Podcast appearances and mentions of nick enfield

Professor Nick Enfield from University of Sydney's Department of Linguistics tells Suzanne Hill how our language of gratitude is evolving.

Using language is a complex business. Let's say you want to understand a sentence. You first need to parse a sequence of sounds—if the sentence is spoken—or images—if it's signed or written. You need to figure out the meanings of the individual words and then you need to put those meanings together to form a bigger whole. Of course, you also need to think about the larger context—the conversation, the person you're talking to, the kind of situation you're in. So how does the brain do all of this? Is there just one neural system that deals with language or several? Do different parts of the brain care about different aspects of language? And, more basically: What scientific tools and techniques should we be using to try to figure this all out?   My guest today is Dr. Ev Fedorenko. Ev is a cognitive neuroscientist at MIT, where she and her research group study how the brains supports language and complex thought. Ev and her colleagues recently wrote a detailed overview of their work on the language network—the specialized system in our brain that underlies our ability to use language. This network has some features you might have expected, and—as we'll see—other features you probably didn't.   Here, Ev and I talk about the history of our effort to understand the neurobiology of language. We lay out the current understanding of the language network, and its relationship to the brain areas historically associated with language abilities—especially Broca's area and Wernicke's area. We talk about whether the language network can be partitioned according to the subfields of linguistics, such as syntax and semantics. We discuss the power and limitations of fMRI, and the advantages of the single-subject analyses that Ev and her lab primarily use. We consider how the language network interfaces with other major neural networks—for instance, the theory of mind network and the so-called default network. And we discuss what this all tells us about the longstanding controversial claim that language is primarily for thinking rather than communicating.   Along the way, Ev and I touch on: some especially interesting brains; plasticity and redundancy; the puzzle of lateralization; polyglots; aphasia; the localizer method; the decline of certain Chomskyan perspectives; the idea that brain networks are "natural kinds"; the heart of the language network; and the question of what the brain may tell us—if anything—about how language evolved.   Alright friends, this is a fun one. On to my conversation with Dr. Ev Fedorenko. Enjoy!   A transcript of this episode will be available soon.     Notes and links 3:00 – The article by a New York Times reporter who is missing a portion of her temporal lobe. The website for the Interesting Brains project.  5:30 – A recent paper from Dr. Fedorenko's lab on the brains of three siblings, two of whom were missing portions of their brains.  13:00 – Broca's original 1861 report.  18:00 – Many of Noam Chomsky's ideas about the innateness of language and the centrality of syntax are covered in his book Language and Mind, among other publications. 19:30 – For an influential critique of the tradition of localizing functions in the brain, see William R. Uttal's The New Phrenology. 23:00 – The new review paper by Dr. Fedorenko and colleagues on the language network.  26:00 – For more discussion of the different formats or modalities of language, see our earlier episode with Dr. Neil Cohn. 30:00 – A classic paper by Herbert Simon on the “architecture of complexity.” 31:00 – For one example of a naturalistic, “task-free” study that reveals the brain's language network, see here.  33:30 – See the recent paper arguing “against cortical reorganization.” 33:00 – For more on the concept of “natural kind” in philosophy, see here.  38:00 – On the “multiple-demand network,” see a recent study by Dr. Fedorenko and colleagues.  41:00 – For a study from Dr. Fedorenko's lab finding that syntax and semantics are distributed throughout the language network, see here. For an example of work in linguistics that does not make a tidy distinction between syntax and semantics, see here.  53:30 – See Dr. Fedorenko's recent article on the history of individual-subject analyses in neuroscience.  1:01:00 – For an in-depth treatment of one localizer used in Dr. Fedorenko's research, see here.  1:03:30 – A paper by Dr. Stephen Wilson and colleagues, describing recovery of language ability following stroke as a function of the location of the lesion within the language network. 1:04:20 – A paper from Dr. Fedorenko's lab on the small language networks of polyglots.  1:09:00 – For more on the Visual Word Form Area (or VWFA), see here. For discussion of Exner's Area, see here.   1:14:30 – For a discussion of the brain's so-called default network, see here.  1:17:00 – See here for Dr. Fedorenko and colleagues' recent paper on the function of language. For more on the question of what language is for, see our earlier episode with Dr. Nick Enfield.  1:19:00 – A paper by Dr. Fedorenko and Dr. Rosemary Varley arguing for intact thinking ability in patients with aphasia.  1:22:00 – A recent paper on individual differences in the experience of inner speech.   Recommendations Dr. Ted Gibson's book on syntax (forthcoming with MIT press) Nancy Kanwisher, ‘Functional specificity in the human brain'    Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute, which is made possible by a generous grant from the John Templeton Foundation to Indiana University. The show is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with help from Assistant Producer Urte Laukaityte and with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd. Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala.   Subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can also now subscribe to the Many Minds newsletter here! We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com.    For updates about the show, visit our website or follow us on Twitter (@ManyMindsPod) or Bluesky (@manymindspod.bsky.social).

Fake research papers are on the rise. Explore what's fuelling this, why it's concerning, and how we can address this issue with science integrity consultant Elisabeth Bik, computer scientist Judy Kay, linguist Nick Enfield, Pro Vice Chancellor (Research) Benjamin Eggleton and host Jennifer Byrne. This event was held on Tuesday 22 October 2024 at the University of Sydney. For more links and resources, including the transcript, visit Sydney Ideas website: bit.ly/48B2Mnk

Join Dr. Spencer Wayne as he chats with Dr. Jeff Blythe and FarmPro Production Consultant, Nick Enfield about the everyday ventilation challenges pig farmers face. They dive into practical solutions to improve barn conditions, focusing on the importance of getting airspeed right, placing temperature probes effectively, and keeping equipment well-maintained. The trio discusses how poor ventilation can lead to high humidity and health issues for your pigs. Take away with easy-to-follow tips on boosting fan efficiency, preventing air stratification, and adjusting ventilation based on how your pigs are behaving and the current barn conditions. By putting these expert strategies into action, you can create a healthier environment for your herd and help them thrive. PIPESTONE's mission is “Helping Farmers Today Create the Farms of Tomorrow.” The SwineTime podcast was created for pig farmers and individual pork producers around the country. Hosted by Dr. Wayne, the podcast contains pork industry news, advancements in animal care, and how to enhance your productivity. Monthly podcasts are available on Pipestone.com and your favorite streaming platform.

Listen to this interview of Nick Enfield, Professor of Linguistics at the University of Sydney for Language Research and the Sydney Initiative for Truth. We talk about communication as you think it is and also, about communication as it really is. Enfield is the author of Language vs. Reality: Why Language Is Good for Lawyers and Bad for Scientists (MIT Press, 2022). Nick Enfield : "Every scientist does need to be mindful of the power of language to influence — because we always are influencing people when we use language — that is just foundationally what all communication is: influencing other people. But because reality is so important to science — it's ultimately the object of the research — then scientists really have a responsibility to be clear and not to be vague." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Listen to this interview of Nick Enfield, Professor of Linguistics at the University of Sydney for Language Research and the Sydney Initiative for Truth. We talk about communication as you think it is and also, about communication as it really is. Enfield is the author of Language vs. Reality: Why Language Is Good for Lawyers and Bad for Scientists (MIT Press, 2022). Nick Enfield : "Every scientist does need to be mindful of the power of language to influence — because we always are influencing people when we use language — that is just foundationally what all communication is: influencing other people. But because reality is so important to science — it's ultimately the object of the research — then scientists really have a responsibility to be clear and not to be vague." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/language

Listen to this interview of Nick Enfield, Professor of Linguistics at the University of Sydney for Language Research and the Sydney Initiative for Truth. We talk about communication as you think it is and also, about communication as it really is. Enfield is the author of Language vs. Reality: Why Language Is Good for Lawyers and Bad for Scientists (MIT Press, 2022). Nick Enfield : "Every scientist does need to be mindful of the power of language to influence — because we always are influencing people when we use language — that is just foundationally what all communication is: influencing other people. But because reality is so important to science — it's ultimately the object of the research — then scientists really have a responsibility to be clear and not to be vague." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/communications

Listen to this interview of Nick Enfield, Professor of Linguistics at the University of Sydney for Language Research and the Sydney Initiative for Truth. We talk about communication as you think it is and also, about communication as it really is. Enfield is the author of Language vs. Reality: Why Language Is Good for Lawyers and Bad for Scientists (MIT Press, 2022). Nick Enfield : "Every scientist does need to be mindful of the power of language to influence — because we always are influencing people when we use language — that is just foundationally what all communication is: influencing other people. But because reality is so important to science — it's ultimately the object of the research — then scientists really have a responsibility to be clear and not to be vague." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. Check out my free video series about what's missing in AI and Neuroscience Nick Enfield is a professor of linguistics at the University of Sydney. In this episode we discuss topics in his most recent book, Language vs. Reality: Why Language Is Good for Lawyers and Bad for Scientists. A central question in the book is what is language for? What's the function of language. You might be familiar with the debate about whether language evolved for each of us thinking our wonderful human thoughts, or for communicating those thoughts between each other. Nick would be on the communication side of that debate, but if by communication we mean simply the transmission of thoughts or information between people - I have a thought, I send it to you in language, and that thought is now in your head - then Nick wouldn't take either side of that debate. He argues the function language goes beyond the transmission of information, and instead is primarily an evolved solution for social coordination - coordinating our behaviors and attention. When we use language, we're creating maps in our heads so we can agree on where to go. For example, when I say, "This is brain inspired," I'm pointing you to a place to meet me on a conceptual map, saying, "Get ready, we're about to have a great time again!" In any case, with those 4 words, "This is brain inspired," I'm not just transmitting information from my head into your head. I'm providing you with a landmark so you can focus your attention appropriately. From that premise, that language is about social coordination, we talk about a handful of topics in his book, like the relationship between language and reality, the idea that all language is framing- that is, how we say something influences how to think about it. We discuss how our language changes in different social situations, the role of stories, and of course, how LLMs fit into Nick's story about language. Nick's website Twitter: @njenfield Book: Language vs. Reality: Why Language Is Good for Lawyers and Bad for Scientists. Papers: Linguistic concepts are self-generating choice architectures 0:00 - Intro 4:23 - Is learning about language important? 15:43 - Linguistic Anthropology 28:56 - Language and truth 33:57 - How special is language 46:19 - Choice architecture and framing 48:19 - Language for thinking or communication 52:30 - Agency and language 56:51 - Large language models 1:16:18 - Getting language right 1:20:48 - Social relationships and language

When language was innovated, what happened next? How did it change our abilities — and our responsibilities — to each other? Dr Nick Enfield shares ideas from his new book, Consequences of Language. Plus: Have large language models (like GPT) disproven a key tenet of the innateness of language? Dr Morten Christiansen takes us through the implications for nativism and language learning.

------------------Support the channel------------ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenter PayPal: paypal.me/thedissenter PayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: https://tinyurl.com/yb3acuuy PayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9l PayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpz PayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9m PayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao This show is sponsored by Enlites, Learning & Development done differently. Check the website here: http://enlites.com/ Dr. Nick Enfield is Professor and Chair of Linguistics at the University of Sydney and director of the Sydney Centre for Language Research. His latest book is Language vs. Reality: Why Language Is Good for Lawyers and Bad for Scientists. In this episode, we focus on Language vs. Reality. We talk about the premise of the book of language as both destroyer and creator. We discuss how language and reasoning are more about convincing people, rather than getting at the truth. We talk about perception and language as two steps of reduction of reality, and the idea of language as an interface for coordination. We discuss how different languages capture different aspects of reality. We get into psychological phenomena like priming and framing. We talk about framing in politics and the media. We discuss the idea of public discourse as a market for justifications, rather than a market for ideas. We go through the functions of stories. We discuss the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Finally, we ask if we can know what are the best ways of talking about things. -- A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: KARIN LIETZCKE, ANN BLANCHETTE, PER HELGE LARSEN, LAU GUERREIRO, JERRY MULLER, HANS FREDRIK SUNDE, BERNARDO SEIXAS, HERBERT GINTIS, RUTGER VOS, RICARDO VLADIMIRO, CRAIG HEALY, OLAF ALEX, PHILIP KURIAN, JONATHAN VISSER, JAKOB KLINKBY, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, JOHN CONNORS, PAULINA BARREN, FILIP FORS CONNOLLY, DAN DEMETRIOU, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ARTHUR KOH, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, COLIN HOLBROOK, SUSAN PINKER, PABLO SANTURBANO, SIMON COLUMBUS, PHIL KAVANAGH, JORGE ESPINHA, CORY CLARK, MARK BLYTH, ROBERTO INGUANZO, MIKKEL STORMYR, ERIC NEURMANN, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, BERNARD HUGUENEY, ALEXANDER DANNBAUER, FERGAL CUSSEN, YEVHEN BODRENKO, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, DON ROSS, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, OZLEM BULUT, NATHAN NGUYEN, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIK HAINES, MARK SMITH, J.W., JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, IDAN SOLON, ROMAIN ROCH, DMITRY GRIGORYEV, TOM ROTH, DIEGO LONDOÑO CORREA, YANICK PUNTER, ADANER USMANI, CHARLOTTE BLEASE, NICOLE BARBARO, ADAM HUNT, PAWEL OSTASZEWSKI, AL ORTIZ, NELLEKE BAK, KATHRINE AND PATRICK TOBIN, GUY MADISON, GARY G HELLMANN, SAIMA AFZAL, ADRIAN JAEGGI, NICK GOLDEN, PAULO TOLENTINO, JOÃO BARBOSA, JULIAN PRICE, EDWARD HALL, HEDIN BRØNNER, DOUGLAS P. FRY, FRANCA BORTOLOTTI, GABRIEL PONS CORTÈS, URSULA LITZCKE, DENISE COOK, SCOTT, ZACHARY FISH, TIM DUFFY, TRADERINNYC, TODD SHACKELFORD, AND SUNNY SMITH! A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, IAN GILLIGAN, LUIS CAYETANO, TOM VANEGDOM, CURTIS DIXON, BENEDIKT MUELLER, VEGA GIDEY, THOMAS TRUMBLE, AND NUNO ELDER! AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MICHAL RUSIECKI, ROSEY, JAMES PRATT, MATTHEW LAVENDER, SERGIU CODREANU, AND BOGDAN KANIVETS!

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.What do you think, does our language express or create the “I?”The rules of our language identify a subject and a verb. For example, an I and something that is happening. “I am doing this.” Yet in this conversation it is seen that awareness is aware of the doing happening — I am not doing this. I am not the doer and there is no I.)Does the world look this way in language because this is how we think or do we think this way because of our language?It may ultimately be a chicken and an egg thing, or just a case of co-arising. But I wonder are there cultures/languages with sentences that developed without a subject?It feels like there is an intuitive sense of an I, but babies don't seem to be born with it. Helen Keller, I've read, had no sense of an I or a self until she learned language. Or until language was learned by that localized body/mind system. I don't know the attribution, but I've recently heard “The I in I am happy is the same as the it in it is raining.” How much does language shape our thinking? Or does our thinking shape our language? 

Paul's guest for August 2022 is Nick Enfield, professor of linguistics at the University of Sydney. Inspired by Nick's 2022 book, "Language Vs. Reality: Why Language Is Good for Lawyers and Bad for Scientists," Paul and Nick discuss how language is not always the best tool for conveying and representing reality. For more information on Professor Enfield, visit NickEnfield.org. And for more information (and lots of complementary content) on the topics discussed in this and all of Paul's podcasts, please visit the main podcast page at PaulMeier.com/in-a-manner-of-speaking.

N. J. Enfield is a professor and the chair of linguistics at the University of Sydney, and a research associate in the Language and Cognition Group at the Max Planck Institute. He joins on episode 345, where we discuss his latest book Language Vs. Reality: Why Language Is Good for Lawyers and Bad for Scientists. […] The post 345: Nick Enfield | Narrative, Storytelling, And More In “Language Vs. Reality” appeared first on The Armen Show.

Does language impact our ability to think? George Orwell seemed to think so. I ask this question to our guest this week: Dr. Nick Enfield. Dr. Enfield has written a fantastic book: Language vs. Reality: Why Language is Good for Lawyers and Bad for Scientists. We talk about the problems of framing through a dissection of the Ivermectin debate; we discuss how language can shape reality, but more specifically how it socially coordinates reality; and why it's so difficult to have meaningful conversations when labeling becomes weaponized. This a great episode that is packed with wonderful content. Make sure you let me know by leaving a like, a kind comment, and making sure you're subscribed to the podcast. Thank you for taking the time to be with us today. // EPISODE LINKS // Link to Dr. Enfield's book (affiliate): https://amzn.to/3l04Kpi Dr. Enfield's Website: http://nickenfield.org/ // PODCAST INFORMATION // Main website: https://theneutralgroundpodcast.com/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClSW07ZA4XASfPjwUD3Gv7w Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-neutral-ground-podcast/id1576798405 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4JsI480Vh6snrLau889nea Google: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9hbmNob3IuZm0vcy82NDRlYTBlOC9wb2RjYXN0L3Jzcw Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/cda82070-803d-457b-ad65-bd7ec8502c1e/the-neutral-ground-podcast Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/show/the-neutral-ground-podcast RSS: https://anchor.fm/s/644ea0e8/podcast/rss // SOCIAL MEDIA // Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/drjoemeyer/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/theneutralgroundpodcast/?ref=pages_you_manage LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/theneutralgroundpodcast/ // SUPPORT THE PODCAST // Subscribe/follow the podcast. Leave a rating/comment wherever applicable. Visit the main website for The Neutral Ground Podcast at https://theneutralgroundpodcast.com/ and send me an email or leave an audio message for me with some thoughts or questions about one of our topics. Buy me a cup of Ko-Fi at https://ko-fi.com/theneutralgroundpodcast. Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/theneutralgroundpodcast| Any one of the above items is equally important to me. I am genuinely humbled and moved by the feedback I'm receiving, and the support that I'm getting from all of you. Thank you --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/joemeyer/message

Welcome back friends and happy spring! (Or fall, as the case may be.) Today's show takes on a disarmingly simple question: What is language for? As in, why do we say things to each other? What do words do for us? Why do our languages label some aspects of the world, but not others? My guest today is Dr. Nick Enfield. He's Professor of Linguistics at the University of Sydney. Nick has authored or edited more than a dozen books on different aspects of human language and communication—books on word meaning, gesture, conversation, social interaction, the languages of Southeast Asia, and more. His latest book, just published by MIT press, is titled Language vs Reality: Why Language is Good for Lawyers and Bad for Scientists. In it, Nick argues that language is pretty awful at capturing reality—but actually that's fine, because capturing reality isn't the primary reason we use it. The real reason, in his view, is to coordinate with others. In this conversation, Nick and I flesh out this way of thinking about language as foremost a social coordination tool. Along the way, we talk about the two "reductions" that happen as brute reality gets transmuted into words. We discuss the economist Thomas Schelling and so-called Schelling maps. We talk about color words and plant names, salt and spoons, the insights of Benjamin Lee Whorf, the idea of “verbal overshadowing,” and a bunch of other phenomena and thinkers. As I say in the interview, Nick has one of the most expansive views of human language of anyone I know. He draws on anthropology, economics, primatology, developmental psychology, not to mention decades of his own fieldwork in Laos. That expansive—one might say, "many minded"—perspective is on full display here. Briefly, before we get to the conversation: if you have any ideas for future guests or topics—or want to lodge some criticisms—you can reach out to us at manymindspodcast@gmail.com. That's manymindspodcast@gmail.com. We're always eager to hear from listeners. Alright friends, now to my conversation with Dr. Nick Enfield. Enjoy!   A transcript of this episode will be available soon.   Notes and links 10:00 – Dr. Enfield's 2002 edited book on “ethnosyntax.” Here is a brief overview of serial verb constructions. 15:30 – Dr. Enfield has another book coming out later this year, with Jack Sidnell, titled Consequences of Language. 20:00 – The website of the influential semanticist Anna Wierzbicka, one of Dr. Enfield's early mentors. 22:45 – Roger Brown's classic 1958 paper ‘How shall a thing be called?' 24:30 – Daniel Dor's 2015 book, The Instruction of the Imagination. 25:40 – A popular article about the contributions of the economist Thomas Schelling. Another article on his notion of “focal points.” 37:00 – The classic treatment of color terms across languages is Berlin & Kay's 1991 book Basic Color Terms. 40:00 – Dr. Enfield spent a large portion of his early career at the MPI for Psycholinguistics. 44:45 – The classic treatment of plant names across cultures is Berlin's book, Ethnobiological Classification. 49:30 – Dr. Enfield has been documenting Kri, an indigenous language in Laos. 53:00 – The classic study on “verbal overshadowing” was done by Schooler & Engstler-Schooler in 1990. 58:20 – A classic paper by Krebs and Dawkins on signaling in nonhuman animals. 1:00:00 – The website of the influential (late) linguist Wallace Chafe. 1:08:30 – A widely-circulated 2013 paper by Dr. Enfield and colleagues on whether “huh” is a universal word. Spoiler: it seems to be. 1:10:00 - The researcher Jim Hurford has written several influential books on the evolution of language.   Dr. Enfield recommends: Origins of Human Communication, by Michael Tomasello Social Intelligence and Interaction, edited by Esther Goody Language, Thought, and Reality, by Benjamin Lee Whorf You can read more about Dr. Enfield's work at his website and follow him on Twitter.   Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with help from assistant producer Cecilia Padilla. Creative support is provided by DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com. For updates about the show, visit our website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

Nick Enfield's book, Language vs. Reality: Why Language is Good for Lawyers and Bad for Scientists (MIT Press, 2022), argues that language is primarily for social coordination, not precisely transferring thoughts from one person to another. Drawing on empirical research, Enfield shows that human lexicons the world over are far more coarse-grained than our perceptual faculties. Yet, at the same time, languages vary in the structure and sophistication of their representations. This means that, for instance, how different languages carve up the world influences not only how their speakers talk about the world, but also how they think about it. The book explores a range of linguistic phenomena, from lexical diversity to linguistic framing to the effects of narrative. As a result of understanding how language shapes our understanding of reality, Enfield argues that we can make more informed—and more ethical—decisions about our own language use, as individuals and communities. Malcolm Keating is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Yale-NUS College. His research focuses on Sanskrit philosophy of language and epistemology. He is the author of Language, Meaning, and Use in Indian Philosophy (Bloomsbury Press, 2019) and host of the podcast Sutras (and stuff). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Nick Enfield's book, Language vs. Reality: Why Language is Good for Lawyers and Bad for Scientists (MIT Press, 2022), argues that language is primarily for social coordination, not precisely transferring thoughts from one person to another. Drawing on empirical research, Enfield shows that human lexicons the world over are far more coarse-grained than our perceptual faculties. Yet, at the same time, languages vary in the structure and sophistication of their representations. This means that, for instance, how different languages carve up the world influences not only how their speakers talk about the world, but also how they think about it. The book explores a range of linguistic phenomena, from lexical diversity to linguistic framing to the effects of narrative. As a result of understanding how language shapes our understanding of reality, Enfield argues that we can make more informed—and more ethical—decisions about our own language use, as individuals and communities. Malcolm Keating is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Yale-NUS College. His research focuses on Sanskrit philosophy of language and epistemology. He is the author of Language, Meaning, and Use in Indian Philosophy (Bloomsbury Press, 2019) and host of the podcast Sutras (and stuff). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/mathematics

Nick Enfield's book, Language vs. Reality: Why Language is Good for Lawyers and Bad for Scientists (MIT Press, 2022), argues that language is primarily for social coordination, not precisely transferring thoughts from one person to another. Drawing on empirical research, Enfield shows that human lexicons the world over are far more coarse-grained than our perceptual faculties. Yet, at the same time, languages vary in the structure and sophistication of their representations. This means that, for instance, how different languages carve up the world influences not only how their speakers talk about the world, but also how they think about it. The book explores a range of linguistic phenomena, from lexical diversity to linguistic framing to the effects of narrative. As a result of understanding how language shapes our understanding of reality, Enfield argues that we can make more informed—and more ethical—decisions about our own language use, as individuals and communities. Malcolm Keating is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Yale-NUS College. His research focuses on Sanskrit philosophy of language and epistemology. He is the author of Language, Meaning, and Use in Indian Philosophy (Bloomsbury Press, 2019) and host of the podcast Sutras (and stuff). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/anthropology

Nick Enfield's book, Language vs. Reality: Why Language is Good for Lawyers and Bad for Scientists (MIT Press, 2022), argues that language is primarily for social coordination, not precisely transferring thoughts from one person to another. Drawing on empirical research, Enfield shows that human lexicons the world over are far more coarse-grained than our perceptual faculties. Yet, at the same time, languages vary in the structure and sophistication of their representations. This means that, for instance, how different languages carve up the world influences not only how their speakers talk about the world, but also how they think about it. The book explores a range of linguistic phenomena, from lexical diversity to linguistic framing to the effects of narrative. As a result of understanding how language shapes our understanding of reality, Enfield argues that we can make more informed—and more ethical—decisions about our own language use, as individuals and communities. Malcolm Keating is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Yale-NUS College. His research focuses on Sanskrit philosophy of language and epistemology. He is the author of Language, Meaning, and Use in Indian Philosophy (Bloomsbury Press, 2019) and host of the podcast Sutras (and stuff). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science

Nick Enfield's book, Language vs. Reality: Why Language is Good for Lawyers and Bad for Scientists (MIT Press, 2022), argues that language is primarily for social coordination, not precisely transferring thoughts from one person to another. Drawing on empirical research, Enfield shows that human lexicons the world over are far more coarse-grained than our perceptual faculties. Yet, at the same time, languages vary in the structure and sophistication of their representations. This means that, for instance, how different languages carve up the world influences not only how their speakers talk about the world, but also how they think about it. The book explores a range of linguistic phenomena, from lexical diversity to linguistic framing to the effects of narrative. As a result of understanding how language shapes our understanding of reality, Enfield argues that we can make more informed—and more ethical—decisions about our own language use, as individuals and communities. Malcolm Keating is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Yale-NUS College. His research focuses on Sanskrit philosophy of language and epistemology. He is the author of Language, Meaning, and Use in Indian Philosophy (Bloomsbury Press, 2019) and host of the podcast Sutras (and stuff). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/language

Nick Enfield's book, Language vs. Reality: Why Language is Good for Lawyers and Bad for Scientists (MIT Press, 2022), argues that language is primarily for social coordination, not precisely transferring thoughts from one person to another. Drawing on empirical research, Enfield shows that human lexicons the world over are far more coarse-grained than our perceptual faculties. Yet, at the same time, languages vary in the structure and sophistication of their representations. This means that, for instance, how different languages carve up the world influences not only how their speakers talk about the world, but also how they think about it. The book explores a range of linguistic phenomena, from lexical diversity to linguistic framing to the effects of narrative. As a result of understanding how language shapes our understanding of reality, Enfield argues that we can make more informed—and more ethical—decisions about our own language use, as individuals and communities. Malcolm Keating is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Yale-NUS College. His research focuses on Sanskrit philosophy of language and epistemology. He is the author of Language, Meaning, and Use in Indian Philosophy (Bloomsbury Press, 2019) and host of the podcast Sutras (and stuff). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society

Nick Enfield's book, Language vs. Reality: Why Language is Good for Lawyers and Bad for Scientists (MIT Press, 2022), argues that language is primarily for social coordination, not precisely transferring thoughts from one person to another. Drawing on empirical research, Enfield shows that human lexicons the world over are far more coarse-grained than our perceptual faculties. Yet, at the same time, languages vary in the structure and sophistication of their representations. This means that, for instance, how different languages carve up the world influences not only how their speakers talk about the world, but also how they think about it. The book explores a range of linguistic phenomena, from lexical diversity to linguistic framing to the effects of narrative. As a result of understanding how language shapes our understanding of reality, Enfield argues that we can make more informed—and more ethical—decisions about our own language use, as individuals and communities. Malcolm Keating is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Yale-NUS College. His research focuses on Sanskrit philosophy of language and epistemology. He is the author of Language, Meaning, and Use in Indian Philosophy (Bloomsbury Press, 2019) and host of the podcast Sutras (and stuff). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Nick Enfield's book, Language vs. Reality: Why Language is Good for Lawyers and Bad for Scientists (MIT Press, 2022), argues that language is primarily for social coordination, not precisely transferring thoughts from one person to another. Drawing on empirical research, Enfield shows that human lexicons the world over are far more coarse-grained than our perceptual faculties. Yet, at the same time, languages vary in the structure and sophistication of their representations. This means that, for instance, how different languages carve up the world influences not only how their speakers talk about the world, but also how they think about it. The book explores a range of linguistic phenomena, from lexical diversity to linguistic framing to the effects of narrative. As a result of understanding how language shapes our understanding of reality, Enfield argues that we can make more informed—and more ethical—decisions about our own language use, as individuals and communities. Malcolm Keating is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Yale-NUS College. His research focuses on Sanskrit philosophy of language and epistemology. He is the author of Language, Meaning, and Use in Indian Philosophy (Bloomsbury Press, 2019) and host of the podcast Sutras (and stuff). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Nick Enfield's book, Language vs. Reality: Why Language is Good for Lawyers and Bad for Scientists (MIT Press, 2022), argues that language is primarily for social coordination, not precisely transferring thoughts from one person to another. Drawing on empirical research, Enfield shows that human lexicons the world over are far more coarse-grained than our perceptual faculties. Yet, at the same time, languages vary in the structure and sophistication of their representations. This means that, for instance, how different languages carve up the world influences not only how their speakers talk about the world, but also how they think about it. The book explores a range of linguistic phenomena, from lexical diversity to linguistic framing to the effects of narrative. As a result of understanding how language shapes our understanding of reality, Enfield argues that we can make more informed—and more ethical—decisions about our own language use, as individuals and communities. Malcolm Keating is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Yale-NUS College. His research focuses on Sanskrit philosophy of language and epistemology. He is the author of Language, Meaning, and Use in Indian Philosophy (Bloomsbury Press, 2019) and host of the podcast Sutras (and stuff). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Nick Enfield's book, Language vs. Reality: Why Language is Good for Lawyers and Bad for Scientists (MIT Press, 2022), argues that language is primarily for social coordination, not precisely transferring thoughts from one person to another. Drawing on empirical research, Enfield shows that human lexicons the world over are far more coarse-grained than our perceptual faculties. Yet, at the same time, languages vary in the structure and sophistication of their representations. This means that, for instance, how different languages carve up the world influences not only how their speakers talk about the world, but also how they think about it. The book explores a range of linguistic phenomena, from lexical diversity to linguistic framing to the effects of narrative. As a result of understanding how language shapes our understanding of reality, Enfield argues that we can make more informed—and more ethical—decisions about our own language use, as individuals and communities. Malcolm Keating is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Yale-NUS College. His research focuses on Sanskrit philosophy of language and epistemology. He is the author of Language, Meaning, and Use in Indian Philosophy (Bloomsbury Press, 2019) and host of the podcast Sutras (and stuff).

Nick Enfield's book, Language vs. Reality: Why Language is Good for Lawyers and Bad for Scientists (MIT Press, 2022), argues that language is primarily for social coordination, not precisely transferring thoughts from one person to another. Drawing on empirical research, Enfield shows that human lexicons the world over are far more coarse-grained than our perceptual faculties. Yet, at the same time, languages vary in the structure and sophistication of their representations. This means that, for instance, how different languages carve up the world influences not only how their speakers talk about the world, but also how they think about it. The book explores a range of linguistic phenomena, from lexical diversity to linguistic framing to the effects of narrative. As a result of understanding how language shapes our understanding of reality, Enfield argues that we can make more informed—and more ethical—decisions about our own language use, as individuals and communities. Malcolm Keating is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Yale-NUS College. His research focuses on Sanskrit philosophy of language and epistemology. He is the author of Language, Meaning, and Use in Indian Philosophy (Bloomsbury Press, 2019) and host of the podcast Sutras (and stuff). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day

Around five million people across Southeast Asia identify as Shan. Though the Shan people were promised an independent state in the 1947 Union of Burma constitution, successive military governments blocked their liberation. From 1958 onward, insurgency movements, including the Shan United Revolutionary Army, have fought for independence from Myanmar. Refugees numbering in the hundreds of thousands fled to Thailand to escape the conflict, despite struggling against oppressive citizenship laws there. Several decades of continuous rebellion have created a vacuum in which literati and politicians have constructed a virtual Shan state that lives on in popular media, rock music, and Buddhist ritual. In Repossessing Shanland: Myanmar, Thailand, and a Nation-State Deferred (U Wisconsin Press, 2021), Jane M. Ferguson details the origins of these movements and tells the story of the Shan in their own voices. She shows how the Shan have forged a homeland and identity during great upheaval by using state building as an ongoing project of resistance, resilience, and accommodation within both countries. In avoiding a good/bad moral binary and illuminating cultural complexities, Repossessing Shanland offers a fresh perspective on identity formation, transformation, and how people understand and experience borderlands today. Like this interview? If so, you might also be interested in: Nick Enfield, The Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia Anjalee Cohen, Youth Culture and Identity in Northern Thailand: Fitting in and Sticking Out Tanya Jakimow, Susceptibility in Development: Micropolitics of Local Development in India and Indonesia Nicole Curato, Democracy in a Time of Misery: From Spectacular Tragedies to Deliberative Action Professor Michele Ford is the Director of the Sydney Southeast Asia Centre, a university-wide multidisciplinary center at the University of Sydney, Australia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Around five million people across Southeast Asia identify as Shan. Though the Shan people were promised an independent state in the 1947 Union of Burma constitution, successive military governments blocked their liberation. From 1958 onward, insurgency movements, including the Shan United Revolutionary Army, have fought for independence from Myanmar. Refugees numbering in the hundreds of thousands fled to Thailand to escape the conflict, despite struggling against oppressive citizenship laws there. Several decades of continuous rebellion have created a vacuum in which literati and politicians have constructed a virtual Shan state that lives on in popular media, rock music, and Buddhist ritual. In Repossessing Shanland: Myanmar, Thailand, and a Nation-State Deferred (U Wisconsin Press, 2021), Jane M. Ferguson details the origins of these movements and tells the story of the Shan in their own voices. She shows how the Shan have forged a homeland and identity during great upheaval by using state building as an ongoing project of resistance, resilience, and accommodation within both countries. In avoiding a good/bad moral binary and illuminating cultural complexities, Repossessing Shanland offers a fresh perspective on identity formation, transformation, and how people understand and experience borderlands today. Like this interview? If so, you might also be interested in: Nick Enfield, The Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia Anjalee Cohen, Youth Culture and Identity in Northern Thailand: Fitting in and Sticking Out Tanya Jakimow, Susceptibility in Development: Micropolitics of Local Development in India and Indonesia Nicole Curato, Democracy in a Time of Misery: From Spectacular Tragedies to Deliberative Action Professor Michele Ford is the Director of the Sydney Southeast Asia Centre, a university-wide multidisciplinary center at the University of Sydney, Australia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Around five million people across Southeast Asia identify as Shan. Though the Shan people were promised an independent state in the 1947 Union of Burma constitution, successive military governments blocked their liberation. From 1958 onward, insurgency movements, including the Shan United Revolutionary Army, have fought for independence from Myanmar. Refugees numbering in the hundreds of thousands fled to Thailand to escape the conflict, despite struggling against oppressive citizenship laws there. Several decades of continuous rebellion have created a vacuum in which literati and politicians have constructed a virtual Shan state that lives on in popular media, rock music, and Buddhist ritual. In Repossessing Shanland: Myanmar, Thailand, and a Nation-State Deferred (U Wisconsin Press, 2021), Jane M. Ferguson details the origins of these movements and tells the story of the Shan in their own voices. She shows how the Shan have forged a homeland and identity during great upheaval by using state building as an ongoing project of resistance, resilience, and accommodation within both countries. In avoiding a good/bad moral binary and illuminating cultural complexities, Repossessing Shanland offers a fresh perspective on identity formation, transformation, and how people understand and experience borderlands today. Like this interview? If so, you might also be interested in: Nick Enfield, The Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia Anjalee Cohen, Youth Culture and Identity in Northern Thailand: Fitting in and Sticking Out Tanya Jakimow, Susceptibility in Development: Micropolitics of Local Development in India and Indonesia Nicole Curato, Democracy in a Time of Misery: From Spectacular Tragedies to Deliberative Action Professor Michele Ford is the Director of the Sydney Southeast Asia Centre, a university-wide multidisciplinary center at the University of Sydney, Australia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/southeast-asian-studies

Around five million people across Southeast Asia identify as Shan. Though the Shan people were promised an independent state in the 1947 Union of Burma constitution, successive military governments blocked their liberation. From 1958 onward, insurgency movements, including the Shan United Revolutionary Army, have fought for independence from Myanmar. Refugees numbering in the hundreds of thousands fled to Thailand to escape the conflict, despite struggling against oppressive citizenship laws there. Several decades of continuous rebellion have created a vacuum in which literati and politicians have constructed a virtual Shan state that lives on in popular media, rock music, and Buddhist ritual. In Repossessing Shanland: Myanmar, Thailand, and a Nation-State Deferred (U Wisconsin Press, 2021), Jane M. Ferguson details the origins of these movements and tells the story of the Shan in their own voices. She shows how the Shan have forged a homeland and identity during great upheaval by using state building as an ongoing project of resistance, resilience, and accommodation within both countries. In avoiding a good/bad moral binary and illuminating cultural complexities, Repossessing Shanland offers a fresh perspective on identity formation, transformation, and how people understand and experience borderlands today. Like this interview? If so, you might also be interested in: Nick Enfield, The Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia Anjalee Cohen, Youth Culture and Identity in Northern Thailand: Fitting in and Sticking Out Tanya Jakimow, Susceptibility in Development: Micropolitics of Local Development in India and Indonesia Nicole Curato, Democracy in a Time of Misery: From Spectacular Tragedies to Deliberative Action Professor Michele Ford is the Director of the Sydney Southeast Asia Centre, a university-wide multidisciplinary center at the University of Sydney, Australia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Around five million people across Southeast Asia identify as Shan. Though the Shan people were promised an independent state in the 1947 Union of Burma constitution, successive military governments blocked their liberation. From 1958 onward, insurgency movements, including the Shan United Revolutionary Army, have fought for independence from Myanmar. Refugees numbering in the hundreds of thousands fled to Thailand to escape the conflict, despite struggling against oppressive citizenship laws there. Several decades of continuous rebellion have created a vacuum in which literati and politicians have constructed a virtual Shan state that lives on in popular media, rock music, and Buddhist ritual. In Repossessing Shanland: Myanmar, Thailand, and a Nation-State Deferred (U Wisconsin Press, 2021), Jane M. Ferguson details the origins of these movements and tells the story of the Shan in their own voices. She shows how the Shan have forged a homeland and identity during great upheaval by using state building as an ongoing project of resistance, resilience, and accommodation within both countries. In avoiding a good/bad moral binary and illuminating cultural complexities, Repossessing Shanland offers a fresh perspective on identity formation, transformation, and how people understand and experience borderlands today. Like this interview? If so, you might also be interested in: Nick Enfield, The Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia Anjalee Cohen, Youth Culture and Identity in Northern Thailand: Fitting in and Sticking Out Tanya Jakimow, Susceptibility in Development: Micropolitics of Local Development in India and Indonesia Nicole Curato, Democracy in a Time of Misery: From Spectacular Tragedies to Deliberative Action Professor Michele Ford is the Director of the Sydney Southeast Asia Centre, a university-wide multidisciplinary center at the University of Sydney, Australia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/anthropology

Around five million people across Southeast Asia identify as Shan. Though the Shan people were promised an independent state in the 1947 Union of Burma constitution, successive military governments blocked their liberation. From 1958 onward, insurgency movements, including the Shan United Revolutionary Army, have fought for independence from Myanmar. Refugees numbering in the hundreds of thousands fled to Thailand to escape the conflict, despite struggling against oppressive citizenship laws there. Several decades of continuous rebellion have created a vacuum in which literati and politicians have constructed a virtual Shan state that lives on in popular media, rock music, and Buddhist ritual. In Repossessing Shanland: Myanmar, Thailand, and a Nation-State Deferred (U Wisconsin Press, 2021), Jane M. Ferguson details the origins of these movements and tells the story of the Shan in their own voices. She shows how the Shan have forged a homeland and identity during great upheaval by using state building as an ongoing project of resistance, resilience, and accommodation within both countries. In avoiding a good/bad moral binary and illuminating cultural complexities, Repossessing Shanland offers a fresh perspective on identity formation, transformation, and how people understand and experience borderlands today. Like this interview? If so, you might also be interested in: Nick Enfield, The Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia Anjalee Cohen, Youth Culture and Identity in Northern Thailand: Fitting in and Sticking Out Tanya Jakimow, Susceptibility in Development: Micropolitics of Local Development in India and Indonesia Nicole Curato, Democracy in a Time of Misery: From Spectacular Tragedies to Deliberative Action Professor Michele Ford is the Director of the Sydney Southeast Asia Centre, a university-wide multidisciplinary center at the University of Sydney, Australia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This came up on the General Assessment Test that Year 12s took yesterday. Professor of Linguistics at the University of Sydney, Nick Enfield, tells Ross and Russ why the word used across the world. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We're peeling back the layers of language and cognition and how it relates to COVID-19. Particularly at this time, the way we talk about the disease and the current situation, can be helpful or harmful, comforting or confusing. What should we be conscious of? We speak with Nick Enfield, Professor of Linguistics at the University of Sydney. WHAT WE COVER – From "mild" to "extreme" cases: the need for nuance – Unpacking the idea of "the new normal" – Exercising cognitive literacy, or what Hugo Mercier terms 'open vigilance' Access the transcript: https://bit.ly/2V0VLa3 For more info, head to the Sydney Ideas website: sydney.edu.au/sydney-ideas.

Links for Today 0:02:57 Topic: The differences between new and experienced BCBA's 0:06:02 Check out the Daily BA's video on Behavior Analysis's Communication Problem 0:06:27 Topic Change: Everyone's role in disseminating good/bad and right/wrong information 0:12:57 Check out one of the Daily BA's videos with T. V. Joe Layng 0:13:27 Check out the Daily BA's video with Jim Moore 0:13:27 Check out TCE's episode with Merrill Winston 0:21:12 For additional reading on the comparison of the spread of disease and misinformation on social media check out "Ideas spread like disease: Let's treat them with the same caution" published by Nick Enfield on The Guardian's website 0:24:32 Check out TCE's upcoming episode with Merrill Winston and Jim Moore 0:25:52 Check out this video interview with Joe Rogan, Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay for more information about the hoax papers project 0:29:32 Topic Change: The dark side of behavior analysis 0:29:32 Check out the trailer for The Great Hack (2019) 0:35:02 Check out TCE's episode "Everybody Lies… Including Behavior Analysts!" with Kathy Fox 0:42:42 Call to action: Get informed! 0:46:57 Dimitri's Flat Earth Society Update --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/thecontroversialexchange/message

t’s easy to treat the humble filler word as insignificant. We’re talking the ‘huh’, ‘ums’ ‘likes’ and ‘ahs’ of the world – the little titters that your English teacher worked so hard to eliminate from your vocabulary. Well, linguist Nick Enfield thinks you should blatantly ignore your teacher’s advice and shout your filler words from the rooftops. Through an analysis of languages globally, Nick has found that these filler words have much more importance in human behaviour than we give them credit for. Join his talk to find out how these seemingly pointless words are not only universal but indispensable to how we communicate.

Ever notice how the bits of language we use all the time are often the bits we study the least? Like 'ums' and 'uhs', the way conversations flow and of course curse words! Today we're taking a deeper look under the hood of the conversation machine, and inspecting it's sweary bits and bobs a little more closely than usual. First we'll take a closer look at the flow of a typical conversation with Nick Enfield, Professor of Linguistics at the University of Sydney, about his book "How We Talk: The Inner Workings of Conversation" and examine the signalling we use...

  Nick Enfield is a professor of linguistics at the University of Sydney and author of "How We Talk." In the book, Nick explains the real inner workings and science of a conversation based on his research on language, culture, cognition and social life. Often we take our words, dialogue and communication for granted and in this show we dig into the fascinating topic of how we can draw the best out of ourselves and others in the discussions we have in and out of work.      See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

USYD Linguistics Professor Nick Enfield and his colleagues are seeking to detect bullshit in the post-truth era. Tune in for more.

In this conversation Professor Nick Enfield, Chair of Linguistics at the University of Sydney joins host Dr Chris Neff to discuss striving for understanding in language and its relation to the age of fake news. Professor Enfield contributed to research showing that, worldwide, on average we seek clarification in our conversations every 90 seconds and heads the University’s Post Truth Initiative. It looks at a range of ways to understand and confront the problem of alternative facts, fake news, propaganda, and bullsh*t.

Nick Enfield is a professor of linguistics at the University of Sydney, and head researcher at the Post Truth Initiative. Enfield has gathered a team of researchers including data scientists and software developers to create a 'bullsh*t detector' hoping to stop the spread of fake news, lies, and propaganda. Miles Herbert sat down with Nick to discuss how we should navigate this current political climate of misinformation. Also Kid Rock.

Do dolphins say ‘Huh?’ when they mishear other dolphins’ squeaks? Do gorillas point it out when other gorillas drop things on the ground? Can a currawong quote the call of another currawong? Do ants gossip? Sadly, the answer to these questions is no. But why not? This lecture explores the idea that humans are equipped with a unique combination of social and cognitive capacities that together constitute a ‘conversation machine’, without which language as we know it would not exist. Professor Nick Enfield presents new research on core features of the human conversation machine, including our cooperative tendencies, our heightened sense of accountability, and the fact that ours is the only communication system that can be used for making statements about itself. For more about Insights lecture series see this page: http://sydney.edu.au/sydney_ideas/lectures/2016/Insights2016.shtml

The Pacific region boasts a third of the world’s total living languages. A panel of experts examines ideas around national policies that recognize and protect minority languages, education systems that promote mother-tongue instruction, and creative collaboration between community and linguists. Indigenous language expert Professor Jakelin Troy, joins linguistics professor Nick Enfield, Professor of Oceanic Languages and Cultures, Bernard Rigo, founding member of the Australian South Sea Islanders, Emelda Davis and Ernie Dingo in a robust discussion on language use. THIS LECTURE TOOK PLACE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY ON 25 MAY 2015 AS PART OF THE SYDNEY IDEAS PROGRAM. For more info and speaker's biography see this page: http://sydney.edu.au/sydney_ideas/lectures/2015/competing_voices_pacific_forum.shtml

Linguists are apt to get excited when a language is identified that exhibits exotic properties, and gladly travel halfway round the world to document it, particularly if they think it’s going to support a pet theory of theirs. Nick Enfield‘s fieldwork in Laos differs from this paradigm in at least three respects. First, his choice of location reflects a prior interest in the culture of the region; second, the object of his study is gesture rather than just speech; and third, it’s quite possible that the forms of gesture he documents are actually very typical – we just don’t know yet. However, as well as the fieldwork, which is attractively summarised and depicted in The Anatomy of Meaning: Speech, Gesture, and Composite Utterances (Cambridge University Press, 2009/2012), there is a theory at stake, or at least a theoretical outlook. For Enfield, the use of gestures alongside speech illustrates something profound about the nature of meaning, specifically that it is a composite notion to which justice is not done by an insistence on treating speech and gesture separately. In reality, language users are adept at conveying and comprehending complex packages of (at least) speech and gesture, and our theories should encompass that versatility. In this interview, we talk about the motivations for both the fieldwork and the theory, and consider how the bewildering complexity of gestural interaction can be approached by the analyst. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Linguists are apt to get excited when a language is identified that exhibits exotic properties, and gladly travel halfway round the world to document it, particularly if they think it’s going to support a pet theory of theirs. Nick Enfield‘s fieldwork in Laos differs from this paradigm in at least three respects. First, his choice of location reflects a prior interest in the culture of the region; second, the object of his study is gesture rather than just speech; and third, it’s quite possible that the forms of gesture he documents are actually very typical – we just don’t know yet. However, as well as the fieldwork, which is attractively summarised and depicted in The Anatomy of Meaning: Speech, Gesture, and Composite Utterances (Cambridge University Press, 2009/2012), there is a theory at stake, or at least a theoretical outlook. For Enfield, the use of gestures alongside speech illustrates something profound about the nature of meaning, specifically that it is a composite notion to which justice is not done by an insistence on treating speech and gesture separately. In reality, language users are adept at conveying and comprehending complex packages of (at least) speech and gesture, and our theories should encompass that versatility. In this interview, we talk about the motivations for both the fieldwork and the theory, and consider how the bewildering complexity of gestural interaction can be approached by the analyst. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices