Processing and Directionality in German and English

1998 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monika Doherty
Keyword(s):  
General Theory ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Language Use ◽  
Translation Theory ◽  
Processing Conditions ◽  
Literary Style ◽  
Universal Principles ◽  
Contrastive Linguistics

The paper discusses basic aspects of a general theory of contrastive stylistics, which is taken to result from the interaction of parameterized properties of languages with universal principles of language use. Proceeding from some basic psycholinguistic assumptions about language processing, the discussion will concentrate on various problems arising from specific processing conditions in English and German. The basic claims will be exemplified by translational evidence subjected to the method of control paraphrases. The findings pertain to contrastive linguistics, translation theory and a better understanding of individual literary style.

scholarly journals Finding What Is Inaccessible: Antimicrobial Resistance Language Use among the One Health Domains

Antibiotics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 385
Author(s):  
Lauren L. Wind ◽  
Jonathan S. Briganti ◽  
Anne M. Brown ◽  
Timothy P. Neher ◽  
Meghan F. Davis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antibiotic Resistance ◽  
Open Access ◽  
Antimicrobial Resistance ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
One Health ◽  
Language Use ◽  
Language Usage ◽  
Health Domains ◽  
Accessibility Issues ◽  
The One

The success of a One Health approach to combating antimicrobial resistance (AMR) requires effective data sharing across the three One Health domains (human, animal, and environment). To investigate if there are differences in language use across the One Health domains, we examined the peer-reviewed literature using a combination of text data mining and natural language processing techniques on 20,000 open-access articles related to AMR and One Health. Evaluating AMR key term frequency from the European PubMed Collection published between 1990 and 2019 showed distinct AMR language usage within each domain and incongruent language usage across domains, with significant differences in key term usage frequencies when articles were grouped by the One Health sub-specialties (2-way ANOVA; p < 0.001). Over the 29-year period, “antibiotic resistance” and “AR” were used 18 times more than “antimicrobial resistance” and “AMR”. The discord of language use across One Health potentially weakens the effectiveness of interdisciplinary research by creating accessibility issues for researchers using search engines. This research was the first to quantify this disparate language use within One Health, which inhibits collaboration and crosstalk between domains. We suggest the following for authors publishing AMR-related research within the One Health context: (1) increase title/abstract searchability by including both antimicrobial and antibiotic resistance related search terms; (2) include “One Health” in the title/abstract; and (3) prioritize open-access publication.

scholarly journals What is special about L3 processing?

2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 130-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
KEES DE BOT ◽  
CAROL JAENSCH
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Language Use ◽  
Fundamental Question ◽  
Third Language ◽  
The Core ◽  
Dynamic Perspective ◽  
Core Issue ◽  
The Brain ◽  
Over Time

While research on third language (L3) and multilingualism has recently shown remarkable growth, the fundamental question of what makes trilingualism special compared to bilingualism, and indeed monolingualism, continues to be evaded. In this contribution we consider whether there is such a thing as a true monolingual, and if there is a difference between dialects, styles, registers and languages. While linguistic and psycholinguistic studies suggest differences in the processing of a third, compared to the first or second language, neurolinguistic research has shown that generally the same areas of the brain are activated during language use in proficient multilinguals. It is concluded that while from traditional linguistic and psycholinguistic perspectives there are grounds to differentiate monolingual, bilingual and multilingual processing, a more dynamic perspective on language processing in which development over time is the core issue, leads to a questioning of the notion of languages as separate entities in the brain.

Een Model Voor Taalcontact

2006 ◽  
Vol 76 ◽  
pp. 13-19
Author(s):  
Pieter Muysken
Keyword(s):  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Language Contact ◽  
Alternative Strategies ◽  
Bilingual Speakers ◽  
Code Mixing ◽  
Universal Principles ◽  
Structural Coherence ◽  
Language Areas ◽  
Important Progress

In a number of domains of language contact studies important progress has been made, including Creole studies, code switching and code mixing, second language acquisition, linguistic borrowing, and language areas. Less attention has been paid to the conceptual links between these fields. These links will be the focus of the present paper, which approaches this issue from the perspective of speaker optimization strategies. Four alternative strategies are proposed: optimize the structural coherence of the LI, optimize possible matching between LI and L2 patterns, optimize universal principles of language processing, optimize the structural coherence of the L2. It will be argued that these strategies can be invoked to explain outcomes of language contact, and that different outcomes correspond to different rankings of these strategies by bilingual speakers and the community they belong to.

scholarly journals Language Use Across International Contexts: Shaping the Minds of L2 Speakers

2018 ◽  
Vol 38 ◽  
pp. 60-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith F. Kroll ◽  
Paola E. Dussias ◽  
María Teresa Bajo
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Language Use ◽  
Life Experience ◽  
Extended Period ◽  
Research Network ◽  
Language Usage ◽  
Language Experience ◽  
L2 Learning ◽  
Context Of Learning

ABSTRACTBilingualism is a complex life experience. Second language (L2) learning and bilingualism take place in many different contexts. To develop a comprehensive account of dual-language experience requires research that examines individuals who are learning and using two languages in both the first language (L1) and second language (L2) environments. In this article, we review studies that exploit the presence of an international research network on bilingualism to investigate the role of the environment and some the unique characteristics of L2 learning and bilingual language usage in different locations. We ask how the context of learning affects the acquisition of the L2 and the ability to control the use of each language, how language processing is changed by the patterns of language usage in different places (e.g., whether bilinguals have been immersed in the L2 environment for an extended period of time or whether they code-switch), and how the bilingualism of the community itself influences learning and language use.

scholarly journals Understanding Contextual and Social Meaning in Typically Developing Finnish-Speaking Four- To Eight-Year-Old Children

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 408-428 ◽  
Author(s):  
Soile Loukusa ◽  
Leena Mäkinen ◽  
Ilaria Gabbatore ◽  
Päivi Laukkanen-Nevala ◽  
Eeva Leinonen
Keyword(s):  
Language Processing ◽  
Language Use ◽  
Mental States ◽  
Pragmatic Language ◽  
Social Meaning ◽  
Developmental Phase ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Mind Reading ◽  
Contextual Processing ◽  
Pragmatic Comprehension

Abstract This study examined the development of social-pragmatic comprehension in 170 Finnish four- to eight-year-old children. The children were asked to respond to socially and contextually demanding questions targeting their social-pragmatic language processing, and to explain their correct answers in order to elicit their awareness of how they had derived the answers from the context. The results showed that the number of correct answers increased especially between the ages of four and seven years. We found that questions demanding contextual processing without mind-reading were the easiest to understand, followed by questions demanding processing of feelings of others and false beliefs. The questions demanding understanding of relevant language use and processing of contextual factors including mental states and intentions were the most challenging for the children. Between four and five years of age there was a remarkable developmental phase in children’s ability to give proper explanations.

Idiomaticity and functional variation: A case study of international amateur radio talk

1981 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dafydd Gibbon
Keyword(s):  
General Theory ◽  
Language Use ◽  
Functional Variation ◽  
Language Form ◽  
Amateur Radio ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Theory Of Language ◽  
Radio Talk

The linguistic domain of idiomaticity poses many problems for the study of language form, use, and variation. With selected aspects of idiomaticity as a starting point, I will attempt in this paper to develop a description of the use of idioms as a segment of a more general theory of language use. Evidence for this approach is drawn from international amateur radio talk (IART) in English.

Multiple final embedding of clauses

2010 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 88-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fred Karlsson
Keyword(s):  
Language Processing ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Language Use ◽  
Main Clause ◽  
Ancient Greek ◽  
Successive Level ◽  
Complex Varieties ◽  
Corpus Data ◽  
Processing Mechanisms

There are no grammatical limits on multiple final embedding of clauses. But converging corpus data from English, Finnish, German and Swedish show that multiple final embedding is avoided at levels deeper than three levels from the main clause in syntactically simple varieties, and at levels deeper than five levels in complex varieties. The frequency of every successive level of final embedding decreases by a factor of seven down to levels 4–5. Only relative clauses allow free self-embedding, within the limits just mentioned. These restrictions are regularities of language use, stylistic preferences related to the properties of various types of discourse. Ultimately they are explained by cognitive and other properties of the language processing mechanisms. The frequencies of final embedding depths in modern languages such as English and Finnish is not accidental. Ancient Greek had reached this profile by 300 BC, suggesting cross-linguistic generality of the preferences.

scholarly journals “Process and perish” or multiple buffers with push-down stacks?

2016 ◽  
Vol 39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen C. Levinson
Keyword(s):  
Language Processing ◽  
Language Use ◽  
Levels Of Processing ◽  
Turn Taking ◽  
Push Down ◽  
Verbatim Recall ◽  
Internal Pressures

AbstractThis commentary raises two issues: (1) Language processing is hastened not only by internal pressures but also externally by turn-taking in language use; (2) the theory requires nested levels of processing, but linguistic levels do not fully nest; further, it would seem to require multiple memory buffers, otherwise there's no obvious treatment for discontinuous structures, or for verbatim recall.

Stranger in Paradigm

Target ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miriam Shlesinger
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Translation Theory ◽  
Simultaneous Interpreting ◽  
Object Of Study ◽  
Shed Light

Abstract Simultaneous interpreting holds rich potential for research whose results may shed light not only on the workings of this composite skill itself but also on other areas of study, including language processing, second language acquisition, mediated linguistic interaction, textlinguistics and translation theory. As more and more interpreters are university trained, the interest in less intuitive, more rigorous studies is bound to grow. This article explores potential interdisciplinary paradigms, the premise being that they will gradually evolve towards meeting the specific requirements of interpretation as an object of study.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document