The Factor Structure of Time Beliefs and Perceptions: Predicting Punctuality, Procrastination, And The Use Of Time.

The purpose of this research on time and personality is to evaluate one\u27s perception of time and how behavior plays a role with procrastination. In addition, time can also coincide with personality factors, such as vigilance, compulsiveness, avoidance, and the Big 5. Substantial evidence has concluded that time perception and behavior are important factors that play into, and give value to, personality. A principal factor analysis concerning the perception of time and measurement of behavior resulted in a six-factor solution: Negative View of the Past, Sluggishness, Goal Setting, Risk Taking, Timeliness, and Impatience. Justification was found through “factor scores” that were used to create a presumption of procrastination. Total procrastination was assessed for each participant through a series of time behavior surveys. It was recorded that those who tend to procrastinate scored higher on Negative View of Past, and Risk Taking, and lower on Goal Setting and Timliness. The following factor structure provides an alternative to the most widely used, but often, ineffective scales.https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/u_poster_2017/1034/thumbnail.jp

French imperatives, negative ne, and non-subject clitics

This article focuses on the behaviour of negation and clitics in the context of French imperatives. Standard descriptions contrast positive Fais-le ! (with enclisis) with negative (Ne) le fais pas ! (with proclisis). I adopt a view of imperatives in terms of a pragmatic irrealis mood feature associated with Rizzi's (1997) exploded CP and defective/impoverished morphology which allows inflection and irrealis mood features to be checked on a single functional head. Thus, positive imperatives can check all their grammatical features before merger of any clitics, which (following Shlonsky, 2004) will therefore be enclitic. The presence of negation, when realised as a grammatical feature on an (overt or null) functional head within the clausal trunk, prevents this from happening because negation intervenes between the relevant inflection and mood features in the universal hierarchy underlying the Rizzi/Cinque exploded CP/IP. Outside cliticisation contexts, the difference has no surface impact: Viens ! vs. (Ne) viens pas ! In cliticisation contexts, in contrast, there is a surface difference: negative imperatives cannot check all their inflectional features at the point at which clitics are merged, and clitics will not therefore be enclitic. Regionally/stylistically marked forms like Fais-le pas !, in which proclisis and negation co-occur, must be deemed to have a radically different structure, with no negative feature projected within the inflectional domain. Such forms are argued to be a natural (and therefore expected) innovation within Jespersen's cycle of diachronic development

Le débat sur la diglossie en France : aspects scientifiques et politiques

This article outlines the diglossic approach to intra-speaker grammatical variation (Ferguson 1959), wherein speaker—hearers acquire two grammars which are socio-stylistically distinct – one H(igh), the other L(ow) – but linguistically related (to the extent that users regard them as the same language), and then engage one or other of them (but do not mix them) in their active productions. It then sets out how a case could be made for such a model to capture variation in contemporary France, in place of the variationist model which envisages a single, flexible grammar, e.g., the bipolarity, strength and non-random nature of the sociolinguistic H—L distinction, the differing pattern of acquisition of H and L forms, the tendency for L forms to encroach on H terrain (rather than vice versa), and the internal coherence of each of the H and L varieties. Finally, the article sketches the politico-moral dimension to the debate, extending beyond scientific objectivity, and relating to the treatment of non-standard linguistic behaviour in context of the socio-cultural status of the standard

Not on the edge: the syntax and pragmatics of clause-initial negation in Swedish

The possibility of topicalizing sentential negation is severely restricted in the Germanic V2-languages. In this paper, we show that negative preposing was more frequent and less restricted in earlier stages of Swedish: approx. 8 % of all occurrences of negation are clause initial in Old Swedish, compared to less than 0.5 % in present day Swedish. We propose that this change in frequency can be traced to the syntactic status of the negative element. More specifically, we argue that Old Swedish eigh 'not' may function as a syntactic head and cliticize to the finite verb in [C-0]. This possibility is not open to the XP inte 'not' in Modern Swedish. In Modern Swedish, we argue that the restrictions on negative preposing instead are related to more general pragmatic restrictions on the information expressed in [Spec,CP]: according to our hypothesis, negative preposing is licensed by contrast

Negation and the functional sequence

There exists a general restriction on admissible functional sequences which prevents adjacent identical heads. We investigate a particular instantiation of this restriction in the domain of negation. Empirically, it manifests itself as a restriction the stacking of multiple negative morphemes. We propose a principled account of this restriction in terms of the general ban on immediately consecutive identical heads in the functional sequence on the one hand, and the presence of a Neg feature inside negative morphemes on the other hand. The account predicts that the stacking of multiple negative morphemes should be possible provided they are separated by intervening levels of structure. We show that this prediction is borne out

Do French speakers really have two grammars?

I consider variation within French and its status in speakers’ mental grammars. I start with Massot’s (2008) claim that, within relevant grammatical units, speakers in contemporary metropolitan France do not combine socio-stylistically marked L and H features, and his explanation of this in terms of diglossia (Ferguson 1959), that is, the idea that speakers possess two (in this case massively overlapping but not identical) ‘French’ grammars which co-exist in their minds: one (français démotique, FD: acquired early, well, and in a naturalistic environment) comprises one set of grammatical features which generate unmarked forms and the marked L forms; the other (français classique tardif, FCT: learnt later, often unreliably, in a more formal context and under the influence of literacy) comprises a (partially) different set of grammatical features which generate the same unmarked forms as well as the marked H forms. Speakers switch between FD and FCT but do not use them both simultaneously, at least not within the context of an individual clause. While Massot’s claim is controversial (see Coveney 2011), I provisionally accept that it is correct, and move on to consider his explanation. I review instances of variation for which I suggest Massot’s model needs to be revised in order to account for the phenomenon of surface forms which can be generated by both putative grammars, and which are therefore superficially part of the overlap, but which have a different linguistic status in each and underlyingly are not therefore part of any overlap. I then reconsider Massot’s two-grammar hypothesis, raising issues surrounding the extent of the overlap between them, the nature of the differences between them, and their respective statuses in the minds of speakers. I suggest that in view of their massive overlap, their non-random differences, and their contrasting cognitive statuses, it does not make sense to view both FD and FCT as autonomous grammars. Rather, I suggest that only FD is an autonomous grammar. Since the differences between FD and FCT are instantiations of naturally occurring developments usually conceptualised in terms of cyclic grammaticalisation and renewal (the L features of FD are innovations with respect to the H features of FCT), I suggest that FCT should be seen as a dependent grammatical ‘bolt on’ which encodes its conservatism in an abstract and economical way