Write an article based on this summary:

– Listen in on any language anywhere in the world and you're bound to hear a familiar sound: "Huh?" Dutch researchers who studied 10 languages on five continents say the one-syllable utterance might be that rarest of things: a universal word. And it's no mere tic or meaningless grunt, they say in their PLOS One study: It serves the vital purpose of allowing one person to let another know quickly that he doesn't understand something. It's "the glue that holds a broken conversation together," explains the Los Angeles Times. "You can't have a conversation without the ability to make repairs," says a Stanford expert not involved with the study but intrigued by it. "It is a universal need, no matter what kind of conversation you have." The researchers found the word in widely different languages ranging from Icelandic to Mandarin Chinese to West African Siwu, reports the New York Times. And though it may sound a bit different in some tongues—more like "ah" or "eh"—it remains fundamentally the same. They chalk it up to "convergent evolution," notes Science Codex, a term from biology. It's used to explain how different species, such as dolphins and sharks, evolve in similar ways because they live in similar environments. It seems that "huh?" is the linguistic version, a tool so useful to humans everywhere that they can't live without it. (In other language news, researchers suggest that being bilingual helps ward off dementia.)

Are there words that are universally understood, across all countries and cultures? A team of linguists has proposed one: “huh.”

 Huh?

 In a paper published on Friday in the journal PLOS One, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in the Netherlands announced that they had found strikingly similar versions in languages scattered across five continents, suggesting that “Huh?” is a universal word.

 The study, conducted by Mark Dingemanse, Francisco Torreira and Nick Enfield, closely examined variations of the word — defined as “a simple syllable with a low-front central vowel, glottal onset consonant, if any, and questioning intonation” — in 10 languages, including Dutch, Icelandic, Mandarin Chinese, the West African Siwu and the Australian aboriginal Murrinh-Patha.

 The researchers also looked at other words and expressions used to elicit clarification during conversation, a function that linguists refer to as “other-initiated repair.” But only “Huh?,” they write, occurs across languages whose phonetic patterns otherwise vary greatly. ||||| A word like 'Huh?' —used when one has not caught what someone just said—appears to be universal: it is found to have very similar form and function in languages across the globe. This is one of the findings of a major cross-linguistic study by researchers Mark Dingemanse, Francisco Torreira and Nick Enfield, at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. The study was published in the journal PLOS ONE.

 It might seem frivolous to carry out scientific research on a word like 'Huh?' But in fact this little word is an indispensable tool in human communication. Without words like this we would be unable to signal when we have problems with hearing or understanding what was said, and our conversations would be constantly derailed by communicative mishaps. The research is part of a larger investigation of language and social interaction funded by the European Research Council.

 Dingemanse and colleagues studied languages from around the world and found that all of them have a word with a near-identical sound and function as English 'Huh?' This is remarkable because usually, words in unrelated languages sound completely different. Compare, for example, these very different-sounding words for 'dog': inu in Japanese, chien in French, dog in English. One might object that this suggests that 'Huh?' is not a word at all. But in a careful phonetic comparison, Dingemanse and colleagues find that it is. Although 'Huh?' is much more similar across languages than words normally should be, it does differ across languages in systematic ways. 'Huh?' is not like those human sounds that happen to be universal because they are innate, such as sneezing or crying. It is a word that has to be learned in subtly different forms in each language.

 Why is 'Huh?' so similar across languages? To understand this, Dingemanse and colleagues studied the specific context in which this word occurs. In human communication, when we are somehow unable to respond appropriately, we need an escape hatch: a way to quickly signal the problem. This signal has to be easy to produce in situations when you're literally at a loss to say something; and it has to be a questioning word to make clear that the first speaker must now speak again. Since these functional requirements are fundamentally the same across languages, they may cause spoken languages to converge on the same solution: a simple, minimal, quick-to-produce questioning syllable like English 'Huh?', Mandarin Chinese 'A?', Spanish 'E?', Lao 'A?', or Dutch 'He?'.

 The basic principle is well-known from evolutionary biology: when different species live in similar conditions they can independently evolve similar traits, a phenomenon known as convergent evolution. For example, sharks and dolphins have different evolutionary origins but similar body plans, because they live in the same aquatic environment. In the same way, Dingemanse and colleagues propose that words may converge on similar forms when they occur in strongly similar conversational 'environments'. A clear effect of this conversational ecology on the specific shape of linguistic expressions has not been observed before.

 Although 'Huh?' may almost seem primitive in its simplicity, a word with this function is not found in our closest evolutionary cousins. Only humans have communication systems in which complex thoughts can be expressed and communicative mishaps can be solved on the spot. Even a humble word like 'Huh?' can teach us a lot about our nature as ultrasocial animals. ||||| Humans speak many languages, but we may be united in our confusion. A new study examined languages from around the world and discovered what they say could be a universal word: "Huh?"

 Researchers traveled to cities and remote villages on five continents, visiting native speakers of 10 very different languages. Their nearly 200 recordings of casual conversations revealed that there are versions of "Huh?" in every language they studied — and they sound remarkably similar.

 While it may seem like a throwaway word, "Huh?" is the glue that holds a broken conversation together, the globe-trotting team reported Friday in the journal PLOS ONE. The fact that it appears over and over reveals a remarkable case of "convergent evolution" in language, they added.

 "Huh?" is a much-maligned utterance in English. It's seen as a filler word, little more than what's called a "conversational grunt," like mm-hmm. But it plays a crucial role in conversations, said Herbert Clark, a psychologist at Stanford University who studies language.

 When one person misses a bit of information and the line of communication breaks, there needs to be a quick, easy and effective way to fix it, he said.

 "You can't have a conversation without the ability to make repairs," said Clark, who wasn't involved in the study. "It is a universal need, no matter what kind of conversation you have."

 Without something like "Huh?" a conversation could be quickly and irreversibly derailed at the slightest misunderstanding. That would be bad news for a highly social species that relies on good communication to survive.

 For this study, scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in the Netherlands set out to show that "Huh?" had earned the status of a full-fledged word, though an admittedly odd one. They also wanted to see whether other languages had a similar word with a similar function.

 The problem is that "Huh?" often seems like such an unimportant feature of language that it's not well documented, said Nick Enfield, a linguistic anthropologist who worked on the study. The word doesn't crop up much in linguistic literature because researchers who record speakers of remote languages often ignore such forgettable filler.

 The scientists knew that to find out whether "Huh?" had counterparts in other languages, they'd have to go looking themselves. So they headed to remote villages in Ecuador, Laos, Ghana and Australia and spent weeks getting acquainted with the locals. They felt they had to gain people's trust before they could record natural, casual conversations — and perhaps catch a few instances of "Huh?" in its natural environment.

 "The kind of conversations we collected were just the kind of conversations you and I would have at the breakfast table or in the evening when we're doing our handicrafts," Enfield said.

 The "Huh?"-hunters also visited family homes in Italy, Russia and Taiwan as well as laboratories in Spain and the Netherlands. The languages studied were Cha'palaa, Dutch, Icelandic, Italian, Lao, Mandarin Chinese, Murriny Patha, Russian, Siwu and Spanish. (English wasn't included in the study.)

 Across these languages, they found a remarkable similarity among the "Huhs?" All the words had a single syllable, and they were typically limited to a low-front vowel, something akin to an "ah" or an "eh."

 Sometimes this simple word started with a consonant, as does the English "Huh?" or the Dutch "Heh?" (Spellings are approximate.) Across all 10 languages, there were at least 64 simple consonants to choose from, but the word always started with an H or a glottal stop — the sound in the middle of the English "uh-oh."

 Every version of "Huh?" was clearly a word because it passed two key tests, the scientists said: Each "Huh?" had to be learned by speakers, and each version always followed the rules of its language. For example, English speakers ask questions with rising tones, so when they say "Huh?" their voices rise. Icelandic speakers' voices fall when they ask a question, and sure enough, the tone goes down as they ask, "Ha?" (To an English speaker, this tone would sound like a statement of fact: "Huh.")

 "It's amazing," said Tanya Stivers, a sociologist at UCLA who was not involved in the study. "You do see that it's slightly different ... and that it seems to adapt to the specific language. I think that's fascinating."

 After all, Stivers pointed out, words with the same meaning sound very different in different languages: "Apple" in English is "manzana" in Spanish, "ringo" in Japanese and "saib" in Urdu. Why wouldn't "Huh?" also sound completely different across unrelated languages, they wrote — say, "bi" or "rororo"?

 The Dutch researchers think it's because the word developed in a specific environment for a specific need — quickly trying to fix a broken conversation by getting the speaker to fill in the listener's blank.

 A low-front vowel in the "ah" or "eh" families involves minimal effort, compared with to a high vowel like "ee" or a lip-rounder like "oo." The same can be said for a glottal stop or a "h" — hardly any mouth movement is needed to make those sounds. This allows speakers to very quickly signal that they missed a bit of information, and request it again. (In response, the other speaker will typically repeat what they just said, sometimes modifying it for good measure.)

 The linguists borrowed a term from biology to describe this phenomenon: "convergent evolution." Just as sharks and dolphins developed the same body plan to thrive in the water even though they're from very different lineages, all languages have developed a "Huh?" because it's so useful for solving a particular problem, researchers said.

 "'Huh?' has almost certainly been independently invented many, many, times," said Mark Pagel, who studies language evolution at the University of Reading in England and was not involved in the PLOS ONE study. "And that is why it appears universal."

 amina.khan@latimes.com ||||| Corrections The PLOS ONE Staff Correction: Is "Huh?" a Universal Word? Conversational Infrastructure and the Convergent Evolution of Linguistic Items. PLoS ONE 9(4): e94620. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094620 | View correction

 Abstract A word like Huh?–used as a repair initiator when, for example, one has not clearly heard what someone just said– is found in roughly the same form and function in spoken languages across the globe. We investigate it in naturally occurring conversations in ten languages and present evidence and arguments for two distinct claims: that Huh? is universal, and that it is a word. In support of the first, we show that the similarities in form and function of this interjection across languages are much greater than expected by chance. In support of the second claim we show that it is a lexical, conventionalised form that has to be learnt, unlike grunts or emotional cries. We discuss possible reasons for the cross-linguistic similarity and propose an account in terms of convergent evolution. Huh? is a universal word not because it is innate but because it is shaped by selective pressures in an interactional environment that all languages share: that of other-initiated repair. Our proposal enhances evolutionary models of language change by suggesting that conversational infrastructure can drive the convergent cultural evolution of linguistic items.

 Citation: Dingemanse M, Torreira F, Enfield NJ (2013) Is “Huh?” a Universal Word? Conversational Infrastructure and the Convergent Evolution of Linguistic Items. PLoS ONE 8(11): e78273. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0078273 Editor: Johan J. Bolhuis, Utrecht University, The Netherlands Received: July 13, 2013; Accepted: September 18, 2013; Published: November 8, 2013 Copyright: © 2013 Dingemanse et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Funding: This study was supported by European Research Council grants 240853 (N.J.E. and M.D.) and 269484 (F.T.). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

 Materials and Methods We collected 196 instances of the interjection for other-initiated repair (henceforth OIR interjection) in videotaped recordings of conversation in a worldwide sample of 10 languages (mean instances per language = 19.6, sd = 7.5). We used field recordings of maximally informal conversation because most written sources do not offer enough phonetic detail and people's intuitions about their behaviour can be different from their actual behaviour [16]. We examined at least ten tokens per language to find out whether or not the same articulatory target is aimed for within and across languages. All data were collected in accordance with protocols approved by the ethical review board of the Seventh EU Framework (240853 HSSLU). Informed consent was obtained from all participants according to standard practices [17], [18]. The data were anonymised and unlinked and there is no possibility of identification. We used a two-stage approach to comparative analysis of the tokens. In an auditory analysis, we collected phonetic auditory judgements of interjection tokens by three annotators and combined them into graded measures along five phonetic dimensions for every single token (see File S1). In an instrumental analysis, we took acoustic measurements on a subset of tokens and used these to verify the auditory judgements for selected dimensions. The combination of auditory and instrumental approaches enabled us to carry out an analysis that is ecologically valid and well controlled. In the auditory analysis, all interjection tokens (n = 196) were presented one by one in random order to three annotators independently. No separate information about language or recording was provided. Annotators listened to the audio clips with spectrograms and pitch tracks available on screen, and coded every token for five phonetic dimensions selected on the basis of preliminary observations of the range of variation: closure, nasality, vowel quality, intonation, and onset (see SI). Articulatory gestures in spoken language are essentially gradient [19]. Therefore, the coding results were combined into cumulative measures per token per dimension, allowing us to measure and display the variation in, for instance, vowel quality or consonant onset by language. In the instrumental analysis, we took acoustic measurements of intonation and the first two vowel formants for languages in which token quantity and acoustic quality permitted this, namely Spanish and Cha'palaa. For Spanish, all tokens came from laboratory recordings of casual conversation [20]; for Cha'palaa, the large number of tokens in the field recordings permitted instrumental analysis. Some acoustically inferior interjection tokens (due to overlapping speech or ambient noise) and some tokens spoken by children were discarded. In total, 13 Cha'palaa tokens and 12 Spanish tokens were analysed instrumentally. Pitch values throughout each interjection were computed, and formant values of vowels were measured at the point of maximum intensity using the Burg method implemented in the software Praat [21].

 Discussion Is huh? a word? In work on English conversations, the interjection huh? has been characterised as a “non-lexical token” [9] or a “non-lexical conversational sound” [8]. Yet our phonetic analysis shows that despite the overall similarity across languages, the OIR interjection is systematically calibrated to the language system in which it is integrated. This motivates the question whether huh? is a word. Two key characteristics of words are ‘integration’ – they are items in larger linguistic systems, and ‘conventionalisation’ – one cannot know them without having learnt them. Non-linguistic vocalisations like crying or grunting are the opposite on both counts: they are not integrated in linguistic systems, and one does not need to learn them to know them. Integration. In all languages investigated, the sound of the OIR interjection shows some degree of calibration to local linguistic systems. Vowel targets are language-specific and appear to be drawn to existing phonemic targets, e.g. /e/ for Spanish and /a/ for Cha'palaa. Intonation melodies appear to be linked to the interrogative prosodic system, which may differ from language to language. The occurrence and quality of consonant onsets is related to the consonant inventory of the language. The interjection is also part of a larger paradigm of expressions for the other-initiation of repair, including, in English, other items like what? and pardon? [5], [15]. Huh? is thus an item integrated in several linguistic subsystems, from segmental and prosodic phonology to conversational structure. Conventionalisation. Huh? exhibits linguistic conventions that speakers need to learn in order to use the form properly. A learner of Spanish has to know that repair is initiated with the mid front unrounded vowel “e↗”, a learner of Cha'palaa has to know that the form is more like “a ” with falling intonation, and a learner of Dutch has to know that a glottal fricative at onset is common: “h ”. Its acquisition follows a normal trajectory, at least in American English-speaking children [37]. Second language learners' reports confirm that the precise form of this interjection has to be learnt, and that intuitions are not necessarily a reliable guide in this process [38]. Perhaps there is a continuum from non-linguistic vocalisations like sneezing and crying to prototypical conventional lexical items like bless you and pain [39]. Our evidence suggests that huh? is more on the word side of that continuum. Based on the fact that huh? is integrated in multiple linguistic subsystems and conventionalised in language-specific ways we conclude that huh? a lexical word. Is huh? universal? Although there is systematic calibration to specific language systems, the bandwidth of the variation of OIR interjections across languages is exceedingly narrow. In all languages investigated, it is a monosyllable with at most a glottal onset consonant, an unrounded low front central vowel, and questioning intonation. Narrow bandwidth of variation. We have already shown that the uniformity of the interjections is in striking contrast to the question words that languages can recruit for the same function (Table 1). Another way to appreciate the small range of cross-linguistic variation exhibited by this form is to consider it in context of the possibility space for words in spoken languages. Across languages, words can consist of one or more syllables, but the OIR interjection was never longer than one syllable in the languages we have studied, even in those like Murrinh-Patha, for which phonological words are generally longer than one syllable. Across languages, syllables can have rich internal structure, but the only structure attested in the OIR interjection is (C) V, i.e. a vowel V with an optional onset consonant C, even in languages like Dutch, where CVC syllables are common. Similarity in vowels and consonants. Strong constraints on variation are also seen in the vowels and consonants employed. Vowel space can be depicted as a two-dimensional plane formed by height and backness. On average, languages have around 6 vowel phonemes [40], which tend to be maximally spread across this space to increase perceptual distinctiveness [41]. Given this fact, it is striking that the vowels of OIR interjection tokens are only found in the low front central corner of vowel space (Figure 2), and that on a third dimension of lip rounding OIR interjections are only found on the ‘unrounded’ side. Consonants are articulated at different locations throughout the vocal tract (lips, teeth, alveolar ridge, palate, velum, uvula, pharynx, epiglottis) and with different manners of articulation, from plosives, nasals and trills to taps, fricatives, and glides – a multidimensional possibility space in which the International Phonetic Alphabet records at least 64 simple phonemic consonants (and three times as many complex variants) attested in the world's languages [4]. Out of this enormous range of possibilities, only two basic sounds, the glottal consonants [ʔ] and [h], are found in the OIR interjection across languages. Such limited variation and striking similarity across languages is wholly unexpected on the basis of the principle of the arbitrariness of the sign. Does this mean that huh? is a universal word? We propose a qualified yes. Qualified, because huh? is clearly not phonetically the same word across languages – if Cha'palaa tokens were cross-spliced into Spanish dialog, Spanish speakers would likely be confused. What appears to be universal is the function of this interjection along with a set of constraints determining its form. Other-initiated repair sequences have been found in all languages investigated so far, and no language appears to lack an interjection for this function. Thus huh? is universal in the sense that a short, questioning interjection like it with the function of initiating repair is likely to be attested in all natural spoken languages. Possible explanations As we have seen, huh? is so common as to be practically universal, and yet calibrated to specific language systems such that it qualifies as a word. The language-specific nature of words is of course expected; it is the strong similarity that is in need of an explanation. Why do we find basically the same form –something like huh?– everywhere and not, say, bi in one language and rororo in the next? We consider two possible explanations. The first is that huh? is similar across languages because it is an innate grunt. The second is that it is similar as a result of convergent evolution. Empirical evidence supports the second. Innateness. On one account, huh? may be similar across languages because it is a natural symptom with a biological basis, like laughs and screams – a “grunt” [8], [10]. Such qualifications, common in the wider literature on interjections, place huh? in a position close to instinctive cries [7], [42]. This would be one explanation for its similarity: it is innate, therefore all humans share it, therefore it assumes roughly the same form in all languages. This view is as hard to support as it is to discount, but we note four doubts. No known phylogenetic precursor. Whereas laughter and pain cries (and by extension the conventionalized interjections associated with them) have demonstrable phylogenetic precursors in other mammals [43]–[46], there is, to the best of our knowledge, no evidence for an animal precursor of huh?. Nor is it obvious what the function and biological survival value of this precursor would be in primates which lack the kind of shared intentionality that underlies human cooperative communication [47], [48]. Not an involuntary response. Grunts and other non-linguistic vocalisations such as sneezes and pain cries are typically direct, involuntary responses to stimuli [49]. In contrast, the OIR interjection is selected for a specific purpose at a specific juncture in conversation from a larger system of alternative formats for initiating repair [15], [50]. A greater degree of agency over utterance and selection is characteristic of linguistic rather than instinctive expressions. Acquired like a normal word. Whereas non-linguistic vocalisations like sneezes, cries and smiles are present at birth or develop soon after [51], [52], the acquisition of huh? follows a trajectory that is very similar to that of other linguistic items. In American English-speaking children, it is employed and responded to somewhat erratically at 2.5 years but perfectly at 5 years [37]. Related to this, the variability of laughs and screams appears to be much greater than what we find for huh?, and is not as strongly regimented by language [44], [53]–[55]. Parsimony. In terms of evolutionary history, language is a recent arrival that shows clear signs of being a bio-cultural hybrid: a complex adaptive system in continuous cultural evolution within a landscape of cognitive, cultural, and communicative factors [56]–[59]. Although some of our linguistic abilities are no doubt underpinned by genetic infrastructure, positing innateness for specific linguistic items would hardly be realistic given the timescale involved. Strong cultural universals do not necessarily imply strong innate biases [60] and strong innate biases are unlikely to evolve in cultural systems [61]. If there is a mechanism that can explain cross-linguistic similarity on a more proximate timescale, without resorting to genetic encoding, this is preferred on scientific principles of parsimony. Convergence. A more plausible mechanism for the cross-linguistic similarity of huh? is convergent cultural evolution. This proposal sees huh? not as an arbitrary grunt but as a product of cultural evolution in the adaptive context of its interactional environment. The basic principle is well-known from biology: similar environmental constraints have led to the independent evolution of similar body plans in sharks and dolphins, and in the placental mammals of North-America and the marsupials of Australia. Likewise, we propose that the similarity of huh? in unrelated and distantly related languages is due to the fact that it is found in a strongly similar environment in all these languages. What is this environment like? Conversations are built out of sequences of communicative moves between speakers [62], [63]. These moves –or ‘turns at talk’– are allocated in systematic ways and bear special sequential relations to each other [64], [65]. For instance, a question sets up an expectation that the addressee will provide a fitted response –in this case an answer– in the next move. Speakers inspect moves for their fittedness and aim to minimize gaps and overlaps between them. Speaker change most often takes only between 100–300 milliseconds, and deviations from the timing target can be treated as problematic [66], [67]. In order for this tight timing to work, planning a next turn often has to start well before the end of the preceding turn [68], [69]. Trouble in hearing or understanding is a regular feature of conversation [5], [47]. In the case of such trouble, planning and producing a fitted and timely response will be harder (indeed at times impossible), but the pressure to produce one will be just as strong. Given these pressures of turn-taking and formulation in conversation, a signal that indicates trouble should be minimal and easy to deploy. At the same time, given the communicative importance of indicating trouble (which if not solved might derail the conversation), such a signal should also clearly indicate a knowledge deficit and push for a response. These requirements are met rather precisely in the combination of minimal effort and questioning prosody that characterises the OIR interjection across languages. Minimal effort. Many of the formal aspects of the OIR interjection minimize articulatory effort. The codaless monosyllable is the least marked syllable type across languages [68], [70]. The glottal onset, where present, is simply some constriction at the narrowest place in the vocal tract, and the unrounded low front central vowel is close to the neutral state of the articulators – both requiring minimal encoding, planning, and articulation [34]. Additionally, for Spanish phonetic corpus studies show that the vowel target of the interjection is the most frequently attested vowel [71], making retrieval, planning, and production easier [72]. These features render the OIR interjection well-fitted to the interactional environment of other-initiated repair. For the person initiating repair, the OIR interjection is quickly deployable from intention to articulation [68], and therefore easy to produce even under conditions of cognitive duress. For the addressee, the minimal form is a word that is unlike most content words and therefore –by Darwin's principle of antithesis [45]– a good signal that the other has no contentful response on offer. Questioning prosody. If ‘minimal’ were the only design requirement, the most low-effort form possible would be enough. But to carry out the work of initiating repair, the OIR interjection also has to signal a knowledge deficit and indicate that a response is needed. We have seen that the intonation of the interjection appears to be calibrated to local systems of questioning prosody. In many languages this means that it has rising intonation – a contour that requires more effort than falling intonation [73], and (in English-speaking infants) has been shown to elicit greater attention [74]. In Cha'palaa and Icelandic, where the OIR interjection has falling intonation, it has a low central unrounded vowel – the vowel that is inherently most sonorous and acoustically salient due to the wide open oral cavity [75]. We propose that the questioning prosody and the acoustic salience of the interjection render it more adaptive for the function of OIR. As a question word devoid of semantic content, it expediently returns the floor to the original speaker and signals that there is trouble to be fixed. In effect, huh? is an easy to produce, maximally underspecified question word – a tight fit of form and function found in language after language. We propose that this is the result of convergent cultural evolution: the interactional environment of other-initiated repair, present in every language investigated so far, provides a set of selective pressures that pull the interjection towards a similar form and that keep regular processes of language change from affecting the item. This process of convergent evolution explains the narrow bandwidth of the variation, but also the language-specific calibration of the items. To minimize articulatory effort, the OIR interjections of different languages will end up in the same low-effort area of the phonetic possibility space; yet to be recognised as questioning expressions, they will be calibrated to local phonological and prosodic subsystems. We use ‘convergent evolution’ as a general term for the independent evolution of similarities in form and function. When ancestral forms are known, a distinction can be made between form/function convergence in species that are closely related (‘parallel evolution’) versus in species that are not closely related (‘convergent evolution’). However, this distinction is not always consistently made in biology and recently there have been proposals to use ‘convergent evolution’ as a general term [76]. We use the term in this general sense. Our proposal accounts for the present-day cross-linguistic similarity of huh?, but has to remain agnostic as to its ultimate origins – in the absence of historical language data it is impossible to tell whether the present-day forms go back to one ancestral form (a stabilising evolution scenario [77]) or whether they arose independently in different languages (an independent convergent evolution scenario [78]). In either case, the selective pressures are the same. The convergent evolution proposal explains the forms documented so far, but also generates the prediction that in undescribed languages as well as newly emerging ones, we can expect to find a similar repair initiator that minimizes articulatory effort while making use of questioning prosody. Independently emerged sign languages of the deaf, though in a different expressive modality (visual-only instead of audio-visual), provide a good test case. Consistent with our proposal, in Argentinian Sign Language, repair can be initiated with a minimal sign that involves a raising of the eyebrows, the semiotic equivalent of questioning prosody [14],[79]. Conversational infrastructure and convergence of linguistic form. Apart from its explanatory and predictive value, the convergent evolution proposal offers a more general mechanism. For most words in most languages, there is no necessary connection between form and function. This is why words can change over time, and why we expect even words with similar functions to have different forms in unrelated languages. Accordingly, cultural evolutionary models of language change have tended to depict languages as collections of words evolving in utterances [80], [81], with various social and cognitive biases influencing transmission [82], [83] and with frequency of use as a primary factor influencing rates of change and divergence [84], [85]. However, our study points to a factor that may constrain divergence or diachronic drift: the selective pressures of specific conversational environments, which may cause convergent cultural evolution. The possibility should not be surprising. After all, words evolve in utterances in conversation, so conversational infrastructure is part of the evolutionary landscape for words. We are referring here to the sequential infrastructure that serves as the common vehicle for language use – an infrastructure that may well predate more complex forms of language and that seems largely independent of sometimes radical differences between individual languages [63], [66], [86], [87]. A clear effect of this conversational ecology on the cultural evolution of linguistic items has not, to our knowledge, been observed before. Though we have focused on huh? as a case study, the mechanism we propose has wider relevance. In our corpora, we have noted other items that are strongly similar in form and function across unrelated languages: continuers like mm/m-hm [88], hesitation markers like uh/um [89], [90], and change of state tokens like oh/ah [91]. It would be neither plausible nor parsimonious to propose that all of these have precursors in distinct innate grunts. Instead, we observe that these interjections all serve important discourse regulatory functions, and we propose that the reason they are so similar across languages is that common communicative needs and conversational infrastructure conspire to create, for each of them, a set of similar selective pressures constraining their evolution. The ultimate fit to the tight constraints of their conversational environments, these words stay put and help us conduct conversation in optimal ways. The approach followed in this study can be systematically extended to the larger set of discourse regulatory expressions and beyond, to explore further effects of conversational ecologies on language structure.

 Conclusions We have presented evidence and arguments that huh?, or more precisely a short questioning interjection with the function of other-initiation of repair, is a universal word likely to be attested in similar form in all natural spoken languages. The similarity of this interjection across languages is unlikely to be specified in our genetic makeup and we argue that it is the result of convergent cultural evolution: a monosyllable with questioning prosody and all articulators in near-neutral position is the optimal fit to the sequential environment of other-initiated repair. Our proposal invites closer attention to the infrastructure for social interaction that underlies language in use, and its possible influence on language structure. It also enhances existing models of language evolution and change by providing a mechanism for the convergent cultural evolution of linguistic items: conversational environments may exert selective pressure towards the evolution of common optimised forms, calibrated to local linguistic systems. Hence, we see how the investigation of a seemingly banal everyday word –previously characterised as a grunt or dismissed as a non-lexical sound– can shed light on the emergence and motivation of linguistic signs.

 Supporting Information File S1. Combined Supporting Information containing a description of the auditory analysis, the coding scheme used, and further information related to nasality and mouth aperture. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0078273.s001 (PDF)

 Acknowledgments This work was carried out in the project “Interactional Foundations of Language” within the Language and Cognition Department at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. We thank our colleagues (individually credited in Table 2) for making interjection tokens from their corpora available for analysis. We thank Dan Dediu, Carlos Gussenhoven, Sean Roberts, and Joe Blythe for helpful comments on earlier drafts, Mark Sicoli for providing some Meso-American data points, and the PLoS One reviewers for constructive feedback. |||||


Write an article based on this summary:

– He didn't use the word "conflate," but Sanjay Gupta used many other words to try and clarify why a report he filed from Nepal after the April earthquake there was apparently filled with inaccuracies, the Guardian reports. The Global Press Institute, a journalist-training nonprofit, reports not only that Gupta didn't save the life of an 8-year-old girl he claimed to have operated on—it says he actually helped with a surgery on a 14-year-old—but that after Gupta's segment aired, CNN took down a story that accurately reported on the 14-year-old's injuries and put in its place a story that swapped in the 8-year-old's name to match Gupta's report. Gupta tried to clear things up yesterday on CNN, admitting he may have mixed details up during the chaos. "There were many children, many people in the hospital," he said, per the Guardian. "When you report on these kinds of situations, you take lots of different bits of information and you consolidate it and in the end you tell the story." The neurosurgeon who performed the surgery on the older girl also tells the paper that Gupta wasn't asked to help, as Gupta claims, but that he harangued staff until they conceded; the surgeon also says he never gave permission for Gupta's team to film the operation. His statements underscore what some ethics experts are saying is a conflict of interest: being a physician and a journalist and filming your interventions. Meanwhile, the director of the GPI isn't buying Gupta's "things were so crazy" excuse. "A pretty grave mistake was made," she tells the Guardian. "The excuse that things were chaotic shouldn't hold up for any journalist, especially when that journalist is also performing a medical operation." CNN notes it's investigating, adding, "Journalism is not brain surgery. But brain surgery is brain surgery. … Sanjay spent a week in Nepal, helped save a young life in the operating room, and we couldn't be prouder of him. He has our full and unequivocal support." (Read the Global Press Institute's entire damning report.)

Starting in 1996, Alexa Internet has been donating their crawl data to the Internet Archive. Flowing in every day, these data are added to the Wayback Machine after an embargo period. ||||| Focused crawls are collections of frequently-updated webcrawl data from narrow (as opposed to broad or wide) web crawls, often focused on a single domain or subdomain. ||||| CNN has launched an investigation into claims that one of its star correspondents misled viewers in a report showing his emergency medical intervention on an earthquake victim in Nepal.

 Dr Sanjay Gupta, an acclaimed neurosurgeon and the network’s chief medical correspondent was reporting on the devastating 7.8 magnitude quake that killed more than 8,000 people in the poor South Asian country in April, when he participated in an emergency operation on a victim.

 In both a report and interviews with CNN anchors, Gupta said he had been involved in an intervention which had saved the life of an eight-year-old girl suffering from major head injuries. Gupta was shown inspecting scans of what were said to be the girl’s skull prior to the surgery, and then in the operating theatre at the Bir Hospital, in central Kathmandu.

 His actions, which came only two days after the tremor, were widely reported across the world. The girl was said to be suffering from a life-threatening blood clot in her brain.

 The accuracy of Gupta’s report has now been challenged in an investigation by the Global Press Institute, an independent organisation that trains journalists in the developing world and publishes their reports.

 After speaking to doctors involved in the incident as well as patients and their families, the institute reported that Gupta had actually helped with an operation on a different patient – a 14-year-old – and that the eight-year-old named in the report had not sustained any serious injuries.

 The institute also reported that CNN had published a text story before the video segment aired that correctly described the girls’ injuries. Hours later, the article was updated to remove one of the girls and misreport the others’ injuries. The modified article reflected the reporting in the broadcast story.

 On Wednesday, Gupta attempted to clarify the situation on the network’s morning news program, New Day, conceding that the patient he operated on “may not have been this eight-year-old girl but rather separately a 14-year old girl in that same hospital”.

 He described the scene at Bir Hospital as complete chaos in the aftermath of the earthquake. Amid the havoc, details may have been confused, he said.

 “These facts are important to us ... we are trying to independently verify which child it was who got that operation at the time. There were many children, many people in the hospital,” Gupta told viewers.

 “When you report on these kinds of situations you take lots of different bits of information and you consolidate it and in the end you tell the story.”

 Nepal was certainly in turmoil in the days after the earthquake struck, but that should not excuse the reporting errors, said Cristi Hegranes, the founder and executive director of the San Francisco-based Global Press Institute and the publisher of Global Press Journal.

 “A pretty grave mistake was made … the excuse that things were chaotic shouldn’t hold up for any journalist especially when that journalist is also performing a medical operation,” Hegranes said.

 The publisher said the culture of celebrity reporting raises concerns about the way foreign correspondents report abroad, Hegranes said. She argued that local journalists wouldn’t have made this mistake, and that her team, comprised of local female reporters, undertook this story to “set the record straight”.

 “Now we know the identity of the patient on the table,” she said. “I’m hopeful that this conversation can be the first of many about the role of foreign correspondents and celebrity journalists in America and how they cover the developing world.”

 Gupta, a former candidate for US surgeon general, said he was shown several children who were suffering brain injuries.

 In a statement CNN said: “Journalism is not brain surgery. But brain surgery is brain surgery.”

 “We are so proud that Sanjay was one of the few reporters in Nepal to cover the earthquake, and while there was asked to help save a young victim’s life. As we reported he assisted the surgeons at Bir Hospital by performing a craniotomy on a young victim. Some reporting has suggested it was not the young girl we, at the time of our own reporting in the midst of the crisis, believed her to be. We will try to verify that. Regardless, Sanjay spent a week in Nepal, helped save a young life in the operating room, and we couldn’t be prouder of him. He has our full and unequivocal support.”

 Dr Rajiv Jha, the senior neurosurgeon at Bir Hospital who conducted the operation, told the Guardian on Wednesday that Gupta had repeatedly asked to participate in an operation, rather than been requested by medical staff to help.

 “I met him that day. He said he was a reporter and a neurosurgeon too. He said ‘if you need some help, I can help you’. We only had one [theatre] at the time and I had sufficient manpower,” Jha said.

 After “a few hours”, Gupta was allowed to “assist in one of the cases”, Jha said.

 On CNN on Wednesday, Gupta maintained that he had been asked to intervene.

 Jha also said he had been surprised to see footage of the operation broadcast as he had refused to allow CNN to bring a “big camera” into the theatre but believed a colleague of Gupta had filmed the intervention on a cellphone.

 “It was never discussed with me that it would be broadcast ... He never took permission to take film,” Jha told the Guardian.

 There was no immediate response from CNN to the claim.

 Gupta has regularly stepped in to save lives while covering a story for CNN. He treated a two-year-old boy in Iraq, and examined patients on camera after the 2010 Haiti earthquake.

 Ethics experts have previously raised questions over the conflicting instincts of a physician-journalist.

 Connie St Louis, director of the Science Journalism programme at City University in London, told the Guardian in April that she was “really, really worried” about the ethics of filming a journalist’s medical intervention.

 “As a journalist with medical training, do you really need to film the times when you get involved? There’s certainly a possible confidentiality issue, as well as the potential for self-promotion. If you film the journalist doing the medical procedure, they become the story. My feeling is, why do it in Nepal when there is no way you could possibly do this in America?” she said.

  |||||


CLOSE On Friday the AMC movie theater chain scrapped its tone deaf idea of attracting millennials to its theaters by allowing movie-goers to text while watching films. AMC says the proposal it floated this week has been relegated to the cutting room floor. USA TODAY

 Texting-friendly screens — coming soon to AMC? (Photo: FREDERIC J. BROWN, AFP/Getty Images)

 AMC Theatres is changing the script on plans to allow moviegoers to text in the theater.

 The movie theater chain said Friday it will scrap plans to allow some theater patrons to text during movies, a move its CEO had said it considered to attract more millennials.

 "We have heard loud and clear this is a concept our audience does not want," said AMC Theatres CEO Adam Aron said in a statement.

 NO TEXTING AT AMC. Won't happen. You spoke. We listened. Quickly, that idea has been sent to the cutting room floor. pic.twitter.com/JR0fo5megR — AMC Theatres (@AMCTheatres) April 15, 2016

 AMC's about-face follows an interview Aron gave to Variety, where he suggested making some theaters friendlier to moviegoers who want to use their smartphones while watching a movie.

 "When you tell a 22-year-old to turn off the phone, don’t ruin the movie, they hear please cut off your left arm above the elbow," said Aron. "You can’t tell a 22-year-old to turn off their cellphone. That’s not how they live their life."

 On Twitter, reaction to Aron's idea was swift, and overwhelmingly negative.

 So, I guess I won't be seeing movies at AMC theatres. AMC CEO suggests he'll permit texting. https://t.co/nfqEd2rIAO — Augie Ray (@augieray) April 14, 2016

 Do this and I'll NEVER go to an AMC again...

 AMC Entertainment CEO Open to Allowing Texting in Some Theaters https://t.co/ypLRuczbQF — Jeremy Conrad (@ManaByte) April 14, 2016

 Aron says the company will focus on other plans to entice more consumers to go to the movies, including investing more than $1 billion to enhance theaters and their systems.

 "With your advice at hand, there will be NO TEXTING ALLOWED in any of the auditoriums at AMC Theatres," he says. "Not today, not tomorrow, and not in the foreseeable future."

 The harsh reaction to AMC's proposal falls in line with U.S. sentiment on when it's appropriate to use a smartphone. According to a national survey conducted by Pew Research Center, 95% of Americans polled said it's not OK to use a smartphone "at the movie theater or other places where others are usually quiet."

 Follow Brett Molina on Twitter: @brettmolina23.

 Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/1Sf2MfC ||||| For years now, movie theater operators have been trying to dissuade their customers from chatting on cell phones or texting during shows. Some issue stern pre-show warnings that anyone caught texting or talking will be shown the door.

 It's not surprising then that the new chief executive and president of AMC Theaters, Adam M. Aron, caused a stir by suggesting that nation's second-largest movie theater company would consider the idea of making certain auditoriums "more texting friendly" in a bid to get millennials to go to the movies more often.

 "When you tell a 22-year-old to turn off the phone, don't ruin the movie, they hear please cut off your left arm above the elbow," said Aron in an interview with Variety published online Wednesday.

 "You can't tell a 22-year-old to turn off their cellphone. That's not how they live," said Aron, who hailed from outside the movie business before taking the reins of parent company AMC Entertainment Holdings (AMC) in January.

 His suggestion that the company might revisit its stance on texting during shows didn't sit well with many movie buffs, who flooded AMC's social media accounts with objections. Some threatened to take their business elsewhere if AMC followed through with the idea.

 The company quickly responded to the backlash with the following post: "Press reports we are considering test allowing texts in a very few screens. We know vast majority of audience wants no texting. If ever, we only would pursue this in a way that we can be totally confident ALL our guests will fully enjoy the movie-going experience at AMC."

 That still wasn't enough to quell critics on Twitter and Facebook. By Friday, AMC retreated with a company statement that included the following tweet:

 NO TEXTING AT AMC. Won't happen. You spoke. We listened. Quickly, that idea has been sent to the cutting room floor. pic.twitter.com/JR0fo5megR — AMC Theatres (@AMCTheatres) April 15, 2016

 Aron, former CEO of Starwood Hotels & Resorts (HOT), is no doubt mulling new ways for AMC to woo an increasingly distracted and demanding audience. Rather than turn off their smartphones, many millennials would rather skip the theater altogether, or kick back at home and stream movies on their flat-screen TVs or mobile devices, via Netflix (NFLX) and other services.

 In 2015, America's 18- to 24-year olds represented 10 percent of the U.S. population and bought 14 percent of all movie tickets sold here, down from 16 percent in 2014, according to Stan Meyers, a Piper Jaffray & Co. analyst who covers media and entertainment companies.

 Teens, somewhat surprisingly, are going to the movies more often these days, as are those in the 60-plus set, as measured by their percentage contributions to overall ticket sales between 2014 and 2015, said Meyers.

 "One of the things keeping millennials away from the movies is that they need to be on their phones all the time. What [Adam Aron] wants to do is segregate different groups so that people don't want to be on their phones, i.e., older demographic groups, and those who do could be in different [auditoriums]," said Meyers.

 In his first few months as CEO, Aron has taken other steps to ensure that AMC, known as an innovator in the movie business, stays competitive in the face of demographic shifts and rapid technological change. In March, AMC announced that it has struck a deal to acquire Carmike Cinemas (CKEC), a merger that would create the world's largest chain of movie theaters.

 AMC, a subsidiary of Chinese conglomerate Dalian Wanda Group, is also reportedly close to a deal with the Screening Room, a startup that will offer new releases in the home, via a set-top box that transmits movies, for $50 per view, according to Variety.

 The venture is controversial within the movie business, but Variety reports that the Screening Room, backed by Sean Parker of Facebook (FB) and Napster fame, is seeking to pave its way by sharing its proceeds with distributors and providing customers with two free movie tickets per view, which would help boost concession sales for theater operators.

 But it's the texting controversy that has put AMC in the hot seat in the eyes of some moviegoers. That is perhaps not surprising given that some people feel so strongly about the etiquette surrounding cell phone use in theaters that the issue has sparked violence. In early 2014 an argument between two men in a theater in Wesley Chapel, Florida, over texting ended in a fatal shooting. Before the argument erupted, the man who was eventually shot was sending text messages to his daughter during the previews to the movie. ||||| Tweet with a location

 You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more ||||| Adam Aron has been head of AMC Entertainment for less than four months, but in that short time he’s already orchestrated one of the most significant deals in the country’s history. In February, AMC announced that it has an agreement to buy Carmike, propelling it from being the second-biggest exhibitor in the country to the world’s top movie theater chain.

 Aron has a diverse resume, having been head of Starwood Hotels and Resorts, CEO and co-owner of the Philadelphia 76ers basketball team, chairman and CEO of Vail Resorts and president and CEO of Norwegian Cruise Line. But in an industry dominated by lifers, he is a newcomer to the exhibition space.

 That’s giving him a willingness to experiment. He’s pushing to expand AMC’s food options, bolster its loyalty program and market more aggressively. Some moves may ruffle feathers. In a bid to attract younger, smartphone savvy consumers, Aron said he was open to making some theaters texting and mobile device-friendly.

 That may make him unpopular. When Regal Entertainment CEO Amy Miles mused in 2012 that theaters should consider experimenting with relaxing cellphone bans, the blowback was intense.

 Related Movie Tickets in London Hit $50 - Here's What They Cost Around the World 'The Terror' Season 2 Adds George Takei as Series Regular, Consultant

 Aron sat down with Variety during CinemaCon, the annual exhibition trade show unfolding this week in Las Vegas, to discuss the planned merger with Carmike, ticketing advances and Screening Room, the controversial start-up that wants to debut movies in the home the same day they hit theaters.

 You’ve worked in a number of different industries, but you’re new to exhibition. What perspective do you bring?

 Coming in fresh, it seems like there’s lots of opportunity to propel revenues or to give consumers better experiences. AMC has been a leader in that regard for a few years now, but I think we will pick up even more of a reputation for that going forward. Already, having been here a couple of months, I know we can step up our marketing activity in a big way. The food that we serve in our theaters can be much more exciting than the current stable of chicken tenders, hot dogs, pizza, in addition to the standard soda and popcorn and candy. A lot of change is possible in this industry for the betterment of our shareholders and our customers.

 Marketing costs money. Why do you think it’s worth the expense?

 Next year, assuming the Carmike acquisition is consummated, AMC is going to have in the neighborhood of $4 billion worth of revenue. It’s almost irresponsible for a company with $4 billion worth of revenue on the line not to aggressively market. That’s one of the things that can ensure that the $4 billion comes in, and that’s one of the things that can ensure that more than $4 billion comes in. We wouldn’t be spending for additional marketing if we didn’t think we’d be driving big revenue gains.

 Are there particular demographics that you plan to target with your marketing?

 We ought to be looking at three things. People who are already interested in movies and maybe in a big way, where if we up our game, we could get them to come to more movies. That’s one of the reasons to have a better loyalty program with bigger, broader participation, because loyalty programs work. We can convince people who think they are seeing the most movies they can possibly see to go to more movies.

 The second is market share we can take from our competitors if we market AMC better than they market their theaters.

 And third, there does seem to be a consensus that there are pockets of consumers who do not see as many movies as other segments of the population and that we can be doing more to attract those people. Millennials come to mind. We need to reshape our product in some concrete ways so that millennials go to movie theaters with the same degree of intensity as baby boomers went to movie theaters throughout their lives.

 Would appealing to millennials involve allowing texting or cellphone use?

 Yes. When you tell a 22-year-old to turn off the phone, don’t ruin the movie, they hear please cut off your left arm above the elbow. You can’t tell a 22-year-old to turn off their cellphone. That’s not how they live their life.

 At the same time, though, we’re going to have to figure out a way to do it that doesn’t disturb today’s audiences. There’s a reason there are ads up there saying turn off your phone, because today’s moviegoer doesn’t want somebody sitting next to them texting or having their phone on.

 Would you have a certain section for texting?

 That’s one possibility. What may be more likely is we take specific auditoriums and make them more texting friendly.

 There are reports that you have signed a letter of intent to partner with Screening Room. What is your position on the company?

 I’m not commenting publicly on Screening Room. I know it’s a topic of hot debate amongst my brethren and sister-en, and I prefer to keep our counsel private right now. Until such time as Screening Room is real, we don’t have to spend a lot of time talking about it publicly.

 How open are you to different distribution strategies that might modify the theatrical window?

 For all the talk of the Paramount test a year ago [Editor’s note: AMC signed a deal that allowed the studio to debut two films on home entertainment early] and all the talk of Screening Room now, you may be surprised to hear that I think windows are very important. There’s a lot of evidence that shorter windows put theatrical exhibitors at risk. Studios themselves benefit from posting big global box office numbers, which comes from theatrical distribution.

 So I start from a general premise that I’m a big fan of windows. Having said that, I’m also a big fan of experimenting and testing on everything that we do to see if there aren’t alternative ways of doing business. I generally look at our 385 theaters as laboratories where we can test lots of different concepts without being afraid that there’s going to be a cataclysmic, sky’s falling in, if we do. I believe in innovation and being imaginative and forward thinking. There are some bedrock principles though.

 What are those bedrock principles?

 I have two bedrock principles and only two bedrock principles. One is that it’s our burden as managers of the company that runs movie theaters to make sure that the moviegoing experience is as wonderful and spectacular as it possibly can be. The surest way to grow our business and protect it against erosion is to make sure that going to an AMC theater is a pleasing and memorable experience.

 The second is the consumer is king. Giving the consumer more choices, more amenities and price points. If we put ourselves in the head of our customer and design our theatrical experience and marketing activity to make their lives better, we’ll have a successful company. Other than that we’ll be flexible and willing to experiment.

 Where are you in terms of closing the Carmike acquisition?

 There are really only two hurdles to go through. Carmike’s shareholders have to vote to approve the transaction. I expect that’s going to be some time in June. I don’t think they’ve set a date.

 We need to get through the Justice Department approval, but we’re optimistic that we will get through both of these hurdles. The contract we have with Carmike requires that we get through this a year from the date of the merger transaction, so early in the first quarter of 2017. It would be nice if we could get it done before that.

 What does the merger do for AMC?

 By putting together the No. 2 and No. 4 players in the industry, we create a new No. 1 player. There’s extraordinary amounts of research that say that No. 1 players in industries are often the most successful players in their industries. If that turns out to be true, I’d rather be the No. 1 player than the No. 2 player.

 Why did you recently sign a deal with ticketing app, Atom Tickets?

 They’ve got a great social media platform where when you buy a ticket for a Wednesday night at 7:00 show, it sends a text message to all your friends asking if they want to go to the theater and sit next to you. They click a couple of buttons and your friend can buy a ticket at the same theater and showtime in a reserved seat. That’s a great concept and that’s one of the ways that we can make it easier for Millennials — who live on social media — to meet up with their friends in movie theaters.

 Megan Fox delivered a pizza to your seat during Paramount’s CinemaCon presentation this week. What was that experience like?

 They took the pizza away as quickly as they delivered it. It was warm, and I could smell it, but we didn’t get to eat it. I can’t tell you how it tasted, but in terms of who and how it was delivered, I can tell you that’s the best pizza delivery I’ve ever had. ||||| Benvido á casa! This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

 Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

 Di moito cun pouco When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

 Únete á conversa Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

 Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

 Get more of what you love Sigue máis contas para recibir actualizacións instantáneas dos temas que che importan.

 Find what's happening Mira as últimas conversas sobre calquera tema ao momento. ||||| Tweet with a location

 You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more |||||
What is a one-paragraph summary of the above article?

– Well, that didn't take long: Less than two days after AMC's CEO gave an interview in which he suggested the theater chain might allow texting in its theaters, he's put out a statement backtracking. "NO TEXTING AT AMC. Won't happen. You spoke. We listened. Quickly, that idea has been sent to the cutting room floor," reads a tweet Friday accompanying the statement. In the statement, CEO Adam Aron acknowledges the social media uproar that followed the texting news (USA Today has rounded up sample tweets from people who swore never to visit an AMC theater again) and says that the chain will not allow texting any time in the "foreseeable future." One analyst tells CBS that Aron's actual idea might not have been as irksome as it sounded: "One of the things keeping millennials away from the movies is that they need to be on their phones all the time. What [Adam Aron] wants to do is segregate different groups so that people don't want to be on their phones, i.e., older demographic groups, and those who do could be in different [auditoriums]." And Aron tried to make that clear on Twitter Thursday, tweeting that AMC might simply do a test run on "VERY FEW screens" and would make sure it was done "in a way we'd be TOTALLY confident ALL our guests will fully enjoy movie going experience." But that wasn't enough, garnering responses like, "No! Not even one! What a stupid idea."


Article:
In Mr. Avery's home county, Manitowoc, where he was convicted in 1985, his release prompted apologies, even from the sexual assault victim, and a welcoming home for Mr. Avery. Elsewhere, the case became Wisconsin's most noted exoneration, leading to an "Avery task force," which drew up a package of law enforcement changes known as the Avery Bill, adopted by state lawmakers just weeks ago.

 Mr. Avery, meanwhile, became a spokesman for how a system could harm an innocent man, being asked to appear on panels about wrongful conviction, to testify before the State Legislature and to be toured around the Capitol by at least one lawmaker who described him as a hero.

 But last week, back in rural Manitowoc County, back at his family's auto salvage yard, back at the trailer he had moved home to, Mr. Avery, 43, was accused once more. This time, he was charged in the death of Teresa Halbach, a 25-year-old photographer who vanished on Oct. 31 after being assigned to take pictures for Auto Trader magazine at Avery's Auto Salvage.

 After her family searched for Ms. Halbach for days, investigators said they found bones and teeth in the salvage yard, along with her car. In the car, they found blood from Mr. Avery and Ms. Halbach, they said. They also found her car key in the bedroom of his trailer, they said, and, using the very technology that led to Mr. Avery's release two years earlier, they said they identified Mr. Avery's DNA on the key.

 "This case has blown us away," Stephen M. Glynn, a Milwaukee lawyer who has represented Mr. Avery in a $36 million civil lawsuit against the former prosecutor and former sheriff in the original sexual assault case, said of the new charges against Mr. Avery. "I haven't taken that hard a punch in a long, long time."

 "This lets down so many people," Mr. Glynn went on. "This case became something that could have had an enormously positive effect on the criminal justice system in this state, but now that's up in the air."

 Around the nation, DNA testing has led to the exonerations of 163 people since 1989, including Mr. Avery, said Maddy deLone, executive director of the Innocence Project in New York, where Barry C. Scheck and Peter J. Neufeld were pioneers in the movement. Only one of those exonerated is known to have been convicted of a serious crime since being freed, Ms. deLone said.

 Advertisement Continue reading the main story

 Like leaders in similar groups, Ms. deLone said she had recently heard about Mr. Avery's case and had talked to colleagues about it. "While this is a horrible, horrible crime," she said, "we really don't think that it will have an effect on these efforts or on our responsibilities to vindicate innocent people."

 At the Wisconsin Innocence Project, leaders said the new accusations against Mr. Avery should not now be linked to his earlier wrongful arrest and release. Keith Findley, co-founder of the Wisconsin group, which describes Mr. Avery's case in its brochure, said the group's intent was not just to release the innocent but to find truth, and properly punish those truly responsible for crimes.

 "This is a very emotional time and a very emotional event," Mr. Findley said. "But this should not affect what we do."

 Still, for advocates accustomed to being praised as fighting on behalf of the falsely accused, the backlash here has been unavoidable. On talk radio and on Internet Web logs, critics have said that without the Wisconsin Innocence Project's efforts, one young woman might still be alive. Some said Mr. Avery's criminal record revealed telling signs of violence -- with convictions, for example, for burglary and cruelty to animals -- long before his 1985 sexual assault conviction.

 Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You will receive emails containing news content , updates and promotions from The New York Times. You may opt-out at any time. You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters.

 At the trial, the strongest evidence against Mr. Avery came from the victim. She identified Mr. Avery as the man who had attacked her as she jogged on a beach. She had seen his face just 8 to 10 inches from her own, she said, and had noted his height, his broad hands with stubby fingers, his hair. The first thing that had raced through her mind in the attack, she told the jury, was that she needed to "get a look at this guy."

 Years after the jury found Mr. Avery guilty, his lawyers pressed to have new DNA testing done on pubic hair found on the victim after the attack. The tests revealed not only that the hair did not belong to Mr. Avery, but found that it matched another man, who had lived in the area and who had since been sent to prison for a sexual assault. The case was held up as a perfect example of how eyewitness testimony, even the best intentioned, could simply be wrong.

 Even before the sexual assault conviction, Fred Hazlewood, the judge, now retired, who presided over Mr. Avery's case, said Mr. Avery's criminal record showed that he "had a real potential" for violence. "But he served his time," Judge Hazlewood said, "and you can't convict someone for what he might do."

 Family members said last week that they were certain Mr. Avery was not guilty of the new charges of first-degree intentional homicide and mutilating a corpse. The authorities were wrong before, Mr. Avery's father, Al, said, and they are wrong again. The evidence, Al Avery said, was planted.

 When Steven Avery finally got out of prison, his father said, he had lost his wife and family and found himself living in a tiny ice shanty once meant for winter fishing. Just surviving after so many years in prison was hard enough, Al Avery said.

 Advertisement Continue reading the main story

 "Now it's starting all over again," Mr. Avery's father said as he looked around the salvage yard that law officers had searched for days.

 Mr. Avery's mother, Dolores, said she could see the way people were looking at her, again, in the grocery store and on the streets here near Lake Michigan.

 "He's innocent," Ms. Avery said. "I know it in my heart."

 Soon, she said, she plans to call the Wisconsin Innocence Project, the lawyers who helped her son once before.

 "There are 36 million reasons why they should be doing this to him," Mr. Avery's brother, Chuck, said, referring to the award his brother was seeking in his lawsuit.

 The future of that suit now appears in question. Depositions have been postponed. Mr. Glynn said that he still believed that his client had a strong case, but he acknowledged that the case had grown complicated. What will potential jurors think now?

 The arrest has changed other plans, too. Lawmakers who had pushed to have the state pay Mr. Avery more than $420,000 for his wrongful arrest have grown quiet. And the bill of changes -- to the way the police draw up eyewitness identification procedures, conduct interrogations and hold onto DNA evidence -- is no longer called the Avery Bill.

 "The legislation is very important and very sound for our justice system as a whole," said Representative Mark Gundrum, a Republican who helped organize what was then called the "Avery task force."

 "But this does detract a little bit," Mr. Gundrum said. "Obviously, we're not talking about Steven Avery anymore, not highlighting his conviction."

 And plans for a "grand, glorious" signing ceremony for what is now simply called the "criminal justice reforms" package, he said, seem remote. ||||| “We made our judgment, and the trial came to an end, and locally most people were in support of that,” Mr. Ring said. “Now it’s back — by no choosing or no doing of anyone in this community.”

 “So that’s the first point of injustice,” he added. “That we have to live through it again.”

 In downtown Manitowoc, the county seat, the talkative, curious people I had come upon a decade earlier were no longer surprised — or the least bit pleased — to see yet another reporter. Many avoided any talk about “Making a Murderer,” or simply spotted my notebook and walked away. The mayor declined to be interviewed. Business owners refused to discuss it: One said she had read online about a call for a protest in the town, and she was worried about safety.

 “Look, we lived this whole thing like a juror,” Suszanne Fox, who lives not far from here, told me as she ate a burger at the Fat Seagull. “He was guilty as sin.”

 Many viewers of “Making a Murderer” do not agree. Hundreds of thousands of people signed petitions asking President Obama to pardon Mr. Avery and Mr. Dassey, to which the White House has responded that the president cannot issue pardons in state cases. And Gov. Scott Walker has long pledged to issue no pardons while in office.

 The series left viewers with unrelenting questions: Did Mr. Avery’s civil lawsuit for his wrongful sexual assault conviction motivate the Manitowoc County authorities to plant evidence against him in the second case, for murder? How was it that an old sample of Mr. Avery’s blood, which was found in the victim’s car, appeared to be tampered with while in the care of the authorities? Should Mr. Dassey, at his young age and with a limited intellect, have been questioned alone by investigators? Was his appointed lawyer working against his cause? |||||Summary:

– Ten years before Making a Murderer fans started debating Steven Avery's case at just about every water cooler in the country, Monica Davey was just another reporter covering Avery's arrest on suspicion of the 2005 murder of Teresa Halbach in Manitowoc, Wis. The news came just as Avery was pursuing a $36 million civil lawsuit against a former prosecutor and sheriff, having recently been acquitted of a sexual assault for which he spent 18 years in prison. "There are 36 million reasons why they should be doing this to him," Davey quoted Avery's brother as saying in a 2005 New York Times article. It caught the eye of two graduate student filmmakers, who would spend the next decade creating Making a Murderer. The series has forced Manitowoc to relive its darkest history and has left the county transformed, Davey writes at the Times following a return visit. While the county tourism office used to field calls about jogging paths and beaches, callers now question why the office would want to draw visitors to such a town. The local police and sheriff's departments, city hall, and even the Manitowoc County Historical Society are forced to listen to "yelling, cussing, and swearing," says an official. As for Manitowoc residents, "the talkative, curious people I had come upon a decade earlier … avoided any talk about Making a Murderer, or simply spotted my notebook and walked away," writes Davey. One, however, said she was fearful of a rally in support of Avery, scheduled for Friday, per WBAY. Even Avery's mother, who ardently defends her son, says the calls for interviews are overwhelming. "I'm too old for this," she says. "It's too much." Read Davey's full piece here.


Here is a news article: Soap stars are the new public servants.

 At least that’s the message that Donald Trump is sending across with his list of speakers for the GOP convention, which includes not just one, but two actors best known for their daytime television roles: Antonio Sabato Jr. of General Hospital and Kimberlin Brown of The Young and the Restless and The Bold and the Beautiful.

 Brown has even managed to snag the primetime slot on Tuesday evening and is being introduced by neurosurgeon and Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson.

 But who is Kimberlin Brown and what has she done to merit the honor of being one of Trump’s primetime speakers? She declined to talk to Fortune without approval from a Trump campaign representative (who has yet to respond to requests for comment), but here’s what we can gather about the actress:

 Subscribe to the Broadsheet, Fortune’s daily newsletter on the world’s most powerful women.

 1. In the 1990s, Brown played Sheila Carter first on The Young and The Restless and then on The Bold and The Beautiful. Carter was a “devious” character who “terrorized” the fictional Genoa City and was eventually killed off by her archnemesis. She may yet come back from the dead, according to Soaps.com.

 2. She has an avocado farm in California.

 3. She currently hosts a show called Dramatic Designs on The Design Network, where she “guides [viewers] through some of her favorite (and most challenging) projects, showing [them] everything from space planning to the final installation, and sharing tips of the trade.”

 4. Brown is a “small business owner,” according to a GOP convention statement. This may be referring to her role as a stylist and “eBoutique owner” on MK Collab, an online fashion retailer.

 5. Judging by her recent Instagram posts, she is really, really excited to speak at the convention.

 At morning lighting and sound check A photo posted by Kimberlin Brown (@kimberlin_brown) on Jul 18, 2016 at 8:07am PDT ||||| Dana White always has thanked Donald Trump for helping the UFC in tough times. Now, the UFC president will pay it forward.

 On Tuesday night, White will stump for Trump at the Republican National Convention, adding a colorful voice to a lineup filled with atypical choices at Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland.

 White, described on the convention’s program as the “business visionary behind the success” of the UFC, joins actors Scott Baio and Antonio Sabato Jr., “Duck Dynasty” star Willie Robertson, pro golfer Natalie Golbis, and a whole bunch of Trumps – Melania, Donald Jr., Eric, Tiffany, Ivanka, and of course, Donald.

 “A self-described political independent, White has expressed his gratitude to presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump for helping the UFC succeed,” reads White’s bio on the RNC’s official program. “Trump hosted the once-controversial mixed martial arts competitions at his Trump Taj Mahal casino property when other venues shunned the sport.”

 A featured speaker for Tuesday’s program, which is themed “Make America Work Again,” the UFC executive takes the stage after RNC co-chair Sharon Day will deliver a nominating speech for Trump’s vice-president pick, Indiana Governor Mike Pence.

 The program kicks off at 5:30 p.m. ET and airs live on C-Span and streams on Google.

 Asked how White plans to contribute to the program’s theme, a UFC official said, “We won’t be making those details available in advance.”

 But presumably, he’ll talk tough about Trump’s economic plusses as one of many “winners” the nominee wants associated with his brand.

 Tune in – it’s bound to get interesting. ||||| Tiffany Trump, Paul Ryan: Here's what's happening on Day 2 of the GOP convention

 CLOSE Skip in Skip x Embed x Share USA TODAY's Susan Page gives you a preview of what to expect during day two of the Republican National Convention.

 CLEVELAND — We're live in Cleveland for Day Two. On Monday, Donald Trump showed up to introduce his wife (whose speech at times sounded a lot like Michelle Obama's in 2008; the Trump campaign is denying this accusation and blamed the fallout from it on Hillary Clinton), and his supporters toasted to the fact that, while it was a bit messy, the Never Trump contingent was shut down.

 But today is even bigger. Today, Trump will become Republican NOMINEE Donald Trump — no more of this presumptive stuff.

 It's Trump's party

 Tonight, Donald Trump will seal the deal and become the party’s official nominee. There was a moment Monday when that was called into question after Never Trumpers demanded a roll call vote on the rules in an effort to free up delegates to vote for whomever they want, but it got squashed swiftly. So now each state will ceremoniously announce how their delegation will vote, and since Trump has secured enough delegates through the primaries and caucuses (confused on how this works? Check out our convention guide) he’ll be the man in the general election starting Tuesday night.

 This is actually pretty unconventional; in general, the roll call of the states takes place later in the week. But let’s be real: Has ANYTHING about Trump’s candidacy been according to the books?

 The lineup

 You can expect to see House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis. — whose coming-to-terms with Donald Trump has played out very publicly and at times awkwardly — and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

 Tuesday also features two of Trump's former Republican primary competitors, including New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who may still be a little bit mad at the New York billionaire after he passed him up for vice president. Ben Carson will also speak.

 But in an interview with CNN on Monday night, Christie brushed off questions about not being selected and said everyone would be over it by Tuesday. He, meanwhile, would turn his focus back to his role as head of Trump's transition team should he win the presidency.

 And what to expect for his speech tonight?

 “I’m going to make a case tonight that Donald Trump is ready to be president of the United States, and perhaps his opponent is not," Christie said on NBC's Today Tuesday morning.

 Keeping with Trump’s “showbiz” convention, Dana White, president of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, and professional golfer Natalie Gulbis will also speak.

 Who is Tiffany Trump?

 Tiffany Trump listens to a speech on the first day of the Republican National Convention on July 18, 2016. (Photo: Jeff Swensen, Getty Images)

 Two of Trump’s children — Donald Trump Jr. and Tiffany Trump — will take the stage as well. You’ve probably seen Trump Jr. on the trail — he’s been a pretty active surrogate for his dad. But Tiffany has stayed somewhat out of the spotlight.

 A little background on her: Tiffany graduated from University of Pennsylvania this spring (reminder, although it would be hard to forget how often he mentions: Trump went to the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business). She double majored in sociology (with a concentration in law) and urban studies, according to People. And in 2014, her proud father told the magazine: "She's got all A's at Penn, so we're proud of her."

 This spring she appeared at New York Fashion Week, and she's also dabbled in music. Her single Like a Bird is available on Amazon.

 Latest podcast from Cup of Politics

 More convention coverage from USA TODAY

 Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/29WD2GF ||||| Republicans will officially nominate Donald Trump Donald TrumpBannon rips 'corporatist, globalist media' DNC candidate Harrison drops out, backs Perez for chairman Muslim White House staffer quits, slamming Trump’s travel ban MORE for president on Tuesday.

 Unity will be a major theme as the party seeks to put forth Trump as its standard bearer a day after Never Trump forces were all but vanquished.

 And a bevy of speakers is set to lay into the Obama administration’s handling of the economy, the theme of the convention's second day.

 ADVERTISEMENT

 Here’s what to watch for when the convention gavels back in Tuesday at 5:30 p.m. EDT.

 Party leaders take center stage

 Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Mitch McConnellProtesters crash McConnell's speech The Hill's 12:30 Report Poll: Senate should confirm Gorsuch MORE (Ky.), House Speaker Paul Ryan Paul RyanCornyn: Border wall 'makes absolutely no sense' in some areas CNN to host town hall featuring John McCain, Lindsey Graham GOP senator won't vote to defund Planned Parenthood MORE (Wis.) and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) are all scheduled to speak in a broad show of support for the party’s unconventional nominee.

 It could be McConnell’s most high-profile defense of Trump. Although the longtime senator has endorsed the presumptive nominee, he’s shied away from answering questions about Trump's campaign and recently questioned the candidate's credibility.

 Ryan’s speech will come one day after he branded Trump a conservative, but “not my kind of conservative.”

 While he hasn’t shied away from criticizing Trump on occasion, he’s often framed the election as a “binary choice.”

 McCarthy will speak not just as a House leader, but also as a California delegate selected by Trump’s campaign.

 Dollars and cents

 Tuesday’s theme is another play off of Trump’s campaign slogan. “Make America Work Again” will be a night devoted to hammering home how Trump’s successful business career makes him the best fit to lead the country’s economy.

 Kerry Woolard, general manager of Trump Winery, and Donald Trump Jr., an executive vice president at The Trump Organization, will speak for Trump.

 Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson will also take to the stage to drive the economic message home.

 And Tuesday’s speeches will help answer a question perplexing delegates and the media alike: Who is Andy Wist?

 Wist, who owns a restoration and waterproofing company based out of New York, has little public presence or political involvement, so his inclusion on the Tuesday list of speakers surprised many. His presence in the New York real estate scene suggests that Wist worked with Trump at one point during the candidate's real estate career, but he hasn’t publicly commented on his role.

 Christie and Carson

 Tuesday will also bring speeches from two former Trump presidential rivals turned allies, Ben Carson and Chris Christie, both of whom criticized Trump during the primary.

 Christie’s speech will be especially noteworthy because it’s his first major speech in support of Trump since he was passed over for the vice presidential spot.

 Ron Johnson Ron JohnsonA guide to the committees: Senate Hopes rise for law to expand access to experimental drugs Dems ask for hearings on Russian attempts to attack election infrastructure MORE stands alone

 Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson stands alone as the only vulnerable Republican senator scheduled to deliver a speech on the convention stage, as many in his position look to keep space between themselves and Donald Trump.

 Politically vulnerable Republican Sens. John McCain John McCainHannity apologizes for sharing 'inaccurate' story about McCain McCain spokeswoman: Hannity should 'correct the record' after 'fake news' tweet CNN to host town hall featuring John McCain, Lindsey Graham MORE (Ariz.), Kelly Ayotte Kelly AyotteLewandowski saw no evidence of voter fraud in New Hampshire NH governor 'not aware’ of major voter fraud Former NH AG: 'Allegations of voter fraud in NH are baseless' MORE (N.H.), Marco Rubio Marco RubioA guide to the committees: Senate Schumer: GOP will break from Trump within months GOP loses top Senate contenders MORE (Fla.) and Rand Paul Rand PaulRand Paul rejects label of 'Trump's most loyal stooge' GOP healthcare plans push health savings account expansion Congress must reform civil asset forfeiture laws MORE (Ky.), all caught up in their own primary races, are steering clear of the convention. Even Ohio Sen. Rob Portman Rob PortmanObamaCare fix hinges on Medicaid clash in Senate A guide to the committees: Senate Two tax issues dividing Republicans on ObamaCare MORE won’t give a prime-time speech, despite the event taking place in his home state.

 The move is a reversal for Johnson, who told The Associated Press last week that he would skip the convention because he wanted "to spend as much time in Wisconsin as possible” as he prepares for a fight against former Sen. Russ Feingold (D).

 By accepting the high-profile role, Johnson will likely try to play to the GOP base and help boost his own turnout in the swing state.

 Recent polls show Johnson behind Feingold.

 Tiffany Trump goes prime-time

 At this point, America is on a first-name basis with the majority of Trump’s adult children — Ivanka, Eric and Donald Jr.

 On Tuesday night, 22-year-old Tiffany Trump gets her national-stage debut.

 Tiffany is Trump’s daughter with his second wife, Marla Maples. She spent some time on the campaign trail during her father’s swing through Pennsylvania, but nowhere near as much time as the three elder Trumps.

 She’s best known for her popular Instagram profile, as well as for a 2011 pop single she released, so the convention speech marks her first major foray into Republican politics, as well as her highest-profile appearance.

 Celebrities for Trump

 Trump promised a convention filled with pizzazz, and although the speaker list didn’t include many of the marquee names many had hoped for, Tuesday will include a handful of celebrities.

 Dana White, the president of Ultimate Fighting Championship, will take to the podium to tout Trump.

 White’s convention bio specifically notes that Trump hosted a fight at one of his New Jersey properties for the controversial mixed-martial art in the sport’s early years. While it’s blossomed into a major industry, many were concerned about the sport’s level of violence during its infancy.

 Natalie Gulbis, a professional golfer and occasional golf partner of Trump’s will also speak. She’s unabashedly pro-Trump, having written a blog post titled “The Donald Trump I Know,” where she lauded the GOP nominee as “gracious, generous and inspiring.”

 Soap opera star Kimberlin Brown is also scheduled to speak; she’s best known for her roles in "The Young and the Restless" and "The Bold and the Beautiful." |||||
A summary of this is?

– With Day One of the Republican National Convention in the can, the GOP heads into the second day of its Cleveland rally. Per the Hill, Tuesday's convention theme will center on the slogan "Make America Work Again," and to bolster Donald Trump's message that his business acumen makes him the obvious choice to lead the US into economic prosperity, a lineup of speakers is set to take the stage. Among them: Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, Kerry Woolard (GM of Trump Winery), and Donald Trump Jr., who's an executive VP at the Trump Organization. Donald Sr.'s 22-year-old daughter, Tiffany, who USA Today notes just graduated from the University of Pennsylvania this year, will also speak—her most high-profile appearance in the campaign yet. Also on the roster: Speaker Paul Ryan, whose perpetual exasperation and frustration with Trump makes his speech one of the most highly anticipated of the night. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will also have something to say, as will Ben Carson and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who didn't seem fazed at Monday's convention gathering about not being chosen as Trump's running mate. "I'm going to make a case tonight that Donald Trump is ready to be president of the United States, and perhaps his opponent is not," Christie said on the Today show Tuesday morning, per USA Today. A handful of C-list celebrities have also been slated in, including soap opera star Kimberlin Brown and Dana White, head of the UFC mixed martial arts promotion company. (The highlight from Monday's convention: Melania Trump's speech.)