Sunday, September 25, 2022

Was a dictionary really banned in Anchorage? Here's the real story of how the book was outlawed in schools - Anchorage Daily News - Dictionary

An advertisement by People For Better Education that appeared in the July 7, 1976 edition of the Anchorage Times advocating for the dictionary ban

Part of a continuing weekly series on Alaska history by local historian David Reamer. Have a question about Anchorage or Alaska history or an idea for a future article? Go to the form at the bottom of this story.

Did you know that a dictionary was banned in Anchorage? Every September, every annual banned books week, it comes up again. Every year, the reading community — authors, librarians, teachers, publishers, booksellers, and consumers — come together to discuss ongoing censorship issues and the history of banned books. And the extraordinary decision to ban a dictionary, of all things, in Anchorage is often included in the dialogue. The details are often wrong, and the story is slightly more complicated than how it is usually presented, but the core of the narrative is true. A dictionary really was banned in Anchorage.

In the early 1970s, a group of concerned Anchorage parents led by Marroyce Hall formed a conservative school watchdog organization called the People for Better Education. Their first claim to fame came in 1974 when the group issued an unasked-for report on unruly behavior in local schools. The report cited rampant disciplinary problems, including thrown snowballs, “pop can hockey,” “general pushing and shoving,” and “displays of affection, such as passionate embraces on school grounds.” Given the existence of such unbelievably wicked behavior, the organization demanded schools add a roving security force.

In 1976, the group emerged with a new issue. They discovered a vulgar book present in many area elementary school libraries, the American Heritage Dictionary. The People for Better Education meticulously combed through every entry in the dictionary, a process one member described as “like digging (in) garbage.” When their labors were completed, they had identified 45 objectionable slang definitions.

Many of the offending words were included for their alternative meanings, including ass, ball, bed, knocker, nut, and tail. Per the dictionary, a “ball” can be “any of various rounded movable objects used in sports and games” or refer to “the testicles.” Similarly, “bed” might be a noun or a verb, a piece of furniture, or “to have sexual intercourse with.” The organization also disliked several idioms, including “shack up,” defined as “to live in sexual intimacy with another person, especially for a short duration.”

The Anchorage School Board, to their credit, took the complaint seriously. They empowered a committee of four parents and four staff members to review the text, which concluded that the dictionary should remain available to students. Undeterred, Hall, accompanied by Eileen Kramer, made a presentation to the school board on June 28, 1976, again demanding the removal of the dictionary.

To the surprise of board president Sue Linford, the board voted 4-3 to remove the dictionary. Millet Keller, Tom Kelly, Darlene Chapman, and Vince Casey voted in favor of the ban. Keller, who authored the motion to remove the dictionary, told the Anchorage Daily Times that such “vulgar, slang words” were “better left in the gutter.” Linford, Heather Flynn, and Carolyn Wohlforth voted against the ban. Said Linford, “I’m really at a loss to explain it ... This smacks of things I don’t think we want to encounter.”

The next day, the Anchorage Assembly voted unanimously to send a letter to the school board sharply rebuking their actions, warning that the dictionary ban would “stimulate further censorship pressures.” The letter further stated, “the overriding concern is preservation of individual and academic freedoms. We earnestly request that you reconsider your action without delay.” Several Assembly members also went on the record with more personal comments. Chairman Dave Rose described the ban as “absolutely ludicrous.” Lidia Selkregg declared, “I’m shocked at the board’s action. A dictionary is a most sacred document.” Fred Chiei said, “Now I suppose they’d like to go for the Bible. Lots of good words with dirty meanings there.”

Most of the public comments on the ban criticized the action. School board candidate Pam Siegfried said, “I do not want to have my kid go to a library which has been picked clean by concerned parents. Once somebody starts censoring, where does it stop?” The Anchorage Daily News editorialized, “We can’t imagine any action by a board of education which could go against the American grain more than censoring research tools.” As one resident wrote in a letter to the Daily News, “You don’t stop the use of ‘vulgar’ language by removing one book which contains the definition of four or five slang words but rather by parental guidance and by making it clear to your children that such language is not acceptable to you.”

Around the same time, several members of Anchorage’s Mexican American community, including the Chicano Interservice Association, complained that three books on Mexico in local elementary libraries presented stereotyped images of Mexico. The school board ordered the removal of these books at the same meeting when they banned the American Heritage Dictionary. One of these books, “All Sorts of Things” by Theodore Clymer, includes a story of a Mexican town where everyone is lazy, unintelligent, wears tattered sombreros, and eats tortillas exclusively. A month later, the school board rescinded their ban on two of these books on Mexico, though not on “All Sorts of Things.”

The American Heritage Dictionary remained forbidden. As might have been reasonably expected, the ban increased interest in the book and the supposedly objectionable words, underpinning the ludicrous nature of such censorship. The downtown Book Cache (remember when there were multiple Book Caches in town?) prominently displayed a rack full of copies. A spokesperson noted the store “has gotten more requests and comments” since the ban. She added, “I think people are just curious.”

As Katherine Chamberlain of the American Library Association’s Office of Intellectual Freedom stated in 2010, “Condemning the American Heritage Dictionary for its ‘objectionable language’ in effect condemns the English language itself.” The language existed, whether one considered it vulgar or not. Moreover, children then certainly already knew far more profane words than tame terms like “balls” or “tail.”

In addition, Anchorage of the 1970s was a more openly risqué city than it is today. Prostitutes walked the streets, and there were far more strip clubs, XXX theaters, and adult bookstores. The abundant massage parlors and escort services openly marketed their illicit services, establishments like the Touch N Glow, Foxy Lady, and Sensuous Lady. The People for Better Education might as well have expanded their efforts to include banning the phone book since it included sections for such businesses. The newspapers ran advertisements for XXX features, resulting in movie listing pages that included both Linda Lovelace’s “Deep Throat II” and Disney’s “Bambi.”

The People for Better Education were less successful with their future demands, which included the requested removals of several other books and films. In 1977, they notably challenged the showing of the film “The Lottery” in classes. The film is based on the classic short story by Shirley Jackson, wherein town’s people ritually kill a fellow resident every year solely because it is tradition.

The organization was perhaps more successful as an inspiration for similar censorship movements elsewhere. Amid a general rise in school district book bans across the country, the American Heritage Dictionary was subsequently banned in Cedar Lake, Indiana, Eldon, Missouri, Folsom, California, and Churchill County, Nevada in 1976, 1977, 1982, and 1992, respectively.

Having protected children from selected dictionaries, the Anchorage school board next targeted LGBT teachers. Beginning in the summer of 1977, the board tried to suspend and then fire Government Hill Elementary teacher Michele Lish for the perceived sin of being a lesbian. While Lish had a stellar reputation as an educator, the board might have found a way to dismiss her quickly if they had been willing to endure the due process for such a removal. However, the board had no interest in any public accounting and refused to grant Lish a hearing. By September, the courts had twice blocked the suspension and dismissal given the lack of said hearing. Still, the school board dragged the conflict out until January 1978, when Lish accepted a non-teaching position in the district. Coincidentally, that same month, the Copper River School District board passed a resolution banning LGBT employees.

While the dictionary ban does not seem to have ever been officially lifted, the removal was eventually forgotten or ignored. Today, the Anchorage School District library catalog lists several American Heritage Dictionary editions available throughout the district.

The way history works is that the same scenarios tend to repeat, different in the specifics but consistent at their core. Schools should be open, welcoming institutions. Instead, far too many people far too often expend their energies trying to restrict access to literature, knowledge, and access.

Key sources:

Babb, Jim. “Assembly Raps Dictionary Ban.” Anchorage Daily News, July 1, 1976, 1.

“Board Ousts ‘Vulgar Dictionary.’” Anchorage Times, June 29, 1976, 1, 2.

“Books on Mexico Restored.” Anchorage Daily News, August 11, 1976, 2.

Chamberlain, Katherine. “Spotlight on Censorship—The American Heritage Dictionary.” Intellectual Freedom Blog, Office of Intellectual Freedom, American Library Association, September 28, 2010.

Doherty, Nancy. “Dictionary Falls Over Dirty Words.” Anchorage Daily News, June 30, 1976, 1, 2.

Hunter, Don. “Dictionary Ban Draws Criticism of Assembly.” Anchorage Times, July 2, 1976, 1, 2.

“National News.” Lesbian Tide, March/April 1978, 18.

“Our Views: For Shame.” Anchorage Daily News, July 2, 1976, 4.

“Siegfried Supports Practical Education.” Anchorage Times, October 2, 1976, 6.

“The Scene.” Anchorage Daily News, July 17, 1976, 10.

“Teacher Kept Out of Classroom.” Anchorage Daily News, January 6, 1978, 1.

Tousignant, Adele. Letter to the editor. “What’s Vulgar?” Anchorage Daily News, July 8, 1976, 4.

Warren, Elaine. “Group Calls for School Reforms.” Anchorage Daily News, August 14, 1974, 2.

Adblock test (Why?)

1464 books, 74 years and counting: How the world's largest Encyclopaedic Sanskrit Dictionary is shaping up - The Indian Express - Dictionary

After several years, the doors of the scriptorium and the editorial room of the prestigious Encyclopaedic Sanskrit Dictionary at Pune’s Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute in Pune were opened for students and the general public. The year of completion of this gigantic dictionary project, which commenced in 1948, remains unknown. But the final word count is estimated to touch 20 lakh and would be the world’s largest dictionary of Sanskrit.

The Project

Linguist and Sanskrit Professor SM Katre, founder of India’s oldest Department of Modern Linguistics in Deccan College, conceived this unique project in 1948 and served as the dictionary’s first General Editor. It was later developed by Prof. AM Ghatage. The project is a classic example of painstaking, patient and relentless efforts of the Sanskrit exponents for the last seven decades.

The current torchbearers of the Encyclopaedic Sanskrit Dictionary project is a team of about 22 faculty and researchers of Sanskrit, who are now working towards publishing the 36th volume of the dictionary, consisting of the first alphabet ‘ अ ‘ .

Subscriber Only Stories

Between 1948 – 1973, around 40 scholars read through 1,464 books spread across 62 knowledge disciplines – starting from the Rigveda (approximately 1400 B.C.) to Hāsyārṇava(1850 A.D.) – in search of words that could be added to this unique dictionary.

They covered subjects like the Vedas, Darśana, Sahitya, Dharmaśāstra, Vedānga, Vyakarana, Tantra, Epics, Mathematics, Architecture, Alchemy, Medicine, Veterinary Science, Agriculture, Music, Inscriptions, In-door games, warfare, polity, anthology along with subject-specific dictionaries and lexicons.

In the non-digital era, these scholars noted details of every new word onto small paper reference slips. They mentioned details like the book title, context in which the word was used, its grammatical category (noun/verb etc.), citation, commentary, reference, exact abbreviation, and date of the text. It was signed off by the creator of the slip and its verifier.

It took 25 years for these scholars to complete the word extraction process from around 1,464 books to generate one crore reference slips. All these paper slips have been well preserved, alphabetically, in one of the rarest scriptorium – the soul of the dictionary – inside over 3,057 specially-designed metal drawers. They have also been scanned and preserved digitally.

Word-by-word

Advertisement

While this dictionary contains words in alphabetical order, it follows historic principles in stating the meaning. In addition to the word meaning, the dictionary also provides additional information, references, and context of the respective word used in a particular literature. That is why, it is an encyclopaedic dictionary wherein words have been arranged according to the chronological order of their references appearing in the text.

For example, the word beginning with the letter ‘ अ ‘, like agni, will have all the citations from Sanskrit texts starting with Ṛgveda and the references from the texts following Ṛgveda, chronologically arranged. This helps a reader to understand the historical development of the meaning of the word.

“Sometimes, a word can have anywhere between 20 to 25 meanings as it varies depending on the context of use and books. Once the maximum possible meanings are found, the first draft, called an article, is published. This is then proof-read and sent to the General Editor for his first review. Upon finalising, the article of one word is readied and sent to the press. It is once again proof-read by the scholars and the General Editor, before it is finalised as a dictionary entry.” said Sarika Mishra, an Editorial Assistant on the Project.

Publications

Advertisement

While the first volume took three years to be published in 1976, technological intervention and an exclusive software with a font named KoshaSHRI have quickened the process.

“Now, we are able to publish a volume in little over a year. Approximately 4,000 words are incorporated in a volume,” said Onkar Joshi, also an Editorial Assistant of the Project.

In case of any missing information observed in the reference slips, the scholars re-read/scan the 1,464 books, now digitised, effectively making it a double reading of voluminous Mahabharata (18 Parvans), Vedas and alike.

” We can now use the software to easily scan through the books. In the past, this used to be done manually and would be time consuming,” Onkar added.

Since 1976, a total of 6,056 pages of words starting with the first alphabet ‘ अ ‘ have been published in 35 volumes.

Advertisement

” Alphabet ‘ अ ‘ has the maximum words and we have published 35 volumes consisting of words starting from this alphabet. Work on the 36th volume is underway,” said Sanhita Joshi, also an Editorial Assistant of the Project.

Unique and the largest dictionary

Pro Vice-Chancellor Professor Prasad Joshi is the ninth General Editor, and third from the family after his father and uncle, to work in this project.

Advertisement

“This job is a minute-to-minute and day-to-day job,” said Prof Joshi, who has been in-charge of the project since 2017.

Asked if there is any other language in the world that has such a rich and vast vocabulary, he said, “Possibly, the English language dictionary based on historical principles, which took nearly 100 years to be completed, will come close. But the Sanskrit dictionary has wider scope.”

Advertisement

For comparison, the Oxford English dictionary, with 20 volumes and 2,91,500 word entries so far, remains among the most popularly used dictionaries. The Woordenboek Der Nederlandsche Taal (WNT) is another large monolingual dictionary in Dutch. It contains 4.5 lakh words in 17 volumes.

The Encyclopaedic Sanskrit Dictionary, once ready, will be three times larger. The 35 volumes published so far contain about 1.25 lakh vocables (word).

Though there are 46 alphabets in Sanskrit language and several more decades of work lay ahead towards completion of this project, it is estimated that in the end, it will be a dictionary with a total vocabulary of 20 lakh words.

Future

Prof Joshi’s team is the crucial link between the past and the future, and has a big responsibility to keep Sanskrit alive. But there is a real shortfall of Sanskrit linguists.

“Overall, language studies have remained on the backfoot. We need readers for the vast volumes of scriptures and literary works lying unread,” he said.

But young scholars such as Bhav Sharma, Editorial Assistant and Project’s Secretary, are now reaching out to the public aimed to inspire a few.

“We need to showcase to the students the efforts and processes required for dictionary-making. We are planning student-centric activities in the near future so that there is hands-on learning,” said Sharma.

Presently, all the published volumes remain accessible in hard copy format.

The college administration is working aggressively towards making digital copies available within a year.

The Project, KoshaSHRI, under which the website for online access of the Dictionary will be made, also consists of a customised software which is presently under testing and development.

This will speed up the process of Dictionary making in the coming years.

Adblock test (Why?)

Thursday, September 22, 2022

OpenAI Releases Open-Source 'Whisper' Transcription and Translation AI - Voicebot.ai - Translation

OpenAI has introduced a new automatic speech recognition (ASR) system called Whisper as an open-source software kit on GitHub. Whisper’s AI can transcribe speech in multiple languages and translate them into English, though the GPT-3 developer claims Whisper’s training makes it better at distinguishing voices in loud environments and parsing heavy accents and technical language.

Whisper Writing

Whisper trained its ASR model on 680,000 hours of “multilingual and multitask” data pulled from the web. The idea is that a broad approach to data collection improves Whisper’s ability to understand more speech because of the different accents, environmental noise, and subjects discussed. The AI can understand and transcribe many languages and translate any of them into English. You can see an example in the Korean song translated and transcribed below.


While impressive, OpenAI’s research paper suggests the ASR is really only that successful in about 10 languages, a limitation likely stemming from how two-thirds of the training data is in English. And while OpenAI admits Whisper’s accuracy doesn’t always measure up to other models, the “robust” nature of its training puts it ahead in other And though the “robust” training enables Whisper to discern and transcribe speech through background noise and accent variations, it also creates new problems.

“Our studies show that, over many existing ASR systems, the models exhibit improved robustness to accents, background noise, technical language, as well as zero shot translation from multiple languages into English; and that accuracy on speech recognition and translation is near the state-of-the-art level,” OpenAI’s researchers explained on GitHub. “However, because the models are trained in a weakly supervised manner using large-scale noisy data, the predictions may include texts that are not actually spoken in the audio input (i.e. hallucination). We hypothesize that this happens because, given their general knowledge of language, the models combine trying to predict the next word in audio with trying to transcribe the audio itself.”

OpenAI is often in the news for GPT-3 and related products like text-to-image generator DALL-E. Whisper offers a glimpse at how the company’s AI research extends into other arenas. Whisper is open-source, but the value of neural net AI speech recognition for consumer and business purposes is conclusively proven at this point. Whisper could be a starting point for OpenAI to join in, as the researchers already speculated.

“We anticipate that Whisper models’ transcription capabilities may be used for improving accessibility tools. While Whisper models cannot be used for real-time transcription out of the box – their speed and size suggest that others may be able to build applications on top of them that allow for near-real-time speech recognition and translation. The real value of beneficial applications built on top of Whisper models suggests that the disparate performance of these models may have real economic implications.

OpenAI Drops GPT-3 API Prices As Enterprise Adoption Rises

OpenAI Starts Letting DALL-E 2 Users Edit Faces on Synthetic Images

GitHub’s Copilot AI Coding Assistant Boosts Developer Productivity and Happiness: Report




Adblock test (Why?)

Wednesday, September 21, 2022

Too much trust in machine translation could have deadly consequences. - Slate - Translation

Imagine you are in a foreign country where you don’t speak the language and your small child unexpectedly starts to have a fever seizure. You take them to the hospital, and the doctors use an online translator to let you know that your kid is going to be OK. But “your child is having a seizure” accidentally comes up in your mother tongue is “your child is dead.”

This specific example is a very real possibility, according to a 2014 study published in the British Medical Journal about the limited usefulness of AI-powered machine translation in communications between patients and doctors. (Because it’s a British publication, the actual hypothetical quote was “your child is fitting.” Sometimes we need American-British translation, too.)

Machine translation tools like Google Translate can be super handy, and Big Tech often promotes them as accurate and accessible tools that’ll break down many intra-linguistic barriers in the modern world. But the truth is that things can go awfully wrong. Misplaced trust in these MT tools’ ability is already leading to their misuse by authorities in high-stake situations, according to experts—ordering a coffee in a foreign country or translating lyrics can only do so much harm, but think about emergency situations involving firefighters, police, border patrol, or immigration. And without proper regulation and clear guidelines, it could get worse.

Machine translation systems such as Google Translate, Microsoft Translator, and those embedded in platforms like Skype and Twitter are some of the most challenging tasks in data processing. Training a big model can produce as much CO2 as a trans-Atlantic flight. For the  training, an algorithm or a combination of algorithms is fed a specific dataset of translations. The algorithms save words and their relative positions as probabilities that they may occur together, creating a statistical estimate as to what other translations of similar sentences might be. The algorithmic system, therefore, doesn’t interpret the meaning, context, and intention of words, like a human translator would. It takes an educated guess—one that isn’t necessarily accurate.

In South Korea, a young man used a Chinese-to-Korean translation app to tell his female co-worker’s Korean husband they should all hang out together again soon. A mistranslation resulted in him erroneously referring to the woman as a nightlife establishment worker, resulting in a violent fistfight between the two in which the husband was killed, the Korea Herald reported in May. In Israel, a young man captioned a photo of himself leaning on a bulldozer with the Arabic caption “يصبحهم,” or “good morning,” but the social media’s AI translation rendered it as “hurt them” in English or “attack them” in Hebrew. This led the man, a construction worker, to being arrested and questioned by police, according to the Guardian in October 2017. Something similar happened in Denmark, where, the Copenhagen Post Online reported in September 2012, police erroneously confronted a Kurdish man for financing terrorism because of a mistranslated text message. In 2017, a cop in Kansas used Google Translate to ask a Spanish-speaker if they could search their car for drugs. But the translation was inaccurate and the driver did not fully understand what he had agreed to given the lack of accuracy in the translation. The case was thrown out of court, according to state legal documents.

These examples are no surprise. Accuracy of translation can vary widely within a single language—according to language complexity factors such as syntax, sentence length, or the technical domain—as well as between languages and language pairs, depending on how well the models have been developed and trained. A 2019 study showed that, in medical settings, hospital discharge instructions translated with Google Translate into Spanish and Chinese are getting better over the years, with between 81 percent and 92 percent overall accuracy. But the study also found that up to 8 percent of mistranslations actually have potential for significant harm. A pragmatic assessment of Google Translate for emergency department instructions from 2021 showed that the overall meaning was retained for 82.5 percent of 400 translations using Spanish, Armenian, Chinese, Tagalog, Korean, and Farsi. But while translations in Spanish and Tagalog are accurate more than 90 percent of the time, there’s a 45 percent chance that they’ll be wrong when it comes to languages like Armenian. Not all errors in machine translation are of the same severity, but quality evaluations always find some critical accuracy errors, according to this June paper.

The good news is that Big Tech companies are fully aware of this, and their algorithms are constantly improving. Year after year, their BLEU scores—which measure how similar machine-translated text is to a bunch of high quality human translations—get consistently better. Just recently, Microsoft replaced some of its translation systems with a more efficient class of AI model. Software programs are also updated to include more languages, even those often described as “low-resource languages” because they are less common or harder to work with; that includes most non-European languages, even widely used ones like Chinese, Japanese, and Arabic, to small community languages, like Sardinian and Pitkern. For example, Google has been building a practical machine translation system for more than 1,000 languages. Meta has just released the No Language Left Behind project, which attempts to deploy high-quality translations directly between 200 languages, including languages like Asturian, Luganda, and Urdu, accompanied by data about how improved the translations were overall.

However, the errors that lead to consequential mistakes—like the construction worker experienced—tend to be random, subjective, and different for each platform and each language. So cataloging them is only superfluously helpful in figuring out how to improve MT, says Félix Do Carmo, a senior lecturer at the Centre for Translation Studies at the University of Surrey. What we need to talk about instead, he says, is “How are these tools integrated into society?” Most critically, we have to be realistic about what MT can and cannot do for people right now. This involves understanding the role machine translation can have in everyday life, when and where it can be used, and how it is perceived by the people using it. “We have seen discussions about errors in every generation of machine translation. There is always this expectation that it will get better,” says Do Carmo. “We have to find human-scale solutions for human problems.”

And that means understanding the role human translators still need to play. Even as medications have gotten massively better over the decades, there still is a need for a doctor to prescribe them. Similarly, in many translation use cases, there is no need to totally cut out the human mediator, says Sabine Braun, director of the Centre for Translation Studies at the University of Surrey. One way to take advantage of increasingly sophisticated technology while guarding against errors is something called machine translation followed by post-editing, or MT+PE, in which a human reviews and refines the translation.

One of the oldest examples of a company using MT+PE successfully is detailed in this 2012 study about Autodesk, a software company that provides imaging services for architects and engineers, which used post-editing for machine translation to translate the user interface into 12 languages. Other similar solutions have been reported by a branch of the consulting company EY, for example, and the Swiss bank MigrosBank, which found that post-editing boosted translation productivity by up to 60 percent, according to Slator. Already, some machine translation companies have stopped selling their technologies for direct use of clients and now always require some sort of post-editing translation, Do Carmo says. For example, Unbabel and Kantan are platform plugins that businesses add into their customer support and marketing workflows to reach clients all over the world. When they detect poor quality in the translated texts, the texts are automatically routed to professional editors. Although these systems aren’t perfect, learning from these could be a start.

Ultimately, Braun and Do Carmo think that it’s necessary to develop holistic frameworks that go far beyond the metrics used at the moment to assess or evaluate quality of translation, like BLEU. They  would like to see the field working on an evaluation system which encompasses the “why” behind the use of translation, too. One approach might be an independent, international regulatory body to oversee the use and development of MT into the real world—with plenty of social scientists on board. Already, there are many standards in the translation industry as well as technological standardization bodies, like the W3 organization—so experts believe it can be done, as long as there is some more organization in the industry.

Governments and private companies alike also need clear policies about exactly when officials should and should not use machine translation tools, either free consumer ones or others. Neil Coulson is the founder of CommSOFT, a communication and language software technology company trying to make machine translation safer. “Police forces, border-control agencies, and many other official organizations aren’t being told that machine translation isn’t real translation and so they give these consumer gadgets a go,” he says. In March 2020, his organization sent out a Freedom of Information request to 68 different large U.K. public-sector organizations asking for their policies on the use of consumer gadget translation technologies. The result: None of these organizations had any policy for their use of MT, and they do not monitor any of their organizational or staff’s ad-hoc use of MT. This can lead to an unregulated, free-for-all landscape in which  anyone can publish a translation app and claim that it works, says Coulson. “It’s a ‘let a thousand flowers bloom’ approach … but eventually someone eats a flower that turns out to be poisonous and dies,” says Coulson.

Education about the pros and cons of MT, of course, is paramount—among researchers, companies, and organizations who want to actually start using the tool, but most importantly, among everyday users. That’s why Lynne Bowker, a professor of translation and interpretation at the University of Ottawa, started the Machine Translation Literacy project. Their goal is to spread awareness of how MT systems process information and teach researchers and scholars how to actually use MT more effectively. Including information about machine translation as part of the broader digital literacy and information literacy training given to school kids would also be welcome. “Being machine translation literate means understanding the essentials of how this technology works in order to be able to evaluate its strengths and weaknesses for a particular task or use,” says Bowker. Language, in a social context, is communication. “One of the real challenges we are facing is how to reach the wider public with this message,” says Bowker.

Being able to differentiate between low-stakes tasks and high-stakes tasks remains one of the key points, Bowker says. Thankfully, in the meantime, most mistranslations still just lead up to a laugh: According to a 2016 study in International Journal of Communication, there’s a Chinese restaurant called Translate Server Error. Tthe MT system mistranslated the original language, but the restaurant owners didn’t know English well enough to realize something was off.

Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University that examines emerging technologies, public policy, and society.

Adblock test (Why?)

Tuesday, September 20, 2022

Merriam-Webster Adds 'Plant-Based' And 'Oat Milk' To The Dictionary - Plant Based News - Dictionary

Terms including “plant-based” and “oat milk” have officially been added to the Merriam-Webster dictionary. 

Plant-based, which is thought to have been first used in language in 1960, is given two definitions in the dictionary. 

The first is “made or derived from plants,” and the dictionary cites “plant-based burger” as an example. The second definition is “consisting primarily or entirely of food (such as vegetables, fruits, nuts, oils, and beans) derived from plants.” 

Merriam-Webster defines oat milk as “a liquid made from ground oats and water that is usually fortified (as with calcium and vitamins) and used as a milk substitute.” The first known use of the term oat milk was in the 1980s. 

The two terms fall under the food category, and have been added alongside the popular autumn flavor “pumpkin spice.” 

In addition to this, Merriam-Webster has also added “greenwashing.” This denotes the process of attempting to make something appear more environmentally friendly than it actually is. 

The history of Merriam-Webster

Merriam-Webster has been publishing dictionaries since 1847, and first launched its online version in 1996. 

The dictionary is regularly updated with new words and phrases, and in recent years additions have included “selfie,” “cancel culture,” and “hygge.”

This year’s 370 new words and terms also include “booster dose,” “sus,” and “lewk.”

“The dictionary chronicles how the language grows and changes, which means new words and definitions must continually be added,” reads a statement from Merriam-Webster. “When many people use a word in the same way, over a long enough period of time, that word becomes eligible for inclusion.”

The rise of the plant-based movement

The new additions were undoubtedly prompted by the rise of plant-based eating. This year saw a huge 629,000 people sign up for Veganuary, up from 580,000 the previous year. 

According to research from 2021, there are approximately 79 million vegans in the world. 

Oat milk has also seen a staggering increase in popularity, with sales doubling from 2019 to 2020. The oat milk industry alone has been forecast to be worth $6.45 billion by 2028.

The drink is hugely popular among vegans and non-vegans alike.

A study published earlier this year even found that almost half of Generation Z (those born between 1997 and 2012) felt shame when ordering dairy milk. The study also found that more than half intended to give it up over the next year. 

Adblock test (Why?)

Queen Elizabeth: A Visual Dictionary - The New York Times - Dictionary

Over her seven decades on the throne, Queen Elizabeth II understood the power of visuals. The first British monarch to have a televised coronation, she watched the world turn its attention from the radio to the TV set, and by the time she died this month at 96, having celebrated her Platinum Jubilee just a few months earlier, she — well, the royal family — had an Instagram account and a YouTube channel.

As she presided over a shrinking empire, projecting stability and continuity was arguably her most essential job as sovereign. From her hairstyle to her handbags, her kerchiefs to her corgis, her pearls to her profile, every visual signifier was a means of communication for a monarch who famously had little to say — at least in public. Here’s a look at the symbols Elizabeth leveraged during her historic reign, and what she used them to say.


Her hair

Dan Kitwood/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Queen Elizabeth II was nothing if not steadfast in her devotion to her country and the style in which she chose to express it, but of all the consistent imagery she created throughout her long life, her carefully sculpted hairstyle might have been the most reliable of all.

From the time she was a girl pictured in black and white on the lawn through her stint in the Auxiliary Territorial Service and then her marriage, coronation and 70 years of rule, through decades of bobs, bouffants, hippie hair and helmet heads, it never really changed: an inch or two shorter or longer here, maybe; slightly more bouffant there; allowed to go white in the 1990s, sure. But otherwise her ’do — chin-length, brushed back at the crown, set in soft curls at either temple and framing her jawline — was the visual equivalent of death and taxes: a rock of reliability in an uncertain world. And like so much about the queen, it was a highly considered choice.

Perfectly and deliberately symmetrical, so that she looked the same from either side and in every portrait; molded to fit snugly under a crown or one of her many hats and scarves, her coif was tended to for over two decades by the hairdresser Ian Carmichael, who visited Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle twice a week until the coronavirus pandemic (when Angela Kelly, the queen’s personal assistant and senior dresser, took over) to make sure there was not a strand out of place. That was just how she rolled.

— Vanessa Friedman


Her handbags

Tim Graham Photo Library, via Getty Images

“She told me she never felt dressed without her bag,” Gerald Bodmer said of Queen Elizabeth II. Mr. Bodmer, 90, is the chief executive of Launer, a British manufacturer of luxury leather goods favored by the queen for her most ever-present accessories: her handbags. (According to Town & Country, her first Launer bag was a gift from her mother decades ago.)

The bags were sturdy, unflashy and constant to an almost metaphorical degree. One of her favorites, Mr. Bodmer said, was the Traviata, a trapezoidal bag made of suede-lined calfskin with a single top strap; the queen sported it in both black leather and the slightly more fanciful black patent leather. It retails for about $2,800. She crashed the Launer website after carrying a cream-colored Lisa — a boxier handbag with two straps — at the 2011 wedding of William and Catherine, now the Prince and Princess of Wales.

The queen was also known for customizing the bags to her liking, preferring longer-than-standard straps. In recent years, Launer took steps to make them lighter for the queen, removing excess materials from the interior for easier carrying, Mr. Bodmer said. “Right to the end of her life, she was carrying a handbag, even when using a walking stick,” he said. “You can’t have a more loyal customer, can you?”

— Madison Malone Kircher


Her gloves

Bryn Lennon/Getty Images

Queen Elizabeth II was known for her restraint. She rarely showed excitement or worry (“Keep calm and carry on,” etc.). She also rarely showed her hands.

The queen almost always wore gloves in public, whether white dress gloves or black leather ones. She waved from balconies and carriages in them, and shook hands in private receiving lines and at public walkabouts with fully sheathed fingers.

“Gloves were a physical barrier between the queen and her subjects,” said Elizabeth Holmes, a journalist who has written widely about the royals. “They projected a certain separation between a monarch and the people.”

Amid a pandemic, it doesn’t seem like the worst idea, particularly when part of your job is to extend your hand to strangers so they can curtsy to you. But her gloves weren’t just a modern practicality — they were a commitment to the past, according to Tina Brown, author of “The Palace Papers.” “The queen came from an era where gloves were the norm, and they added a formal finish to everything she wore,” Ms. Brown said.

A notable break from the royal tradition of gloves came in 1987, when Diana, then the Princess of Wales, shook hands with AIDS patients without gloves. Diana’s bare skin became a symbol of humanity and compassion and offered a contrast to the remoteness conveyed by the gloved hand that the world was at that point extending to people with H.I.V.

— Katherine Rosman


Her pearls

From left, Chris Jackson/Getty Images, Associated Press, Paul Hackett/Reuters

Long before there was Instagram, there was Queen Elizabeth II, keeping a careful eye and a (usually) steady grip on the brand of her ancestors’ start-up, the Firm. She was, essentially, its chief influencer, and she seemed to know that consistent visuals were vital to building a brand identity.

One item that could reliably be seen framing the lower portion of an Elizabeth close-up (no filter necessary) was a pearl necklace — sometimes a double strand, but usually a triple. In portraits, on official state visits, after services at Westminster Abbey, the pearls were there: formal but not fancy, lustrous in glow but not ostentatious in sparkle.

When members of the royal family traveled to Buckingham Palace last week to receive the queen’s coffin as it arrived from Scotland, pearls emerged as an item of poignant homage. Cameras captured Catherine, the Princess of Wales, riding in a car toward the palace with a sad, tired gaze cast out the window and a triple-strand pearl necklace draped below her neck.

According to Elizabeth Holmes, author of “HRH: So Many Thoughts on Royal Style,” pearls are a way for anyone to honor the queen. “The pearls don’t have to be real, they don’t have to be expensive — you can do it, too,” she said. “I think we will see more of it.”

— Katherine Rosman


Her Land Rovers

Max Mumby/Indigo, via Getty Images

Peering over the wheel of a Land Rover, perhaps the make most closely associated with her reign, the queen offered a master class in loyalty to a quintessentially British brand as well as the occasional glimpse, through an untinted window, of her moments of independence.

While the queen’s official duties often kept her in prim pumps in the rear seat of a Daimler limousine, in her personal life she charted her own rugged excursions around the Sandringham and Balmoral Estates from the driver’s seat of a Land Rover Defender. The boxy utility vehicles, which have four-wheel drive and the ground clearance to crawl over rocks and ford streams, matched the unfussy capability of a monarch who trained in driving and maintaining military vehicles with the Auxiliary Territorial Service at the end of World War II.

“It embodied everything that was British tradition: solid, reliable, not particularly showy or extravagant,” Patrick Collins, research and inquiries officer at the National Motor Museum Trust in Britain, said of the Rover brand. In 1953, when Land Rover was only five years old, the queen rode in a Series 1 on her first royal tour after her coronation; last year, she drove herself to the Royal Windsor Horse Show in a third-generation Range Rover.

As her reign entered the internet era, widely circulated images of Elizabeth looking unamused behind the wheel of a hulking Range Rover earned her a new crown: meme queen. With captions like “current mood” and “they see me ruling, they hating,” pictures of the royal vehicles contributed to an impression that the queen was someone who kept her eyes on the road, and the haters in the rearview.

— Callie Holtermann


Her corgis

Associated Press

When Clay Bennett, a Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist for The Chattanooga Times Free Press, was brainstorming ideas for how best to address and mark the death of Queen Elizabeth II, he initially considered drawing her gloves or a fancy hat. Then he settled on the one characteristic that he felt most connected him to the monarch: a shared love of dogs. In the queen’s case, a love of her corgis, specifically.

In a heart-rending image that was widely shared on social media and international television, Mr. Bennett drew an unattended corgi — the end of its leash fallen to the ground — with the dog’s neck turned, looking for its person. The caption reads simply, “Queen Elizabeth II 1926-2022.” “I wanted to draw a corgi as a symbol of the U.K.,” Mr. Bennett said in an interview.

Elizabeth was an 18-year-old princess when she received her first beloved corgi, Susan, the progenitor of all her corgis (and dorgis, after a dachshund made its way into the lineage) to come. In the years and decades since, the queen was frequently photographed walking the grounds of one castle or another with her corgis, the most loyal of her loyal subjects.

The queen was rarely witnessed publicly meting out affection or familial care. But when she walked with her corgis, she provided a touchstone for people all over the world to connect with the most remote and private of global leaders.

“They humanized her,” said the journalist Elizabeth Holmes, who has also written for The New York Times. “But they also allowed her to be human.”

— Katherine Rosman


Her walking sticks

Pool photo by Arthur Edwards

Last year, while attending a service at Westminster Abbey, Queen Elizabeth II used a walking stick publicly for the first time in 17 years. (She was last seen using a walking stick after having knee surgery in 2003.)

From then on, a walking stick regularly made an appearance in the monarch’s hand.

Among the most recognizable were one that belonged to her husband, Prince Philip, and another that was a gift from the British Army in honor of her Platinum Jubilee.

“It was quite a plain, simple type of stick, but sometimes the simple ones are the most elegant,” said Dennis Wall of Ulverston, England, a former hobbyist whose handmade stick was selected from among nine others commissioned by the army for the queen.

In addition to representing the queen’s dedication to her responsibilities as head of the Church of England and the British Armed Forces, the sticks were also symbols of her staying power, said Erin Delaney, a professor at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law who researches the British Constitution.

“There is something about fidelity, and that kind of long service and relationship, that speaks to strength, and not frailty,” she said.

The queen’s willingness to publicly use a walking stick also made her an emblem of women’s empowerment and what it means to “age gracefully,” said Maria Claver, director of the gerontology program at California State University, Long Beach.

“Queen Elizabeth is an example of grace,” Dr. Claver said. “The fact that she has been so active in her role as queen, and that she has shown up, I think that helps people see that this is what aging could be like.”

— Isabella Paoletto


Her kerchiefs

From left; Julian Finney/Getty Images, Chris Jackson/Getty Images, Pool photo by Andrew Milligan

When the singer Justin Bieber was photographed wearing a head scarf knotted under his chin at a concert in November, the internet threw one of its periodic tantrums. Accusations that he had appropriated the hijab or mocked Islam were hurled at him from around the world. It did not help that it was far from the first time Mr. Bieber was busted for a cultural misstep. (Remember his cornrows?)

What seemed oddest about the brouhaha was that the Canadian-born singer may not, in fact, have been mimicking the hijab so much as following a street-style trend whose unlikely originator was the British monarch. For decades, Queen Elizabeth II was routinely photographed during downtime — mounted on horseback, hiking at her 50,000-acre Scottish estate or picnicking with her family — with a head scarf knotted under her chin. The queen favored scarves that tended to be artfully patterned classic silk squares from the French luxury-goods house Hermès.

While few could have anticipated that urban guys would take up a style worn without controversy by middle-aged ladies to protect their hair, that is exactly what happened. Over the past several years, young men in cities everywhere appeared with Hermès chin-tied head scarves worn granny-style. Did they intend any disrespect to the hijab? Were they flouting gender norms? Or were they aping Elizabeth? We will probably never know. When it comes to influences, both fashion and Justin Bieber are eternally and blissfully happy in their ignorance.

— Guy Trebay


Her brooches

From left; Pool photo by Chris Jackson, Pool photo by Steve Parsons, Chris Jackson/Getty Images

In the early 1950s, when the queen acceded to the throne, brooches were a fashionable piece of jewelry that became a part of her formula for dressing. “It was always in the same position above the heart,” Marion Fasel, a jewelry historian, said. And although they’ve “pretty much fallen out of favor,” Ms. Fasel said, the queen was certainly no trend follower, as brooches remained a fixture of her wardrobe for decades.

There is a story behind how each brooch in her extensive collection came into the queen’s possession, and she wore each one with intention.

“Her choice of brooch was never random,” said Bethan Holt, author of “The Queen: 70 Years of Majestic Style.” “They would be selected for the added meaning they would bring to the moment.”

Elizabeth often received brooches as gifts from world leaders, and she wore them while attending events hosted by those leaders’ countries as a sign of friendship and loyalty. Other times, she wore a brooch commemorating a loved one who had given it to her. She also used their colors to convey a message, as she did with her other fashion choices.

For her first public appearance after the death of her husband, Prince Philip, for instance, she wore a gold Andrew Grima brooch encrusted with diamonds and rubies that Philip had given her. And during a visit from President Donald J. Trump in 2018, she wore a brooch that had been given to her by former President Barack Obama.

— Sadiba Hasan


Her palette

From left, pool photo by Adrian Dennis, Stuart C. Wilson/Getty Images, Alan Crowhurst/Getty Images

Nothing that the queen wore was a mistake. Everything was forensically and meticulously planned according to occasion, duty, hosts, guests, custom and formality — including her bold choice of color palette.

“She wore bright colors because she believed it was her duty to be seen by the people who waited, wet and cold, behind barriers for hours at a time,” wrote Sali Hughes, author of “Our Rainbow Queen,” a book divided into color-blocked chapters that chart the assorted hues Her Majesty would wear from head to toe, allowing her to stand out in a crowd.

And so over the seven decades of her rule, there she was, come rain or shine. Visiting a school or a hospital or a world leader, sporting tailored coats, dresses and skirt suits (never trousers) in lemon yellows and letterbox reds, dusky pinks and royal purples and — famously, for her 90th birthday — a deliciously vivid neon green. Angela Kelly, the queen’s senior dresser, explained in 2019 that given Britain’s regular showers, the queen even had a collection of clear umbrellas with a range of different color trims to match her outfits. After all, when it came to her wardrobe, nothing was left to chance — or dictated by passing trends.

“The queen and queen mother do not want to be fashion setters,” said Norman Hartnell, the British couturier who designed the queen’s coronation gown. “That’s left to other people with less important work to do.”

— Elizabeth Paton


Her likeness

Oliver Dietze/DPA, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

For all the queen’s carefully chosen totems of power, it was perhaps one she couldn’t choose — her face — that bonded her most deeply with her public. And she knew it. “I have to be seen to be believed,” the queen reportedly said, recognizing that her image itself was currency — and not just on currency, as she became the first monarch to appear on British bank notes, in 1960.

The stoic three-quarter portrait precipitated a series of updated likenesses throughout the years, featuring nearly identical angling but with a gradually pronounced smile. (The last portrait, still in use, was created for the 1990 five-pound note by Roger Withington, when the queen was 64.)

The first stamp bearing the queen’s image, based on her first official portraits, by the photographer Dorothy Wilding, was issued in 1952, but it is her left-facing profile by Arnold Machin that has remained frozen in time since its release on June 5, 1967. “It is thought that this design is the most reproduced work of art in history,” according to Buckingham Palace, with over 200 billion copies made.

Consistency might have been key in ensuring dominion over the Commonwealth, but it was the evolution of the queen’s likeness that ultimately humanized her. As a modern monarch growing up before the camera, she maintained a rare place in the public imagination, and fashionable photographers such as Norman Parkinson, Lord Snowdon (the queen’s onetime brother-in-law) and, perhaps most significantly, Cecil Beaton helped burnish and brand it.

As with all successful brands, the opportunities for product were endless (and sometimes egregious). This year, the Platinum Jubilee occasioned the release of a collectible Queen Elizabeth II Barbie doll, limited-edition bottles of Moët & Chandon, and even a jaunty white Swatch watch bearing a cartoon queen and one of her corgis. Recognition at a glance.

— Jeremy Allen

Adblock test (Why?)

How do new words enter the dictionary? - Madison.com - Dictionary

(renews at /month + tax)

Adblock test (Why?)