To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
Languages
Recent
Show all languages
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linkword is a mnemonic system promoted by Michael Gruneberg since at least the early 1980s for learning languages based on the similarity of the sounds of words. The process involves creating an easily visualized scene that will link the words together. One example is the Russian word for cow (корова, pronounced roughly karova): think and visualize "I ran my car over a cow."

It has a long history of software versions in its native United Kingdom being available for the Sinclair, Acorn and BBC Micro computers as well as a variety of audio and book editions over the years.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/3
    Views:
    6 024 978
    312 961
    7 574
  • What is Random?
  • Learn English: How to talk like the boss
  • How to get organized and learn any language quickly (Language Hack n.3)

Transcription

Hey Vsauce, Michael here and Derek generate 78 that's so random. Or is it? what does it mean to be random? can anything really be random what's the most random thing ever? today let's stop being random and become ransmart if something is unpredictable and contains no recognizable patterns we call it random So let's begin our hunt for the most random thing with a coin toss the Australian 50 cent coin is one of the largest coins currently in circulation coin flips and rolling dice are not intrinsically random they are only random because of our ignorance if we could know every initial condition the exact forces and properties that play for a particular flip or roll we could theoretically calculate the result before it even happened and sure enough researchers have built coin flipping robots that can precisely control a flip to get the result they want 100 percent of the time so here is our question. Is there anything you couldn't predict even if you knew everything? A process determined by nothing and how can you be sure they're aren't any patterns in what you're looking at maybe you just haven't looked for the right pattern yet or maybe you have already seen true randomness but didn't know it because you didn't look for long enough as if protected by a sort of camouflage a random process can and will occasionally produce patterns YouTube URL's are pretty much random a unique one is made for every uploaded video but sometimes like the proverbial monkeys typing away on typewriters YouTube generates a URL that contains by chance a word the official music video for 50 cents in da club contains a synonym for bottom this video was assigned hello there are some sexies and a sauce. If you want to find out if a particular word has been randomly assigned to a video yet you can search for it by using this string in Google the point is, randomness is difficult to identify it is easier to be certain that something is not random than that it is. But despite this elusiveness is something interesting is going on right now increasingly we especially young people are calling clearly predictable things random like randomly running into your best friend at a popular restaurant or hilariously bizarre combinations of things that we call totally random because they are seemingly unrelated even though of course they were chosen not in random but in a very determined way because they are all unrelated those guys that showed up at the party last night you didn't know the weren't randos in a mathematical sense they knew about the party, we're in the mood to go to a party and we're in the area pretty predictable actually this non statistical use of the word random annoys some people but it's not that far off from the original meaning of the word. In the 1300's random meant running or at great speed later it would be used to describe things that have no definite purpose it wasn't until the 1800's that random took on a particular mathematical definition then in the 1970's MIT's student paper popularized the use of the word random to simply mean strange of course just because something is strange doesn't mean it has no discoverable cause why if we started calling so many predictable things random well many theories revolve around the amount up information and new people we are confronted with at an increasing rate now more than ever before perhaps it's just easier almost a bit of a relief to call things random so that we can move on to synthesize other information take a look at this die now as you can see it rolls a five most of the time but not all the time overtime a sequence of its results will contain less randomness but it is still random any face is possible and I have no guarantee beforehand of knowing which face will show up the outcomes I'm selecting from make the resulting sequence less full of randomness but the process is still random even though a die and a coin are extremely sensitive to their initial conditions and over the course of normal use are quite unpredictable they do over time exhibit certain biases. Biases that make them a bit more predictable and a little less random than you might think. First of all dice even precision dice are only quality controlled within a few micrometers you can check this out yourself make two stacks of ten or more similar dice now if you orient each die every which way you should pretty much get two equally sized stacks but if you arrange each stack along a shared axis so that every die faces the same way any regular imperfections caused by the manufacturing process maybe come visible but what about coins? well some fantastic research has been done on what happens when they spin and flip. For instance it has been found that US nickel is just the right diameter and thickness to wind up landing not heads up for tails up when flipped but on its side, about once every six thousand times it's flipped but what about the fairness of flipping a coin well if you flip a coin like this or statistical and physical reasons the side facing up before the flip begins, doesn't actually have a fifty percent chance of being the result instead as researchers at Stanford have found it actually has a fifty one percent chance in this case it was the other side though still pretty random. If you want a coin flip to be as fair as possible you should just catch it in your hand. Don't allow it to hit the ground, bounce, tumble and spin. That's because researchers have found that when a coin spins larger biases come into play. The shape of it's edge it's center of gravity. The heavier side tends to go down quite often in the case of some coins as often as eighty percent of the time. It's been found that a one euro coin will spin and land heads up more often than not and a US penny will land tails up more often than not when spun. But like I said earlier theoretically if we knew everything about the initial conditions of a coin flip or a die roll we could calculate beforehand their outcome why don't we do that more often? well it's extremely difficult insane amounts of precision would be required because the smallest difference between two initial conditions can be magnified overtime leading to chaotic extremely difficult to predict results random.org the service Derek and I used beginning at this video to generate a random number uses atmospheric noise. It's extremely hard to predict but technically still a deterministic system all that noise came from somewhere and if we could just find out those initial conditions we could theoretically predict their outcomes if we want a system more random than that we will need to find one that is determined by nothing and for that let's look closer. Quantumly close quantum mechanics may have our answer it describes the properties of quantumly sized things as probabilities just chances, not because we don't know enough yet to be certain or predict but because, well the idea is there's nothing there to predict there is no beforehand we could know whether or not a particular individual radioactive atom will decay or not or whatever the spin of an electron is is only knowable once we look. They're determined by a deep-seated randomness woven into the universe itself Einstein couldn't believe this he refused to accept as he said that God played dice with the universe but experiments with entangled particles have shown violations of Bell inequalities entangled particles are particles that exhibit similar properties even with separated by large distances now if they agreed on those shared properties to have or are somehow determined beforehand to have them their behaviors should satisfy bells famous inequalities but experiments have found that instead the likelihood of what a machine will see when measuring one particle determines how the other machine will measure the other particle it is here, when we look that the chance is determined. Explanations for this are even weirder but what the results suggest is that the chance of seeing particular quantum qualities don't pre-exist they happen when you look so if you are ever feeling boring or predictable just remember that you are made out of octillions of quantum probabilities. Dice that don't tumble in any analyzable way we could ever predict they are the most random thing God may play dice with the universe but they are the best dice in the universe and as always thanks for watching but what does it all mean? well true randomness doesn't mean anything I mean for us to have meaning we need structure, predictability and that is what I'm exploring over on my channel, Veritasium Wow okay so let's go over there and take a look at what is not random. Veritasium let's go I'll see you guys over there. It's going to be awesome come with us and as always thanks for watching

Discussion of the method

Many teachers and students of language have used the same technique, and many examples have been used independently by many people (e.g., to remember that in Thai, khao means rice, imagine a cow eating rice).

One of the drawbacks of such methods is that it takes a lot of effort to create a scene for every new word. Linkword has the advantage of offering ready made scenes for each word, so hundreds of words can be memorized in a few hours. However, it offers only a basic vocabulary (e.g. 200 words for a survival course and around 1400 words for a 4-level course). Proponents of the method say that the effort to create a scene for a new word is less than or equal to the time required to memorize the word using other techniques (e.g. flashcards, Spaced repetition, and repeatedly saying a word out loud).

Another criticism of mnemonic techniques such as this is that they tend to assume a one-to-one relationship between the learner's first language and the target language. In reality, words often have a different range of meanings, and so the student must learn the complexity or nuance of the new words. For this reason, such techniques may be seen as a useful and powerful way to progress in the language, especially in the early stages, rather than giving a complete understanding.

Critics also say that because the method relies on the coincidental similarities in the sounds of words, it cannot be used to teach all, or even most, words of another language as there may be no corresponding phonetically similar words or visualizations that could be used. In practice, however, there is usually a visualization that can be used, but for some words it is a less direct connection and not as effective. In these cases, there is more need for other learning methods to support the visualization, such as repetition and flashcards.

The system is similar to a well-known trick of some stage mnemonists employed for memorizing huge lists of words suggested by spectators to repeat them in any given order, forwards, backwards, even ones, etc., known as mnemonic peg system. A mnemonist has his own "counting list" of words. Each counting word is bound to the next spectator's word by means of a sentence, as described above. Some mnemonists claim the sillier the binding sentence, the easier it is to remember.

While this method could be used to teach from any language to any language, it is currently used almost exclusively to teach English speaking people other languages. Many different companies offer systems based on this method, but the list of languages offered is almost identical. Learning courses have been developed to teach students Dutch, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese (both Brazilian and European), Russian, Spanish (both European and South American) and Welsh.

Further reading

  • Sommer, Stephen (December 2002). "The use of Linkword language computer courses in a classroom situation: a case study at Rugby school". Language Learning Journal. p. 48-53
  • Gruneberg M and Jacobs G (1991) In defence of Linkword. Language Learning Journal,3,25-29.
  • Beaton, A. A ., Gruneberg, M. M., Hyde, C. Shufflebottom, A. & Sykes, R.N. (2005). Facilitation of receptive and productive foreign vocabulary acquisition using the keyword method: The role of image quality. Memory, 13, 458-471
  • Gruneberg M. and Pascoe K. (1996) The effectiveness of the keyword method for receptive and productive learning in the elderly. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 102-109
  • Beaton, A. A ., Gruneberg, M. M., and Ellis N (1995) Retention of foreign vocabulary learned using the keyword method: a ten-year follow up. Second Language Research, 11, 2, pp 112–120
  • Gruneberg M, Sykes R and Gillett E. (1994). The facilitating effect of Mnemonic strategies on two learning tasks in learning disabled adults. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 4, 241-254
This page was last edited on 27 October 2023, at 02:09
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.