165 research outputs found

    Sensitivity to extralinguistic cues to identify generic and non-generic meaning

    Get PDF
    The authors are thankful to Anna Bakłażec who designed pictorial stimuli for the study.Generic sentences convey generalizations about kinds. In contrast, non-generics express facts about specific individuals or groups of individuals. However, to identify generic meaning, we have to integrate multiple cues. This study tested whether the discrepancy between the noun phrase and the number of objects (extralinguistic cues) present should force a generic interpretation whereas the match between the noun phrase and the number of objects present would give rise to a non-generic interpretation. Results demonstrated that adults are sensitive to the match and the mismatch situations in three out of four conditions tested. The data also indicate the importance of world knowledge cues in construing sentences as generic.The study was supported by the Erasmus Mundus Action 2 project Aurora II (2013-2521) grant to Karczewski.Daniel Karczewski: [email protected] Buivolova: [email protected] Karczewski holds a PhD in linguistics, and works in the Institute of Modern Languages at the University of Białystok. His research interests include: cognitive linguistics and psycholinguistics. He has recently published a book Generyczność w języku i w myśleniu. Studium kognitywne (Genericity in Language and Thought. A Cognitive Study).Olga Buivolova is an MA student in linguistic theory at the National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia. Her main research interests are neurolinguistics and neuropsychology.Daniel Karczewski - University of Białystok, PolandOlga Buivolova - National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, RussiaAkhutina, T. 2015. Luria’s classification of aphasias and its theoretical basis. Aphasiology, 30, 1–20. doi: 10.1080/02687038.2015.1070950Alda, M., Beyssade, C., and Del Prete, F. (eds.) 2012. Genericity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Brandone, A.C., and Gelman, S.A. 2009. Differences in preschoolers’ and adults’ use of generics about novel animals and artifacts: A window onto a conceptual divide. Cognition, 110(1), 1–22. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.08.005Carlson, Gregory N. 1980. Reference to Kinds in English. New York: Garland.Cimpian, A., Meltzer, T. J. and Markman, E. M. 2011. Preschoolers’ use of morphosyntactic cues to identify generic sentences: Indefinite singular noun phrases, tense, and aspect. Child Development, 82, 1561–1578. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01615.xCimpian, A., and Markman, E. M. 2008. Preschool children’s use of cues to generic meaning. Cognition, 107, 19–53. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.07.008Dąbrowska, E. 2012. “Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment”. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2:3, 219-253. doi: 10.1075/lab.2.3.01dabDayal, Veneeta. 2011. “Bare Noun Phrases”. In C. Maeinborn, K. von Heusinger and P. Portner (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, 33.2, 1087-1108.Dragoy, O., Bergelson, M., Iskra, E., Laurinavichyute, A., Mannova, E., Skvortsov, A., and Statnikov, A. 2015. Comprehension of reversible constructions in semantic aphasia. Aphasiology, 30, 1–22. doi: 10.1080/02687038.2015.1063582Ermolenko, S. S. 1987. Образные средства морфологии. Киев: Наукова думка.Gelman, S. A. 2003. The Essential Child. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Gelman, S. A. and Raman, L. 2003. Preschool children use linguistic form class and pragmatic cues to interpret generics. Child Development, 74, 308–325. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00537Gelman, S. A., Coley, J. D., Rosengren, K., Hartman, E., and Pappas, A. 1998. “Beyond labeling: The role of parental input in the acquisition of richly structured categories”. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 235, Vol. 63, No.1.Golovan, E. A. 2013. “Переносное значение формы единственного числа имен существительных и их нереферентное употребление”. In Akhmetova, M.N., Ivanova, U.V., Laktionov, K.S., Komogortsev, M.G., Akhmetova, V.V., Brezgin, V.S., Kotlyarov, A.V., and Yakhina, A.S. (eds.), Современная филология: материалы II международной научной конференции (Уфа, январь 2013 г.). Уфа: Лето, 62–64.Jespersen, O. 2002. Философия грамматики. Москва: Едиториал УРСС.Karczewski, D. 2016. Generyczność w języku i w myśleniu. Studium kognitywne. Kraków: Universitas.Krifka, M., Pelletier, F. J., Carlson, G. N., ter Meulen, A., Link, G., and Chierchia G. 1995. “Genericity: An Introduction”. In G. N. Carlson and F.J. Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1–124.Leslie, S.-J. 2007. Generics and the structure of the mind. Philosophical Perspectives, 21, 375–403. doi: 10.1111/j.1520-8583.2007.00138.xLeshkova, O. O. 1984. “К вопросу о функционально-семантической категории собирательности в русском и польском языках”. Советское славяноведение 5, 92–101.Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Pappas, A., and Gelman S. A. 1998. “Generic noun phrases in mother-child conversations”. Journal of Child Language 25, 19-33. doi: 10.1017/S0305000997003292Peirce, J. W. 2009. Generating stimuli for neuroscience using PsychoPy. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 2(10), 1–8. doi:10.3389/neuro.11.010.2008Shelyakin, M. A. 1985. “О функциональной модели форм числа существительных в русском языке”. In Ученые записки Тартуского государственного университета №719: Функциональные аспекты грамматики русского языка. Тарту: Издательство Тартуского университета, 3–22.4-1410 (3/2015)41

    Between Linguistics, Language Education and Acquisition Research. Introduction to the Special Issue Linguistics for Language Teaching and Learning

    Get PDF
    Elżbieta Awramiuk: [email protected] Karczewski: [email protected]żbieta Awramiuk is a professor of linguistics at the University of Białystok, Poland. Her research currently concentrates on knowledge about language in education, as well as on phonology and spelling in contemporary Polish. Since 2005, she has been collaborating with L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature, a Scopus indexed online peer-reviewed, multilingual journal. She is the founding member of ARLE (International Association for Research in L1 Education, formerly: IAIMTE) and she is engaged in the Special Interest Group Research Educational Linguistics (SIG EduLing). She has participated in several research projects focused on the early literacy development and assessment and linguistic aspects of learning to read and write.Daniel Karczewski is an Assistant Professor in the Institute of Modern Languages at the University of Białystok, Poland. He holds a PhD in cognitive linguistics. His current research interest include the generic overgeneralization effect and the phenomenon of normativity. He was the prize winner of the Polish Cognitive Linguistics Association competition for the best Ph.D. dissertation in cognitive linguistics in 2014. He has recently published a book Generyczność w języku i w myśleniu. Studium kognitywne (Genericity in Language and Thought. A Cognitive Study).Elżbieta Awramiuk - University of BiałystokDaniel Karczewski - University of BiałystokAndrews, R., Torgerson, C., Beverton, S., Freeman, A., Locke, T., Low, G., Robinson, A. & Zhu, D. 2006. The effect of grammar teaching on writing development. British Educational Research Journal 32(1): 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920500401997Apel, K. & Werfel, K. 2014. Using morphological awareness instruction to improve written language skills. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 45: 251–260. https://doi.org/10.1044/2014_LSHSS-14-0039Boivin M.C., Fontich X., Funke R., García-Folgado M.J. & Myhill D. 2018. Working on grammar at school in L1 education: Empirical research across linguistic regions. Introduction to the special issue. L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature 18: 1–6.Bourassa, D. C. & Treiman, R. 2001. Spelling development and disability: the importance of linguistics factors. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools 32(3): 172–181.Bowers, P. N., Kirby, J. R. & Deacon, S. H. 2010. The effects of morphological instruction on literacy skills: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research 80(2): 144–179. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309359353Camps, A. & Fontich, X. 2019. Teachers’ concepts on the teaching of grammar in relation to the teaching of writing in Spain: A case study. L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature. 19: 1-36. https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2019.19.02.02Fontich, X. 2016. L1 grammar instruction and writing: Metalinguistic activity as a teaching and research focus. Language and Linguistics Compass 10(5): 238–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12184Goodwin, A. P. & Ahn, S. 2013. A meta-analysis of morphological interventions in English: Effects on literacy outcomes for school-age children. Scientific Studies of Reading 17(4): 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2012.689791Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S. & Harris, K.R. 2012. A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology 104(4): 879–896. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029185Graham, S. & Santangelo, T. 2014. Does spelling instruction make students better spellers, readers, and writers? A meta-analytic review. Reading and Writing 27: 1703–1743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-014-9517-0Hudson, R. 2004. Why education needs linguistics (and vice versa). Journal of Linguistics 40: 105–130.Kerge, K. (ed.). 2014. Studies in Language Acquisition, Learning, and Corpora. Proceedings of the Tallinn University Institute of Estonian Language and Culture 16. Tallinn: Tallinn University.Levin, I., Aram, D., Tolchinsky, L. & McBride, C. 2013. Maternal mediation of writing and children’s early spelling and reading: the Semitic abjad versus the European alphabet. Writing Systems Research 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/17586801.2013.797335Locke, T. (ed.). 2010. Beyond the grammar wars. A resource for teachers and students on developing language knowledge in the English/literacy classroom. New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203854358Macken-Horarik, M., Love, K. & Unsworth, L. 2011. A grammatics ‘good enough’ for school English in the 21st century: Four challenges in realising the potential. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 34(1): 9-23.Milian, M. 2005. Reformulation: a means of constructing knowledge in shared writing. L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature 5(3): 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10674-005-8560-9Morin, M. F. 2007. Linguistic factors and invented spelling in children: the case of French beginners in children. L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature 7 (3): 173–189.Myhill, D. 2018. Grammar as a meaning making resource for language development. L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature 18: 1–21. https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2018.18.04.04.Myhill, D.A., Jones, S.M., Lines, H. & Watson, A. 2012. Re-thinking grammar: the impact of embedded grammar teaching on students’ writing and students’ metalinguistic understanding. Research Papers in Education 27(2): 139–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2011.637640.Nupponen, A.-M.; Jeskanen, S. & Rättyä, K. 2019. Finnish student language teachers reflecting on linguistic concepts related to sentence structures: Students recognising linguistic concepts in L1 and L2 textbooks. L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature 19: 1-25. https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2019.19.02.04Rättyä, K., Awramiuk, E. & Fontich, X. 2019. What is Grammar Education Today? Introduction to EduLing special issue on grammar education. L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature 19: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2019.19.02.01Ribas T., Fontich X. & Guasch O. (eds.). 2015. Grammar at School. Research on Metalinguistic Activity in Language Education. Brussels: Peter Lang. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0352-6490-6.Sénéchal, M., Ouellette, G., Pagan, S. & Lever, R. 2012. The role of invented spelling on learning to read in low-phoneme-awareness kindergartners: a randomized-control-trial study. Reading and Writing 25: 917–934. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-011-9310-2Spolsky B. & Hult, F. (eds.). 2010. The Handbook of Educational Linguistics. Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.Štěpáník, S. 2019. Pupil preconception as a source of solutions to lingering problems of grammar teaching? L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature. 19: 1-24. https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2019.19.02.05Unsworth, L. 2002. Reading grammatically: Exploring the ‘constructiveness’ of literary texts. L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature 2(2): 121–140. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020847215689Uppstad, P.H. 2006. The dynamics of written language acquisition. L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature 6(3): 63–83. https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2006.06.01.04van Rijt, J. van, Wijnands, A. & Coppen, P.-A. 2019 (forthcoming). Dutch teacher beliefs on linguistic concepts and Reflective Judgement in grammar teaching. L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature.Viise, N. M., Richards, H. C. & Pandis, M. 2011. Orthographic depth and spelling acquisition in Estonian and English: a comparison of two diverse alphabetic languages. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 55(4): 425–453.Watson, A. 2015. The Problem of Grammar Teaching: a case study of the relationship between a teacher’s beliefs and pedagogical practice. Language and Education 29(4): 332-346. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2015.1016955Werfel, K. L. & Schuele, C. M. 2012. Segmentation and representation of consonant blends in kindergarten children’s spellings. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 43: 292–307.24 (1/2019)51

    The Rhetoric of War in the Presidential Discourse of George W. Bush

    Get PDF
    Zdigitalizowano i udostępniono w ramach projektu pn. Rozbudowa otwartych zasobów naukowych Repozytorium Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku, dofinansowanego z programu „Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki” Ministra Edukacji i Nauki na podstawie umowy SONB/SP/512497/2021.University of BialystokCHILTON P. (2001) Notes on 11 September 2001 [Online] Available: http://www.watsoninstitute.org/infopeace/911/chilton_discourse.htmlFORD P. (2001) Crusade: A Freudian Slip? Europe Cringes at President Bush's 'Crusade' Against Terrorists [Online] Available: http://www.crescentlife.com/heal%20the%20world/crusade_a_freudian_slip.htmGILL A. M. and K. WHEDBEE (1997) Rhetoric. In van Dijk, T.A., 1997. Vol. 1. 157 - 181.HOOVER J. (2001) Rhetorical Theory [Online] Available: http://hyper.vcsun.org/HyperNews/battias/gett/cs327/s02/thought/18.html?nogifsKOCHIS B. (2001) Framing September 11 [Online] Available: http://northonline.seed.ctc.edu/dayoflearning/Framing.htmlLAKOFF G., 2001. Metaphors of Terror [Online] Available: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/News/911lakoff.htmlMerriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Deluxe Edition. (1998) MERRIAM-WEBSTER, INCORPORATED.40541

    The Preoperative Microbial Detection is No Prerequisite for the Indication of Septic Revision in Cases of Suspected Periprosthetic Joint Infection

    Get PDF
    Aim of this study. Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) require a special antimicrobial regimen, fundamentally different from an aseptic treatment, making a correct preoperative diagnosis essential. However, a successful preoperative microbe detection is not always possible. We wanted to find out (1) if a preoperative microbe detection is a prerequisite before starting a septic revision in suspected PJIs or if the preoperative diagnosis can solely be based on (para) clinical signs (persistent CRP >1 mg/dl, early X-ray loosening signs in the first 5 years, leucocytes joint aspiration >1700/mu l, conspicuous history, and clinical signs like redness, pain, hyperthermia, swelling, and loss of function); (2) if patients with and without preoperative microbe detection have a different outcome; and (3) if the microbial growth is the most important criterion of a multifactorial PJI definition. Methods. We included all first-line two-stage hip (49) and knee (47) revisions, performed in our department from 06/2013 on, with an available 2-year follow-up. A PJI was defined as one of the following four criteria: fistula or purulence, Krenn Morawietz type 2 or 3, joint aspirate >2000/mu l leukocytes or >70% granulocytes, and microbial growth. This multifactorial PJI definition was based on the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS). The standardized diagnostic algorithm is described in detail. Results. (1) 24 hip and 16 knee cases were treated without preoperative microbe detection solely on the basis of a (para) clinical diagnosis (see above). In the hip 91.6% (22 of 24 cases) showed an intraoperative microbe detection. In the knee, in 68.7% (11 of 16 cases) a microbe was detected intraoperatively and in 93.7% (15 of 16) at least one secure PJI criterion could be confirmed intraoperatively. (2) No statistical significant (p.517) difference between patients with (n = 56, reinfection rate 8.9%) and without (n = 40, 15%) preoperative microbe detection was found in a 2-year follow-up. (3) Microbial growth remains the overall (pre- and intraoperatively) most important criterion (hip 95.9%; knee 89.3%), followed by Krenn Morawietz for the intraoperative diagnosis (hip 67.3%, knee 48.9%), and joint aspiration for the knee and fistula for the hip, respectively, as preoperative criteria. Conclusion. High rates of intraoperatively fulfilled EBJIS PJI criteria show that a preoperative microbe detection is not necessary before intervening in suspected PJIs. The indication for a septic revision can solely be based on (para) clinical signs. The new established diagnostic algorithm based on a multifactorial PJI definition showed high precision in finding PJIs

    Predictive factors of acromial fractures following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a subgroup analysis of 860 shoulders

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Acromion stress fractures (ASF) or scapular spine fractures (SSF) following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) are common complications with impaired clinical outcome. The underlying biomechanical factors remain unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate basic demographic and radiographic parameters predicting occurrence of different types of ASF/SSF in a large single-center study cohort. METHODS: A total of 860 RTSA (805 patients) with available minimum follow-up of 2 years were implanted between 2005 and 2018 at a tertiary academic center. All RTSA with subsequent ASF/SSF (n = 45 in 43 shoulders [42 patients, 5%]) were identified and classified as Levy I to III. Predictive demographic, surgical, and radiographic factors were evaluated for each subtype and compared to the control group (817 RTSA, 763 patients). The radiographic analysis included critical shoulder angle, lateralization shoulder angle (LSA), distalization shoulder angle (DSA), acromio-humeral distance (ACHD), acromial thickness, deltoid tuberosity index, deltoid length, and center of rotation. RESULTS: Of the 45 ASF/SSF in 42 patients, 8 were classified as Levy I, 21 as Levy II, and 16 as Levy III. Demographic analysis revealed indication as risk factor for Levy I fractures, higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score as risk for Levy type II fractures and higher age as risk factor for Levy type III fractures. None of the measured radiographic parameters were predictive for occurrence of Levy type I and Levy type II ASF. However, analysis of Levy III SSF revealed a higher postoperative LSA (89° ± 10° vs. 83° ± 9°, P = .015), a lower postoperative DSA (45° ± 8° vs. 53° ± 12°, P = .002), less distalization (ACHD of 33 ± 8 mm vs. 38 ± 10 mm, P = .049), and a more medial center of rotation preoperatively (COR-LA 16 ± 8 mm vs. 12 ± 7 mm, P = .048) as predictive radiographic factors. CONCLUSION: The present analysis showed a significant association of higher postoperative LSA, lower DSA, a lower ACHD, and higher age as predictive factor only for Levy type III fractures. Some of these factors can be surgically influenced and this knowledge can be of value for preoperative planning and surgical execution to avoid these complications

    Total hip arthroplasty for destructive septic arthritis of the hip using a two-stage protocol without spacer placement

    Get PDF
    Introduction: The optimal treatment of patients with a degenerative joint disease secondary to an active or chronic septic arthritis of the hip is unclear. The aim of the present study was to report on our experience with two-stage total hip arthroplasty (THA) using a contemporary treatment protocol without spacer insertion. Materials and methods: Our prospective institutional database was used to identify all patients with degenerative septic arthritis treated with a non-spacer two-stage protocol between 2011 and 2017. Clinical outcomes included interim revision, periprosthetic infection (PJI) and aseptic revision rates. Restoration of leg-length and offset were assessed radiographically. Modified Harris hip score (mHHS) were obtained. Treatment success was defined using the modified Delphi consensus criteria. Mean follow-up was 62 months (13-110). Results: A total of 33 patients with a mean age of 60 years (13-85) were included. 55% of the cohort was male and average Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was 3.7 (0-12). 21 patients (64%) had an active/acute infection and 12 patients (36%) were treated for chronic/quiescent septic arthritis. Overall, 11 patients (33%) had treatment failure, including 5 patients who failed to undergo THA, 2 interim re-debridement for persistent infection, and 4 patients who developed PJI after an average of 7 months (0.3-13) following THA. The most common identified pathogen was Staphylococcus aureus (42.4%). No aseptic revision was recorded following THA. Leg-length and offset were successfully restored. Mean mHHS improved from 35.2 points to 73.4 points. Conclusion: Two-stage THA without spacer placement is a viable treatment option for destructive septic arthritis of the hip, demonstrating comparable rates of infection control and functional outcome. However, definitive resection arthroplasty is not uncommon in these often critically ill patients

    No clinical consequence of liner malseating in dual-mobility THAs at short term: a systematic review

    Full text link
    BACKGROUND: Liner malseating is well described in ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasties (THAs). However, limited information is known on this complication among dual-mobility articulations. As such, this systematic review analyzed liner malseating in dual-mobility THAs concerning prevalence, clinical implications, and associated risk factors. METHODS: A PRISMA criteria-based systematic review was performed, and PubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and Cochrane used as data bases. All original studies from 1980 to 2022 were considered eligible for inclusion, and Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) used for quality assessment. RESULTS: In total, five retrospective cohort studies with 2330 patients (2673 dual-mobility THAs) were included. Mean age was 66.9 years, mean BMI was 29.8 kg/m2, and 35% of patients were female. Rates of malseating ranged from 0.15% to 5.8%, with a total of 53 malseated liners identified throughout all studies (1.98%). Based on THA manufacturer, malseating occurred in 48 Stryker (1.96%) and 5 Biomet Zimmer (2.14%) THAs. Mean clinical follow-up was 2.2 years (mean range, 1.3 to 6.4 years). Except one patient reporting of pain at 2 years, no revision or negative clinical implication was noted in any of the malseated liners, including normal ranged metal ions measured in four cases. A smaller acetabular component size was identified as a statistically significant risk factor for malseating in one study. Mean MINORS score was 9.8. CONCLUSIONS: Liner malseating is a rare finding in patients undergoing THAs with dual-mobility articulations. While prelim results demonstrate no negative clinical consequences to date, existing studies are limited, refer to short-term outcomes only, and do not prospectively follow-up affected patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV