Your search found 1415 results.

Descriptors:
Alphabets; Reading Difficulties; Patients; Structural Analysis (Linguistics); Models; Computation; Data Analysis; Recognition (Psychology); Correlation; Predictor Variables

Abstract:
Letter recognition is the foundation of the human reading system. Despite this, it tends to receive little attention in computational modelling of single word reading. Here we present a model that can be trained to recognise letters in various spatial transformations. When presented with degraded stimuli the model makes letter confusion errors that correlate with human confusability data. Analyses of the internal representations of the model suggest that a small set of learned visual feature detectors support the recognition of both upper case and lower case letters in various fonts and transformations. We postulated that a damaged version of the model might be expected to act in a similar manner to patients suffering from pure alexia. Summed error score generated from the model was found to be a very good predictor of the reading times of pure alexic patients, outperforming simple word length, and accounting for 47% of the variance. These findings are consistent with a hypothesis suggesting that impaired visual processing is a key to understanding the strong word-length effects found in pure alexic patients. (Contains 9 tables and 8 figures.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Cues; Syllables; Phonetics; Language Universals; Language Acquisition; Phonology; Grammar; Task Analysis; Identification; Language Research; Acoustics; Structural Analysis (Linguistics); Error Analysis (Language); Role; Language Processing; Speech Communication; English; Native Speakers; Auditory Perception

Abstract:
Certain ill-formed phonological structures are systematically under-represented across languages and misidentified by human listeners. It is currently unclear whether this results from grammatical phonological knowledge that actively recodes ill-formed structures, or from difficulty with their phonetic encoding. To examine this question, we gauge the effect of two types of tasks on the identification of onset clusters that are unattested in an individual's language. One type calls attention to global phonological structure by eliciting a syllable count (e.g., does "medif" include one syllable or two?). A second set of tasks promotes attention to local phonetic detail by requiring the detection of specific segments (e.g., does "medif" include an "e"?). Results from five experiments show that, when participants attend to global phonological structure, ill-formed onsets are misidentified (e.g., "mdif"[right arrow]"medif") relative to better-formed ones (e.g., "mlif"). In contrast, when people attend to local phonetic detail, they identify ill-formed onsets as well as better-formed ones, and they are highly sensitive to non-distinctive phonetic cues. These findings suggest that misidentifications reflect active recoding based on broad phonological knowledge, rather than passive failures to extract acoustic surface forms. Although the perceptual interface could shape such knowledge, the relationship between language and misidentification is a two-way street. (Contains 8 figures, 1 table and 2 notes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Priming; Form Classes (Languages); Second Language Learning; Memory; Learning Processes; Language Patterns; Phrase Structure; Verbs; Pictorial Stimuli; Task Analysis; Grammar; Comparative Analysis; Second Language Instruction; Structural Analysis (Linguistics)

Abstract:
Structural priming (or syntactic priming) is a speaker's tendency to reuse the same structural pattern as one that was previously encountered (Bock, 1986). This study investigated (a) whether the implicit learning processes involved in long-lag structural priming lead to differential second language (L2) improvement in producing two structural types (complex, double-object dative and simple, separated phrasal-verb structures) compared to more explicit memory processes involved in no-lag structural priming and (b) whether additional explicit instruction leads to increased production of target structures than either implicit learning or explicit memory processes alone. Learners showed an overall increase in target structure production in a picture description task and marginal improvement in grammaticality judgment tests after the structural priming session. Results revealed that explicit instruction combined with structural priming speeded short-term improvement more than implicit instruction involving implicit learning alone in the form of long-lag structural priming. However, only implicit learning via long-lag structural priming resulted in increased production of the complex structure during a second testing session 1 day later. This study is the first to directly compare explicit instruction to implicit instruction in a structural priming paradigm, taking into account both the complexity of structures and the long-term effects of instruction on L2 production. (Contains 3 figures, 4 tables, and 9 notes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Nouns; Prediction; Grammar; Discourse Analysis; Verbs; Languages; Phrase Structure; Classification; Structural Analysis (Linguistics)

Abstract:
It follows from the ordering principles that are applied in Functional Discourse Grammar that the positional possibilities of markers of agreement and those of cross-reference are different. Markers of cross reference are predicted to occur closer to the verb stem, while markers of agreement would occupy peripheral positions. This paper tests these predictions using data from a variety of languages, and shows that for these languages the predictions indeed hold true. In demonstrating this, the paper furthermore proposes a new treatment for markers of agreement/cross reference in languages in which these optionally co-occur with a corresponding noun phrase. These markers are on a language-specific basis classified as either Contextual Agreement Markers or as Appositional Referential Markers. (Contains 2 tables.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Syntax; Grammar; Structural Analysis (Linguistics); Linguistic Theory; Guidelines; English; Phrase Structure; Discourse Analysis

Abstract:
An essential task for the morphosyntactic level within the grammatical component of Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG) is the handling of constituent ordering. This area of grammar, which is known as positional syntax, constitutes the subject of the present paper, in which the ordering of constituents is examined within the framework of a dynamic implementation of the FDG model. First of all, an analysis is presented of how FDG differs from its predecessor, Functional Grammar, in the treatment of constituent order. Next, attention is focused upon the question of how a dynamic FDG-based account of positional syntax may be developed. A linearisation mechanism is proposed which reflects the basic principles of FDG theory, and the working of the mechanism is illustrated in relation to the positional syntax of the English Clause. Some problems are then discussed, and avenues are explored towards their solution. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Semantics; Phrase Structure; Nouns; Grammar; Structural Analysis (Linguistics); Form Classes (Languages); Pragmatics; Linguistic Theory

Abstract:
This article inquires into the nature of "attributive" prepositional phrases from a Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG) perspective. On the basis of the observation that such prepositional phrases can easily be separated from their host noun phrases by extraposition or extraction, it is argued that they do not belong to the noun phrase syntactically, as discontinuity is vital in determining the constituency boundaries. The idea that attributive prepositional phrases are really independent clause-level modifiers goes counter to what is generally assumed in most syntactic frameworks, but it can be shown that the arguments that are traditionally given in favour of shared constituency do not adequately distinguish between syntactic, semantic and pragmatic association between language units. The layered structure of the FDG model, on the other hand, makes it possible to tease those different types of association apart, so that we can recognise the semantic link at the Representation Level, while at the same time accounting for the loose syntactic connection between the noun and the prepositional phrase at the Morphosyntactic Level. (Contains 1 table.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Semantics; Syntax; Grammar; Structural Analysis (Linguistics); Discourse Analysis; Role; Comparative Analysis; Morphology (Languages); Prediction; Languages; Linguistic Theory

Abstract:
The aim of this paper is to compare the treatment of syntactic functions, and more particularly those traditionally labelled as Subject and Object, in Functional Discourse Grammar and Role and Reference Grammar. Relevant aspects of the overall structure of the two theories are briefly described. The concept of alignment between levels of the grammar in Functional Discourse Grammar is introduced and the role of syntactic functions in the morphosyntactic type of alignment is explained. The arguments put forward in Role and Reference Grammar against the adoption of Subject and Object and in favour of a single language-specific and construction-specific privileged syntactic argument are then discussed. The arguments against Subject are found to be persuasive, those against the need for any secondary syntactic function (in place of the traditional Object) rather less so. It is therefore proposed that Functional Discourse Grammar should abandon the notions of Subject and Object as valid categories in those languages which can be demonstrated to need syntactic functions, and should make it explicit that grammatical relations are specific to particular languages and even to constructions within those languages, while making appropriate generalisations wherever possible. The role played by syntactic functions in the two theories is then discussed in rather more detail, and it is concluded that while the Role and Reference Grammar system makes stronger predictions about the relationships between syntax and semantics, the Functional Discourse Grammar concept of alignment has greater overall scope and generality. (Contains 3 figures.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Phrase Structure; Discourse Analysis; Grammar; Syntax; Classification; Interpersonal Communication; Structural Analysis (Linguistics)

Abstract:
This article explores the viability of the analytic distinction between "turn-constructional unit (TCU) continuation" (i.e., continuing a turn beyond a point of possible completion with grammatically dependent material) and "new TCU" (i.e., continuing a turn with grammatically independent material) when hypotactic clause combinations are involved. The focus is on causal clause combinations, which may be either lexico-syntactically marked (e.g., as in English with "because") or lexico-syntactically unmarked but prosodically cohesive. Based on data from ordinary conversation, it is found that both marked and unmarked forms are used in turn continuation, with the unit containing the account (the causal clause) being delivered after the completion of a unit implementing the accountable action. Both marked and unmarked forms of causal clause combination, when used in turn continuation, allow for intervening talk after the accountable; both prioritize the account in establishing relevancies for what happens next. Yet, in current conceptualizations of turn continuation, they would be classified differently, with marked forms counting as "TCU continuation" and unmarked forms as "new TCU." The implications of this unsatisfactory state of affairs are discussed in the conclusion. (Contains 8 footnotes, 2 tables and 6 figures.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Sentences; Cues; Child Language; Structural Analysis (Linguistics); Verbs; Models; Investigations; Grammar; Language Acquisition; Children; Adults; Comparative Analysis; Syntax; Influences; Regression (Statistics)

Abstract:
Focusing on children's production of the dative alternation in English, we examine whether children's choices are influenced by the same factors that influence adults' choices, and whether, like adults, they are sensitive to multiple factors simultaneously. We do so by using mixed-effect regression models to analyse child and child-directed datives extracted from the Child Language Data Exchange System corpus. Such models allow us to investigate the collective and independent effects of multiple factors simultaneously. The results show that children's choices are influenced by multiple factors (length of theme and recipient, nominal expression type of both, syntactic persistence) and pattern similarly to child-directed speech. Our findings demonstrate parallels between child and adult speech, consistent with recent acquisition research suggesting that there is a usage-based continuity between child and adult grammars. Furthermore, they highlight the utility of analysing children's speech from a multi-variable perspective, and portray a learner who is sensitive to the multiple cues present in her input. (Contains 10 figures, 2 footnotes and 8 tables.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Transformational Generative Grammar; English; Linguistic Theory; Contrastive Linguistics; Language Classification; Phrase Structure; Structural Analysis (Linguistics)

Abstract:
This paper analyzes "wh"-questions in the English Language based mainly on Chomsky's Minimalist Programme of transformational grammar as the theoretical model. The four main objectives of this paper are as follows: first, it undertakes a cross linguistic typological analysis of "wh"-questions and it then discusses the derivation of "wh"-interrogatives in English. The discussion on the derivation of "wh"-questions focuses on Head-to-Head movement and operator movement as the two transformations used to derive "wh"-interrogatives in the language. Second, the paper evaluates the pied-piping of bi-lexical and multi-lexical "wh"-phrases in English. Third, the derivation of direct and indirect "wh"-questions in embedded clauses are also discussed. Finally, the constraints on "wh"-movement are identified and analyzed with copious examples. (Contains 1 figure.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website