Neurolinguistics has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 05:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Why are people trying to push NLP out of the article? Its unreasonable. NLP has had the best track record of any application of neurolinguistics. Clients have given the most praise for this subject. It certainly should be included. Mindstore 03:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
NLP is a practical useage of neurolinguistics. Brain balancing, advanced neurodynamics. NLP is a new science and practice. Mindstore 02:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
NLP is a modern-day quackery, in my view, totally unrelated to any science. Show me any NLP-related studies in peer-reviewed neuroscience journals which show its effectivenes, and I will change my opinion.-- CopperKettle 08:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello CopperKettle. Here are some studies on NLP that appear in journals relevant to neurolinguistics.
0Beck, Charles E.; Beck, Elizabeth A. (1984) Test of the eye movement hypothesis of Neurolinguistic Programming: a rebuttal of conclusions. Perceptual and Motor Skills; Feb Vol 58(1) 175-176
Farmer, A.; Rooney, R.; Cunningham, J.R. (1985) Hypothesized eye movements of Neurolinguistic Programming: a statistical artifact. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 717-718
They both state that NLP proponents make claims that they are related to neurolinguistics. I notice that quite a few sources on the web actually do claim that NLP is related to neurolinguistics eg [1]. There are also views of neurolinguists that NLP has nothing to do with NLP. I think a couple of lines would help clarify that point. Wikipedia shouldn't have an opinion on that matter. Both views can be presented briefly. Docleaf 08:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
This section is so awful it might as well be removed entirely.
1. Neurolinguistics is a genuinely scientific field of study of brain physiology in relation to various aspects of language acquisition and loss.
Neuro-Linguistic Programming is (a) about human communications, (b) absolutely NOTHING to do with neurology, (c) categorically NOT scientific. These points are made absolutely clear in "Frogs into Princes" (Bandler and Grinder, 1979) when they talk about their role as modellers.
2. Thus, as Mark observed, the claim that NLP has been "forced out" of this article on Neurolinguistics is nonsense, NLP was never relevant in the first place.
3. On a somewhat pedantic note, according to one ancestor of NLP (Alfred Korzybski), the names alone should be sufficient to point out the very basic difference between the two subjects. "Neuro-Linguistic Programming" refers to a partnership between two separate subjects - how language (linguistics) influences our behaviour on the basis of how our brains (Neuro) are affected (programmed) by what we hear and say.
Neurolinguistics is all of a piece (as it's proponents would presumably agree), being a study of the relationship between language (linguistics) and the physical structure of the brain. The term "neurolinguistics", though it may have been used informally beforehand, isw said to have been coined by Harry Whitiker for his "Journal of Neurolinguistics" which first appeared in 1985 - about ten years after Richard Bandler opted for the name "Neuro-Linguistic Programming".
Unfortunately, in the discussion above, both sides are mistaken. NLP was, from birth, valid - for one very simple reason. It has always been a collection of concepts and techniques ALREADY IN USE by acknowledged expert communicators. There are a few extra techniques, but those are developments of techniques already shown to be successful.
On the other side, whilst a handful of NLP-related techniques have featured in a variety of psychology-oriented magazines and journals since around 1977, up until just a few weeks ago, there has NEVER, AFAIK, been anything about NLP in any professional Neurolinguistics publication. Likewise Docleaf is mistaken about the claims made by Beck & Back and Farmer et al. Beck & Beck, for example, certainly don't use the word "linguistics" anywhere in their article, not least, I imagine, because it wasn't in common usage in 1984 (see above).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.178.105 ( talk) 07:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The
Computational modeling section talks about CM without ever saying what it is. This is an issue, for obvious reasons.
Politizer (
talk) 02:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Needs to go further back--discussing, for example, phrenology and similar fields that led to the idea that the brain is divided up functionally. Or, at the very least, link to
Neuroscience#History using the {{Main article}} template.
Politizer (
talk) 02:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
This section is full of Noam Chomsky stuff (
Noam Chomsky,
universal grammar,
generative grammar), and he is not even a neurolinguist (and I hear rumors that he doesn't even get along with most of them. {{fact}}!). Yet it doesn't link to pages on brain imaging, any landmark studies or major areas/centers/processes identified in the brain, or other people who were highly influential in the field (i.e., Wernicke). So this section could obviously use some editing, as well.
A section on the relevance of neurolinguistics to other linguistic fields, and the interaction between the fields; a section on what influence neurolinguistics has had on real-life issues (ie,
speech pathology, for examples); mention of some landmark studies (I mean, this article doesn't even mention Wernicke, who any college intro linguistics student knows).
Politizer (
talk) 02:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a beginning. Trying to find something relevant.
— Mattisse ( Talk) 00:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm also wondering if it might be useful to take the Experimental design section and spin it into another article, with a brief summary and a {{ main}} link here.... but maybe it would be better to hold off on that until I've expanded more parts of the article (like, I still need to get around to writing a section on some of the big issues that are being researched a lot now), since right now I don't think the article size is a problem yet. — Politizer talk/ contribs 01:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
That unreferenced section in the article has been bugging me for a while. I don't know anything about computational modeling, so for now I'm just throwing down some sites/books I just found that might be usable as references; if anyone knows more about this subject you're welcome to help with going through them. I didn't want to just remove or comment out the section, but if we can't find any good refs it might have to come to that :S
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: others (
link) — book; the write-up online doesn't have much info but the book itself might{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) — another bookPolitizer talk/ contribs 15:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
One other important methodology in the cognitive neuroscience of language is computational modeling, which can demonstrate the plausibility or implausibility of specific hypotheses about the neural organization of language while generating novel predictions for further empirical research. Rather than deriving a mathematical analytical solution to the problem of language, experimentation with computational modeling is done by changing the parameters of the system in a computer, and studying the differences in the outcome of the experiments. Theories about the brain's computations can then be deduced from these computational experiments. Currently, computational modelers are collaborating increasingly with brain imagers and psychologists in coordinated, interdisciplinary programs of research. Such programs have yielded important new insights into the nature of language, as well as major language disorders affecting millions, such as stuttering and dyslexia.
This explanation in the "active distraction" section has not been appropriately integrated in the text by Politizer. It seems that Politizer still does not understand the text. Thus is it appropriate to revert back to the original text. Can someone help reword it so that it is better understood by the layman? 137.163.19.99 ( talk) 14:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Regrettably inaccurately. 137.163.19.99 ( talk) 14:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
A quote, "Anyway, thanks for devoting your time to Wikipedia. There are very few Psychology academics who do, with the result that most of the Psychology information is very bad. I alternate between hope and despair over my involvement with Wikipedia. I hope that this is a useful medium through which to communicate science to the public, but I despair that most other academics regard it as a complete waste of time, that the scale of the task is so huge, and that the pearls you and I cast into it will be obscured by ill-meaning, and even well-meaning, swine.". 137.163.19.99 ( talk) 11:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
One of the other main contributors to the MMN article. The content seems rather objective, the author's name is in confidence and so the quote shall remain anonymous. There is nothing personal to be found in there; just a comment upon the state-of-affairs for Wikipedia. When looking for context, this can be found by reading and understanding the literature, which I understand can be a terrible burden upon a graduate student, whose most important work is yet to come. Hope this all goes well. Back to work. 128.214.205.5 ( talk) 15:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
It is hoped that these words can be seen as encouragement to an increased consideration of appropriate balanced accurate content. Different people write about the same thing in a manner that is more accessible to different people. But, better not to lose the intended meaning entirely. On a personal note, I am pleased to have finally graduated as a sock puppet! 128.214.205.5 ( talk) 15:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Ed used the word sock. The 'war' was entirely fought inside Politizer's head. There seems no reason to become embroiled in some daftly official wiki-process about that. Please feel encouraged to open your mind to genuine content and not be insulted. 128.214.205.5 ( talk) 16:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Stumbled across a review article that looks like it will be useful here (especially in the History, Brain Imaging, and Experimental Design sections); haven't had time to read it carefully yet, sticking it here for future reference.
Politizer talk/ contribs 19:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll be doing this GA review. Will need a few days to read the article carefully, but plan to be done by Wednesday. Sasata ( talk) 23:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
After making substantial improvements to the article, it now fully meets GA standards. Article passed. Sasata ( talk) 15:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Subfield | Description | Research questions in neurolinguistics |
---|---|---|
Phonetics | the study of speech sounds | how the brain extracts speech sounds from an acoustic signal |
Phonology | the study of how sounds are organized in a language | how the phonological system of a particular language is represented in the brain |
Morphology and lexicology | the study of how words are structured and stored in the mental lexicon | how the brain accesses words that a person knows |
Syntax | the study of how multiple-word utterances are constructed | how the brain combines words into constituents and sentences; how structural and semantic information is used in understanding sentences |
Semantics | the study of how meaning is encoded in language |
Refs need a copyedit to standardize formatting. Check comma/semicolon usage, presence/absence of quote marks around journal article titles, capitalization in article titles (eg. ref #29), ndashes for page ranges (eg. ref#16), consistency of author name abbreviation, placement of "and" before final author name, missing page #'s (ref #61), etc., etc.
I'll put the article on hold for the standard seven days to address the suggestions above. Have fun! Sasata ( talk) 06:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The opening paragraph in “Neurolinguistics” is generally well written though it could use some reorganization. The last sentence would be better placed earlier on, as it creates some disjunction in its current position. It is an important factor in understanding neurolinguistics, more key than some of the earlier provided information, and should appear earlier.
Though the overall structure of the article is satisfying I find the structure within the section “Neurolinguistics as a discipline” would be more logical if the two subsections were reversed (“Topics considered” coming first and “Interaction with other fields” coming second). On the other hand, I do feel that the subsection “Topics considered” is closely related to the section “Technology used,” and current organization places those two fields near each other. Perhaps a better solution would be to give “Interaction with other fields” its own section entirely to create the best flow in the article.
Briannah J (
talk) 18:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Neurolinguistics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.maccs.mq.edu.au/~scrain/papers/GALA%2704.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Neurolinguistics has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 05:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Why are people trying to push NLP out of the article? Its unreasonable. NLP has had the best track record of any application of neurolinguistics. Clients have given the most praise for this subject. It certainly should be included. Mindstore 03:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
NLP is a practical useage of neurolinguistics. Brain balancing, advanced neurodynamics. NLP is a new science and practice. Mindstore 02:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
NLP is a modern-day quackery, in my view, totally unrelated to any science. Show me any NLP-related studies in peer-reviewed neuroscience journals which show its effectivenes, and I will change my opinion.-- CopperKettle 08:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello CopperKettle. Here are some studies on NLP that appear in journals relevant to neurolinguistics.
0Beck, Charles E.; Beck, Elizabeth A. (1984) Test of the eye movement hypothesis of Neurolinguistic Programming: a rebuttal of conclusions. Perceptual and Motor Skills; Feb Vol 58(1) 175-176
Farmer, A.; Rooney, R.; Cunningham, J.R. (1985) Hypothesized eye movements of Neurolinguistic Programming: a statistical artifact. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 717-718
They both state that NLP proponents make claims that they are related to neurolinguistics. I notice that quite a few sources on the web actually do claim that NLP is related to neurolinguistics eg [1]. There are also views of neurolinguists that NLP has nothing to do with NLP. I think a couple of lines would help clarify that point. Wikipedia shouldn't have an opinion on that matter. Both views can be presented briefly. Docleaf 08:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
This section is so awful it might as well be removed entirely.
1. Neurolinguistics is a genuinely scientific field of study of brain physiology in relation to various aspects of language acquisition and loss.
Neuro-Linguistic Programming is (a) about human communications, (b) absolutely NOTHING to do with neurology, (c) categorically NOT scientific. These points are made absolutely clear in "Frogs into Princes" (Bandler and Grinder, 1979) when they talk about their role as modellers.
2. Thus, as Mark observed, the claim that NLP has been "forced out" of this article on Neurolinguistics is nonsense, NLP was never relevant in the first place.
3. On a somewhat pedantic note, according to one ancestor of NLP (Alfred Korzybski), the names alone should be sufficient to point out the very basic difference between the two subjects. "Neuro-Linguistic Programming" refers to a partnership between two separate subjects - how language (linguistics) influences our behaviour on the basis of how our brains (Neuro) are affected (programmed) by what we hear and say.
Neurolinguistics is all of a piece (as it's proponents would presumably agree), being a study of the relationship between language (linguistics) and the physical structure of the brain. The term "neurolinguistics", though it may have been used informally beforehand, isw said to have been coined by Harry Whitiker for his "Journal of Neurolinguistics" which first appeared in 1985 - about ten years after Richard Bandler opted for the name "Neuro-Linguistic Programming".
Unfortunately, in the discussion above, both sides are mistaken. NLP was, from birth, valid - for one very simple reason. It has always been a collection of concepts and techniques ALREADY IN USE by acknowledged expert communicators. There are a few extra techniques, but those are developments of techniques already shown to be successful.
On the other side, whilst a handful of NLP-related techniques have featured in a variety of psychology-oriented magazines and journals since around 1977, up until just a few weeks ago, there has NEVER, AFAIK, been anything about NLP in any professional Neurolinguistics publication. Likewise Docleaf is mistaken about the claims made by Beck & Back and Farmer et al. Beck & Beck, for example, certainly don't use the word "linguistics" anywhere in their article, not least, I imagine, because it wasn't in common usage in 1984 (see above).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.178.105 ( talk) 07:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The
Computational modeling section talks about CM without ever saying what it is. This is an issue, for obvious reasons.
Politizer (
talk) 02:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Needs to go further back--discussing, for example, phrenology and similar fields that led to the idea that the brain is divided up functionally. Or, at the very least, link to
Neuroscience#History using the {{Main article}} template.
Politizer (
talk) 02:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
This section is full of Noam Chomsky stuff (
Noam Chomsky,
universal grammar,
generative grammar), and he is not even a neurolinguist (and I hear rumors that he doesn't even get along with most of them. {{fact}}!). Yet it doesn't link to pages on brain imaging, any landmark studies or major areas/centers/processes identified in the brain, or other people who were highly influential in the field (i.e., Wernicke). So this section could obviously use some editing, as well.
A section on the relevance of neurolinguistics to other linguistic fields, and the interaction between the fields; a section on what influence neurolinguistics has had on real-life issues (ie,
speech pathology, for examples); mention of some landmark studies (I mean, this article doesn't even mention Wernicke, who any college intro linguistics student knows).
Politizer (
talk) 02:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a beginning. Trying to find something relevant.
— Mattisse ( Talk) 00:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm also wondering if it might be useful to take the Experimental design section and spin it into another article, with a brief summary and a {{ main}} link here.... but maybe it would be better to hold off on that until I've expanded more parts of the article (like, I still need to get around to writing a section on some of the big issues that are being researched a lot now), since right now I don't think the article size is a problem yet. — Politizer talk/ contribs 01:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
That unreferenced section in the article has been bugging me for a while. I don't know anything about computational modeling, so for now I'm just throwing down some sites/books I just found that might be usable as references; if anyone knows more about this subject you're welcome to help with going through them. I didn't want to just remove or comment out the section, but if we can't find any good refs it might have to come to that :S
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: others (
link) — book; the write-up online doesn't have much info but the book itself might{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) — another bookPolitizer talk/ contribs 15:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
One other important methodology in the cognitive neuroscience of language is computational modeling, which can demonstrate the plausibility or implausibility of specific hypotheses about the neural organization of language while generating novel predictions for further empirical research. Rather than deriving a mathematical analytical solution to the problem of language, experimentation with computational modeling is done by changing the parameters of the system in a computer, and studying the differences in the outcome of the experiments. Theories about the brain's computations can then be deduced from these computational experiments. Currently, computational modelers are collaborating increasingly with brain imagers and psychologists in coordinated, interdisciplinary programs of research. Such programs have yielded important new insights into the nature of language, as well as major language disorders affecting millions, such as stuttering and dyslexia.
This explanation in the "active distraction" section has not been appropriately integrated in the text by Politizer. It seems that Politizer still does not understand the text. Thus is it appropriate to revert back to the original text. Can someone help reword it so that it is better understood by the layman? 137.163.19.99 ( talk) 14:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Regrettably inaccurately. 137.163.19.99 ( talk) 14:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
A quote, "Anyway, thanks for devoting your time to Wikipedia. There are very few Psychology academics who do, with the result that most of the Psychology information is very bad. I alternate between hope and despair over my involvement with Wikipedia. I hope that this is a useful medium through which to communicate science to the public, but I despair that most other academics regard it as a complete waste of time, that the scale of the task is so huge, and that the pearls you and I cast into it will be obscured by ill-meaning, and even well-meaning, swine.". 137.163.19.99 ( talk) 11:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
One of the other main contributors to the MMN article. The content seems rather objective, the author's name is in confidence and so the quote shall remain anonymous. There is nothing personal to be found in there; just a comment upon the state-of-affairs for Wikipedia. When looking for context, this can be found by reading and understanding the literature, which I understand can be a terrible burden upon a graduate student, whose most important work is yet to come. Hope this all goes well. Back to work. 128.214.205.5 ( talk) 15:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
It is hoped that these words can be seen as encouragement to an increased consideration of appropriate balanced accurate content. Different people write about the same thing in a manner that is more accessible to different people. But, better not to lose the intended meaning entirely. On a personal note, I am pleased to have finally graduated as a sock puppet! 128.214.205.5 ( talk) 15:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Ed used the word sock. The 'war' was entirely fought inside Politizer's head. There seems no reason to become embroiled in some daftly official wiki-process about that. Please feel encouraged to open your mind to genuine content and not be insulted. 128.214.205.5 ( talk) 16:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Stumbled across a review article that looks like it will be useful here (especially in the History, Brain Imaging, and Experimental Design sections); haven't had time to read it carefully yet, sticking it here for future reference.
Politizer talk/ contribs 19:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll be doing this GA review. Will need a few days to read the article carefully, but plan to be done by Wednesday. Sasata ( talk) 23:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
After making substantial improvements to the article, it now fully meets GA standards. Article passed. Sasata ( talk) 15:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Subfield | Description | Research questions in neurolinguistics |
---|---|---|
Phonetics | the study of speech sounds | how the brain extracts speech sounds from an acoustic signal |
Phonology | the study of how sounds are organized in a language | how the phonological system of a particular language is represented in the brain |
Morphology and lexicology | the study of how words are structured and stored in the mental lexicon | how the brain accesses words that a person knows |
Syntax | the study of how multiple-word utterances are constructed | how the brain combines words into constituents and sentences; how structural and semantic information is used in understanding sentences |
Semantics | the study of how meaning is encoded in language |
Refs need a copyedit to standardize formatting. Check comma/semicolon usage, presence/absence of quote marks around journal article titles, capitalization in article titles (eg. ref #29), ndashes for page ranges (eg. ref#16), consistency of author name abbreviation, placement of "and" before final author name, missing page #'s (ref #61), etc., etc.
I'll put the article on hold for the standard seven days to address the suggestions above. Have fun! Sasata ( talk) 06:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The opening paragraph in “Neurolinguistics” is generally well written though it could use some reorganization. The last sentence would be better placed earlier on, as it creates some disjunction in its current position. It is an important factor in understanding neurolinguistics, more key than some of the earlier provided information, and should appear earlier.
Though the overall structure of the article is satisfying I find the structure within the section “Neurolinguistics as a discipline” would be more logical if the two subsections were reversed (“Topics considered” coming first and “Interaction with other fields” coming second). On the other hand, I do feel that the subsection “Topics considered” is closely related to the section “Technology used,” and current organization places those two fields near each other. Perhaps a better solution would be to give “Interaction with other fields” its own section entirely to create the best flow in the article.
Briannah J (
talk) 18:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Neurolinguistics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.maccs.mq.edu.au/~scrain/papers/GALA%2704.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)