Linguistics

1496 readers

1 users here now

Welcome to the community about the science of human Language!

Everyone is welcome here: from laypeople to professionals, Historical linguists to discourse analysts, structuralists to generativists.

Rules:

Instance rules apply.
Be reasonable, constructive, and conductive to discussion.
Stay on-topic, specially for more divisive subjects. And avoid unnecessary mentioning topics and individuals prone to derail the discussion.
Post sources when reasonable to do so. And when sharing links to paywalled content, provide either a short summary of the content or a freely accessible archive link.
Avoid crack theories and pseudoscientific claims.
Have fun!

Related communities:

Resources:

Grammar Watch - contains descriptions of the grammars of multiple languages, from the whole world.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

lvxferre@mander.xyz

fossilesque@mander.xyz

Speech may have a universal transmission rate: 39 bits per second (www.science.org)

submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by lvxferre@mander.xyz to c/linguistics@mander.xyz

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Archive link: https://archive.is/20240503184140/https://www.science.org/content/article/human-speech-may-have-universal-transmission-rate-39-bits-second

Interesting excerpt:

De Boer agrees that our brains are the bottleneck. But, he says, instead of being limited by how quickly we can process information by listening, we're likely limited by how quickly we can gather our thoughts. That's because, he says, the average person can listen to audio recordings sped up to about 120%—and still have no problems with comprehension. "It really seems that the bottleneck is in putting the ideas together."

Ah, here's a link to the paper!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] themoonisacheese@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

Yes, exactly. This is information that's encoded by tone, and it is accounted for in the 7 bits per syllable (or lack of syllable, for periods for example). It was more of an example to show how if what you're conveying is assumed to always be speech, the encoding you can use can be much more efficient.

On that note, a thing if forgot to mention is that speech assumes that what will be said is pretty much always valid. For example, sure, ascii has a lot more information density at 8 bits per character as you point out, but in reality it's capable of encoding things like "hsuuia75hs". If you tried communicating this to someone over speech, you'd find that the average speed you can do this drops dramatically from the normal 7 bits/syllable, where the ascii used in my comment's text has been constant-speed. That's one of the trade-offs.