Split (1)

train · 25k rows

text stringlengths 13 991
Thus, parents' role in the acquisition of routines is very different from their role in most of the rest of language development.
Gleason and Greif analyzed children's acquisition of three ubiquitous routines in "Hi, Thanks, and Goodbye: More Routine Information" (1980).
The subjects were eleven boys and eleven girls and their parents.
At the conclusion of a parent-child play period, an assistant entered the playroom bearing a present, in order to evoke routines from the children.
The study's purpose was to analyze how parents communicate these routines to their children; major questions proposed included whether or not some routines were more obligatory than others, and whether mothers and fathers provide different models of politeness behavior for their children. The results suggest that children's "spontaneous" construction of the three routines was low, with "Thank you" the rarest.
However, parents strongly encouraged their children to generate routines and, typically, the children complied.
In addition, parents were more likely to prompt the "Thank you" routine than the "Hi" and "Goodbye" routines.
Parents practiced the routines themselves, though mothers were more likely than fathers to speak "Thank you" and "Goodbye" to the assistant.
Gleason and Ely made an in-depth study of apologies in children's dialogue in their paper, "I'm sorry I said that: apologies in young children's discourse" (2006),
which analyzed apology term usage (in parent–child dialogue) of five boys and four girls, aged one to six years.
Their research suggested that apologies appear later in children than do other politeness routines, and that as the children grew older they developed a progressively refined expertise with this routine, gradually requiring fewer direct prompts and producing more elaborate apologies instead of just saying "I'm sorry".
They also found that parents and other adults play an important role in fostering growth of apologetic abilities through the setting of examples, by encouraging the children to apologize, and by speaking specifically and purposefully to them about apologies.
With Ely, MacGibbon, and Zaretsky, Gleason also explored the discourse of middle-class parents and their children at the dinner table in, "Attention to Language: Lessons Learned at the Dinner Table" (2001),
finding that the everyday language of these parents involves a remarkable portion of attention to language.
The dinner-table conversation of twentytwo middle-class families, each with a child between two years and five and onehalf years old, were recorded,
then analyzed for the existence and activity of languagecentered terms, including words like "ask", "tell", "say", and "speak".
Mothers spoke more about language than did fathers, and fathers spoke more about it than did children:
roughly eleven percent of mothers' sentences contained one or more languagecentered terms, and the corresponding proportions for fathers and children were seven percent and four percent.
Uses that were metalinguistic (for example, accounting for and remarking on speech) exceeded uses that were pragmatic (for example, managing how and when speech appears).
The more that mothers used language-centered terms, the more the children did as wellbut this was not true for fathers.
The results imply that in routine family conversations, parents supply children with considerable information on the way language is used to communicate information.
Gleason has carried out significant research involving the learning and maintenance of second languages by sequential bilinguals. She has studied the acquisition of a second language while retaining the first (additive bilingualism),
examining discourse behaviors of parents who follow the one person-one language principle by using different languages with their child
She has also studied language attrition, the loss of a known language through lack of use,
and suggests that the order in which a language is learned is less important in predicting its retention than the thoroughness with which it is learned.
An unusual study carried out with Harris and Aycicegi, "Taboo words and reprimands elicit greater autonomic reactivity in a first language than in a second language" (2003), investigated the involuntary psychophysiological reactions of bilingual speakers to taboo words.
Thirtytwo TurkishEnglish bilinguals judged an array of words and phrases for "pleasantness" in Turkish (their first language), and in English (their second), while their skin conductance was monitored via fingertip electrodes.
Participants manifested greater autonomic arousal in response to taboo words and childhood reprimands in their first language than to those in their second language, confirming the commonplace claim that speakers of two languages are less uncomfortable speaking taboo words and phrases in their second language than in their native language.
In "Maintaining Foreign Language Skills", which discusses "the personal, cultural, and instructional factors involved with keeping up foreign language skills" (1988), Gleason and Pan consider both humans' remarkable capacity for language acquisition and their ability to lose it.
In addition to brain damage, strokes, trauma and other physical causes of language loss, individuals may lose language skills due to the absence of a linguistically supportive social environment in which to maintain such skills, such as when a speaker of a given language relocates to a place where that language is not spoken. Culture also factors in. More often than not, individuals speaking two or more languages come into contact with one another, for reasons ranging from emigration and interrelationships to alterations in political borders. The result of such contact is typically that the community of speakers undergoes a progressive shift in usage from one language to the other.
Gleason has also done significant research on aphasia,
a condition (usually due to brain injury) in which a person's ability to understand and/or to produce language, including their ability to find the words they need and their use of basic morphology and syntax, is impaired in a variety of ways.
In "Some Linguistic Structures in the Speech of a Broca's Aphasic" (1972) Gleason, Goodglass, Bernholtz, and Hyde discuss an experiment carried out with a man who, after a stroke, had been left with Broca's aphasia/agrammatism,
a specific form of aphasia typically impairing the production of morphology and syntax more than it impairs comprehension.
This experiment employed the Story Completion Test (often used to probe a subject's capacity for producing various common grammatical forms)
as well as free conversation and repetition to elicit speech from the subject;
this speech was then analyzed to evaluate how well he used inflectional morphology
(e.g. plural and past tense word endings) and basic syntax (the formation of, for example, simple declarative, imperative, and interrogative sentences).
To do this the investigator, in a few sentences, began a simple story about a pictured situation, then asked the subject to conclude the narrative.
The stories were so designed that a nonlanguageimpaired person's response would typically employ particular structures, for example, the plural of a noun, the past tense of a verb, or a simple but complete yesno question (e.g. "Did you take my shoes?").
Gleason, Goodglass, Bernholtz, and Hyde concluded that the transition from verb to object was easier for this subject than was the transition from subject to verb and that auxiliary verbs and verb inflections were the parts of speech most likely to be omitted by the subject. There was considerable variation among consecutive repeat trials of the same test item, although responses on successive attempts usually came closer to those a normal speaker would have produced. The study concluded that the subject's speech was not the product of a stable abnormal grammar, and could not be accounted for by assuming that he was simply omitting words to minimize his effort in producing themquestions
of significant theoretical controversy at the time.
Brian Lewis Butterworth FBA (born 3 January 1944) is emeritus professor of cognitive neuropsychology in the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience at University College London. His research has ranged from speech errors and pauses, short-term memory deficits, dyslexia, reading both in alphabetic scripts and Chinese, and mathematics and dyscalculia. His book "The Mathematical Brain" has been translated into four languages. He was Editor-in-Chief of "Linguistics" (1978–1983) and a founding editor of the journals "Language and Cognitive Processes" and "Mathematical Cognition". He is a Fellow of the British Academy.
In 1984 he diagnosed President Ronald Reagan on the basis of speech errors in his presidential re-election speeches in an article in the Sunday Times as having Alzheimer's disease ten years before this was formally identified. He was a coauthor in 1971 of a pamphlet, "Marked for life", critical of university examinations.
He designed the world's largest mathematical experiment involving over 18,000 people at Explore-At-Bristol. In the serious game for elementary school children with dyscalculia, "Meister Cody", he lends his voice to Quoun, the Guardian of the Trees.
Published in the same year in the US as "What Counts" New York: Simon & Schuster.
Powell A. Butterworth B. (1971). "Marked for life: a criticism of assessment at universities". London, Anarchist Group
Butterworth B. (1980). "Language Production Volume 1: Speech and talk" Academic Pr
Butterworth B. (1983). "Language Production Volume 2: Development, Writing and Other Language Processes" Academic Pr
Butterworth B. Comrie B. Dahl O. (1984). "Explanations for Language" Universals Mouton De Gruyter
Butterworth, B. (2004). "Dyscalculia Guidance Helping Pupils with Specific Learning Difficulties in Maths". David Fulton
Judit Kormos () (born 1970) is a Hungarian-born British linguist. She is a professor and the Director of Studies for the MA TESOL Distance programme at the Department of Linguistics and English Language at Lancaster University, United Kingdom. She is renowned for her work on motivation in second language learning, and self-regulation in second language writing. Her current interest is in dyslexia in second language learning.
Along with Rosa Manchón she has been noted for her work on the cognitive dimension of the acquisition and use of second languages, with emphasis on the psycholinguistic dimension of textual production and along with Cumming, Hyland, Manchón, Matsuda, Ortega, Polio, Storch and Verspoor she has been considered as one of the most influential researchers on second language writing.
Kormos graduated at the Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest, Hungary in 1994. Kormos gained her PhD at the Eötvös Loránd University in 1999. Her PhD was supervised by Zoltán Dörnyei. Kormos took up a lecturer position at the Lancaster University in 2008. and was promoted to a Readership in 2012. She chose to be called "Reader in Second Language Acquisition". On 8 January 2015, Kormos was awarded a personal chair. Her title became "Professor of Second Language Acquisition".
She is the coordinator of the Dyslexia For Teachers Of English Foreign Language Project, funded by the European Commission. Since 2011, she has been a member of the editorial board of the Journal of Second Language Writing. She has been an Editor of Special Thematic Issues and Associate Journal Editor of the Language Learning.
In 2012, Kormos was interviewed by the Hungarian television channel ATV on recent changes in foreign language teaching policies in Hungary. She emphasised the important role of teaching students to learn foreign languages independently and autonomously with the help of modern technological tools. On 21 May 2014, Pearson Education released a new video lecture series on dyslexia and foreign language learning on YouTube. Kormos features in the first video of the series and discusses the psychological effects of dyslexia on the processes of foreign language learning.
In 2014, Kormos together with a European team from five partner countries won the ELTons award of the British Council in the Excellence in Course Innovation category.
On 20 June 2014, she was cited in the Education webpage of the "Guardian" in a recent article on teaching languages to students with disabilities. She said that teaching methods and materials need to be adapted for dyslexic students, instead of taking them out of second language classes. Dyslexic students are able to acquire another language successfully and they have to be provided a chance. The teacher should be aware of the dyslexia and teach a bit differently. For example, teachers should include more visual materials, act things out and explain things slightly more explicitly than they would to other students. Some learners are more receptive to audio channels of learning, others to visual. Therefore using a combination of the two may be really effective.
Top 5 articles and chapters based on Google Scholar.
David Green is a professorial research fellow in the Department of Cognitive, Perceptual & Brain Sciences, an honorary senior research associate, an emeritus professor of psychology in the Division of Psychology & Language Sciences, and on the faculty of Brain Sciences at University College London. He has researched widely on subjects such as mental models, both construction and manipulation, the lexical organisation, and modelling control processes in speech production, language control particularly biliginual and the imaging of language and object recognition in the neurologically damaged. He is one of the four chief editors of the academic journal .
Lyn Frazier (born October 15, 1952, in Madison, Wisconsin) is an experimental linguist, focusing on psycholinguistic research of adult sentence comprehension.
Frazier received her PhD in 1978 from the University of Connecticut under the supervision of Janet Dean Fodor, on the subject of parsing strategies in syntax. She is currently a Professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. She was named the first Distinguished Graduate Mentor at University of Massachusetts and received an award from the University of Massachusetts system for Outstanding Accomplishments in Research and Creative Activity.
Frazier's work has examined how listeners approach the task of processing the incoming language stream. She has proposed and refined syntactic parsing models, including a two-tier parsing system, the garden path model, and the Active Filler Hypothesis. Her recent work has focused on how listeners parse ellipsis.
She is co-editor of the book series "Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics", published by Springer.
In linguistics, comparative illusions (CIs) or Escher sentences are certain comparative sentences which initially seem to be acceptable but upon closer reflection have no well-formed meaning. The typical example sentence used to typify this phenomenon is "More people have been to Russia than I have". The effect has also been observed in other languages. Some studies have suggested that, at least in English, the effect is stronger for sentences whose predicate is repeatable. The effect has also been found to be stronger in some cases when there is a plural subject in the second clause.
Escher sentences are ungrammatical because a matrix clause subject like "more people" is making a comparison between two sets of individuals, but there is no such set of individuals in the second clause. For the sentence to be grammatical, the subject of the second clause must be a bare plural. Linguists have marked that it is "striking" that, despite the grammar of these sentences not possibly having a meaningful interpretation, people so often report that they sound acceptable, and that it is "remarkable" that people seldom notice any error.
Mario Montalbetti's 1984 Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation has been credited as being the first to note these sorts of sentences; in his prologue he gives acknowledgements to Hermann Schultze "for uttering the most amazing */? sentence I've ever heard: "More people have been to Berlin than I have"", although the dissertation itself does not discuss such sentences. Parallel examples with "Russia" instead of "Berlin" were briefly discussed in psycholinguistic work in the 1990s and 2000s by Thomas Bever and colleagues.
Geoffrey K. Pullum wrote about this phenomenon in a 2004 post on "Language Log" after Jim McCloskey brought it to his attention. In a post the following day, Mark Liberman gave the name "Escher sentences" to such sentences in reference to M. C. Escher's 1960 lithograph "Ascending and Descending". He wrote:
Although rare, actual attestations of this construction have appeared in natural speech. "Language Log" has noted examples such as:
Another attested example is the following tweet from Dan Rather:
Experiments on the acceptability of comparative illusion sentences has found results which are "highly variable both within and across studies". While the illusion of acceptability for comparative illusions has also been informally reported for speakers of Faroese, German, Icelandic, Polish, and Swedish, systematic investigation has mostly centered on English, although Aarhus University neurolinguist Ken Ramshøj Christensen has run several experiments on comparative illusions in Danish.
When Danish and Swedish speakers were asked what (1) means, their responses fell into one of the following categories:
Paraphrase (d) is in fact the only possible interpretation of (1); this is possible due to the lexical ambiguity of "have" between an auxiliary verb and a lexical verb just as the English "have"; however the majority of participants (da: 78.9%; sv: 56%) gave a paraphrase which does not follow from the grammar. Another study where Danish participants had to pick from a set of paraphrases, say it meant something else, or say it was meaningless found that people selected "It does not make sense" for comparative illusions 63% of the time and selected it meant something 37% of the time.
The first study examining what affects acceptability of these sentences was presented at the 2004 CUNY Conference on Human Sentencing Processing. Scott Fults and Collin Phillips found that Escher sentences with ellipsis (a) were found to be more acceptable than the same sentences without ellipsis (b).
Responses to this study noted that it only compared elided material to nothing, and that even in grammatical comparatives, ellipsis of repeated phrases is preferred. In order to control for the awkwardness of identical predicates, Alexis Wellwood and colleagues compared comparative illusions with ellipsis to those with a different predicate.
They found that both CI-type and control sentences were found to be slightly more acceptable with ellipsis, which led them to reject the hypothesis that ellipsis was responsible for the acceptability of CIs. Rather, it is possible people just prefer shorter sentences in general. Patrick Kelley's Michigan State University dissertation found similar results.
Alexis Wellwood and colleagues have found in experiments that the illusion of grammaticality is greater when the sentence's predicate is repeatable. For instance, (a) is experimentally found to be more acceptable than (b).
The comparative must be in the subject position for the illusion to work; sentences like (a) which also have verb phrase ellipsis are viewed as unacceptable without any illusion of acceptability:
A pilot study by Iria de Dios-Flores also found that repeatability of the predicate had an effect on the acceptability of CIs in English. However, Christensen's study on comparative illusions in Danish did not find a significant difference in acceptability for sentences with repeatable predicates (a) and those without (b).
The lexical ambiguity of the English quantifier "more" has led to a hypothesis where the acceptability of CIs is due to people reinterpreting a "comparative" "more" as an "additive" "more". As "fewer" does not have such an ambiguity, Wellwood and colleagues tested to see if there was any difference in acceptability judgements depending on whether the sentences used "fewer" or "more". In general, their study found significantly higher acceptability for sentences with "more" than with "fewer" but the difference did not disproportionately affect the comparative illusion sentences compared to the controls.
Christensen found no significant difference in acceptability for Danish CIs with ("more") compared to those with ("fewer").
De Dios-Flores examined if there was an effect depending on whether or not the "than"-clause subject could be a subset of the matrix subject as in (a) compared to those where it could not be due to a gender mismatch as in (b). No significant differences were found.
In a study of Danish speakers, CIs with prepositional sentential adverbials like "in the evening" were found to be less acceptable than those without.
Comparatives in Bulgarian can optionally have the degree operator (); sentences with this morpheme (a) are immediately found unacceptable but those without it (b) produce the same illusion of acceptability.
A neuroimaging study of Danish speakers found less activation in the left inferior frontal gyrus, left premotor cortex (BA 4, 6), and left posterior temporal cortex (BA 21, 22) when processing CIs like (a) than when processing grammatical clausal comparatives like (b). Christensen has suggested this shows CIs are easy to process but as they are nonsensical, processing is "shallow". Low LIFG activation levels also suggest that people do not perceive CIs as being semantically anomalous.
Townsend and Bever have posited that Escher sentences get perceived as acceptable because they are an apparent blend of two grammatical templates.
Wellwood and colleagues have noted in response that the possibility of each clause being grammatical in a different sentence (a, b) does not guarantee a blend (c) would be acceptable.
Wellwood and colleagues also interpret Townsend and Bever's theory as requiring a shared lexical element in each template. If this version is right, they predict (c) would be viewed as less acceptable due to the ungrammaticality of (b):
Wellwood and colleagues, based on their experimental results, have rejected Townsend and Bever's hypothesis and instead support their event comparison hypothesis, which states that comparative illusions are due to speakers reinterpreting these sentences as discussing a comparison of events.
The term "comparative illusion" has sometimes been used as an umbrella term which also encompasses "depth charge" sentences like "No head injury is too trivial to be ignored." This example, first discussed by Peter Cathcart Wason and Shuli Reich in 1979, is very often initially perceived as having the meaning "No head injury should be ignored—even if it's trivial", even though upon careful consideration the sentence actually says "All head injuries should be ignored—even trivial ones."
Phillips and colleagues have discussed other "grammatical illusions" with respect to attraction, case in German, binding, and negative polarity items; speakers initially find such sentences acceptable, but later realize they are ungrammatical.
The conversational model of psychotherapy was devised by the English psychiatrist Robert Hobson, and developed by the Australian psychiatrist Russell Meares. Hobson listened to recordings of his own psychotherapeutic practice with more disturbed clients, and became aware of the ways in which a patient's self—their unique sense of personal being—can come alive and develop, or be destroyed, in the flux of the conversation in the consulting room.
The conversational model views the aim of therapy as allowing the growth of the patient's self through encouraging a form of conversational relating called 'aloneness-togetherness'. This phrase is reminiscent of Winnicott's idea of the importance of being able to be 'alone in the presence of another'. The client comes to eventually feel recognised, accepted and understood as who they are; their sense of personal being, or self, is fostered; and they can start to drop the destructive defenses which disrupt their sense of personal being.
The development of the self implies a capacity to embody and span the dialectic of 'aloneness-togetherness'—rather than being disposed toward either schizoid isolation (aloneness) or merging identification with the other (togetherness). Although the therapy is described as psychodynamic, and is accordingly concerned to identify activity and personal meaning in the midst of apparent passivity, it relies more on careful empathic listening and the development of a common 'feeling language' than it does on psychoanalytic interpretation.
In its manualised form ('PIT'), the conversational model is presented as having seven interconnected components. These are:
The conversational model, which has been manualised as Psychodynamic-Interpersonal Therapy, has been subject to outcome research, and has demonstrated effectiveness in the treatment of depression, psychosomatic disorders, self-harm, and borderline personality disorder.
Language processing refers to the way humans use words to communicate ideas and feelings, and how such communications are processed and understood. Language processing is considered to be a uniquely human ability that is not produced with the same grammatical understanding or systematicity in even human's closest primate relatives.
The division of the two streams first occurs in the auditory nerve where the anterior branch enters the anterior cochlear nucleus in the brainstem which gives rise to the auditory ventral stream. The posterior branch enters the dorsal and posteroventral cochlear nucleus to give rise to the auditory dorsal stream.
Language processing can also occur in relation to signed languages or written content.
The auditory ventral stream (AVS) connects the auditory cortex with the middle temporal gyrus and temporal pole, which in turn connects with the inferior frontal gyrus. This pathway is responsible for sound recognition, and is accordingly known as the auditory 'what' pathway. The functions of the AVS include the following.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.