The how and why of syntactic relations

Human communication takes place when one person does something that when seen or heard by another person is taken to be done with the intention to communicate, and the other person, having seen the communicator show his or her intention to communicate, then uses inference to determine what the communicator intends to communicate. This is possible because the addressee assumes that the communicator is a rational person, that is, acts with goals in mind (see Grice 1975), and so must be doing the act for a reason, and it is worth the addressee’s effort to try to determine what that reason is, that is, determine the relevance of the act

Negative input for grammatical errors: effects after a lag of 12 weeks

Effects of negative input for 13 categories of grammatical error were assessed in a longitudinal study of naturalistic adult-child discourse. Two-hour samples of conversational interaction were obtained at two points in time, separated by a lag of 12 weeks, for 12 children (mean age 2;0 at the start). The data were interpreted within the framework offered by Saxton’s (1997; 2000) contrast theory of negative input. Corrective input was associated with subsequent improvements in the grammaticality of child speech for three of the target structures. No effects were found for two forms of positive input: non-contingent models, where the adult produces target structures in non-error-contingent contexts; and contingent models, where grammatical forms follow grammatical child usages. The findings lend support to the view that, in some cases at least, the structure of adult-child discourse yields information on the bounds of grammaticality for the language-learning child

Verbal behavior without syntactic structures: beyond Skinner and Chomsky

What does it mean to know language? Since the Chomskian revolution, one popular answer to this question has been: to possess a generative grammar that exclusively licenses certain syntactic structures. Decades later, not even an approximation to such a grammar, for any language, has been formulated; the idea that grammar is universal and innately specified has proved barren; and attempts to show how it could be learned from experience invariably come up short. To move on from this impasse, we must rediscover the extent to which language is like any other human behavior: dynamic, social, multimodal, patterned, and purposive, its purpose being to promote desirable actions (or thoughts) in others and self. Recent psychological, computational, neurobiological, and evolutionary insights into the shaping and structure of behavior may then point us toward a new, viable account of language.Comment: Ms completed on February 4, 201

Doctor of Philosophy

dissertationCognitive linguists argue that certain sets of knowledge of language are innate. However, critics have argued that the theoretical concept of "innateness" should be eliminated since it is ambiguous and insubstantial. In response, I aim to strengthen theories of language acquisition and identify ways to make them more substantial. I review the Poverty of Stimulus argument and separate it into four nonequivalent arguments: Deficiency of Stimulus, Corruption of Stimulus, Variety of Stimulus, and Poverty of Negative Evidence. Each argument uses a disparate set of empirical observations to support different conclusions about the traits that are claimed to be innate. Separating the Poverty of Stimulus arguments will aid in making each one more effective. I offer three sets of considerations that scholars can use to strengthen linguistic theories. The Empirical Consideration urges scholars to address specific sets of empirical observations, thus ensuring that innateness theories are not used to explain dissimilar traits. The Developmental Consideration urges scholars to consider complex developmental processes of acquisition. The Interaction Consideration urges scholars to examine interactions between organisms and their environment during language acquisition. I support recent contributions to the approach of "biologicizing the mind" which encourages interdisciplinary collaboration between psychology and biology. I develop an account of language acquisition in terms of canalization, and use this account to explain empirical observations used in Variety of Stimulus arguments. Finally, I argue that the conception of "innateness" can be understood in terms of canalization when it applies to traits that are canalized. Although the canalization conception of "innateness" is not generalizable, it can explain a certain set of empirical observations about language acquisition

Evaluación de los aprendizajes incorporados utilizando diferentes estrategias de enseñanza

El objetivo general de esta investigación fue evaluar el aprendizaje en losalumnos universitarios de 5º año de la asignatura Odontología Legal y Forense yBioética de la Facultad de Odontología de la UNLP en relación a distintas estrategias de enseñanza utilizadas en el aula. Para ello se realizó un estudio de tipo observacional, descriptiva y correlacional. Para recoger la información se recurrió a un cuestionario basado en los trabajos de Dr. Jordi Palés Argullós. Facultad de Medicina. Universidad de Barcelona. ¿Cómo elaborar correctamente preguntas de elección múltiple? 2010, Y Case SM, Swanson DB. National Boardof Medical Examiners. Cómo elaborar preguntas para evaluaciones escritas en elárea de ciencias básicas y clínicas. 2006. Para este trabajo se tomó como muestra a alumnos de 5° año de la Asignatura Odontología Legal y Forense y Bioética de la FOUNLP y del año 2021, los resultados surgen del análisis de 300 cuestionarios. Considerando el puntaje total obtenido al relacionar tres estrategias de enseñanza propuestas, Ilustraciones, Mapas conceptuales y Preguntas intercaladas, se puede concluir que no hay diferencias en el puntaje total obtenido. Por lo tanto, en relación a dichas estrategias, estas no influyen en el aprendizaje de los alumnos al momento de la evaluación de acuerdo a las notas que los alumnos obtuvieron al responder el cuestionario. Ahora bien, si tenemos en cuenta 2 categorías, los alumnos que obtienen 7 o más puntos vs los de menos de 7, y tomando la estrategia IL (Ilustraciones) como referencia, se observa una diferencia significativa respecto a la estrategia MC.(mapas conceptuales), demostrando que los alumnos con la estrategia MC tuvieron un 65% menos chances de obtener un mejor puntaje final en la incorporación del aprendizaje del tema explicado, respecto de aquellos que recibieron la explicación con la estrategia IL.Facultad de Odontologí

Complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF) development in L2 writing: the effects of proficiency level, learning environment, text type, and time among Saudi EFL learners

The purpose of this longitudinal exploratory research is to investigate the influence of four factors: proficiency levels, text types, times, and learning environments on the writing complexity, accuracy, and fluency of Saudi students majoring in the English language. Specifically, the study seeks to determine how and when the CAF constructs and sub-constructs of low- and high-proficiency Saudi EFL undergraduates in three learning contexts: traditional learning context (TLC), blended learning context (BLC), and online learning contexts (OLC), are affected longitudinally across two writing tasks (classification and argumentative) that differed in their level of complexity. Also, it intends to specify when and which of the three learning contexts: TLC, BLC, and OLC, will lead to the most/least increases or decreases in the CAF constructs and sub-constructs of the low- and high-proficiency Saudi EFL undergraduates across the two composition tasks. To answer such questions, 75 Saudi EFL university students were recruited from the pool of two proficiency levels (low and high). Six groups of equal number of students were generated from dividing randomly the 45 Low-proficiency participants and the 30 high-proficiency participants. Each of these groups was exposed to one of the previously mentioned learning contexts and undertook three tests: pre-test, mid-term test, and post-test. The 450 students’ writings were analyzed according to 45 measures of CAF constructs and sub-constructs and by using two statistical tests: t-test and ANOVA. For the first question, the t-test results showed that the similarities and differences of effect on CAF constructs between the two writing tasks were observed to be group-specific as they were based on the proficiency levels, learning contexts, and timescales (i.e., short term and long term). In other words, depending on whether a construct in the two text types was influenced similarly or differently, such influence did not generally occur in a systematic way and across the same number and types of metrics for the same group, or even across the groups of the same or different proficiency levels in the short term and long term. The findings only lent partial support to Skehan and Foster’s Limited Attentional Capacity Model and Robinson’s Multiple Attentional Resources Model since some constructs increased (e.g., accuracy, lexical variation, and syntactic complexity) or decreased (e.g., lexical density, lexical sophistication, lexical variation, syntactic complexity, and fluency). There were many other cases which were beyond the predictions of the aforementioned researchers and their explanations on how the students’ attention is deployed while performing the complex task(s). For instance, altering task complexity led some constructs to remain unaffected (e.g., syntactic complexity, lexical density, lexical sophistication, lexical variation, accuracy, and fluency), equal increases and decreases or only increases (e.g., fluency), increases more than decreases (e.g., lexical variation), less increases (e.g., accuracy), or less/more decreases (e.g., syntactic complexity and lexical sophistication). In terms of the second question, the ANOVA test results indicated mixed findings because each of the three learning environments resulted in benefits in some ways. In the two proficiency levels, the TLC, BLC, and OLC had the same level of success/unsuccess in enhancing all the measures of some CAF constructs in both writing tasks in the short term and long term. Nevertheless, in the other CAF constructs, there was no uniform linear development or deterioration of all measures across the six groups. In each of these constructs, the differences between these groups emerged from one or more measures, but not from all measures. Each of these learning contexts stood alone in being the most or least successful in increasing some constructs. Nonetheless, this was dependent on the participants’ proficiency levels, text types, and timescales. This study provides several pedagogical implications and recommendations for academic research, EFL writing instructors at pre-university and university levels, and task-based investigators

The indispensable complexity (When harder is easier)

COMPLEXITY has become a key notion in EMERGENTIST approaches to language and cognitive development, namely, the approaches adhering to a functionalist, anti-modular and anti-innatist paradigm. In this context, “complexity” must be clearly stripped of any prima facie negative connotation: being “complex” is not necessarily the same as being “complicated or difficult”. Rather, it should be interpreted within terms of dynamic systems theory, as a way to characterize the particular level of language organization and its specific dynamics. Indeed, an important hallmark of language as a complex system is the deep interplay between lexical and grammatical development, which gives rise to various types of non-linear dynamics in language ontogenesis. The role of complexity in language acquisition can also be clearly observed in the formation of the actionality-temporality-aspect-mood (ATAM) system, where grammar and lexicon development, cognitive maturation and language acquisition appear to be deeply intertwined

The Indispensable Complexity (When Harder is Easier). Lexical and Grammatical Expansion in three Italian L1 Learners

COMPLEXITY has become a key notion in EMERGENTIST approaches to language and cognitive development (MacWhinney 1999), namely, the approaches adhering to a functionalist, anti-modular and anti-innatist paradigm. In this context, “complexity” must be clearly stripped of any prima facie negative connotation: being “complex” is not necessarily the same as being “complicated or difficult” (Merlini Barbaresi 2003). Rather, it should be interpreted within terms of dynamic systems theory, as a way to characterize the particular level of language organization and its specific dynamics. Indeed, an important hallmark of language as a complex system is the deep interplay between lexical and grammatical development, which gives rise to various types of nonlinear dynamics in language ontogenesis. The role of complexity in language acquisition can also be clearly observed in the formation of the actionality-temporality-aspect-mood (ATAM) system, where grammar and lexicon development, cognitive maturation and language acquisition appear to be deeply intertwined