自我組織的系統。於是，我們面對的問題就是，”一個特定的組織得要有什麼樣的自由度，才能夠處理語言。”如果這項自由度沒有設限的話，那麼人類的天性會有無限的能力。這種情形基於一些很明顯的理由會被駁斥。世上沒有其他有機體具有無限制的能力，而我們也不再相信人類和其他生物有什麼根本上的不同。事實上，我們找不到可能的方法去設想出一個裝置能夠免於所有結構上的限制，無論其屬於自然或人工的。我們最多只能推想有某種機制，它有能力以不只一種方式來組織自己(也就是說，根據某些輸入的條件，它最終會以許多可能模式中的一種來運作)。這個構想說明了，在任何情況下，我們都必須假設有一個生物學的矩陣，它具有可加以特定的特徵，而這樣的特徵可以決定有機物所受的任何遭遇會有何結果。於是，對於內在能力的探索是包含在生物學研究的範圍之內。
LB099T伊津
LB099T伊津
Lashley was aware of the physiological nature of the problem and discussed it in considerable detail. He advanced an argument against chain association which has been referred to frequently but which, by itself, could be explained away by proposing certain theoretical constructs. He argued that the motor events in certain fast skills, such as playing the piano or snapping the fingers, follow one another at such a fast rate that there would be no time for neural messages to go from the periphery to the brain and there elicit the next response. From Table 3.4 we may deduce that this argument also holds to a certain extent for the rate of speech movements. But auditory feedback greatly speeds up reafferentation and thus minimizes the time problem even though it does not eliminate it. Theoretically, however, this aspect of the problem is not unsurmountable if we assume, as we believe mediation theory does, that the sequential association is between events entirely contained within the brain. Suppose nervous event A triggered nervous event B, both in the cortex of the left hemisphere; now the conduction time between these cortical events would be negligible. This assumption is neurologically naïve (see Chapter Five) and it also does not overcome other, more fundamental objections to the associational model, namely to explain every speaker’s ability to anticipate events yet to come.
Lashley察覺這個問題有生物學的本質，並且作了詳盡的討論。他提出一個論證來反對鏈型組合，鏈型組合雖然時常被提及，但是其本身可以藉由某些理論建構的提出來作解釋以反駁之。他主張在某些高速技巧中的運動事件(像是彈鋼琴或是彈手指)，以這麼高的速率一個接一個發生，以至於神經訊息不會有時間從周邊回到大腦而能夠引發下一個反應。從表3.4我們可以推論出這樣的論點在某程度上對於說話速度的速率也能成立。但是聽覺回饋大大地加速了reafferentation於是將時間的問題最小化，即便沒有完全消除。然而，理論上，此問題的這一面向並非無法克服，只要我們假設接續性的組合是處在全然發生在大腦中的事件之間，如同我們相信默想理論也是如此。假設神經事件A誘發神經事件B，而這兩者都在左半腦的皮質上；現在這些皮質事件之間的傳導時間會是可以忽略的。這個假設在神經科學上是天真的(見第五章)而且也不能克服其它對於組合式模型更基本的異議，亦即解釋所有說話者預測尚未發生事件的能力。
We may illustrate the problem in this way: let us think of a speech act (such as repeating any given word) as an assembly of four distinct processes as shown in Fig. 3.9. In the first process acoustic energy variations are received and analyzed into language-function units called phonemes. The details of this process need not concern us here. In the second process an inventory is made of all the muscle which enter into the production of each speech sound. (These processes are, of course, not “real physiological events” but theoretical stages that help us visualize the complications of speech production.) A more detailed diagram of the second process is shown in Fig. 3.10. Each column represents one speech sound.
我們也許可以用這樣的方式來說明這個問題：讓我們把一個說話的動作(像是重覆任一個給定的詞)想成是四個不同的過程(如圖3.9所示)。在第一個過程當中，聲的差異被接收到而且被分析為語言-功能單位，稱之為音位。在此我們不需要關注這個過程的細節。在第二個過程中，產生了所有參與語音產出的所有肌肉的清單。(當然，這些過程不是”實際上的生理學事件”，而是幫助我們把語言產生的紛雜具像化的理論性階段。)有關第二個過程更詳細的圖表可見於圖3.10。每一欄呈現了一個語音。
Lashley was aware of the physiological nature of the problem and discussed it in considerable detail. He advanced an argument against chain association which has been referred to frequently but which, by itself, could be explained away by proposing certain theoretical constructs. He argued that the motor events in certain fast skills, such as playing the piano or snapping the fingers, follow one another at such a fast rate that there would be no time for neural messages to go from the periphery to the brain and there elicit the next response. From Table 3.4 we may deduce that this argument also holds to a certain extent for the rate of speech movements. But auditory feedback greatly speeds up reafferentation and thus minimizes the time problem even though it does not eliminate it. Theoretically, however, this aspect of the problem is not unsurmountable if we assume, as we believe mediation theory does, that the sequential association is between events entirely contained within the brain. Suppose nervous event A triggered nervous event B, both in the cortex of the left hemisphere; now the conduction time between these cortical events would be negligible. This assumption is neurologically naïve (see Chapter Five) and it also does not overcome other, more fundamental objections to the associational model, namely to explain every speaker’s ability to anticipate events yet to come.
Lashley察覺這個問題有生物學的本質，並且作了詳盡的討論。他提出一個論證來反對鏈型組合，鏈型組合雖然時常被提及，但是其本身可以藉由某些理論建構的提出來作解釋以反駁之。他主張在某些高速技巧中的運動事件(像是彈鋼琴或是彈手指)，以這麼高的速率一個接一個發生，以至於神經訊息不會有時間從周邊回到大腦而能夠引發下一個反應。從表3.4我們可以推論出這樣的論點在某程度上對於說話速度的速率也能成立。但是聽覺回饋大大地加速了reafferentation於是將時間的問題最小化，即便沒有完全消除。然而，理論上，此問題的這一面向並非無法克服，只要我們假設接續性的組合是處在全然發生在大腦中的事件之間，如同我們相信默想理論也是如此。假設神經事件A誘發神經事件B，而這兩者都在左半腦的皮質上；現在這些皮質事件之間的傳導時間會是可以忽略的。這個假設在神經科學上是天真的(見第五章)而且也不能克服其它對於組合式模型更基本的異議，亦即解釋所有說話者預測尚未發生事件的能力。
We may illustrate the problem in this way: let us think of a speech act (such as repeating any given word) as an assembly of four distinct processes as shown in Fig. 3.9. In the first process acoustic energy variations are received and analyzed into language-function units called phonemes. The details of this process need not concern us here. In the second process an inventory is made of all the muscle which enter into the production of each speech sound. (These processes are, of course, not “real physiological events” but theoretical stages that help us visualize the complications of speech production.) A more detailed diagram of the second process is shown in Fig. 3.10. Each column represents one speech sound.
我們也許可以用這樣的方式來說明這個問題：讓我們把一個說話的動作(像是重覆任一個給定的詞)想成是四個不同的過程(如圖3.9所示)。在第一個過程當中，聲的差異被接收到而且被分析為語言-功能單位，稱之為音位。在此我們不需要關注這個過程的細節。在第二個過程中，產生了所有參與語音產出的所有肌肉的清單。(當然，這些過程不是”實際上的生理學事件”，而是幫助我們把語言產生的紛雜具像化的理論性階段。)有關第二個過程更詳細的圖表可見於圖3.10。每一欄呈現了一個語音。
LB 98 伊津 IV. PROBLEM ARISING FROM RATE AND ORDERING
IV. PROBLEM ARISING FROM RATE AND ORDERING
Karl Lashley(1951) was the first to recognize clearly the problems raised by the fast rate of movements and the ordering of motor events; the solution presented here is essentially similar to this.
Karl Lashley(1951)第一個清楚地認識到由於動作快速的頻率和運動事作的排序所引起的問題；這裡提出的解決方案本質與此相似。We have postulated some automatisms that are responsible for the fast sequence of movements in speech (as well as many other type of motor behavior). What might the nature of such automatism be? Could it be an associative sequential process? Disregarding for the time being our inability to define association neurophysiologically, from a logical point of view, let us see whether temporal association might account for the facts. The formal characteristic of the associational automatism to be considered is that events occur in chains. For instance, a stimulus is followed by a response; the response then acts as a new stimulus (perhaps because the subject has heard himself say something or feels his own muscles move) which in turn elicits another response; this again becomes a stimulus which is followed by a response, and thus a chain reaction is produced.
我們已假設某些自動作用是說話中快速的連串動作(也是其他類型的運動的原因)的原因。這樣的自動作用的本質為何?它可能是組合性的連續過程嗎?暫且不管我們不能就神經生理學上來定義組合(association), 從一個邏輯的觀點，讓我們看看是否時間上的組合可以解釋以上的事實。我們要考慮的組合性自動作用的形式特徵是事件的發生像是一連串。舉例來說，一個刺激之後跟著一個反應，這個反應接著又作為一個新的刺激(或許是因為受試者已經聽到自己說了什麼或者感覺自己的肌肉有動作)，而這個新的刺激接著又引發另一個反應；這個新的反應又再度成為一個刺激，而後又跟一個反應，於是一個連鎖反應就發生了。
Generally speaking, any one event is triggered by one or more events that had preceded it. For instance, in the application of this principle to phonology, one phoneme is thought to heighten the probability of producing a given other one (by virtue of earlier temporal contiguity in the experience of the organism); but once a phoneme has been produced, it cannot be modified, logically, by phonemes yet to come. Thus this model (let us call it the sequential chain model) may account for modifications or occurrences ”down stream,” namely as consequences of earlier articulatory or phonological events; however, it is unable to account for the phenomenon of anticipation. Nevertheless, articulatory anticipation is a reality as indicated by the pathological example cited previously, and there are cogent physiological reasons that force us to adopt a model that can account as easily for anticipation in articulatory output as modification due to earlier occurrences.一般而言，任一事件都是由該事件之前的一項或者更多的事件所觸發。舉例來說，這項原則如應用於音韻學中，一個音位會被認為提高發出另一個特定音位的機率(by virtue of earlier temporal contiguity in the experience of the organism)；然而一旦一個音位已被發出，邏輯上來說，它就不能被尚未發出的音位調整。因此這個模型(讓我們稱之為連續鏈模型)可以解釋下游的調整和事件，也就是作為較早的發音或音韻事件的結果；然而，它並不能解釋預期同化(anticipation)的現象。不過，發音的預期同化，如同先前引用的病理案例指出，是一個事實，而且有確切的生理學理由促使我們採用一個模型，它不但可以輕易地解釋發音產出的預期同化也可以解釋基於較早事件而來的調整。The reality of anticipation is best seen in the fact that a given initial sound, say /k/ has different acoustic qualities (in English) if followed by an /i/ than when followed by an /u/. Chomsky (1957) has also shown that a sequential chain model is incapable of accounting for almost any aspect of syntax (see Chapter Seven and Appendix), but here we are more concerned with physiological reasons for rejecting the sequential chain model.
預期同化(anticipation)的現實於以下的事實可以最清楚的看出來，一個給定的起始音，像是/k/，其後的音是/i/或/u/會有不同的聲學性質(在英語的情形中)。Chomsky (1957)也已指出一個連續鏈狀的模型幾乎無法解釋句法的任何方面，但是，我們在此更關注的是能夠駁斥連續鏈狀模型的生理學理由。
Karl Lashley(1951) was the first to recognize clearly the problems raised by the fast rate of movements and the ordering of motor events; the solution presented here is essentially similar to this.
Karl Lashley(1951)第一個清楚地認識到由於動作快速的頻率和運動事作的排序所引起的問題；這裡提出的解決方案本質與此相似。We have postulated some automatisms that are responsible for the fast sequence of movements in speech (as well as many other type of motor behavior). What might the nature of such automatism be? Could it be an associative sequential process? Disregarding for the time being our inability to define association neurophysiologically, from a logical point of view, let us see whether temporal association might account for the facts. The formal characteristic of the associational automatism to be considered is that events occur in chains. For instance, a stimulus is followed by a response; the response then acts as a new stimulus (perhaps because the subject has heard himself say something or feels his own muscles move) which in turn elicits another response; this again becomes a stimulus which is followed by a response, and thus a chain reaction is produced.
我們已假設某些自動作用是說話中快速的連串動作(也是其他類型的運動的原因)的原因。這樣的自動作用的本質為何?它可能是組合性的連續過程嗎?暫且不管我們不能就神經生理學上來定義組合(association), 從一個邏輯的觀點，讓我們看看是否時間上的組合可以解釋以上的事實。我們要考慮的組合性自動作用的形式特徵是事件的發生像是一連串。舉例來說，一個刺激之後跟著一個反應，這個反應接著又作為一個新的刺激(或許是因為受試者已經聽到自己說了什麼或者感覺自己的肌肉有動作)，而這個新的刺激接著又引發另一個反應；這個新的反應又再度成為一個刺激，而後又跟一個反應，於是一個連鎖反應就發生了。
Generally speaking, any one event is triggered by one or more events that had preceded it. For instance, in the application of this principle to phonology, one phoneme is thought to heighten the probability of producing a given other one (by virtue of earlier temporal contiguity in the experience of the organism); but once a phoneme has been produced, it cannot be modified, logically, by phonemes yet to come. Thus this model (let us call it the sequential chain model) may account for modifications or occurrences ”down stream,” namely as consequences of earlier articulatory or phonological events; however, it is unable to account for the phenomenon of anticipation. Nevertheless, articulatory anticipation is a reality as indicated by the pathological example cited previously, and there are cogent physiological reasons that force us to adopt a model that can account as easily for anticipation in articulatory output as modification due to earlier occurrences.一般而言，任一事件都是由該事件之前的一項或者更多的事件所觸發。舉例來說，這項原則如應用於音韻學中，一個音位會被認為提高發出另一個特定音位的機率(by virtue of earlier temporal contiguity in the experience of the organism)；然而一旦一個音位已被發出，邏輯上來說，它就不能被尚未發出的音位調整。因此這個模型(讓我們稱之為連續鏈模型)可以解釋下游的調整和事件，也就是作為較早的發音或音韻事件的結果；然而，它並不能解釋預期同化(anticipation)的現象。不過，發音的預期同化，如同先前引用的病理案例指出，是一個事實，而且有確切的生理學理由促使我們採用一個模型，它不但可以輕易地解釋發音產出的預期同化也可以解釋基於較早事件而來的調整。The reality of anticipation is best seen in the fact that a given initial sound, say /k/ has different acoustic qualities (in English) if followed by an /i/ than when followed by an /u/. Chomsky (1957) has also shown that a sequential chain model is incapable of accounting for almost any aspect of syntax (see Chapter Seven and Appendix), but here we are more concerned with physiological reasons for rejecting the sequential chain model.
預期同化(anticipation)的現實於以下的事實可以最清楚的看出來，一個給定的起始音，像是/k/，其後的音是/i/或/u/會有不同的聲學性質(在英語的情形中)。Chomsky (1957)也已指出一個連續鏈狀的模型幾乎無法解釋句法的任何方面，但是，我們在此更關注的是能夠駁斥連續鏈狀模型的生理學理由。
2008年10月1日 星期三
Ernst Walter Mayr
Ernst Walter Mayr (July 5, 1904, Kempten, Germany – February 3, 2005, Bedford, Massachusetts U.S.), was one of the 20th century's leading evolutionary biologists. He was also a renowned taxonomist, tropical explorer, ornithologist, historian of science, and naturalist. His work contributed to the conceptual revolution that led to the modern evolutionary synthesis of Mendelian genetics, systematics, and Darwinian evolution, and to the development of the biological species concept.
Neither Darwin nor anyone else in his time knew the answer to the species problem: how multiple species could evolve from a single common ancestor. Ernst Mayr approached the problem with a new definition for the concept species. In his book Systematics and the Origin of Species (1942) he wrote that a species is not just a group of morphologically similar individuals, but a group that can breed only among themselves, excluding all others. When populations of organisms get isolated, the sub-populations will start to differ by genetic drift and natural selection over a period of time, and thereby evolve into new species. The most significant and rapid genetic reorganization occurs in extremely small populations that have been isolated (as on islands).
His theory of peripatric speciation (a more precise form of allopatric speciation which he advanced) based on his work on birds, is still considered a leading mode of speciation, and was the theoretical underpinning for the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Mayr is generally credited with inventing the modern philosophy of biology, particularly of evolutionary biology, which he distinguished from physics, for its introduction of (natural) history into science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mayr
http://www.bookrags.com/biography/ernst-mayr/
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/people/ernst_mayr.html
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)