Tämä sivusto käyttää evästeitä palvelujen toimittamiseen, toiminnan parantamiseen, analytiikkaan ja (jos et ole kirjautunut sisään) mainostamiseen. Käyttämällä LibraryThingiä ilmaiset, että olet lukenut ja ymmärtänyt käyttöehdot ja yksityisyydensuojakäytännöt. Sivujen ja palveluiden käytön tulee olla näiden ehtojen ja käytäntöjen mukaista.
A mainstay of functional linguistics has been the claim that linguistic elements and patterns that are frequently used in discourse become conventionalized as grammar. This book addresses the two issues that are basic to this claim: first, the question of what types of elements are frequently used in discourse and second, the question of how frequency of use affects cognitive representations. Reporting on evidence from natural conversation, diachronic change, variability, child language acquisition and psycholinguistic experimentation the original articles in this book support two major principles. First, the content of people's interactions consists of a preponderance of subjective, evaluative statements, dominated by the use of pronouns, copulas and intransitive clauses. Second, the frequency with which certain items and strings of items are used has a profound influence on the way language is broken up into chunks in memory storage, the way such chunks are related to other stored material and the ease with which they are accessed to produce new utterances.… (lisätietoja)
Kirjaudu LibraryThingiin nähdäksesi, pidätkö tästä kirjasta vai et.
▾Keskustelut (Linkeistä)
Ei tämänhetkisiä Keskustelu-viestiketjuja tästä kirjasta.
▾Jäsenten arvostelut
Introducing Exemplar Theory! (I refuse to call it "Exemplar Dynamics", because I am twelve, and the acronym is embarrassing.) I get how Optimality Theory is pleasing to a mind that enjoys systems, and it has a certain efficient thoroughness of desciption that ET, with its incremental changes and word clouds, certainly doesn't, but it was always artificial--a schemata applied after the fact, a reverse-written equation to get a result that makes sense. Good as a descriptive tool, but it didn't feel like the way language acquisition works.
And this does. Clouds of forms, and the more tokens you hear, the more you home in on a production target. I'm watching it happen with Luisa, who has just about definitively added the rhotic to /ma:din/,which makes it pretty damn close to my name really.
And the lenition of frequent forms as evidence--why else do you say /evri/, but /artIlɜri/? (Pardon the approximate IPA--I am lazy.) And the way it collapses lexicon and grammar, performance and competence--so organic, so anti-Chomsky. And Pierrehumbert, for it is her article I am using, even suggests the application of sociolinguistic tags to formants, which is super useful for my glottalization-in-Vancouver-women project. And there is no simple way to model this stuff, really, incremental as it is, and that's a flaw, but it also probably makes more sense and presumes less than generative models. ( )
A mainstay of functional linguistics has been the claim that linguistic elements and patterns that are frequently used in discourse become conventionalized as grammar. This book addresses the two issues that are basic to this claim: first, the question of what types of elements are frequently used in discourse and second, the question of how frequency of use affects cognitive representations. Reporting on evidence from natural conversation, diachronic change, variability, child language acquisition and psycholinguistic experimentation the original articles in this book support two major principles. First, the content of people's interactions consists of a preponderance of subjective, evaluative statements, dominated by the use of pronouns, copulas and intransitive clauses. Second, the frequency with which certain items and strings of items are used has a profound influence on the way language is broken up into chunks in memory storage, the way such chunks are related to other stored material and the ease with which they are accessed to produce new utterances.
Google Books — Ladataan...
(3.75)
1
And this does. Clouds of forms, and the more tokens you hear, the more you home in on a production target. I'm watching it happen with Luisa, who has just about definitively added the rhotic to /ma:din/,which makes it pretty damn close to my name really.
And the lenition of frequent forms as evidence--why else do you say /evri/, but /artIlɜri/? (Pardon the approximate IPA--I am lazy.) And the way it collapses lexicon and grammar, performance and competence--so organic, so anti-Chomsky. And Pierrehumbert, for it is her article I am using, even suggests the application of sociolinguistic tags to formants, which is super useful for my glottalization-in-Vancouver-women project. And there is no simple way to model this stuff, really, incremental as it is, and that's a flaw, but it also probably makes more sense and presumes less than generative models. (