Comparison of the NEO-FFI, the NEO-FFI-R and an alternative short version of the NEO-PI-R (NEO-60) in Swiss and Spanish samples

Three different short versions of the NEO-PI-R were compared: The NEO-FFI, the NEO-FFI-R, and a new short version developed in the current study (NEO-60). This new version is intended to improve the psychometric characteristics of the original NEO-FFI, specially in regard to the factor structure at the item-level. A French version of the NEO-PI-R was given to 1090 Swiss subjects, whereas the Spanish (Castilian) version of the NEO-PI-R was administered to 1006 Spanish subjects. Results replicate the limitations of the NEO-FFI already found in other countries. Compared to the NEO-FFI, reliability coefficients and factor structure was enhanced by the NEO-FFI-R and the NEO-60 in both samples, although substantial differences were not found. The factor structure of the NEO-60 shows the best fit since only three items do not load mainly on their own factor in both samples. Besides, correlations between items and NEO-PI-R domain scores are also higher for the items included in the NEO-60 version. On the other hand, convergent correlations with the NEO-PI-R dimensions were satisfactory irrespective of the version, and confirmatory factor analyses show slight differences among the different models generated after the three short versions.

The 16PF5 and the NEO-PI-R in Spanish and Swiss samples: A cross-cultural comparison

This study compared the Spanish (Castilian) and French versions of the 16PF5 and of the NEO-PI-R in Spanish and Swiss samples. The five-factor solution for the 16PF5 only seems clear for the Castilian version, but not for the French version. Indeed, the congruence coefficients for the Tough-Mindedness and the Self-Control dimensions are low. On the other hand, the five-factor solutions are highly similar for both countries concerning the NEO-PI-R, and the congruence coefficients are above .95 for all five dimensions. The low cross-cultural replicability for the 16PF5 makes it difficult to analyze the differences at the mean level for this inventory. For the NEO-PI-R, the differences are generally very small and globally account for 2.6% of the total variance. Spaniards seem to have slightly lower scores on Actions and slightly higher scores on Dutifulness. These differences could either be due to translation problems, sample selection, or cultural differences.

Contrast : a concept in language and its development in Medieval Spanish

The purpose of this PhD thesis is to investigate a semantic relation present in the connection of sentences (more specifically: propositional units). This relation, which we refer to as contrast, includes the traditional categories of adversatives - predominantly represented by the connector but in English and pero in Modern Spanish - and concessives, prototypically verbalised through although / aunque. The aim is to describe, analyse and - as far as possible - to explain the emergence and evolution of different syntactic schemes marking contrast during the first three centuries of Spanish (also referred to as Castilian) as a literary language, i.e., from the 13th to the 15th century. The starting point of this question is a commonplace in syntax, whereby the semantic and syntactic complexity of clause linkage correlates with the degree of textual elaboration. In historical linguistics, i.e., applied to the phylogeny of a language, it is commonly referred to as the parataxis hypothesis A crucial part of the thesis is dedicated by the definition of contrast as a semantic relation. Although the label contrast has been used in this sense, mainly in functional grammar and text linguistics, mainstream grammaticography and linguistics remain attached to the traditional categories adversatives and concessives. In opposition to this traditional view, we present our own model of contrast, based on a pragma-semantic description proposed for the analysis of adversatives by Oswald Ducrot and subsequently adopted by Ekkehard König for the analysis of concessives. We refine and further develop this model in order for it to accommodate all, not just the prototypical instances of contrast in Spanish, arguing that the relationship between adversatives and concessives is a marked opposition, i.e., that the higher degree of semantic and syntactic integration of concessives restricts some possible readings that the adversatives may have, but that this difference is almost systematically neutralised by contextual factors, thus justifying the assumption of contrast as a comprehensive onomasiological category. This theoretical focus is completed by a state-of-the-question overview attempting to account for all relevant forms in which contrast is expressed in Medieval Spanish, with the aid of lexicographic and grammaticographical sources, and an empirical study investigating the expression of corpus in a corpus study on the textual functions of contrast in nine Medieval Spanish texts: Cantar de Mio Cid, Libro de Alexandre, Milagros de Nuestra Sehora, Estoria de Espana, Primera Partida, Lapidario, Libro de buen amor, Conde Lucanor, and Corbacho. This corpus is analysed using quantitative and qualitative tools, and the study is accompanied by a series of methodological remarks on how to investigate a pragma-semantic category in historical linguistics. The corpus study shows that the parataxis hypothesis fails to prove from a statistical viewpoint, although a qualitative analysis shows that the use of subordination does increase over time in some particular contexts.