104 research outputs found

    MORPHOLOGICAL INDETERMINACY IN UNDERLYING SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE

    Get PDF

    Gapping with Shared Operators

    Get PDF
    Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Semantic Typology and Semantic Universals (1993

    On Identifying the Remains of Deceased Clauses

    Get PDF
    The verb want occurs followed by a variety of material: (l) a. Max wants Shirley to kiss him. b. Max wants to eat a banana. c. Max wants a lollip

    The Comparative Conditional Construction in English, German, and Chinese

    Get PDF
    Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (1988), pp. 176-18

    Linguistics and natural logic

    Full text link
    Evidence is presented to show that the role of a generative grammar of a natural language is not merely to generate the grammatical sentences of that language, but also to relate them to their logical forms. The notion of logical form is to be made sense of in terms a ‘natural logic’, a logical for natural language, whose goals are to express all concepts capable of being expressed in natural language, to characterize all the valid inferences that can be made in natural language, and to mesh with adequate linguistic descriptions of all natural languages. The latter requirement imposes empirical linguistic constraints on natural logic. A number of examples are discussed.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/43819/1/11229_2004_Article_BF00413602.pd

    Intraperitoneal drain placement and outcomes after elective colorectal surgery: international matched, prospective, cohort study

    Get PDF
    Despite current guidelines, intraperitoneal drain placement after elective colorectal surgery remains widespread. Drains were not associated with earlier detection of intraperitoneal collections, but were associated with prolonged hospital stay and increased risk of surgical-site infections.Background Many surgeons routinely place intraperitoneal drains after elective colorectal surgery. However, enhanced recovery after surgery guidelines recommend against their routine use owing to a lack of clear clinical benefit. This study aimed to describe international variation in intraperitoneal drain placement and the safety of this practice. Methods COMPASS (COMPlicAted intra-abdominal collectionS after colorectal Surgery) was a prospective, international, cohort study which enrolled consecutive adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery (February to March 2020). The primary outcome was the rate of intraperitoneal drain placement. Secondary outcomes included: rate and time to diagnosis of postoperative intraperitoneal collections; rate of surgical site infections (SSIs); time to discharge; and 30-day major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade at least III). After propensity score matching, multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to estimate the independent association of the secondary outcomes with drain placement. Results Overall, 1805 patients from 22 countries were included (798 women, 44.2 per cent; median age 67.0 years). The drain insertion rate was 51.9 per cent (937 patients). After matching, drains were not associated with reduced rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.33, 95 per cent c.i. 0.79 to 2.23; P = 0.287) or earlier detection (hazard ratio (HR) 0.87, 0.33 to 2.31; P = 0.780) of collections. Although not associated with worse major postoperative complications (OR 1.09, 0.68 to 1.75; P = 0.709), drains were associated with delayed hospital discharge (HR 0.58, 0.52 to 0.66; P < 0.001) and an increased risk of SSIs (OR 2.47, 1.50 to 4.05; P < 0.001). Conclusion Intraperitoneal drain placement after elective colorectal surgery is not associated with earlier detection of postoperative collections, but prolongs hospital stay and increases SSI risk

    A note on auxiliary verbs and language acquisition

    No full text

    Lexicography and the Count-mass Distinction

    Get PDF
    Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (1975), pp. 314-32
    corecore