Hi guys. How's everyone doing? Good morning. I'm by myself today. Mindy and Mags could not make it. So it'll be a short and sweet one this morning. See, we have Lynette here. We have my mom who was the mother of the wiki tree apparently. Kathy, Chris, Janine, Thomas, Benjamin, Tommy, maybe I already said that. Betsy and Greg. Did I get everybody? Hello, Linda. Hello, Hilary. Yes, I'm holding down the fort today. So like I said, it'll probably be... Oh look, we have somebody. Hello, Mary from Chicago who's watching on Twitter periscope. We just started streaming on Twitter periscope. So thanks for watching. And congratulations, Kathy, on your granddaughter. Oh, Greg, is that going to be your first grandchild? Okay, so we'll probably do the profiles of the week and we'll do the photos and we'll probably dip out unless anybody has questions or have any requests. That's probably what I'll be doing today. That is new because we noticed that we could stream to Twitter, so might as well, right? Okay, I guess we could just jump right on in unless anybody has anything to say. Well, I guess we'll go... So we'll do the question of the week really quick because it ties into our profiles of the week. And our question of the week this week was, do you have any Indigenous people in your tree? Any of you watching have any Indigenous people in your tree? So we'll go look and see what people have to say. Apparently, some Native Hawaiian, Montuck, Algonquin Indian tribe from northeast. And I saw also, there was a conversation of like, what do they mean by Indigenous and it could be Indigenous to North America or Australia or any thing that was Indigenous to any country really. So only Indigenous to Britain, Benjamin. Hello, Willa Dean. Hello, Patricia. I'm trying to see if anybody... Let's see a lot of Native American Indigenous. Trying to see if anybody put in maybe Indigenous to Australia or anything else. No, probably not. Mostly we have here as people having Indigenous background in Native America. So now we'll look at our Indigenous people before our profiles of the week and our main connection feature. And please put in the chat who you're most closely connected to and this should be interesting since they're all see how close you are to Indigenous person. Kathy says, your husband's from Mexico. Well, I guess it depends if he... Is he from Indigenous Mexican, you know, from the Mexican area or is his family from Spain? I don't know. Well, Tommy says he only has squirrels in his tree. Well, Victoria, you have Mohican, your second great-grandmother, if I said that correct. Yeah, so apparently okay. So, Sacajawea, 1788. And we all are probably familiar with her for the most part. She was part of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. And I'll probably butcher a lot of these people's names. So I apologize in advance. So she was part of the Acadia tribe kidnapped around the age 12 by the... Man, this is gonna be... That's a group. And she was given her soul to the Charbonneux and famous US history. And then she went on the journey with William Clark and Mary Wether Lewis, where they traveled about the States. Next we have Beringu Camarillo from, I guess, New South Wales. Indigenous of that area. Oh, Indigenous Australian. Like I said, I didn't realize, but I guess then moved to New South Wales on Sydney. So born around the Sydney area. Scarcity cells of her life prior to colonization. Met Governor Philip on a boat on February 3rd, 1790 at Rose Bay. And described as one of the most powerful figures in Sydney's early history. That's pretty cool. So, see we have an Indigenous Australian. Let's see who's next. Also, let's see what all you guys are saying in the chat. So next we have Angel Decora from the native to Nebraska. Was born in Nebraska in 1871. She was a Ho Chuk. I think I said that correctly. So it says here, Dis customary for clansmen to give a person her name. So a relative opened the Bible at random place and the word angel was found. So that's how she was named. So that's pretty cool. Her Ho, her Ho Chuk name was Henuk Mehewe Kilanaka, which translated to fleecy cloud floating in place. That's such a nice, that's such a, such a nice name. Or women coming on the clouds in glory. So let's see. I didn't really read these through beforehand. So please forgive me. Like I said, it was going to be a quick one today since I'm by myself. Ooh, I've seen, I've read about her before. Next one is Emma Kalaliwani, Queen Emma of Hawaii. I feel like we've talked about her before in a previous, I think on one of the royal ones. So she was Queen of the Kingdom of Hawaii from 1854 to 1863. And I know there was, when they so in 1861 the King Queen invited the Church of England to begin a missionary in Hawaii, but Queen Victoria went a step further and declared Hawaii its own historic. The relationship with Queen Victoria was a good one. So much that Victoria was named Godmother of Emma's son, Prince Albert Edward, the duration of her life, Queen Emma pursued issues that she and King Alexander both held dear, including healthcare of her people and education of young Hawaiian women. She was, she helped Hawaii a lot. So then next we have Dame Hopin Cooper, born in 1895. She was a Maori leader in New Zealand, often referred to as the mother of the nation. Worked many years for the rights of her people, in particular to improve the lots of Maori women. So we had an Australian and a New Zealand. Let's see, you guys were saying who you're closest to. So Chris, you say you're 15 degrees from Sacajawea. That's cool. Let's see, as close as this one, 21 degrees. We have Jelaine. Hi, Jelaine. By myself today. Thank you all for just going with me. And we'll see who I'm most closely connected to, unless somebody wants to look it up. Mags usually does it for me. Well, look, Sadie Miriam Canning, born in 1930 in Australia, then 2008 in Australia. She was a Wengkatha woman and an activist who became Australia's first Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander nurse and later matron. So very cool. I'm waiting to see if there's anything I can let you guys know about her. So it says Aboriginal people were not included in the mining economy and were marginalized in society, legislation that sought to retain British Charter. So yeah, nursing career and activism. She went to Melbourne, Victoria at 19, where she undertook her nursing training, and she worked to improve educational opportunities for young Aboriginals. And she met another activist, Ken Kolbong. She was also a Justice of the Peace. A lot of them have really good biographies, so please, everyone, go read them in more depth, and you can learn something new. So next we have Dr. Doreen Maud Wanganine, born in 1935 in Australia. She was another activist and historian. Apparently two of her great-grandfathers were white. She grew up in Reckon with two brothers and five sisters. And oh look, she during commenced formal genealogical studies in 1981. She studied genealogy just like us guys. Well, her biography is very long, and it's on 1995. Doreen was awarded an honorary doctorate from the University of South Australia in her recognition of her genealogical work in 2002. Doreen was awarded the Prime Minister's Scenario Medal when she died on December 3rd, 2007. So Hillary's closest to Sadie, and my mom said the Doreen. Oh, Doreen. So maybe this one's my club. No, because since usually I'm connected through everybody through my dad's side. Oh, Thomas says I'm 20 degrees from both Maria and Louis. Louis. And then Thomas keeps writing weird. Why are you writing Klingon, Thomas? Why? Why? Already have a hard time pronouncing things. Okay, who's next? One of my close ones, Louise, Louis, born in 1844. I'm not really sure what St. Boniface Red River Settlement in Rupert's land. So maybe Canada. I assume that's Canada. So he was the founder of Manitoba and a central figure in the Red River and Northwest Resistances. We had two resistant conflicts with the Canadian government, the Red River Rebellion of 1869 to 1870, and the Northwest Rebellion of 1885. Apparently he got a scholarship to Montreal for the study of priesthood. Let's see. Apparently he was, he had a warrant for his arrest in 1873 for the murder of Thomas Scott. Apparently he turned himself over in May 15, 1885. He was put on trial and found guilty of treason despite the jury's request for mercy. He was hanged on November 16, 1885. Oh my. And he's one of my closest ones. I have three more guys. Next we have Mateo Carino from the Philippines born in 1854. He was a Ibalio chieftain and he owned large tracts of land which would be later known as the Begui as early as the Spanish colonial period. Titles of the land were given to him by the Spanish colonial government in exchange for his conversion to Christianity. So apparently in 2010 the city council of Begui, I'm not pronouncing that right, passed a resolution which created a monument honoring Carino and the Ibalio people. Very cool. Oh this one. At least there's a, so Violet Georgina. I'm not going to try that other. Not going to do it. Born in 1918 in Washington, died in 2008 in Washington as part of the Upper Skagit Indian tribe. So a tribe of Native Americans who heard the Indigenous Coast Salish, the Tushid language from family when young and was instrumental in the preservation of that language being its last native and fluent speaker. Her efforts include the education of any students in traditional language and stories of the region that constitutes the present day city of Seattle. And there's a lot of effort in many of the Native American tribes to try to preserve their languages as they're pacing out unfortunately. Why are we still talking about Klingon and Star Trek? Okay and we have one more. My other closest connection, Maria Taltief. Born in 1925 in Oklahoma. She was an Osage. I think I said that right. She was considered America's first major prima ballerina and the first Native American to hold rank. Oh I'm most closely connected to a ballerina. Almost from birth she was involved in dance starting formal lessons at the age of three and when she was eight her family relocated her birth home of Oklahoma from Oklahoma to Los Angeles and let's see and she was a ballerina. That's pretty cool. First major prima ballerina. Those are all of our profiles of the week guys and I am not surprised that Chris started the talk of Star Trek and Klingon. Not surprise at all. Chris is the starter of all the trouble. Yes yes this is true. I'm glad you guys can keep yourself entertained in the chat. Now we'll look at the photos. Let's see. This week's theme is Spectacles. Should be a good one. Should be good. Charles Eildman. You see his little glasses. He's like from the back looking forward. The title list is Misidentified Photo. Oh photo misidentified as this person. Hmm look at her glasses. Little little pointy glasses. Okay we call these cat eye glasses. Think so. Cat eye. They're both wearing glasses. How cute. Look at her hair. Oh bye Greg. Oh hello Russell watching from Facebook from Toronto. Oh are we talking about me being a ballerina? Oh thank you. So everybody's who's maybe timing and late I am by myself today. So it's a little kind of hard being by yourself. Kind of talking to myself. I'm also talking to you guys. Hello Charles from Macon Georgia. Open. They're making a spectacle themselves. Open. This is Charles. Realtor and businessman. Oh look Charles. Another Charles in glasses. So you're asking John Howe's Tallahassee right now. Weather wise. It's partly cloudy. Oh this was Charles business card. That's funny. Oh I like this one. She's very fancy. I wonder if we'll see any any dogs in glasses. I really hope somebody uploaded one of those. I was uploaded by Dieter. Where is Dieter? Dieter where are you? Kath at Aunt Betty's. Look there's this one. It's like a windmill back there. Fence. Tree. Okay mom. My mom just left. No she's she's got some errands to do. Oh this one's an interesting one. Nobody actually wearing glasses in here? Nobody's wearing glasses. I don't understand. That's still a cute photo even though they're not wearing glasses. This is some very tiny glasses. Just like everything else in fashion. The style of glasses. Oh this was uploaded by you Thomas. This is one of your ancestors. I was going to say the style of glasses always changed. They've gone from thin to thick, big, small. Just so three people in this one are wearing glasses. That was your third great-grandmother Thomas. Oh that's great. You just found that photo. That's always nice finding a photo of someone you never you never knew what they looked like before. Where'd you find it? And just in your stuff? That's same. Oh look at this one. This is a very appropriate. Her 60th birthday and she's wearing glasses that have 60 on it. I like it. Oh this photo is in a scrapbook. I like when people do stuff like this. So it says was wife of Thomas Smith and mother of 12 children including Philip Andrew. Her husband was a lay minister in the Methodist Church as well as a farmer and coal merchant. So he's delivering coal to local residents. She purrified this term supermom raising three of her son's children's after he died at a young age. She also welcomed two of their daughter's children into the family home. Wow. Can anybody else do scrapbooks like this of their family history? I think those are super cool. Oh look at this one. It looks like they're at the beach with their umbrella and glasses and hat. It's kind of funny this one.  I don't know but I like that one. Only if the glass the baby was also wearing glasses. That would be cute. That's all photos are one. That is it and I am disappointed there are no animals with glasses. You all disappointed me. Well you found that photo in the attic of your grandparents house in Chicago. How lucky is that? So unless you guys have any questions or you want to see anything else I mean I don't know what you guys I might I might hit off. So we said that I was most closely connected to Louis and Maria both through my dad as usual. Yeah well this one's for this one's just a one one marriage end. Yeah because oh yeah because Maria's mom was actually one her dad was native and her mom was got Irish so that makes sense. Any new gadgets? I don't know. I mean we talked about the connection finder last time. We've been looking at the connection finder. You can see if there usually they let's look and see if there's anything fun on G2G real quick. Oh wait look I found something that's related to the connection finder. So this is actually pinned to the top of G2G so you can see what actors so featured actors. So it's basically the categories again they just have things in categories and you can see how you're connected to people in the categories. So like this one is the famous actors. Well Patrick Wayne Swayze where's my mom? When we need her. Me and Patrick Wayne Swayze are 23rd cousins once removed. That is really cool. That makes me excited. You guys should see. You guys should all look at this. Let's see who else. Anthony Perkins Richard Jude Edward Montgomery Cliff where eighth cousins three times removed. So I guess that's that's one thing you can play with. So get the pinned. Oh you can also see how you're related to the wiki tree challenge guest stars. Let's see. Oh and then I guess I can give you guys a quick update about the about the challenge. Mindy so many couldn't be here today. We will do that really quick challenge update. So Mindy was saying that let's see. They're still apparently they're still going through a lot of material but we do have two brick walls down already. So that is pretty exciting. And a lot of the stuff they've been finding Drew hasn't seen before. So Wednesday should be a good a good reveal. So don't that's all I'm giving away because you know we have to wait until Wednesday but that's all. At least we've broken down two brick walls so far. Good job guys. Twenty bounty points. Well Thomas find us some guest stars with Nordic ancestors. If you have any suggestions you know we're always I know we don't have every single week filled up yet so if you guys have any suggestions on who we can feature for the challenge. Please please send them to A1Mindy because Mindy is the challenge coordinator. Weekie tree secrets. No no weekie tree secrets that I can think of. Oh Hillary says she's beta testing an app. That's all she can say. Yeah is the ones I it should be at 8 p.m. but just keep an eye out for that. It was just at 3 p.m. these last two times because of Daniel who it was in Ireland like John so it was a better time for him. So it should be at 8 but keep an eye out. And yeah unless there's any questions might head off guys. I'm actually going to go to the beach today. After after we all after we all depart. It's going to be maybe a good beach day I don't know. Partly partly sunny. Maybe it'll rain a little bit. Who knows? Any questions? So if not guys I will see you next time so don't forget Wednesday should be at 8 p.m. Eastern time. Well we will wrap up Drew. We'll see all that we found for him. And then next Saturday same time same place hopefully Magnum and Mindy can join me next week and we can have our full hour of fun times and I do wear sunscreen. Yes thank you all for watching and just being with me today. So and goodbye. Don't forget to like, subscribe, thumbs up. Nobody's liked it yet. Oh bye Mary from Periscope. Thank you for watching over there. So goodbye all.


So, welcome everybody. My name is Madana Seyfriedini-Poy. I'm the Director of the Endangered Languages Doctrine and Mutation Program for all of you. I see a lot of new faces that I don't know yet, but hopefully I will get to meet you over time. And it's my pleasure to host this seminar today and to introduce you to Roland Lander. Roland is a linguist who has come to work with us for two months from Griffith University in Australia. And he has worked on grammatical gender, on the influence of grammatical gender on cognition, a clouding effect. And I will put out a disclaimer right now that it is my fault that the talk has ten less slides on statistics. And he really, really is very unhappy about that. So anything when you see it hurts him because he can't talk more about the formula, it's my fault. So yes. So we're very happy to have him here. He is sitting in room 346 where also we are located, the Endangered Languages Archive, as well as the Endangered Languages Documentation Program right next to the Multilingual Lab, which is the student room where we hope to see you a lot because the room is for you guys. And if you want to talk to Roland and learn more about his work, please come and visit us in room 346. That's where he's placed until mid and November hopefully. He is here to explore possibilities on collaboration with our linguists, like for example the Crossroads Project or the Bantu Project, because those languages have from a European gender system really crazy categories. And when you learn about what he has done, you will understand why he's so excited about the work we are doing here and the understanding we have about languages that are usually not subject to this type of study. So I'm going to hand over to Roland. Thank you very much, Mandana, for that introduction. And thank you everyone for coming. Continuing on on your disclaimer, I actually kept those slides are here, so if you have any questions at the end, we can get, we can, we can talk about them after the presentation, they're in an appendix. So I'm going to talk about, as Mandana said, about the influence of grammatical gender on cognition, especially in conceptualization of objects. I'll give you a bit of a background, I'll keep that fairly short, talk about some of the previous studies that dealt with this issue. Then I'll talk a little bit about conceptualization, what it is, what are some of the issues that we need to think about when we when we study conceptualization. And then I'll focus mainly on my study that I carried out all about the aim, participants, the languages that I covered, which to some of you may be a bit boring, because this is kept within kind of the European realm. The design, it was a three-phase experiment, so it's fairly complex, but I'll make it simple. And I'll talk a little bit about the formal analysis. And the main part will be about the findings of what I actually found and some of the implications. So first of all, language and cognition, I mean, is there a connection between language and cognition? I mean, this is a question that's been pondered for literally millennia. And it was brought into sharper focus recently by Saper and Wolf, the Saper-Wolf hypothesis, many of you may have heard about that. And in fact, if there is a connection between language and cognition, if language influences cognition, the next question is, to what extent and how exactly does language influence cognition? But what I looked at specifically was grammatical gender and cognition, because it's a lot more specific and a lot sexier. Many studies have put out the proposition that there is a relationship between grammatical gender and conceptualization. Namely, it's a positive correlation that if something, if a language assigns, say, masculine to an object, the speakers of that language will conceptualize that object as more masculine than feminine. And vice versa, if it assigns feminine, they will conceptualize that object as more feminine. Now, some of the languages, as you know, like Spanish and German, assign a grammatical gender to each noun. So for example, in Spanish, this would be a desk, el escritorio, it's masculine. That's a table, and that's la mesa, it's feminine. So according to this hypothesis, Spanish speakers would conceptualize the desk slightly more masculine than the table, because of the grammatical gender that is assigned to it by Spanish. Now, this is not so clear cut, so there are, there is a lot of disagreement in the field about whether this is the case. And there are a number of studies, I only mentioned a few that argue against such a link. And there are also some studies that basically, as I put it, they sit on the fence. I kept the whole, when language affects cognition and when it does not, I mean, that's the title of the article. This is actually one of the best articles that you can read on the topic, except that I have to warn you that the conclusion, after the description of a series of really great experiments, the conclusion is the biggest fissure, because it says sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Yeah, the end. But it's worth reading, just as long as you don't expect too much from the conclusion or any answers. So one study that I would like to have a look at in a little bit more detail, simply because my methodology was inspired by this study, is Borodis Kishmitin Phillips from 2003. They carried out a study. They claimed that people's ideas about objects can be influenced by aspects of grammar. They went a little bit further. They actually were talking about even ideas, design, architecture as well, that it's all basically influenced by grammatical gender. They tested German and Spanish speakers. They tested them in English. I have issues with that as well. So these were German and Spanish speaking participants, but they were all proficient speakers of English. They were all tested in the United States in English. I know. They were asked to generate adjectives to describe objects, which I'll tell you why I thought that was actually quite clever. But first I'll give you German and Spanish. Yes, in English. I mean, it is, look, I agree that it is more expedient, and that's where my agreement kind of ends with testing, you know, when you're looking for an effect in someone's native language and you test them in another language. I know.  But anyway, this was a fairly influential study, and it cited a lot for some reason. They were asked to, so participants were asked to generate adjectives about objects. And I'll give you one example. And this example was bridge. Bridge is grammatically masculine in Spanish, and it's grammatically feminine in German. So these participants were asked to describe a bridge with adjectives, the first adjectives that came to mind. And behold, Spanish speakers describe bridges as big, dangerous, long, strong, sturdy, towering. What do you think? Sorry? See, that's another very good question. We don't know how the stimuli were actually administered. No idea. I'd love to know. I hope so. This was, yeah. The study was never published in a book, and then it just went. Nevertheless, it took off like wildfire from that book chapter. And it's one of the studies that just pops up everywhere, including Stephen Fry. It's sexy. It is very sexy. It really is. It's a good story. It's an excellent story. I couldn't agree more. It really is a great story. But so what do you think Germans describe beautiful, elegant, fragile, peaceful, pretty, and slender? Yes. I mean, wow. I mean, this is really amazing, isn't it? So obviously, Boroditsky and her team, they concluded that there is a positive correlation between the grammatical, gender-related languages, science, and object, and its gender-related conceptualization. So meaning that, as you could just see, Spanish speakers, because it's grammatically masculine, will conceptualize it as more masculine and vice versa. I do have some butts. Many other studies, especially some recent studies, are suggesting that the interrelationship between grammatical features and conceptualization is a lot more subtle, and it's a lot more complex than a positive correlation, as described by Boroditsky and her team. And that the effects triggered by language-specific tasks may not necessarily mean, may not point to a direct influence on conceptualization. So what is conceptualization? Just a few words about that. This is conceptualization, right? Yes. What is it? It's a melon, yeah? Describe a watermelon, yeah. Describe a watermelon. Round and green. Round and green. Stripey. Juicy. Sweet. Heavy. Colorful, yeah? Anything else? Cool, yeah? Give me some adjectives, as in what is it like? Yeah? Okay, so we said, now what are from these, I mean, what can we actually see? Like, what are the perceptible attributes of this watermelon? What can we see? I mean, we can see that it's round. We can see that it's green. If we actually had a watermelon here, we could touch it. We could probably feel that it's smooth. If we lift it, we could feel that it's heavy. But we also said it's juicy, sweet. We could argue that it's delicious. How do we know that? We don't know that until we actually cut a watermelon. So how do we know that? We know that because we had previous interaction with a watermelon, right? I mean, most of us would have tasted our watermelon. So we know that when we cut it, it's going to be red. It's going to be juicy. When we taste it, it's going to be sweet, delicious, you know, all those things that we just mentioned. The only point I'm trying to make here about conceptualization is that what characteristics we assign to an object goes way beyond what we can actually perceive about the object. It also comes down to previous experience with the object, etc. It also comes down to environmental factors, idiosyncratic factors, as in how do I feel about a watermelon? I might hate watermelon. So I might not say that it's sweet and juicy. I might say it's yucky and disgusting, right? Cultural factors, etc., etc. So conceptualization is not as straightforward as it may seem from a round watermelon. Now, the big question is whether linguistic features such as grammatical gender play a part in how we conceptualize objects. And this is, and if it does, how and to what degree? This is what I set out to have a look at, to have a closer look at. So about this study, a few words. The aim of the study was to investigate the relationship between grammatical categories and cognition by looking at grammatical gender and conceptualization of objects. It was a fairly large-scale study. 1,290 participants took part in this study from 24 countries, which I'm very proud. And they were all native speakers of the target language. And I should also mention that all the experiments were kept in the target language. So it was none of that English business, other than for the English speakers. But while we're talking about the languages, the languages are sitting on a so-called gender-loading scale. Now, this gender-loading scale was originally proposed by Alexander Giora back in the 80s. Basically, it is a scale that is looking at languages according to the degree to which they necessitate speakers to be mindful of gender. And I will explain that a little bit more. We can probably argue about how they sit on here, but we can do that in the Q&A. Basically, we start with a zero gender-load language such as Hungarian. Hungarian does not have any grammatical gender. And it does not even have gender pronouns. So there is no he and she. Of course, there is a third person pronoun. It encodes that we're talking about a person, we're talking about a third person, but it does not include any information about the gender of that person, whether we're talking about a male or a female. And I should mention at this point that Hungarian, in this respect, is not unique. There are a number of languages that do not have any grammatical gender whatsoever. And not even a gendered pronominal system. All Finnell Greek languages, so Finnish, Hungarian, Estonian, all Turkic languages are non-gendered. They don't have any gender at all. Now, why I put, and this is why on this scale, English is sitting as a partial or low gender-loading language. Because when we put it next to a language like Hungarian, there is some gender in English. While English does not assign a grammatical gender to each noun, it does have a gendered pronominal system. So there is he and she. So if I say that Mandana stood up, tripped and hid himself, is that correct? No. What did I get wrong? My gender. If I can get the gender wrong, that means it features, I have to be mindful when I speak English, I have to be mindful that who I'm talking about is a male or a female. I cannot make this mistake in Hungarian, for example, or in a completely non-gendered language. You cannot make this mistake because there's no gendered pronominal system. So this is why. And now, Spanish, I put it at a full with two grammatical genders, masculine and feminine. Full just means that Spanish assigns a grammatical gender to each noun. So each noun, as I explained about the desk and the table, would have a grammatical gender. Hebrew was another language that also has two grammatical genders, masculine and feminine, but it permeates the language to a much greater degree than it does in Spanish. It features in the verb conjugation, it features in first person pronouns, it features a lot more than it does in Spanish, for example. And then I put German on top, and as I said, we can argue about that, which also has a full grammatical gender system, but with three grammatical genders, masculine and feminine, and neuter as well. And it does assign this agreement, et cetera. Now let's have a look at the stimuli that were used. This is, and I'll explain in a minute in a bit more detail, about what I did exactly, but I would like to show you the stimuli, first of all, that were used, because it was a fairly similar study to Boroditsky's that I asked my participants to describe objects. Except that to make sure that all the experiments were gauging the gender load associated with these objects accurately, I included some control items that were clearly, you know, the natural gender was clear. There were four feminine items, bride, ballerina, girl, woman, four masculine items, boy, sailor, man, boxer. These were mixed in with all the other. Now, this is where the trickery came, because I'm looking for objects that had opposite grammatical genders in some of these languages. So there were four objects that had opposite grammatical gender in German and Spanish. So like bridge, I already mentioned bridge before and bridge fork table star. Then there was a group of four that had opposite grammatical gender in German and Hebrew. Then there were four that had opposite grammatical gender in Spanish and Hebrew. And the last four was the same grammatical gender in all of them, two feminine ones, two masculine ones. So what participants had to do, they had to look at these objects. They were presented in different conditions, either text or image. The ones that had the text condition did not know about the image ones. The ones that had the images did not know about the text ones. And they were asked to come up with the first three adjectives that came to mind to describe these objects. And then the five most frequently occurring adjectives were collated. And just to give you an example, this was the stimulus fork, text condition, image condition. In English, these were the five most frequently occurring adjectives to describe a fork. Sharp, shiny, pointy, useful metallic. As you can see, there's not a huge difference between text and image condition in this case. They're basically the same adjectives in a slightly different order. Shiny, sharp, useful, metallic, pointy. Just to show off, I'll show you the Hebrew ones as well, that the five most frequently occurring adjectives were around shiny, sharp, useful, small, pretty. And for the image condition, sharp, useful, shiny, serrated, effective. Well, it is, I suppose, effective. So these were around just some examples of the five most frequently occurring adjectives. So in phase two, these adjectives were rated. And this was by a completely different cohort of participants who were not aware of the first phase. They were simply presented with lists of adjectives. And they did not know where these adjectives came from. So these, the adjectives collected in this first phase were used in the second phase as stimuli. Now, this is where some trickery had to be employed. They were told a bit of a story about a cartoon that we are making. And they were asked that an animated character in a cartoon described by a given adjective, should this character have a male voice or a female voice? Okay. So if a character is described as big, should it have a male voice or a female voice? It was a voice attribution task. And, you know, if a character is described as pretty, should it have a male voice or a female voice? And they were also given an opt out. They were given a can decide option which was in the instructions that was discovered. So it said, you know, if you really cannot make up your mind, put down can decide. So this is how these adjectives were rated. This is a quick example of bridge. From the image condition in English, these were the five most frequently occurring adjectives, long, strong, tall, big, sturdy. And you can see the gender ratings there as well, that there was fairly clear consensus on bridge in English. So male voice for long, for example, 49 participants said it should have a male voice, like, you know, someone described as long. 19 said female voice and seven couldn't decide. With sturdy, there was all 75 participants in this language in this phase agreed that some, like a character described as sturdy, should have a male voice in our cartoon. So overall, as you can see, this was rated as overwhelmingly more masculine when we relate these scores back to bridge. Bridge was conceptualized as more masculine than feminine. So in phase three, this phase was the complicated one. This was the one where we had to figure out exactly what was going on with all these scores, where we had to relate these scores that we got from the adjectives back to the original stimuli that generated them, to establish the gender-related conceptualization. And whether it has anything to do with the grammatical gender that is assigned to these objects in some of the languages. So if gender load scores were established for each adjective, then these gender load scores had to be related back to the original stimuli. And also the relative strength of the connection between these, so taking into account frequencies and weighting, et cetera, had to be established as well. A very quick word about the formal analysis, and I'm not going to use any equations, I promise. But one thing, because it is important, one thing that occurred to me as I was looking through the literature is that where a statistical analysis was even described or explained, they were mainly using an analysis of variants or a repeated measures analysis of variants. This is a statistical tool that you use for a continuous response, which is why this was one of the problems. I mean, gender association responses of the type used here are essentially binary and discrete. So, ANOVA is also a bit inefficient in isolating confounders, of which we have many. Keep in mind that we need to try to disentangle all kinds of effects, from cultural effects to media cinematic, remember the melon, and find what is actually due to the grammatical gender that is assigned to these objects. So, we used a logistic regression and I promise to keep it short because it is actually a bit like ANOVA except that it's developed for a binary response. So, it was a lot better suited for this kind of data. It is specifically designed for this kind of analysis, and it is a lot more effective in dealing with multiple confounders, as I said, of which we have many here. So, we could actually detect subtle effects a lot more effectively with this kind of analysis. Now, to give you one example of all the complexities that we had to deal with, one was we had to develop an adjective stimulus association measure, and why we had to do that is because adjectives obviously occurred for sometimes for multiple stimuli, okay, and I'll explain, I'll illustrate that in a minute. But if an adjective was uniquely associated with a stimulus, everything was clear, except that in most cases that was not the case. So, in which case the implications were a bit ambiguous. I'll show you what I mean. For example, here are from the Spanish cohort, there are two adjectives, onda or onda, means deep in Spanish, grande means big. Ondo was easy. It was associated with one stimulus, only with plate, okay. Plate generated deep in Spanish, and no other stimulus generated the same adjective. So, that was clear. These are the male voice, female voice, can't decide. So, that was easy to relate back to plate. However grande was associated with 11 of the stimuli from different conditions. So, obviously there were frequency issues, waiting issues that had to be taken into account here. And as you can see, it ranges from a frequency of 8 to 34. So, this would mean that these adjectives were relating back to the stimuli quite differently. So, the implications, this is what I meant that the implications were somewhat ambiguous. This had to be built into the model about which I'm not allowed to talk. But anyway, so this is just to give you an idea of, you know, some of the complexities that we had to deal with and why a stock standard analysis was just not going to cut it simply.  Let's have a look at the findings. As I said, there were control and test stimuli. The control stimuli were simply there to test the instrument, to test the experiments that they could gauge gender-related conceptualization. A quick word about the scores, they were represented on a continuous scale. Anything positive means masculine. Anything negative means feminine. Okay? Sorry? Don't read too much into that. It's like, it had to be one or the other. So, let's have a quick look at the control stimuli and let's see if the instrument worked.  Yes, it did. Sorry, spoiler. Here are the scores for ballerina. As you can see, consistently in all the languages, all the conditions, even though with these adjectives, they contextualize given to a whole different cohort than these scores related back to the original stimuli, it still came up consistently in all the conditions, all the languages as feminine. Boxer came up as masculine, which was great news. But actually, just to give you a further idea, all of them in all the languages, in all the conditions. So, we were fairly confident that this way of trying to gauge gender-related conceptualization worked because all the female controls were rated as feminine and all the male controls were rated as masculine. But the real juicy part is really going to be the test stimuli. And here's bridge. Now, to explain my buttons, which are a lot of fun, we're having a feminine side here, a masculine side here. These buttons are sitting where grammatical gender would suggest that they should be sitting. Okay, keep in mind the Borodicka hypothesis. Hungarian and English, sorry, different flags, sorry. Hungarian and English, they don't assign a grammatical gender, they're in the middle. Spanish and Hebrew, masculine. So, they're sitting on the masculine side. German, feminine. So, we would expect if Borodicka is right, this should stay somewhere here, those two should stay somewhere over there, and we have no idea what these will do. However, this is what it ended up looking like at the end. So, as you can see, they were actually pulling towards the masculine in all languages. Probably the one that was least is the one that really shouldn't have been. Because in the image condition in Hebrew, that was the one that was close to zero, so it was a little bit unclear. But all of them were rated as masculine. It's also interesting tonight is that Hungarian and English speakers were pretty sure about what they were doing, which was, I'll get back to that, because this gets juicier. Chair, I should take bits. I need to make some money here. What do you think happened with Chair? Yeah, but once again, it's remarkable how, regardless of grammatical gender, they were pulling on the one side, in this case on the masculine side, regardless of what grammatical gender. And again, English and Hungarian speakers are just great. They're very good at this, which was a bit of a surprise at first. Ring, like that. That's it. I tried not to, they were all black and white, very standard pictures. Masculine or feminine? It's feminine in all the languages. Table, masculine. But basically, the point I'm making here is that grammatical gender did not seem to be a predictor at all. It did not appear to play a part in this at all, regardless of the grammatical gender that is assigned to this. And I have the rest of them here. There's bridge. Now, there were obviously a few outliers. For example, with fork, the only condition in which it was rated a bit more feminine than masculine was in Hebrew, where it's grammatically masculine. So it was kind of going against grammatical gender. Table, we already saw that. Star. Again, it was a bit all over the place. But look at German. It's der Stearn. It's masculine in German. It was rated the most feminine in German. Again, the point I'm trying to make here is that it did not. Like, we did not see any evidence that grammatical gender was predicting the gender conceptualization here. Cloud. Same story. A few outliers. Absolutely, apparently, nothing to do with grammatical gender. Pistol was a pretty clear case. That it was all rated masculine. It was one of those really good cases, actually. Sorry, quick story about the pistol was. I mean, the adjectives are very consistent throughout four of the languages. Dangerous, deadly, loud, all that. Except in Hebrew, but the top two most frequently occurring adjectives were loaded and useful. Which I thought was cool. Ring. Same kind of thing. Moon. Once again. You see, it's feminine in Hebrew. It was rated not very strongly, but somewhat masculine. So once again, it's feminine in Spanish and it was rated masculine. So you're kind of getting my point, I hope, that we did not find any evidence for grammatical gender predicting the gender conceptualization of these objects. Hand, fish, now. So as I said, as you could expect, even after very careful analysis, there was no evidence that there was a positive correlation between grammatical gender and the gender conceptualization of an object. In fact, the effect turned out to be slightly paradoxical. I'm talking about a tiny effect here. So don't read too much into it. But it's not that it didn't reach statistical significance. It was actually slightly paradoxical, meaning that grammatically feminine objects were slightly more likely to be rated as masculine. As you can see, this number is positive here. And grammatically masculine objects were slightly more likely to be rated as feminine. So I was fairly convinced that this positive correlation effect was, we didn't have any evidence for it. However, I have lots of butts in, however. When we were looking at the data, something interesting was emerging from the data, which was, as you could see, remember me praising English and Hungarian speakers? How well they did with these tasks? Well, that's exactly what occurred to us, that it looked a little bit odd. So we decided to look into, as an additional, and this was really an exploratory measure at the time, to look into the absolute magnitude of the scores. And the magnitude here just means that how far away from zero they are. Because we thought that it would be informative of the confidence of the consensus. The further away a score is from zero, the clearer the consensus would appear to be. And if it's really just hovering around zero, then it indicates that the consensus is really not all that clear. So that's why we thought, since there's some information in these magnitudes, let's have a look at them, whether there's any pattern. Because it prompted a speculation that there may, when we looked at the magnitudes, there was a pattern, in fact. And it was suggesting that the complexity of gender systems may actually, to some degree, suppress the confidence with which participants assign gender characteristics to objects, which was interesting to say the least. So we thought, well, let's test it another way. Because this is really cool. So we looked at the can decide responses. And remember, I mentioned that participants were given a can decide option that was discouraged. I'll make a very quick point here about how participants were great in all languages because only 6% of them gave a can decide response overall. Except that, and for statistics, we need numbers. Because we had so many participants and so many responses, this was actually possible. Because even that 6% translated to 4,163 can decide responses overall. So we could actually have a look, we could do a proper analysis on whether there's any pattern of these can decide responses across the languages. And guess what? It was actually suggestive of the same thing as the magnitude test. It suggested pretty much the same thing. That the indecision increases with the complexity of a gender system, which was fascinating.  They are gorgeous. So here, as you can see, we're going to decisive towards indecisive. And this is taking into account the magnitudes and the can decide responses. And this is the gorgeous pattern that emerges from that. And we start with Hungarian that has zero gender, then closely followed by English, which has some gender loading. And then we have a big gap. And then we go with the fully gendered language is Spanish, Hebrew, and German, most indecisive Germans, sorry. So this was really suggesting that there was something going on. So while we did not find any evidence for a positive correlation effect, this is really, this is basically suggestive of some other effect that maybe, maybe the complexity of a grammatical gender system does have an influence on the decisiveness with which gendered characteristics are assigned. Now, a few notes at the end. This was an effect that jumped out at us. So it was an unexpected finding, which means that these experiments were not designed with this in mind. Okay, so keep this in mind. Obviously, I would say that more studies and targeted research, I mean, this is offering a hypothesis that maybe we should be looking at grammatical gender in a different way. And we should be careful with what we're actually looking for, or what kind of effect it is that we're looking for. And that's why I would say that the approach and preconceptions that if we're looking for an effect, it is going to be a positive correlation. That preconception should probably be revisited and reexamined. And that's all I've got today. Do you have any questions? Thank you. Yes. The languages in terms of the functional load of natural gender within the gender system. My hunch would be that that figure in Spanish but in German where female nouns can have grammatical female gender are automatically masculine gender. My hunch would be that in Spanish the proportion of naturally female nouns that have grammatically female gender would be higher. And would that influence the results? That would be very interesting to look into, but no, we didn't look into that particular thing. But that would be, I agree, it would be very interesting to see whether that is the case. Yeah, we didn't check it. I know it's not a massive list of like typical items, so I understand. But so do you think our gender is not influencing people's attribution of adjectives? Well, what I'm saying, it's not a positive correlation. I'm actually, like these results suggest that they do influence to some degree, but it's not in a way that was proposed before. So it's not a positive correlation. It doesn't mean that if something is grammatically masculine, it will be conceptualized as more masculine. It could easily be, because I mean, admittedly, all these languages, I mean, one thing that I did which wasn't done much before is actually breaking out of the Indo-European mold. Because if you look at these studies, if you look at psycholinguistic studies about grammatical gender, I mean, it gets as exotic as Italian. Or, you know, language du jour, lately, is Slavic languages. But it's basically all Indo-European, same cultural sphere, et cetera. I did try to break out of that because Hungarian is not Indo-European and Hebrew is not Indo-European. So it was, you know, I was interested to see. But in terms of culture, I would say that they would, you know, I would put them in the same cultural sphere. So we don't, you know, it's not, it would be very interesting. I mean, why do you think I'm here? Being nice to people. Because it would be fascinating to have a look at that as an outside of this cultural sphere and with languages that have some really, really groovy noun classification systems. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, for all the other semantic aspects encoded in the non-class system, that they are the least best at focusing on natural gender, actually. Because, you know, they have all these non-classes that encode other semantic aspects. And it's normally only one pair of class or gender that has animals. Yeah. So there's a really, you know, marginal category in large systems. That would be nice. I think it would be fantastic. You could have a study with non-class languages, like reduced systems, like Wall-off or some bit of common languages, five, six, seven non-classes, and then, you know, to the other extreme like Atlantic, five, two. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I couldn't agree more. I mean, that's why I flew 27 hours to be here. So it's, yeah, that's why, because I think it would be absolutely fascinating to do apply, you know, some sophisticated quantitative analyses to some of these languages and see whether we can find some patterns and what is actually going on. I'm sorry. I think that was a question. Yeah. And you could possibly argue that things that are supportive, like a table of rigid chairs, you know, kind of more masculine in your, not to do them equitably, to be a profession. No, because it has a lot, I mean, it has a lot to do with metaphorical features as well, as in, you know, like the shape of it, the size of it, the, you know, associations as in used by someone, like used by women more than, like, these associations. Yeah. So I'm wondering, yes, they actually, it was more about, they did some studies with made up genders. And like, I don't know if you heard about the use of even supertive categories. Same. It was another Boroditsky study and it was actually quite interesting because they came up with totally arbitrary as in just, they made up two gender classes.  And when they were grouped with them with males, the claim was that it was described as, I think my favorite was overused, and which is apparently a masculine quality. Yeah, let's not think about that too hard. And basically this, the same kind of thing that the adjectives really differed, like based on what they were, whether they were grouped with men or with women. But yeah, with made up objects as in that would be, but that would be very difficult to actually like gauge whether language has anything to do with that. If you're working with made up objects. And I would say that you could probably do something and I would say that, you know, anything that was kind of roundish and small would be conceptualized as more feminine and whereas angular and, you know, would be more masculine, I'd say. But no, I'm not aware of such a study. Yeah. When you mentioned the Hebrew conception of pistol. Yeah. Once again, don't read too much into it. It could be interesting to compare Israeli Arab with, and I don't necessarily mean Palestinian, because they're also speakers of Arab that do not speak in English, but are integrated in the urban society of Israel, so culturally somehow connected to Europe compared to speakers of Arab in the regions that do not. Yeah, which would be, which I agree would be, would be interesting. I mean, there were some which I would call cultural effects. I mean, the other, the other interesting thing was that the star, for example, Hungarian speakers, one of the most frequently occurring adjectives was communist.  So, yeah, I mean, these, these, these things occur. Sorry. It's masculine. Yes. For a couple of the examples you showed us, I'm sorry, I've forgotten which ones now, but there were a couple of the outliers. Yes. And there was quite a difference between the score you got with the text stimulus. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Did you have a chance to investigate that further or is the score? I did actually, and that was one of the reasons why I had the two conditions in the first place, to see whether there's any difference between, there were some, some claims and they're not very well tested to date. Whether you see, you know, a text or if you see an image, that same question, whether the language that you speak, you know, it may affect the way you think for speaking, but it may not affect your conceptualization as such as how you see the world around you, so to speak. But what I found here in this study, there were no consistent differences. So whatever, like there were some, as you point out, there were some where, but the difference was, was quite great between the two conditions, but they didn't, there didn't seem to be any pattern to that. So they were really just outliers that sometimes it happens that it's conceptualized one way in one condition and the other in another. And overall, when you look at the overall results, it was actually remarkably consistent to be perfectly candid. I did not even expect anything, like anyone need is consistent. But, and also it was a limitation of this study that it's really, you know, for, to test that, I would have to give participants a purely non-linguistic task to test that, but because they had to generate adjectives here, that's a linguistic task. So it's not, you know, that was a probably a bit of a clumsy attempt to have a look at that, but we didn't find anything so it serves us right. But yeah, to answer your questions, we didn't find any, any pattern there, but there are some studies that, that look into that. I can think of a Ramos and Roberson study from 2010. I'm happy to give the, the, the reference that was looking at like how the stimuli are administered, whether that has any effect on the results. And they found that it, it appears to have some effect. Yes. But it does need further studies. Yes. How did you manage so many participants? How did I manage to meet? How did you get so many participants? This was an online study. Okay. This was online because that was, that's what I had to trade in and see the pilots were in person and it made them, it had made it very clear that if I won the numbers, it's just not going to work.  So no, these were, the, I mean, there's a bit of a trading with the, with the online. I mean, what I didn't mention is that almost 200 participants responses were not taken into account because they didn't like, there was either something dodgy or they, they gave a native language, especially in Hebrew, that was an issue that I actually had quite, like a good number of respondents, Hebrew speakers, except that they were not native speakers. And it's actually quite common that they're proficient Hebrew speakers, but that's not their native language. But yeah, that's how. And it was utilized, like all kinds of networks. And I got ethical clearance to even use social media and everything. So it was not easy in Australia, ethical clearance, not easy. So I was very happy about that. Yes. Did you somehow control for which other languages people spoke? Because you could speak German and French. Yes, to some degree, we did. We see, ideally, I would love to have made it a condition that they have to be monolingual or control for the language. But these numbers, it was simply not, not, not feasible to control through. What we know is that most of the vast majority of the participants spoke other languages. I think there's a correlation between being part of an online study.  So it's, you know, it will be a bit of a mission to find monolinguals. But you would have to know what they speak. Yes. Yeah. Now, in this study, we only control for whether they do or don't. And yeah, the majority of them did speak some other language. Yes. But sorry, can I just say one more thing? That is like one of the reasons that the native language had to be the target language that was a condition. So we did control for that. And I really was looking for, you know, whether, like effects in the native language. So that's what I mentioned at the beginning that a lot of the studies actually used another language to test that, which I found a bit strange. But next time. Yes. Back to them about the loop test, like gender would be assigned to the figures or whatever. So do you happen to know anything about new words in languages and which gender is assigned to them and if there's any patterns or? It's very interesting because talking about new words, I mean, my favorite, this is just my observation that German appears to assign newta to most of the new words or borrowed words may not be the case. Sorry, correct me if I'm wrong. Yeah, this is, I don't have the data to bug this up. But interestingly, for, like Spanish is probably my favorite, where the two varieties, you know how there's Iberian Spanish, the Spanish spoken in Spain, and then there's Latin American Spanish. Computer in Spain is el ordenador, el masculine. In Latin America, same language, la computadora. It's the same thing, same language, but it's actually assigned to two. Yeah, but still, I mean, it's quite, I mean, talking about new, new words, I mean, yeah, yeah, very, I agree. Yeah, it will be very interesting to see. And they do not have the same gender. Yeah, it would be certainly a very interesting study to have a look at. In my dialect, we have a lot of feminine words, but in what they're speaking also, the more normalized version is basically masculine and phased out. Yeah, yeah, I know. There's a new study that's just come out this year about Norwegian, the two versions, the Buchmann and, you know, Skiere, comparing the grammatical general of that, like the two, how apparently they're quite different, because they were trying to see, you know, like without cultural differences, whether just the language produces differences, and their findings are actually very similar to mine. Yeah, that there's, there's, there's no, certainly no positive correlation. So it's interesting. Yes. So did you look at what countries the native speakers are from, like especially English and Spanish, since it's so, but those are just a widespread, and did you look at that as a factor? Well, I didn't really look at that as a factor. It was, it was checked, as in that was controlled for, that they had to be from a, from a country where the, the languages are, you know, a first language, and it's the native language, and it's the main language spoken. They were, I mean, obviously they were transfer English, you know, the majority of the participants came from Australia. For Spanish, the majority of them came from Spain, and then, you know, with Argentina and in Mexico, close second. But yeah, I mean, I've got all the, you know, I've got the numbers. No, we didn't look at any correlation, whether there's, whether that made a difference.  And with Germans as well, I think we had all up, all up two Austrians. Everyone was from Germany. So, yeah. As I said, we have the data. It's something that we can, we can pike a little bit later and have a look whether there's any correlation there. Yes. Just with a part of the showing people an object and asking them to assign a test, as an assignment agenda, like a bug test, is it possible to invent words and ask people to assign a agenda without giving them any meaning? There's a correlation between sounds of the words. Yes, which would be interesting. Well, not necessarily to deal with gender, but you heard of the kiki and buba kind of thing that, you know, how, how, you know, something sounds. Have you, have you not? It's about how like if you, oh, I don't have a, I don't have a thingy. But does anyone have a marker? Sorry. Sorry, but this has to do with, don't worry, I'll just, oh, thank you. Yeah, there was, I mean, this goes back to the 20s. And this was when a psychologist came up with this. And then there are many, many studies on this that, you know, when they ask participants, sorry, which one is kiki and which one is buba, which one do you think is kiki? Kiki, buba. The agreement on that appears is like almost, you know, universal, that this is like, this one is kiki here, and this one is buba. So there appear to be some correlation between the form of the word or the sound of the word and, you know, associations that we make with them. So to, yeah, yeah. With, with gender, yeah, with gender, I'm not aware of a study that's, that's looked into that. In fact, what I'm trying to, and I'm, you know, a tiny bit of criticism of my field, which I probably shouldn't do, is that as I said, that really, when I said that it gets as exotic as Italian, I wasn't really exaggerating or joking even. They're kind of getting a little bit samey, and looking at the same thing over and over and over again. But to be fair, there's really still no consensus on what's going on. That's why what I was trying to do is, first of all, compare more than two languages. That's why I went for five. So, because it's a bit more reliable to draw any kind of conclusion when you compare more. I tried to go for more participants and that sort of thing to get a clearer picture of what may be going on so we can move on to interesting stuff like that, for example. And to, you know, Atlantic, Bantu languages and all that, and have a look at noun classes and the correlations that they may offer up. Yes? I mean, moving to those languages, I mean, most speakers of these languages are at least bilingual. You know, for instance, for many Bantu languages spoken in Anglophone, East Africa, English, and one or several Bantu and other languages. And, you know, for the Atlantic languages, many of them are spoken in areas where Roman languages are the official languages, or Portuguese-based creole. So, you always would have multilingualism that involves different gender types. Yes, yes. So, just trying to imagine, you know, what would be an interesting hypothesis for such a study. So, would, would you expect all the languages to influence... Well, that would be very interesting to see. For that, we would have... Or would you, would you imagine different language conditions? So, you know, depending on which language... Well, it would be depending on the usage patterns of these languages, for example, as in, like, in what situations they use to, to, like, how much they are used, like, how, how much they're, like, I don't know, do they code switch between one and the other all the time or, or are there certain situations, like, I go to the market and use X and then I go home and use Y and then I go to school and then use Z.  These would all have to be taken into account, but obviously that wouldn't, that wouldn't need an even finer grain analysis than this one. But everything's possible. So, one of the things is that, that can, that is part of the statistical measure, right, to see how the weighting of, so one of the issues of use, right, has something to do with frequency, right. So, if you use something a lot, if you have, if you speak a number of languages that have gender systems and you use that a lot and there should be more influence because that's your habitual way of, well, if you have something where you don't have that. So, it would be important in the design of the study to look at the balance of the two and find comparisons, right. And then in the study itself, when you can assess, for example, frequency of usage to a certain thing, then you can throw this in as a factor in the, in the statistical analysis. And that would be, would have to be done in these kind of contexts. Yeah. But that's, I mean, that can be controlled, I mean, it can be, it has to be controlled for it. That's the most important thing. Well, I mean, in a similar study, we, you know, Chelsea's, we ruled out that we can control for language frequency. So, you know, we have that now as a continuous variable because we cannot control for that, you know. But it's a continuous variable. Yeah. That's what I mean. That's, you have a continuous variable. So, you control for it. You have a counterpoint. Yeah. In the analysis. Yes. That's what you do. So, that's the most important thing. So, you need to assess that. Yes, take it. Yeah. That's the same for German. You have a pattern, and the pattern goes against exactly that. Yeah. German doesn't have the hazard, too, that it's morphological. There is a pattern that goes around with them. Yes. It goes back to the conversation. I think what would be interesting on the African languages is, in part, you're containing this study, because in the description. But the other thing, of course, which is interesting is to look at what seems like the semantic parameters encoded in these non-classes. Yes. So this, here, your semantics is very clear. You have gender, but that is independent language. But then you could go to the non-class systems and say, OK, what's in there? Gender, precisely, it's not in there, so that would make an interest. But it's also in terms of the tendency. Well, animacy, clearly, is in a very important picture. Size or shape often plays a role. Then there is attitudes, derogatory, like, you know, ugly, or not so nice, or beautiful. And that correlates with shape sometimes. So it's harder, I guess, to get the semantics filtered out. But in principle, I think, would be really, really exciting. Oh, yes. So look at those. And then you can go back to these languages, which don't have any, or very much less so in the system, and see whether you get an inverse correlation between what seems to be encoded and the semantics of it. So I think we talked about it. I think the language is really exciting for that, because the semantics are so different. But the grammar side is actually quite similar. So you have the morphological marking of the agreement, the non-classification system. So it would be really nice to look at that. I keep repeating myself that I couldn't agree more. I mean, that's why I'm here. Because I think it would be a very exciting thing to do, to have a look at these languages. And yeah, I mean, to, as I said, baby steps, I broke out of the Indo-European. So let's jump into it. Let's take it further and go to Bantu, Atlantic, or any of these exciting languages. I couldn't agree more. Any further questions? No. Well, if you would like to continue the discussion, please join us at drinks after this at the Institute of Education over there. I will drag Roland there. I'll be in front of him. So please come and join us and talk more about the topic and your ideas. So thanks again, Roland. Thank you very much. Thank you so much.


your own issues yeah yeah we've uh it looks like blowing a head gasket so um luckily enough there's two short stages and the engine over temperature alarm came on as we were sitting waiting for that last stage we managed to get some bottles of water and put it in the engine so we got through that stage okay the the deal for us is to minimize time loss get to tonight and fix it and then come out fighting again tomorrow but it's nice to have a little bit of a gap to um be able to conserve and still be in a position where we can fight tomorrow what have you done I mean I know I know you're a good peddler there's no question about that but you have done some serious work to this car to have the kind of relief you've got I actually think though that last year we really literally finished it taking it to scrutiny and we had so many problems last year that it wasn't it was just really not what the car was capable of it goes really well it's good what you know it's just good federal ties and and little bits and pieces that just make it nice to drive a sequential gearbox just gives you confidence to to really push and if you need to and you really need to get slowed down bang down a couple of gears and it's no drama so if you can try and carry some confidence then you can do some good time so let's not forget Tony was learning a new car the other guys were learning new tires so you know like we probably had our stuff together today and didn't want to be a minute back I'd rather be a minute up but of course we've got problems and hopefully get them fixed


Okay, hi, I'm Mike Lowe. I work on the JetStream project at Indiana University. And we've done something a bit weird. So we've gotten rid of Layer 2 networking in this deployment. We've done that by using BGP. So if you'll, I think the best way to show this is just to sort of have you follow along as I type and kind of I'll explain what's going on. We're on a compute node right now, one of the, there's two, there's two metal box, kind of takes five nicks in this thing. Hey there, I'm sitting there. So if we need to note those E3 and E4, because that's gonna pop up a bunch later. So if you look at the routes on this thing, we've got dozens and dozens and dozens of routes. And you can see that they all come in over BGP. Let's see, we use the free range routing, formerly known as Quagga to do all of this. And this is not particularly unusual. You can find this in places. But you slap the address you want on the loopback, bring up the two nicks without IP addresses, set up a BGP router, and more or less, that is sufficient so long as you redistribute some of the, let's see. Yeah, so long as you redistribute your connected interfaces right here. Right, that is enough to get this note up. So that's not particularly unusual or special. But that's just one piece of the puzzle. So when we, oh, what was that? Maybe Newton that started using service types or subnets, I'd never used those before until now, is what I needed to do was conserve my routable IP addresses for floating IPs. In a traditional way, when you use DVR and you have floating IP addresses, that your compute nodes all burn a routable IP address. And that's unacceptable, I figure I'll run 1500 VMs and have 500 compute nodes. So giving up a third of my IP addresses for compute nodes just to sit there is not, that's not acceptable. So what we've done is we've used this service type on the public network. So all of the floating IP gateways are gonna land off in this cider block. And if we look at this guy, one of the other subnets on the public network, it'll catch due to the service type, it'll catch the floating IP and the centralized SNAT gateway that you have on your network node. Okay, so we've got that piece. Let's see, right? So if you aren't familiar with the operation of DVR, it breaks up the classic single network namespace that's on the network node into a bunch of different pieces. The compute nodes all get two, right? So you get a floating IP gateway network namespace and you get the router namespace. And what happens when you assign a floating IP is this router will do the source netting and dump it off into that floating IP network namespace. So the way that's normally supposed to work is you're supposed to have a flat network that you plug that floating IP into. And there's some router off somewhere, real one analogous works. We don't have any of that, there is no layer two. So we have to tell lies and big lies right here. So every single compute node, this provider bridge winds up with the same gateway address because we don't care about East-West traffic. These guys are never gonna talk amongst themselves. We only want them to shovel more self-traffic off into the fabric. So we can just tell lies and put them all on the same site or give them all the same IP address and nobody's the wiser, right? Let's see. So yeah, that's all relatively normal. Everything's in the, this all works the way way it's supposed to according to the documentation, right? So outbound traffic goes out through the compute node. But what the docs say is that when you do this DVR, all of your inbound traffic from the world comes in through the network node. And I don't find that acceptable. So I changed it. So what we did was we took advantage of a feature of free range routing. You can redistribute any route into BGP that the kernel is aware of. So if you IP route add something, it'll just get published into BGP. You can find this right here. It was added. That is one of my floating IPs, the static route. So on this noted static everywhere else, it shows up as a BGP route. So we get all the traffic destined to this guy. It's grabbed by the network fabric and shoved onto here. This guy knows what to do with it. It'll put it right into the floating IP network namespace. It knows what to do with it. It routes all the way in. So that behavior is not normal. And that is what I patched to make all this go.  All it does is add a route when the floating IP is assigned and then remove it when it's gone. So let's just go ahead and start pinging it here from my laptop here a couple of miles away. And if we yank that, I don't know, assuming there's no typo. Try server remove floating IP. There we go, thank you. Ping stop, it appears there. No route from the kernel, add it back. It gets published out to the world. This ping is through Comcast, through the commodity internet, up through Chicago, back all the way down. And we should see that route show up there. So the major motivation to do this is with Minoa and native set FS, we want all of these virtual machines to have full bandwidth, or at least as much as they can get to the storage cluster. So that's our major motivation for trying to cut out the network node to the degree possible. I don't happen to have something that does full bandwidth, sitting there running IPerf. But at the minimum, I've got a 10 gig real host sitting on the other side of the machine room. And with protocol overhead, runs queen at 10 gig to a single, this is a single virtual core. So not bad, it's untuned. This is just front of brand IPerf. So, yeah, any questions?


Explosive Ordnance Disposal teams from the U.S., Germany and Spain teamed up for a rare trilateral training event in Rota. It's just a great opportunity for us to learn what information they've gathered over the years and we can give them some of the information we've gathered so we all learn from each other to great opportunity to learn each other's equipments, tactics and those types of things. It doesn't happen often, these types of engagements maybe only happen once a year or so. So it's just a wonderful opportunity to learn from each other, have a good time together and build camaraderie between nations and it's just an all around awesome time. Even though some of the men had worked together before, there were still opportunities to learn something new. It's a good chance for us to collect a lot of experience with other nations, especially with the United States, Navy and with the Spanish Navy as well. Normally we have not the chance to train that often back home in Germany with foreign nations and yeah we learned a lot here, especially as today fast roping and we're looking forward to learn even some more IED tactics within the next days. By the end of the week the teams went their separate ways but took with them the knowledge and friendships they'd made. Thank you everybody. Officer Andrew Smith, Roda, Spain.


that the secret of living a good life is to actually live in that moment and recognize the greatness of that moment. And within our own selves there is that tendency that stems from our egos, our lower selves that pollutes our perspective to think that there's going to be an imaginary moment in the future where all of the conditions are going to be right but then I'm going to actually truly benefit from that moment but this does not happen. On the contrary what happens is we keep postponing then we look back in retrospect and find ourselves having wasted an abundant amount of time in numerous opportunities.


Hi, I'm Ernie Bauer and this is Mike Green. We're from CSIS. I'm the senior advisor for Southeast Asia. Mike is the chair of the Japan program here. We just got back from Hawaii, where we did a trilateral in Maui with the United States, Japan, and Southeast Asia. Mike, I thought we came out with some really interesting findings after talking with the Japanese and the Southeast Asians. What did you take away? Well, this trilateral dialogue, Japan, China, excuse me, Japan, the U.S. and key Southeast Asian countries, is part of a series we're doing with U.S.-Japan India, Charles Freeman's doing China, India, U.S., and as Asia gropes and tries to find regional architecture, a mix of institutions and forums that will reinforce peace and economic interdependence. It's obvious there are a lot of fissures and it's hard to mix and match, and so increasingly these trilateral groupings are yielding areas of common interest and sort of setting a path ahead for the rest of the region. And I thought there were a couple of areas where when the U.S., ASEAN, and Japan sat down together, those kinds of visions for the whole region came out. One of them that was quite clear, I thought, was how much the Southeast Asians were willing to articulate in that meeting and also in this statement we put out, that they really rely on the U.S. forward presence and the U.S.-Japan alliance. It's something they knew but rarely articulated before and I think it reflects some uncertainty about China. Yeah. I mean, what I took away that just blew me away was that 20 years ago when we all sat at the table and the ASEANs came in and they were looking for balance then, the issue was Japan. Yeah. That the Japanese had plans to develop the region and were dominating competition and the Americans weren't there and police get engaged. And now 20 years later, I was struck by the fact that everybody at that trilateral agreed that Japan would be a stronger ally of the United States through deeper engagement in Southeast Asia and also vice versa. The United States would be a stronger partner for the Japanese. Yeah. I mean, the ASEANs are actually pretty smart about this. They want their Americans, they want their Japanese and their Chinese but they don't want too much of any one of us and on the security front, they're most comfortable with us. It's quite clear. But it was also obvious that they want us and Japan to keep investing, both in terms of time and money in the economic relationship with Southeast Asia. The other thing that came out for me was how much the Obama administration's had some success in the region with its engagement in Southeast Asia. But a lot of questions about whether that's sustainable. And the useful thing about a trilogue is that the Japanese then can weigh in and say to Americans, we need you there too. And it picks up everybody's game in the region. I thought another interesting element of discussion was Burma. It's clear to me that the Chinese behavior or Chinese enablement or enabling the Burmese and the North Koreans really has an impact on their neighbors. And ASEAN has been carrying around the big black ball and chain that's Burma for the last decade. Well, the Chinese sort of take a free rider shot on this. And it's clear that everybody wants to see change in Burma. And I thought one of the great outcomes of this meeting was a real will by all partners to take a look at what are the levers of change in Burma? How can we look at those together? How can we encourage change? And maybe one of those ideas is to talk to the Chinese about, obviously the Chinese are feeling some reputational impact over their behavior in Asia over the last 18 months. I don't know whether you think anything. Well, that was an interesting part of the discussion, the beginning to look at what would bring change in Burma. And I think that's a fruitful area for further discussion because the region now seems to have the attitude a lot of countries, especially in ASEAN, that, hey, they had elections, they were highly flawed, but let's see what happens next. But I think from a U.S. perspective or perhaps Europe, Australia, and Japan to some extent, the facts on the ground haven't changed. And we just don't know. So it's worth, as we assess, thinking through together what would constitute change, what would the agents of change be, so that next time we talk about what we're going to do about Burma, we have some metric we can agree on. And I think that was an interesting discussion. I think it reflected how for a lot of ASEAN, despite the non-interference and internal affairs line, there is more and more attention to good governance, rule of law, and all these issues which they have in common with Japan as well. How about on trade? Clearly the Japanese are keen on getting in the TPP game. Can they do that politically though? Probably, probably, which is amazing considering how weak the Prime Minister is. He has 20-some percent support and agricultural interests in Japan have always been very powerful. But TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which began in ASEAN, really, it was New Zealand, Singapore, Chile, Brunei, is really becoming where the action is. And the U.S. is negotiating and Vietnam, Australia are coming in. The Japanese government wants in. Japanese media almost unanimously wants in.  Probably, actually. And it shows you how important ASEAN is as an event driver in Asia still, despite the difficulties they're having as an association. Well, as you can tell, we had some really interesting discussions out in Maui. And I think, I hope you share this view, I think we should continue this trilateral and look for others too. Yeah, these many lateral discussions and we do a lot of them here at CSIS are the building blocks of what hopefully will be a more inclusive, open, and functionally effective multilateral diplomacy in Asia and not just a lot of talk shops. So hopefully we contributed to that. Thanks for joining us at CSIS.


In essence, peace and nature are connected. If you damage one, you damage the other. If you protect one, you enhance the other. This year, we have seen several geopolitical and environmental crises unfolding. Food prices have been rising as a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which is a major breadbasket of the world. At the same time, the effects of climate change are increasing. And the world is still grappling with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. These crises call for urgent answers to several questions. Mr. Geopolitics prioritizes food security among its research themes, showing how these seemingly separate crises are interconnected. I think the Russian invasion is going to have a contradictory impact on the levels of international cooperation, on major questions such as climate change or food insecurity. Now we have a situation where the Ukraine crisis is affecting global food prices and is affecting crises indirectly elsewhere through, for example, food prices, but also through diverting donor attention. And I think there is a contribution to make from research within Mr. Geopolitics to understand how aid flows will be affected and how this compounding crisis will have implications for global food security. Both Russia and Ukraine are important producers of wheat worldwide. Together they amount to around 30% of the global export markets of wheat. Russia is also a top producer of fertilizers globally, with many countries in Europe and Asia relying on fertilizers from Russia for their food production. Of course it has a significant impact. This in turn will lead to increased prices in the countries importing from Ukraine and Russia without upholding sort of the price levels with subsidies. This can cause sort of internal shocks at affected countries as well. We're already seeing price increases due to the pandemic, fuel prices, also some weather events that have affected the markets. We can expect this to aggravate the situation even further. And this will especially be felt in low-income countries that have a high import dependency of food and vulnerable groups. We see right now that a lot of attention is on Ukraine, but the Ukraine crisis also has implications elsewhere. We see implications for countries like Somalia that have been grappling with a multi-year drought and where now donor attention is going to go into Ukraine and in other places. We face three basic challenges to security. We face the challenge and the threat of the use of force and the use of violence. And secondly, there's the problem of climate change and the broader environmental crisis, which has just been continuing to intensify over recent years. And thirdly, there's the threat of pandemics. And we have lived through that as a near universal experience for the last two years. One crisis replaces another. It's like they take their turns rotating before our eyes, but they're all three there all the time. And we need to address all three that that is why there is such an emphasis on an integrated approach to these problems. This leads me into the purpose of MESTRA, having a broad spectra focusing on human security, on food security, on climate security, combining new ways of thinking, methods of analysis, perhaps we can understand prevention in a new dimension.