Variation and Change in French Morphosyntax: The Case of Collective Nouns

Collective nouns such as majorité or foule have long been of interest to linguists for their unusual semantic properties, and provide a valuable source of new data on the evolution of French grammar. This book tests the hypothesis that plural agreement with collective nouns is becoming more frequent in French. Through an analysis of data from a variety of sources, including sociolinguistic interviews, gap-fill tests and corpora, the complex linguistic and external factors which affect this type of agreement are examined, shedding new light on their interaction in this context. Broader questions concerning the methodological challenges of studying variation and change in morphosyntax, and the application of sociolinguistic generalisations to the French of France, are also addressed.

Reviews:

‘Cet ouvrage constitue un apport majeur dans le champ de la linguistique variationniste et diachronique, tant par les résultats mis au jour que par la qualité de sa démarche méthodologique.’ — Sophie Prévost, French Studies 69.4, October 2015, 578-79

‘While language variation and change have been the focal point for linguists on this side of the Atlantic, Tristram argues that studies on morphosyntactic variation in French studies are lacking due to a focus on phonology and dialectology as well as denial of variation and change in the French language. Tristram’s book is thus a welcome contribution.’ — Samira Hassa, French Review 89.3, 2016, 108

‘Anyone teaching variation in French will want to talk about the findings and reflections reported in this study. A remarkable amount of ground is covered in a small compass. This is a highly welcome addition to the Legenda list, and one must hope that further linguistics titles will be added to it before very long.’ — Nigel Armstrong, Journal of French Language Studies 26.2, 2016, 211-13

Variation of clinical outcomes used in glaucoma randomised controlled trials:a systematic review

Purpose: In randomised clinical trials (RCTs) the selection of appropriate outcomes is crucial to the assessment of whether one intervention is better than another. The purpose of this review is to identify different clinical outcomes reported in glaucoma trials.

Methods We conducted a systematic review of glaucoma RCTs. A sample or selection of glaucoma trials were included bounded by a time frame (between 2006 and March 2012). Only studies in English language were considered. All clinical measured and reported outcomes were included. The possible variations of clinical outcomes were defined prior to data analysis. Information on reported clinical outcomes was tabulated and analysed using descriptive statistics. Other data recorded included type of intervention and glaucoma, duration of the study, defined primary outcomes, and outcomes used for sample size calculation, if nominated.

Results The search strategy identified 4323 potentially relevant abstracts. There were 315 publications retrieved, of which 233 RCTs were included. A total of 967 clinical measures were reported. There were large variations in the definitions used to describe different outcomes and their measures. Intraocular pressure was the most commonly reported outcome (used in 201 RCTs, 86%) with a total of 422 measures (44%). Safety outcomes were commonly reported in 145 RCTs (62%) whereas visual field outcomes were used in 38 RCTs (16%).

Conclusions There is a large variation in the reporting of clinical outcomes in glaucoma RCTs. This lack of standardisation may impair the ability to evaluate the evidence of glaucoma interventions.