Some discriminative properties of syntactic structures

SummaryForty scripts were prepared that contained the same 36 kernel sentences with one of four syntactic structures: declarative, negative, passive, or query. The relative frequency of the structures in each script was varied systematically. Tape recordings of the scripts, read by 40 speakers, were presented to listeners who sorted a (different) set of 144 sentences according to their estimate of which speaker was most likely to have said each sentence. The distribution of syntactic structures in the stimulus scripts was compared with the corresponding distribution arrived at by the listener.When a particular syntactic structure predominated in a speaker's corpus, the listeners tended to assign all the sentences of the dominant form exclusively to that speaker. When the relative frequencies of the syntactic structures in a corpus were more nearly equal, the listeners tended to assign structures at random. Most of the confusions in discrimination, that is, assignment of a structure to a speaker much more often than it was uttered, were associated with the declarative and passive sentence structures. These syntactic forms generalized most often with each other and more often with the remaining syntactic forms than either negative or interrogative sentences.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/32180/1/0000236.pd

The role of personality variables in second language behavior

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/32874/1/0000252.pd

Sound Studies Meets Deaf Studies

Sound studies and Deaf studies may seem at first impression to operate in worlds apart. We argue in this article, however, that similar renderings of hearing, deafness, and seeing as ideal types - and as often essentialized sensory modes - make it possible to read differences between Sound studies and Deaf studies as sites of possible articulation. We direct attention to four zones of productive overlap, attending to how sound is inferred in deaf and Deaf practice, how reimagining sound in the register of low-frequency vibration can upend deafhearing dichotomies, how “deaf futurists“ champion cyborg sound, and how signing and other non-spoken communicative practices might undo phonocentric models of speech. Sound studies and Deaf studies emerge as fields with much to offer one another epistemologically, theoretically, and practically

Signal Transmission in the Auditory System

Contains table of contents for Section 3 and reports on nine research projects.National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 P01 NS13126)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 P01 NS23734)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 R01 NS18682)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 RO1 NS25995)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 R01 NS20269)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 R01 NS20322)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 T32 NS07047)Johnson and Johnson Foundatio

Oralism: a sign of the times? The contest for deaf communication in education provision in late nineteenth-century Scotland

Disability history is a diverse field. In focussing upon children within deaf education in late nineteenth-century Scotland, this essay reflects some of that diversity. In 1880, the International Congress on the Education of the Deaf in Milan stipulated that speech should have ‘preference’ over signs in the education of deaf children. The mode of achieving this, however, effectively banned sign language. Endeavours to teach deaf children to articulate were not new, but this decision placed pressures on deaf institutions to favour the oral system of deaf communication over other methods. In Scotland efforts were made to adopt oralism, and yet educators were faced with the reality that this was not good educational practice for most pupils. This article will consider responses of Scottish educators of deaf children from the 1870s until the beginning of the twentieth century

Renin-angiotensin system blockers and susceptibility to COVID-19:an international, open science, cohort analysis

Background: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have been postulated to affect susceptibility to COVID-19. Observational studies so far have lacked rigorous ascertainment adjustment and international generalisability. We aimed to determine whether use of ACEIs or ARBs is associated with an increased susceptibility to COVID-19 in patients with hypertension.Methods: In this international, open science, cohort analysis, we used electronic health records from Spain (Information Systems for Research in Primary Care [SIDIAP]) and the USA (Columbia University Irving Medical Center data warehouse [CUIMC] and Department of Veterans Affairs Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership [VA-OMOP]) to identify patients aged 18 years or older with at least one prescription for ACEIs and ARBs (target cohort) or calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics (THZs; comparator cohort) between Nov 1, 2019, and Jan 31, 2020. Users were defined separately as receiving either monotherapy with these four drug classes, or monotherapy or combination therapy (combination use) with other antihypertensive medications. We assessed four outcomes: COVID-19 diagnosis; hospital admission with COVID-19; hospital admission with pneumonia; and hospital admission with pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury, or sepsis. We built large-scale propensity score methods derived through a data-driven approach and negative control experiments across ten pairwise comparisons, with results meta-analysed to generate 1280 study effects. For each study effect, we did negative control outcome experiments using a possible 123 controls identified through a data-rich algorithm. This process used a set of predefined baseline patient characteristics to provide the most accurate prediction of treatment and balance among patient cohorts across characteristics. The study is registered with the EU Post-Authorisation Studies register, EUPAS35296.Findings: Among 1 355 349 antihypertensive users (363 785 ACEI or ARB monotherapy users, 248 915 CCB or THZ monotherapy users, 711 799 ACEI or ARB combination users, and 473 076 CCB or THZ combination users) included in analyses, no association was observed between COVID-19 diagnosis and exposure to ACEI or ARB monotherapy versus CCB or THZ monotherapy (calibrated hazard ratio [HR] 0·98, 95% CI 0·84-1·14) or combination use exposure (1·01, 0·90-1·15). ACEIs alone similarly showed no relative risk difference when compared with CCB or THZ monotherapy (HR 0·91, 95% CI 0·68-1·21; with heterogeneity of &gt;40%) or combination use (0·95, 0·83-1·07). Directly comparing ACEIs with ARBs demonstrated a moderately lower risk with ACEIs, which was significant with combination use (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·79-0·99) and non-significant for monotherapy (0·85, 0·69-1·05). We observed no significant difference between drug classes for risk of hospital admission with COVID-19, hospital admission with pneumonia, or hospital admission with pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury, or sepsis across all comparisons.Interpretation: No clinically significant increased risk of COVID-19 diagnosis or hospital admission-related outcomes associated with ACEI or ARB use was observed, suggesting users should not discontinue or change their treatment to decrease their risk of COVID-19.</p

Políticas de educação bilíngue para surdos: o contexto brasileiro

Este artigo propõe-se a apresentar um panorama das políticas educacionais para surdos, desde a década de 1990, demarcando as inúmeras disputas ideológicas que influenciaram diretamente os campos da política linguística e das políticas de educação inclusiva para esse grupo de estudantes. Assumimos como elemento determinante de análise a gestão pública das línguas adotadas na educação de surdos para avaliar a efetividade das políticas de educação inclusiva, considerando que a complexa situação de bilinguismo dos surdos está diluída ao, não menos complexo, processo de inclusão de pessoas com deficiência na escola comum. Assim, demonstramos que há um desvio de foco (derivado de um desvio na concepção de sujeito surdo) no conjunto de textos oficiais que constituem as diretrizes filosóficas e legais para a educação desses estudantes, cujo impacto central é não assegurar o direito à língua de sinais brasileira (Libras) como língua materna na infância, conforme reivindicam os movimentos surdos e está assegurado na letra da lei. Aponta-se a política linguística como uma variável determinante no debate da conjuntura nacional da educação de surdos brasileiros, ainda que nem sempre a ela seja dada centralidade pelo poder público, na atualidade. Ao analisar a política linguística refletida no percurso histórico da educação de surdos, realizamos uma análise crítica sobre os avanços e dificuldades no processo de escolarização (dito) bilíngue de surdos no contexto da educação (dita) inclusiva

Speech Communication

Contains table of contents for Part IV, table of contents for Section 1, an introduction, reports on seven research projects and a list of publications.C.J. Lebel FellowshipDennis Klatt Memorial FundNational Institutes of Health Grant T32-DC00005National Institutes of Health Grant R01-DC00075National Institutes of Health Grant F32-DC00015National Institutes of Health Grant R01-DC00266National Institutes of Health Grant P01-DC00361National Institutes of Health Grant R01-DC00776National Science Foundation Grant IRI 89-10561National Science Foundation Grant IRI 88-05680National Science Foundation Grant INT 90-2471

Speech Communication

Contains table of contents for Part V, table of contents for Section 1, reports on six research projects and a list of publications.C.J. Lebel FellowshipDennis Klatt Memorial FundNational Institutes of Health Grant R01-DC00075National Institutes of Health Grant R01-DC01291National Institutes of Health Grant R01-DC01925National Institutes of Health Grant R01-DC02125National Institutes of Health Grant R01-DC02978National Institutes of Health Grant R01-DC03007National Institutes of Health Grant R29-DC02525National Institutes of Health Grant F32-DC00194National Institutes of Health Grant F32-DC00205National Institutes of Health Grant T32-DC00038National Science Foundation Grant IRI 89-05249National Science Foundation Grant IRI 93-14967National Science Foundation Grant INT 94-2114

Speech Communication

Contains reports on five research projects.C.J. Lebel FellowshipNational Institutes of Health (Grant 5 T32 NSO7040)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 R01 NS04332)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 R01 NS21183)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 P01 NS13126)National Institutes of Health (Grant 1 PO1-NS23734)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS 8418733)U.S. Navy - Naval Electronic Systems Command (Contract N00039-85-C-0254)U.S. Navy - Naval Electronic Systems Command (Contract N00039-85-C-0341)U.S. Navy - Naval Electronic Systems Command (Contract N00039-85-C-0290)National Institutes of Health (Grant RO1-NS21183), subcontract with Boston UniversityNational Institutes of Health (Grant 1 PO1-NS23734), subcontract with the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmar