Papers reviewed and determined not to be word norm studies. Use the flag icon to report errors or suggest re-inclusion.
18265 papers
In this paper, we report the work on developing a multilingual digital linguistic database that aims to provide overall information a linguistic item carries in a language, and its cross-linguistic morphemic equivalent in other languages. It is conceptualised as a model of human knowledge of a language, and its description and architecture is an effort towards modeling such linguistic knowledge. From computational and programming aspects it throws an enormous challenge as it has many-to-many relations across languages, scripts, orthography, fields and entries. To accomplish such linkages among languages and between different types and kinds of information related to the linguistic item, an idea of a ‘Concept Set Model’ is discussed.
Seven breeding pens, containing varying numbers and combinations of yearling and mature rams each 48 hours, were observed continuously for 8 days. When a particular combination of rams was placed in a pen, the dominance of one ram was quickly established. Mature rams were always dominant over yearling rams and were more dominant over yearling rams than were yearling rams dominant over other yearlings. Mature rams tended to be less dominant over other mature rams than were yearlings over yearlings. Dominance rating had highly significant effects on number of teases, mountings, matings and matings per mount. The dominant rams largely controlled activity in the pens under most circumstances. However, when more than one ewe was in heat, the dominant ram often found it impossible to completely curtail the mating activity of the subordinate ram or rams. Dominant rams were also more successful in completing copulation than subordinate rams. The presence of more than one ram in a pen increased only slightly the total number of matings for the pen, thus reducing the average number of matings per ram below that of the pens containing only one ram. The average number of matings per ram for the dominant rams in combination pens was only slightly less than the average number of matings in the single ram pens. The greater the dominance of one ram, for pens containing equal numbers of rams, the less the total mating activity. This was due primarily to the reduced mating activity of the subordinate ram. All single rams averaged more matings than rams in any of the combination pens. Pens containing single mature rams provided the most efficient use of individual rams. These single mature rams accomplished significantly more matings per ram than all other combinations except those pens containing single yearling rams and combinations of two mature rams. The ram combination composed of two mature rams and one yearling ram provided the most matings per pen followed closely by the combination composed of two mature rams. The two combinations produced significantly more matings per pen than all other combinations except the single mature rams. The total and average ram effects for the various ram combinations had highly significant effects on number of matings per day, teases per day and matings per mount. Number of mountings was not significantly affected. The total number of teases was in almost direct proportion to the number of rams in the combinations and the proportion of mature rams. Dominant rams which are sterile or of low fertility or genetically inferior could greatly reduce the lamb crop, extend the lambing season, or affect the average merit of the lamb crop and thus reduce production and genetic gain.
The essay adopts the Tractarian view that configurations of objects are expressed by configurations of names. Two alternatives are considered: The objects in atomic facts are (1) without exception particulars; (2) one or more particulars plus a universal (Gustav Bergmann). On (1) a mode of configuration is always an empirical relation: on (2) it is the logical nexus of ‘exemplification.’ It is argued that (1) is both Wittgenstein's view in the Tractatus and correct. It is also argued that exemplification is a ‘quasi-semantical’ relation, and that it (and universals) are “in the world” only in that broad sense in which the ‘world’ includes linguistic norms and roles viewed (thus in translating) from the standpoint of a fellow participant.
During the past few decades, a great progress has been made in American linguistics, especially in descriptive, or, more exactly, structural, linguistics. Historically, there is of course a connection between American and European linguistics. Descriptive linguistics, building on the Prague school to evolve a phonemic theory and taking hints from F. de Saussure for general orientation, has proved popular in the United States. It is natural that we should find a similar movement going on in Europe over the past same years. Among the chief founders of present American descriptive linguistics were W. D. Whitney, F. Boas, E. Sapir and L.. Bloomfield. The scientific descriptive linguistics intends to describe a language in terms of its own structure, not in terms of the Greek and medieval notions of linguistics. This American development can be explained in several ways. Science in general has recently progressed so much as to enable scholars to build up really scientific descriptive methods. Structuralism has developed very largely in connection with the modern development of scientific grammar as opposed to conventional one. It may well be said that American linguistics has also developed very largely as both anthropological and missionary approach. As attention widened to include languages other than the Indo-European, especially the native languages of America, the parochial and limited character of the traditional linguistic metalanguage has become obvious. Cultural anthropologists, more or less standing on the linguistic relativity principle, think of language as the symbolic guide to culture. Structural linguistics intends to describe `language' structure through applying the methods of linguistic analysis to the raw material of `speech.' It deals not with the whole of speech activities, but with the regularities in certain features of speech. These regularities are in the distributional relations among the constituent elements of language. The substitution procedure through what may be called the bipartite division is the funfamental method of linguistic analysis, It is primarily directed at the discovery of distribution as the only relevant criterion. Structural linguistics is based on the phonemic approach to linguistics. However, it sometimes emphasizes too much the phonemic criteria in determining constructional units. In dealing with a culture language, the influence of the literary tradition in written form cannot be neglected. The linguistic relativity principle is apt to fall into linguistic determinism. It should no be considered that there exist perfect correlations between cultural norms and linguistic patterns. In structural analysis, the knowledge of meanings is only a means that makes the substitution procedure possible. However, in order to study culture through language, we should return to E. Sapir's standpoint that took lexical as well as structural meanings into great considerarion.Descriptive linguistics deals not with the whole of speech activities, but with one phase. It is only a part of the language study in a wider sense. American linguistics has too much emphasized its one phase. We should not forget that the complete language study consists in the combination of descriptive, historical and comparative linguistics. When we think of human language in general, we shall also have to consider universa grammar, even in describing a language in terms of its own structure. Nevertheless, we should admit that structural linguistics is making a great contribution to the scientific study of language.
Lexical polarization is used in this paper as a convenient label for the influence exerted by one word on its semantic opposite. In Classical Latin, for instance, DEXTER serves for ‘right’ and SINISTER for ‘left’. The ancient Romance expressions for ‘right’ are traceable to DEXTRU (to the extent to which DĪRĒCTU ‘straight’ or another rival word has not usurped its place), yet Romance equivalents of ‘left’, barring innovations, consistently presuppose the scantily documented late variant SINEXTRU rather than common SINISTRU (which alone is found even in the glosses). Taking into account the pronunciation of Late Latin, we may reckon with the presence of the pair DESTRU ˜ SINESTRU (SENESTRU) on the colloquial level prior to the disintegration of the Empire. The anomaly in the development of sinistru is thus reduced to the excessive opening of its stressed vowel, which was in any event bound to open to a minor extent: the i advanced not only to [e], as in comparable words, but to [ε]. This departure from the norm, in the absence of other clues, is most plausibly accounted for by assuming a certain amount of pressure exerted by [destru] on [senestru], until the two words reached the maximum degree of similarity compatible with the maintenance of their basic difference. We are here concerned with an instance of formal attraction through association by contrast, a process in which a weaker (passive) partner is reshaped on the pattern of its stronger (active) opposite.
NA
A CONSENSUS would seem to point to the choice of the language of Brazil as being the most suitable linguistic norm to be employed in the teaching of Portuguese to North American students. However, the language of Brazil does not present a homogeneous linguistic front. To speak of a Brazilian pronunciation is to speak of something which does not exist. The problem that confronts the American teacher, therefore, is to determine which one of the many pronunciations is to be adopted. A decision based on the works of Brazilian grammarians and phoneticians cannot be arrived at because of the lack of unanimity among them. Differences of opinion are to be noted in texts published in this country and written by Brazilians. Recent grammars written by North Americans purporting to give an expose of Brazilian pronunciation also differ in the treatment of this all-important phase of the language. In order to arrive at some satisfactory solution of the problem, the writer decided to study the speech employed by professional Brazilian radio-broadcasters. The Brazilian section of the Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs was most helpful in putting at his disposal transcriptions of recent broadcasts to Brazil. The writer concentrated on the speech of the individual who was generally conceded to be an outstanding Brazilian broadcaster. The reasoning behind the choice was that if the speech of this broadcaster was sufficiently good for the radio-listening public of Brazil, it should, in consequence, serve as a satisfactory model for instruction in the classes of the writer.
A theory of linguistic behavior is presented. An integration with psychological theory, with justice to the complexities of linguistic structure, is attempted. Fundamentally, speech behavior is a series of movements in which certain uniformities can be found. Some of these uniformities are linguistic norms; others of a more psychological nature are related to conditions under which speech responses occur. The linguistic response-type is defined as any uniformity in speech behavior which exhibits a certain behavioral structure. This common behavioral structure is characterized in some detail. Employing the qualifications listed, one can separate linguistic from nonlinguistic behavior. The former includes all speech behavior as well as many nonvocal gestures. Psychological properties of linguistic response-types are to be studied in terms of their strength. Thus verbal behavior 'is seen as a series of movements patterned in overlapping units. The uniformities underlying these movements exist as behavioral habits, or response-types, the strengths of which are subject to continual change.' (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)
College students at Princeton reject both the labels of fascism and communism, the latter carrying the greater stigma. Knowledge of fascism or communism bears little relation to intensity of opposition. The majority of students feel that the two systems are good for the countries in which they are found. Opposition to the labels of communism and fascism does not extend in equal measures to their doctrines. Disapproval of fascism undergoes a change when its practical difficulties are disregarded; in theory a third of Princeton students are for fascism. More communist than fascist doctrines are acceptable, but with respect to property rights fascist ideas find greater acceptance. The arbitrary method of compelling people to choose sides on a forced-alternative question is justified in that it reveals the same general preference as the affect rating-scale. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved)