Notes on the Comparison Class

2011 ◽  
pp. 189-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Solt
Keyword(s):  
Comparison Class

The Impact of Contact Languages on the Grammaticalization of the Modern Hebrew Superlative

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 271-282 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yael Reshef
Keyword(s):  
Biblical Hebrew ◽  
Comparison Class ◽  
Textual Evidence ◽  
Modern Hebrew ◽  
Positive Adjective ◽  
The Impact

Modern Hebrew grammatical constructions include a tripartite paradigm of degree comparison consisting of the positive adjective, the comparative, and the superlative. Such a paradigm did not exist in classical Hebrew, and the expression of the superlative in both Biblical Hebrew and Rabbinic Hebrew required reference to a comparison class by means of a noun. Based on an examination of textual evidence from the initial phases of the formation of Modern Hebrew, this article traces the emergence of the modern superlative constructions and evaluates the role of contact languages in the process.

scholarly journals The Effect of STEM-PjBL and Discovery Learning on Improving Students' Problem-Solving Skills of Impulse and Momentum Topic

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 465-476
Author(s):  
E. Purwaningsih ◽  
S. P. Sari ◽  
A. M. Sari ◽  
A. Suryadi
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Project Based Learning ◽  
Discovery Learning ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Control Group Design ◽  
Problem Solving Skills ◽  
Comparison Class ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Before And After ◽  
And Mathematics

This study aims to investigate the effect of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics-Project Based Learning (STEM-PjBL) and discovery learning on students' problem-solving abilities. The research is a Quasi-Experiment with a Nonequivalent Pretest-Posttest Control Group Design. The participants involved are 53 students of class X from a high school in Malang, where 28 students studied with STEM-PjBL, and 25 students studied with discovery learning. This research was conducted on the subject of impulse and momentum. In this analysis, researchers have developed problem-solving tools with a particular field approach to impulse and momentum topics in order to obtain an instrument with a reliability of  0.81. This instrument collects student problem-solving data before and after learning both in the experimental class and in the comparison class. Problem-solving skills data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and inferential statistics. The results showed a significant difference in the scores of students' problem-solving abilities in the experimental class and the comparison class (p<0.05). The problem-solving ability in the experimental class (Md=78.74) was higher than the comparison class (Md=70.00). In STEM-PjBL learning, students are better trained and challenged to solve problems in everyday life. Compared to the comparison class, learning in the experimental class is more able to accommodate students' ideas and make students more interested in learning. In conclusion, STEM-PjBL has a significant positive effect on improving students' problem-solving abilities rather than discovery learning.

scholarly journals Surprise-Predicates, Strong Exhaustivity and Alternative Questions

2015 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maribel Romero
Keyword(s):  
Comparison Class ◽  
Degree Constructions ◽  
Wh Questions ◽  
Class C ◽  
Alternative Questions

Factive emotive verbs like surprise and disappoint disallow the strongly exhaustive reading of wh-questions and do not embed alternative questions (nor polar questions) (Guerzoni & Sharvit 2007; Lahiri 1991; a.o.). This paper develops a novel account of this correlation by exploiting a property of surprise-type verbs so-far overlooked in the question literature: their focus-sensitivity. These verbs are treated as degree constructions where the comparison term –the selected type of answer to the question– must be a member of the comparison class C shaped by focus. Strongly exhaustive answers of wh-questions do not match the comparison class and are thus ruled out. Alternative questions fail to produce a suitable C both for strongly and for weakly exhaustive answers and are, hence, entirely disallowed.

scholarly journals Warm (for Winter): Inferring comparison classes for gradable adjectives

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Henry Tessler ◽  
Noah D. Goodman
Keyword(s):  
Large Scale ◽  
Gradable Adjectives ◽  
Language Understanding ◽  
Comparison Class ◽  
Scale Free ◽  
Context Sensitive ◽  
Bayesian Data Analysis ◽  
Production Experiment ◽  
Pragmatic Reasoning ◽  
Basic Level

The meaning of an utterance can change depending on the context. Yet, what counts as context is often only implicit in everyday conversation. The utterance “it’s warm outside” signals that the temperature outside is relatively high, but the temperature could be high relative to a number of different comparison classes: other days of the year, other weeks, other seasons, etc. Theories of context-sensitive language use agree that the comparison class is a crucial feature of meaning understanding, but little is known about how a listener decides upon a comparison class. We extend a Bayesian model of pragmatic reasoning to be able to reason flexibly about the comparison class intended by the speaker and test the qualitative predictions of this model using a large-scale free-production experiment. We then quantitatively synthesize the model and data using Bayesian data analysis, which further reveals that usage frequency and a preference for basic-level categories are two main contributors to comparison class inference. The methods and results we present open the door to studying richer aspects of context-sensitive language understanding.

scholarly journals Gradable adjectives, vagueness, and optimal language use: A speaker-oriented model

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ciyang Qing ◽  
Michael Franke
Keyword(s):  
Degree Distribution ◽  
Language Use ◽  
Gradable Adjectives ◽  
New Model ◽  
Comparison Class ◽  
Exact Degree ◽  
Standard Of Comparison ◽  
The Way

<p>This paper addresses two issues that arise in a degree-based approach to the semantics of positive forms of gradable adjectives such as tall in the sentence “John is tall” (e.g., <span>Kennedy &amp; McNally 2005</span>; <span>Kennedy 2007</span>): First, how the standard of comparison is contextually determined; Second, why gradable adjectives exhibit the relative-absolute distinction. Combining ideas of previous evolutionary and probabilistic approaches (e.g., <span>Potts 2008</span>; <span>Franke 2012</span>; <span>Lassiter 2011</span>; <span>Lassiter &amp; Goodman 2013</span>), we propose a new model that makes exact and empirically testable probabilistic predictions about speakers’ use of gradable adjectives and that derives the relative-absolute distinction from considerations of optimal language use. Along the way, we distinguish between vagueness and loose use, and argue that, within our approach, vagueness can be understood as the result of uncertainty about the exact degree distribution within the comparison class.</p>

scholarly journals Informational goals, sentence structure, and comparison class inference

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Henry Tessler ◽  
Polina Tsvilodub ◽  
Jesse Snedeker ◽  
Roger Philip Levy
Keyword(s):  
Alternative Hypothesis ◽  
Subject Position ◽  
Sentence Structure ◽  
Trade Off ◽  
Comparison Class ◽  
Gradable Adjective ◽  
Class A ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right ◽  
Great Dane

Understanding a gradable adjective (e.g., big) requires making reference to a comparison class, a set of objects or entities against which the referent is implicitly compared (e.g., big for a Great Dane), but how do listeners decide upon a comparison class? Simple models of semantic composition stipulate that the adjective combines with a noun, which necessarily be- comes the comparison class (e.g., “That Great Dane is big” means big for a Great Dane). We investigate an alternative hypothesis built on the idea that the utility of a noun in an adjectival utterance can be either for reference (getting the listener to attend to the right object) or predication (describing a property of the referent). Therefore, we hypothesize that when the presence of a noun N can be explained away by its utility in reference (e.g., being in the subject position: “That N is big”), it is less likely to set the comparison class. Across three pre-registered experiments, we find evidence that listeners use the noun as a cue to infer comparison classes consistent with a trade-off between reference and predication. This work highlights the complexity of the relation between the form of an utterance and its meaning.

scholarly journals PERBEDAAN HASIL BELAJAR MATEMATIKA DARI PENERAPAN JIGSAW DAN TSTS PADA SISWA KELAS XI SMAN 1 AMBARAWA

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 38
Author(s):  
Dinda Ayu Septiana ◽  
Erlina Prihatnani
Keyword(s):  
Initial Conditions ◽  
Hypothesis Test ◽  
Mathematics Learning ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Material Derivative ◽  
Comparison Class ◽  
Whitney Test ◽  
Mann Whitney Test ◽  
Quasi Experimental ◽  
Class Average

The 2013 curriculum requires students to learn from anyone including their peers. There are several learning models that emphasize this, including Jigsaw and TSTS (Two Stay Two Stray). This study aims to compare learning results from the application of the two models to students of class XI of SMAN 1 Ambarawa. Sampling with cluster random sampling resulted in a sample of students of class XI MIPA 1 as an experimental class and students of class XI MIPA 2 as a comparison class. A quasi-experimental study with the design of The Randomized Control Group Pretest-Posttest Design was carried out on mathematics learning on the material derivative from algebraic functions. Test different mean initial ability of students by using the Mann-Whitney test produces a significant value of 0.443 (more than 0.05), meaning that the initial conditions of both classes are balanced. The hypothesis test with the Mann-Whitney test produced a significant amount of 0.029 (less than 0.05), with the average in the experimental class (76.81) higher, than the comparison class average (73.79). Therefore, it can be concluded that the application of jigsaw produces the results of mathematics learning in class XI students of SMAN 1 Ambarawa better than the application of TSTS

Gradability

On Goodness ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 45-88
Author(s):  
David Conan Wolfsdorf
Keyword(s):  
Upper Bound ◽  
Significant Degree ◽  
Gradable Adjectives ◽  
Lexical Meaning ◽  
Comparison Class ◽  
Gradable Adjective

The sense of “good” that has been of principal interest to philosophers and that is the focus of chapters 3, 4, and 5 is evaluative “good.” Hereafter, the modifier “evaluative” is dropped. “Good” is a gradable adjective. Accordingly, chapter 3 examines the semantics of gradable adjectives. The chapter argues that “good” is the unmarked member of an antonym pair of relative gradable adjectives, the marked member being (evaluative) “bad.” The lexical meaning of “good” is associated with a non-significant degree on an open scale of unspecified value. In tokenings of sentences of the form “x is good,” the degree associated with “good” is modulated to a significant degree. Significance of degree is a quantity that exceeds the upper bound of a range of numeric values based on a contextually determined comparison class.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document