The construction of a workbook for enrichment of multi-meaning words.

Thesis (M.Ed.)--Boston Universit

Simple sentences, substitutions, and mistaken evaluations

Many competent speakers initially judge that (i) is true and (ii) is false, though they know that (iii) is true. (i) Superman leaps more tall buildings than Clark Kent. (ii) Superman leaps more tall buildings than Superman. (iii) Superman is identical with Clark Kent. Semantic explanations of these intuitions say that (i) and (ii) really can differ in truthvalue. Pragmatic explanations deny this, and say that the intuitions are due to misleading implicatures. This paper argues that both explanations are incorrect. (i) and (ii) cannot differ in truth-value, yet the intuitions are not due to implicatures, but rather to mistakes in evaluating (i) and (ii)

Grammar practice : theory and practice

Fil: Luque Colombres, María Candelaria. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Lenguas; Argentina.Fil: Meehan, Patricia. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Lenguas; Argentina.Fil: Oliva, María Belén. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Lenguas; Argentina.Fil: Rius, Natalia. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Lenguas; Argentina.Fil: de Maussion, Ana. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Lenguas; Argentina.Fil: Neyra, Vanina Pamela. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Lenguas; Argentina.Our main objective when writing this handbook has been to design some kind of material that would provide the first-year university student at Facultad de Lenguas with the basic foundations of English grammar. Although this handout could be used as a self-study grammar guide, the student should bear in mind it is meant to be used as a complement of class work. Therefore, the material included in the present publication has not been organized according to the level of difficulty, but rather in accordance with the syllabus of the subject. Each chapter brings along graded exercises which have been carefully designed to improve and consolidate the grammar topics included in the syllabus of the subject. Finally, we would like to point out that to round off each unit, we have decided to include texts (often authentic ones) in an attempt to offer the student a new perspective on the subject: one which relates grammatical structure systematically to meaning and use.Fil: Luque Colombres, María Candelaria. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Lenguas; Argentina.Fil: Meehan, Patricia. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Lenguas; Argentina.Fil: Oliva, María Belén. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Lenguas; Argentina.Fil: Rius, Natalia. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Lenguas; Argentina.Fil: de Maussion, Ana. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Lenguas; Argentina.Fil: Neyra, Vanina Pamela. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Lenguas; Argentina

How do individual cognitive differences relate to acceptability judgments?: A reply to Sprouse, Wagers, and Phillips

Sprouse, Wagers, and Phillips (2012) carried out two experiments in which they measured individual differences in memory to test processing accounts of island effects. They found that these individual differences failed to predict the magnitude of island effects, and they construe these findings as counterevidence to processing-based accounts of island effects. Here, we take up several problems with their methods, their findings, and their conclusions. First, the arguments against processing accounts are based on null results using tasks that may be ineffective or inappropriate measures of working memory (the n-back and serial-recall tasks). The authors provide no evidence that these two measures predict judgments for other constructions that are difficult to process and yet are clearly grammatical. They assume that other measures of working memory would have yielded the same result, but provide no justification that they should. We further show that whether a working-memory measure relates to judgments of grammatical, hard-to-process sentences depends on how difficult the sentences are. In this light, the stimuli used by the authors present processing difficulties other than the island violations under investigation and may have been particularly hard to process. Second, the Sprouse et al. results are statistically in line with the hypothesis that island sensitivity varies with working memory. Three out of the four island types in their experiment 1 show a significant relation between memory scores and island sensitivity, but the authors discount these findings on the grounds that the variance accounted for is too small to have much import. This interpretation, however, runs counter to standard practices in linguistics, psycholinguistics, and psychology