Jazz drummers recruit language-specific areas for the processing of rhythmic structure

Rhythm is a central characteristic of music and speech, the most important domains of human communication using acoustic signals. Here, we investigated how rhythmical patterns in music are processed in the human brain, and, in addition, evaluated the impact of musical training on rhythm processing. Using fMRI, we found that deviations from a rule-based regular rhythmic structure activated the left planum temporale together with Broca's area and its right-hemispheric homolog across subjects, that is, a network also crucially involved in the processing of harmonic structure in music and the syntactic analysis of language. Comparing the BOLD responses to rhythmic variations between professional jazz drummers and musical laypersons, we found that only highly trained rhythmic experts show additional activity in left-hemispheric supramarginal gyrus, a higher-order region involved in processing of linguistic syntax. This suggests an additional functional recruitment of brain areas usually dedicated to complex linguistic syntax processing for the analysis of rhythmical patterns only in professional jazz drummers, who are especially trained to use rhythmical cues for communication.

Inversion, Obviation, and Animacy in Native Languages of the Americas: Elements for a Cross-linguistic Survey

Native languages of the Americas whose predicate and clause structure reflect nominal hierarchies show an interesting range of structural diversity not only with respect to morphological makeup of their predicates and arguments but also with respect to the factors governing obviation status. The present article maps part of such diversity. The sample surveyed here includes languages with some sort of nonlocal (third person acting on third person) direction-marking system.

OntoTag - A Linguistic and Ontological Annotation Model Suitable for the Semantic Web

OntoTag - A Linguistic and Ontological Annotation Model Suitable for the Semantic Web 1. INTRODUCTION. LINGUISTIC TOOLS AND ANNOTATIONS: THEIR LIGHTS AND SHADOWS Computational Linguistics is already a consolidated research area. It builds upon the results of other two major ones, namely Linguistics and Computer Science and Engineering, and it aims at developing computational models of human language (or natural language, as it is termed in this area). Possibly, its most well-known applications are the different tools developed so far for processing human language, such as machine translation systems and speech recognizers or dictation programs. These tools for processing human language are commonly referred to as linguistic tools. Apart from the examples mentioned above, there are also other types of linguistic tools that perhaps are not so well-known, but on which most of the other applications of Computational Linguistics are built. These other types of linguistic tools comprise POS taggers, natural language parsers and semantic taggers, amongst others. All of them can be termed linguistic annotation tools. Linguistic annotation tools are important assets. In fact, POS and semantic taggers (and, to a lesser extent, also natural language parsers) have become critical resources for the computer applications that process natural language. Hence, any computer application that has to analyse a text automatically and ‘intelligently’ will include at least a module for POS tagging. The more an application needs to ‘understand’ the meaning of the text it processes, the more linguistic tools and/or modules it will incorporate and integrate. However, linguistic annotation tools have still some limitations, which can be summarised as follows: 1. Normally, they perform annotations only at a certain linguistic level (that is, Morphology, Syntax, Semantics, etc.). 2. They usually introduce a certain rate of errors and ambiguities when tagging. This error rate ranges from 10 percent up to 50 percent of the units annotated for unrestricted, general texts. 3. Their annotations are most frequently formulated in terms of an annotation schema designed and implemented ad hoc. A priori, it seems that the interoperation and the integration of several linguistic tools into an appropriate software architecture could most likely solve the limitations stated in (1). Besides, integrating several linguistic annotation tools and making them interoperate could also minimise the limitation stated in (2). Nevertheless, in the latter case, all these tools should produce annotations for a common level, which would have to be combined in order to correct their corresponding errors and inaccuracies. Yet, the limitation stated in (3) prevents both types of integration and interoperation from being easily achieved. In addition, most high-level annotation tools rely on other lower-level annotation tools and their outputs to generate their own ones. For example, sense-tagging tools (operating at the semantic level) often use POS taggers (operating at a lower level, i.e., the morphosyntactic) to identify the grammatical category of the word or lexical unit they are annotating. Accordingly, if a faulty or inaccurate low-level annotation tool is to be used by other higher-level one in its process, the errors and inaccuracies of the former should be minimised in advance. Otherwise, these errors and inaccuracies would be transferred to (and even magnified in) the annotations of the high-level annotation tool. Therefore, it would be quite useful to find a way to (i) correct or, at least, reduce the errors and the inaccuracies of lower-level linguistic tools; (ii) unify the annotation schemas of different linguistic annotation tools or, more generally speaking, make these tools (as well as their annotations) interoperate. Clearly, solving (i) and (ii) should ease the automatic annotation of web pages by means of linguistic tools, and their transformation into Semantic Web pages (Berners-Lee, Hendler and Lassila, 2001). Yet, as stated above, (ii) is a type of interoperability problem. There again, ontologies (Gruber, 1993; Borst, 1997) have been successfully applied thus far to solve several interoperability problems. Hence, ontologies should help solve also the problems and limitations of linguistic annotation tools aforementioned. Thus, to summarise, the main aim of the present work was to combine somehow these separated approaches, mechanisms and tools for annotation from Linguistics and Ontological Engineering (and the Semantic Web) in a sort of hybrid (linguistic and ontological) annotation model, suitable for both areas. This hybrid (semantic) annotation model should (a) benefit from the advances, models, techniques, mechanisms and tools of these two areas; (b) minimise (and even solve, when possible) some of the problems found in each of them; and (c) be suitable for the Semantic Web. The concrete goals that helped attain this aim are presented in the following section. 2. GOALS OF THE PRESENT WORK As mentioned above, the main goal of this work was to specify a hybrid (that is, linguistically-motivated and ontology-based) model of annotation suitable for the Semantic Web (i.e. it had to produce a semantic annotation of web page contents). This entailed that the tags included in the annotations of the model had to (1) represent linguistic concepts (or linguistic categories, as they are termed in ISO/DCR (2008)), in order for this model to be linguistically-motivated; (2) be ontological terms (i.e., use an ontological vocabulary), in order for the model to be ontology-based; and (3) be structured (linked) as a collection of ontology-based triples, as in the usual Semantic Web languages (namely RDF(S) and OWL), in order for the model to be considered suitable for the Semantic Web. Besides, to be useful for the Semantic Web, this model should provide a way to automate the annotation of web pages. As for the present work, this requirement involved reusing the linguistic annotation tools purchased by the OEG research group (http://www.oeg-upm.net), but solving beforehand (or, at least, minimising) some of their limitations. Therefore, this model had to minimise these limitations by means of the integration of several linguistic annotation tools into a common architecture. Since this integration required the interoperation of tools and their annotations, ontologies were proposed as the main technological component to make them effectively interoperate. From the very beginning, it seemed that the formalisation of the elements and the knowledge underlying linguistic annotations within an appropriate set of ontologies would be a great step forward towards the formulation of such a model (henceforth referred to as OntoTag). Obviously, first, to combine the results of the linguistic annotation tools that operated at the same level, their annotation schemas had to be unified (or, preferably, standardised) in advance. This entailed the unification (id. standardisation) of their tags (both their representation and their meaning), and their format or syntax. Second, to merge the results of the linguistic annotation tools operating at different levels, their respective annotation schemas had to be (a) made interoperable and (b) integrated. And third, in order for the resulting annotations to suit the Semantic Web, they had to be specified by means of an ontology-based vocabulary, and structured by means of ontology-based triples, as hinted above. Therefore, a new annotation scheme had to be devised, based both on ontologies and on this type of triples, which allowed for the combination and the integration of the annotations of any set of linguistic annotation tools. This annotation scheme was considered a fundamental part of the model proposed here, and its development was, accordingly, another major objective of the present work. All these goals, aims and objectives could be re-stated more clearly as follows: Goal 1: Development of a set of ontologies for the formalisation of the linguistic knowledge relating linguistic annotation. Sub-goal 1.1: Ontological formalisation of the EAGLES (1996a; 1996b) de facto standards for morphosyntactic and syntactic annotation, in a way that helps respect the triple structure recommended for annotations in these works (which is isomorphic to the triple structures used in the context of the Semantic Web). Sub-goal 1.2: Incorporation into this preliminary ontological formalisation of other existing standards and standard proposals relating the levels mentioned above, such as those currently under development within ISO/TC 37 (the ISO Technical Committee dealing with Terminology, which deals also with linguistic resources and annotations). Sub-goal 1.3: Generalisation and extension of the recommendations in EAGLES (1996a; 1996b) and ISO/TC 37 to the semantic level, for which no ISO/TC 37 standards have been developed yet. Sub-goal 1.4: Ontological formalisation of the generalisations and/or extensions obtained in the previous sub-goal as generalisations and/or extensions of the corresponding ontology (or ontologies). Sub-goal 1.5: Ontological formalisation of the knowledge required to link, combine and unite the knowledge represented in the previously developed ontology (or ontologies). Goal 2: Development of OntoTag’s annotation scheme, a standard-based abstract scheme for the hybrid (linguistically-motivated and ontological-based) annotation of texts. Sub-goal 2.1: Development of the standard-based morphosyntactic annotation level of OntoTag’s scheme. This level should include, and possibly extend, the recommendations of EAGLES (1996a) and also the recommendations included in the ISO/MAF (2008) standard draft. Sub-goal 2.2: Development of the standard-based syntactic annotation level of the hybrid abstract scheme. This level should include, and possibly extend, the recommendations of EAGLES (1996b) and the ISO/SynAF (2010) standard draft. Sub-goal 2.3: Development of the standard-based semantic annotation level of OntoTag’s (abstract) scheme. Sub-goal 2.4: Development of the mechanisms for a convenient integration of the three annotation levels already mentioned. These mechanisms should take into account the recommendations included in the ISO/LAF (2009) standard draft. Goal 3: Design of OntoTag’s (abstract) annotation architecture, an abstract architecture for the hybrid (semantic) annotation of texts (i) that facilitates the integration and interoperation of different linguistic annotation tools, and (ii) whose results comply with OntoTag’s annotation scheme. Sub-goal 3.1: Specification of the decanting processes that allow for the classification and separation, according to their corresponding levels, of the results of the linguistic tools annotating at several different levels. Sub-goal 3.2: Specification of the standardisation processes that allow (a) complying with the standardisation requirements of OntoTag’s annotation scheme, as well as (b) combining the results of those linguistic tools that share some level of annotation. Sub-goal 3.3: Specification of the merging processes that allow for the combination of the output annotations and the interoperation of those linguistic tools that share some level of annotation. Sub-goal 3.4: Specification of the merge processes that allow for the integration of the results and the interoperation of those tools performing their annotations at different levels. Goal 4: Generation of OntoTagger’s schema, a concrete instance of OntoTag’s abstract scheme for a concrete set of linguistic annotations. These linguistic annotations result from the tools and the resources available in the research group, namely • Bitext’s DataLexica (http://www.bitext.com/EN/datalexica.asp), • LACELL’s (POS) tagger (http://www.um.es/grupos/grupo-lacell/quees.php), • Connexor’s FDG (http://www.connexor.eu/technology/machinese/glossary/fdg/), and • EuroWordNet (Vossen et al., 1998). This schema should help evaluate OntoTag’s underlying hypotheses, stated below. Consequently, it should implement, at least, those levels of the abstract scheme dealing with the annotations of the set of tools considered in this implementation. This includes the morphosyntactic, the syntactic and the semantic levels. Goal 5: Implementation of OntoTagger’s configuration, a concrete instance of OntoTag’s abstract architecture for this set of linguistic tools and annotations. This configuration (1) had to use the schema generated in the previous goal; and (2) should help support or refute the hypotheses of this work as well (see the next section). Sub-goal 5.1: Implementation of the decanting processes that facilitate the classification and separation of the results of those linguistic resources that provide annotations at several different levels (on the one hand, LACELL’s tagger operates at the morphosyntactic level and, minimally, also at the semantic level; on the other hand, FDG operates at the morphosyntactic and the syntactic levels and, minimally, at the semantic level as well). Sub-goal 5.2: Implementation of the standardisation processes that allow (i) specifying the results of those linguistic tools that share some level of annotation according to the requirements of OntoTagger’s schema, as well as (ii) combining these shared level results. In particular, all the tools selected perform morphosyntactic annotations and they had to be conveniently combined by means of these processes. Sub-goal 5.3: Implementation of the merging processes that allow for the combination (and possibly the improvement) of the annotations and the interoperation of the tools that share some level of annotation (in particular, those relating the morphosyntactic level, as in the previous sub-goal). Sub-goal 5.4: Implementation of the merging processes that allow for the integration of the different standardised and combined annotations aforementioned, relating all the levels considered. Sub-goal 5.5: Improvement of the semantic level of this configuration by adding a named entity recognition, (sub-)classification and annotation subsystem, which also uses the named entities annotated to populate a domain ontology, in order to provide a concrete application of the present work in the two areas involved (the Semantic Web and Corpus Linguistics). 3. MAIN RESULTS: ASSESSMENT OF ONTOTAG’S UNDERLYING HYPOTHESES The model developed in the present thesis tries to shed some light on (i) whether linguistic annotation tools can effectively interoperate; (ii) whether their results can be combined and integrated; and, if they can, (iii) how they can, respectively, interoperate and be combined and integrated. Accordingly, several hypotheses had to be supported (or rejected) by the development of the OntoTag model and OntoTagger (its implementation). The hypotheses underlying OntoTag are surveyed below. Only one of the hypotheses (H.6) was rejected; the other five could be confirmed. H.1 The annotations of different levels (or layers) can be integrated into a sort of overall, comprehensive, multilayer and multilevel annotation, so that their elements can complement and refer to each other. • CONFIRMED by the development of: o OntoTag’s annotation scheme, o OntoTag’s annotation architecture, o OntoTagger’s (XML, RDF, OWL) annotation schemas, o OntoTagger’s configuration. H.2 Tool-dependent annotations can be mapped onto a sort of tool-independent annotations and, thus, can be standardised. • CONFIRMED by means of the standardisation phase incorporated into OntoTag and OntoTagger for the annotations yielded by the tools. H.3 Standardisation should ease: H.3.1: The interoperation of linguistic tools. H.3.2: The comparison, combination (at the same level and layer) and integration (at different levels or layers) of annotations. • H.3 was CONFIRMED by means of the development of OntoTagger’s ontology-based configuration: o Interoperation, comparison, combination and integration of the annotations of three different linguistic tools (Connexor’s FDG, Bitext’s DataLexica and LACELL’s tagger); o Integration of EuroWordNet-based, domain-ontology-based and named entity annotations at the semantic level. o Integration of morphosyntactic, syntactic and semantic annotations. H.4 Ontologies and Semantic Web technologies (can) play a crucial role in the standardisation of linguistic annotations, by providing consensual vocabularies and standardised formats for annotation (e.g., RDF triples). • CONFIRMED by means of the development of OntoTagger’s RDF-triple-based annotation schemas. H.5 The rate of errors introduced by a linguistic tool at a given level, when annotating, can be reduced automatically by contrasting and combining its results with the ones coming from other tools, operating at the same level. However, these other tools might be built following a different technological (stochastic vs. rule-based, for example) or theoretical (dependency vs. HPS-grammar-based, for instance) approach. • CONFIRMED by the results yielded by the evaluation of OntoTagger. H.6 Each linguistic level can be managed and annotated independently. • REJECTED: OntoTagger’s experiments and the dependencies observed among the morphosyntactic annotations, and between them and the syntactic annotations. In fact, Hypothesis H.6 was already rejected when OntoTag’s ontologies were developed. We observed then that several linguistic units stand on an interface between levels, belonging thereby to both of them (such as morphosyntactic units, which belong to both the morphological level and the syntactic level). Therefore, the annotations of these levels overlap and cannot be handled independently when merged into a unique multileveled annotation. 4. OTHER MAIN RESULTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS First, interoperability is a hot topic for both the linguistic annotation community and the whole Computer Science field. The specification (and implementation) of OntoTag’s architecture for the combination and integration of linguistic (annotation) tools and annotations by means of ontologies shows a way to make these different linguistic annotation tools and annotations interoperate in practice. Second, as mentioned above, the elements involved in linguistic annotation were formalised in a set (or network) of ontologies (OntoTag’s linguistic ontologies). • On the one hand, OntoTag’s network of ontologies consists of − The Linguistic Unit Ontology (LUO), which includes a mostly hierarchical formalisation of the different types of linguistic elements (i.e., units) identifiable in a written text; − The Linguistic Attribute Ontology (LAO), which includes also a mostly hierarchical formalisation of the different types of features that characterise the linguistic units included in the LUO; − The Linguistic Value Ontology (LVO), which includes the corresponding formalisation of the different values that the attributes in the LAO can take; − The OIO (OntoTag’s Integration Ontology), which  Includes the knowledge required to link, combine and unite the knowledge represented in the LUO, the LAO and the LVO;  Can be viewed as a knowledge representation ontology that describes the most elementary vocabulary used in the area of annotation. • On the other hand, OntoTag’s ontologies incorporate the knowledge included in the different standards and recommendations for linguistic annotation released so far, such as those developed within the EAGLES and the SIMPLE European projects or by the ISO/TC 37 committee: − As far as morphosyntactic annotations are concerned, OntoTag’s ontologies formalise the terms in the EAGLES (1996a) recommendations and their corresponding terms within the ISO Morphosyntactic Annotation Framework (ISO/MAF, 2008) standard; − As for syntactic annotations, OntoTag’s ontologies incorporate the terms in the EAGLES (1996b) recommendations and their corresponding terms within the ISO Syntactic Annotation Framework (ISO/SynAF, 2010) standard draft; − Regarding semantic annotations, OntoTag’s ontologies generalise and extend the recommendations in EAGLES (1996a; 1996b) and, since no stable standards or standard drafts have been released for semantic annotation by ISO/TC 37 yet, they incorporate the terms in SIMPLE (2000) instead; − The terms coming from all these recommendations and standards were supplemented by those within the ISO Data Category Registry (ISO/DCR, 2008) and also of the ISO Linguistic Annotation Framework (ISO/LAF, 2009) standard draft when developing OntoTag’s ontologies. Third, we showed that the combination of the results of tools annotating at the same level can yield better results (both in precision and in recall) than each tool separately. In particular, 1. OntoTagger clearly outperformed two of the tools integrated into its configuration, namely DataLexica and FDG in all the combination sub-phases in which they overlapped (i.e. POS tagging, lemma annotation and morphological feature annotation). As far as the remaining tool is concerned, i.e. LACELL’s tagger, it was also outperformed by OntoTagger in POS tagging and lemma annotation, and it did not behave better than OntoTagger in the morphological feature annotation layer. 2. As an immediate result, this implies that a) This type of combination architecture configurations can be applied in order to improve significantly the accuracy of linguistic annotations; and b) Concerning the morphosyntactic level, this could be regarded as a way of constructing more robust and more accurate POS tagging systems. Fourth, Semantic Web annotations are usually performed by humans or else by machine learning systems. Both of them leave much to be desired: the former, with respect to their annotation rate; the latter, with respect to their (average) precision and recall. In this work, we showed how linguistic tools can be wrapped in order to annotate automatically Semantic Web pages using ontologies. This entails their fast, robust and accurate semantic annotation. As a way of example, as mentioned in Sub-goal 5.5, we developed a particular OntoTagger module for the recognition, classification and labelling of named entities, according to the MUC and ACE tagsets (Chinchor, 1997; Doddington et al., 2004). These tagsets were further specified by means of a domain ontology, namely the Cinema Named Entities Ontology (CNEO). This module was applied to the automatic annotation of ten different web pages containing cinema reviews (that is, around 5000 words). In addition, the named entities annotated with this module were also labelled as instances (or individuals) of the classes included in the CNEO and, then, were used to populate this domain ontology. • The statistical results obtained from the evaluation of this particular module of OntoTagger can be summarised as follows. On the one hand, as far as recall (R) is concerned, (R.1) the lowest value was 76,40% (for file 7); (R.2) the highest value was 97, 50% (for file 3); and (R.3) the average value was 88,73%. On the other hand, as far as the precision rate (P) is concerned, (P.1) its minimum was 93,75% (for file 4); (R.2) its maximum was 100% (for files 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10); and (R.3) its average value was 98,99%. • These results, which apply to the tasks of named entity annotation and ontology population, are extraordinary good for both of them. They can be explained on the basis of the high accuracy of the annotations provided by OntoTagger at the lower levels (mainly at the morphosyntactic level). However, they should be conveniently qualified, since they might be too domain- and/or language-dependent. It should be further experimented how our approach works in a different domain or a different language, such as French, English, or German. • In any case, the results of this application of Human Language Technologies to Ontology Population (and, accordingly, to Ontological Engineering) seem very promising and encouraging in order for these two areas to collaborate and complement each other in the area of semantic annotation. Fifth, as shown in the State of the Art of this work, there are different approaches and models for the semantic annotation of texts, but all of them focus on a particular view of the semantic level. Clearly, all these approaches and models should be integrated in order to bear a coherent and joint semantic annotation level. OntoTag shows how (i) these semantic annotation layers could be integrated together; and (ii) they could be integrated with the annotations associated to other annotation levels. Sixth, we identified some recommendations, best practices and lessons learned for annotation standardisation, interoperation and merge. They show how standardisation (via ontologies, in this case) enables the combination, integration and interoperation of different linguistic tools and their annotations into a multilayered (or multileveled) linguistic annotation, which is one of the hot topics in the area of Linguistic Annotation. And last but not least, OntoTag’s annotation scheme and OntoTagger’s annotation schemas show a way to formalise and annotate coherently and uniformly the different units and features associated to the different levels and layers of linguistic annotation. This is a great scientific step ahead towards the global standardisation of this area, which is the aim of ISO/TC 37 (in particular, Subcommittee 4, dealing with the standardisation of linguistic annotations and resources).

Therapeutic metaphors in engineering: how to cure a building structure

Cognitive linguistics have conscientiously pointed out the pervasiveness of conceptual mappings, particularly as conceptual blending and integration, that underlie language and that are unconsciously used in everyday speech (Fauconnier 1997, Fauconnier & Turner 2002; Rohrer 2007; Grady, Oakley & Coulson 1999). Moreover, as a further development of this work, there is a growing interest in research devoted to the conceptual mappings that make up specialized technical disciplines. Lakoff & Núñez 2000, for example, have produced a major breakthrough on the understanding of concepts in mathematics, through conceptual metaphor and as a result not of purely abstract concepts but rather of embodiment. On the engineering and architecture front, analyses on the use of metaphor, blending and categorization in English and Spanish have likewise appeared in recent times (Úbeda 2001, Roldán 1999, Caballero 2003a, 2003b, Roldán & Ubeda 2006, Roldán & Protasenia 2007). The present paper seeks to show a number of significant conceptual mappings underlying the language of architecture and civil engineering that seem to shape the way engineers and architects communicate. In order to work with a significant segment of linguistic expressions in this field, a corpus taken from a widely used technical Spanish engineering journal article was collected and analysed. The examination of the data obtained indicates that many tokens make a direct reference to therapeutic conceptual mappings, highlighting medical domains such as diagnosing,treating and curing. Hence, the paper illustrates how this notion is instantiated by the corresponding bodily conceptual integration. In addition, we wish to underline the function of visual metaphors in the world of modern architecture by evoking parts of human or animal anatomy, and how this is visibly noticeable in contemporary buildings and public works structures.

Reappraising contemporary theories of subcortical participation in language: Proposing an interhemispheric regulatory function for the subthalamic nucleus (STN) in the mediation of high-level linguistic processes

Apropos the basal ganglia, the dominant striatum and globus pallidus internus (GPi) have been hypothesised to represent integral components of subcortical language circuitry. Working subcortical language theories, however, have failed thus far to consider a role for the STN in the mediation of linguistic processes, a structure recently defined as the driving force of basal ganglia output. The aim of this research was to investigate the impact of surgically induced functional inhibition of the STN upon linguistic abilities, within the context of established models of basal ganglia participation in language. Two males with surgically induced 'lesions' of the dominant and non-dominant dorsolateral STN, aimed at relieving Parkinsonian motor symptoms, served as experimental subjects. General and high-level language profiles were compiled for each subject up to 1 month prior to and 3 months following neurosurgery, within the drug-on state (i.e., when optimally medicated). Comparable post-operative alterations in linguistic performance were observed subsequent to surgically induced functional inhibition of the left and right STN. More specifically, higher proportions of reliable decline as opposed to improvement in post-operative performance were demonstrated by both subjects on complex language tasks, hypothesised to entail the interplay of cognitive-linguistic processes. The outcomes of the current research challenge unilateralised models of functional basal ganglia organisation with the proposal of a potential interhemispheric regulatory function for the STN in the mediation of high-level linguistic processes.

COGNITIVE AND LINGUISTIC FACTORS OF READING ARABIC: THE ROLE OF MORPHOLOGICAL AWARENESS IN READING

Scientific reading research has produced substantial evidence linking specific reading components to a range of constructs including phonological awareness (PA), morphological awareness, orthographic processing (OP), rapid automatized naming, working memory and vocabulary. There is a paucity of research on Arabic, although 420 million people around the world (Gordon, 2005) speak Arabic. As a Semitic language, Arabic differs in many ways from Indo-European languages. Over the past three decades, literacy research has begun to elucidate the importance of morphological awareness (MA) in reading. Morphology is a salient aspect of Arabic word structure. This study was designed to (a) examine the dimensions underlying MA in Arabic; (b) determine how well MA predicts reading; (c) investigate the role of the standard predictors in different reading outcomes; and (d) investigate the construct of reading in Arabic. This study was undertaken in two phases. In Phase I, 10 MA measures and two reading measures were developed, and tested in a sample of 102 Grade 3 Arabic-speaking children. Factor analysis of the 10 MA tasks yielded one predominant factor supporting the construct validity of MA in Arabic. Hierarchical regression analyses, controlling for age and gender, indicated that the MA factor solution accounted for 41– 43% of the variance in reading. In Phase II, the widely studied predictor measures were developed for PA and OP in addition to one additional measure of MA (root awareness), and three reading measures In Phase II, all measures were administered to another sample of 201 Grade 3 Arabic-speaking children. The construct of reading in Arabic was examined using factor analysis. The joint and unique effects of all standard predictors were examined using different sets of hierarchical regression analyses. Results of Phase II showed that: (a) all five reading measures loaded on one factor; (b) MA consistently accounted for unique variance in reading, particularly in comprehension, above and beyond the standard predictors; and (c) the standard predictors had differential contributions. These findings underscore the contribution of MA to all components of Arabic reading. The need for more emphasis on including morphology in Arabic reading instruction and assessment is discussed.

The principle of least effort within the hierarchy of linguistic preferences: external evidence from English

The thesis is an investigation of the principle of least effort (Zipf 1949 [1972]). The principle is simple (all effort should be least) and universal (it governs the totality of human behavior). Since the principle is also functional, the thesis adopts a functional theory of language as its theoretical framework, i.e. Natural Linguistics. The explanatory system of Natural Linguistics posits that higher principles govern preferences, which, in turn, manifest themselves as concrete, specific processes in a given language. Therefore, the thesis’ aim is to investigate the principle of least effort on the basis of external evidence from English. The investigation falls into the three following strands: the investigation of the principle itself, the investigation of its application in articulatory effort and the investigation of its application in phonological processes. The structure of the thesis reflects the division of its broad aims. The first part of the thesis presents its theoretical background (Chapter One and Chapter Two), the second part of the thesis deals with application of least effort in articulatory effort (Chapter Three and Chapter Four), whereas the third part discusses the principle of least effort in phonological processes (Chapter Five and Chapter Six). Chapter One serves as an introduction, examining various aspects of the principle of least effort such as its history, literature, operation and motivation. It overviews various names which denote least effort, explains the origins of the principle and reviews the literature devoted to the principle of least effort in a chronological order. The chapter also discusses the nature and operation of the principle, providing numerous examples of the principle at work. It emphasizes the universal character of the principle from the linguistic field (low-level phonetic processes and language universals) and the non-linguistic ones (physics, biology, psychology and cognitive sciences), proving that the principle governs human behavior and choices. Chapter Two provides the theoretical background of the thesis in terms of its theoretical framework and discusses the terms used in the thesis’ title, i.e. hierarchy and preference. It justifies the selection of Natural Linguistics as the thesis’ theoretical framework by outlining its major assumptions and demonstrating its explanatory power. As far as the concepts of hierarchy and preference are concerned, the chapter provides their definitions and reviews their various understandings via decision theories and linguistic preference-based theories. Since the thesis investigates the principle of least effort in language and speech, Chapter Three considers the articulatory aspect of effort. It reviews the notion of easy and difficult sounds and discusses the concept of articulatory effort, overviewing its literature as well as various understandings in a chronological fashion. The chapter also presents the concept of articulatory gestures within the framework of Articulatory Phonology. The thesis’ aim is to investigate the principle of least effort on the basis of external evidence, therefore Chapters Four and Six provide evidence in terms of three experiments, text message studies (Chapter Four) and phonological processes in English (Chapter Six). Chapter Four contains evidence for the principle of least effort in articulation on the basis of experiments. It describes the experiments in terms of their predictions and methodology. In particular, it discusses the adopted measure of effort established by means of the effort parameters as well as their status. The statistical methods of the experiments are also clarified. The chapter reports on the results of the experiments, presenting them in a graphical way and discusses their relation to the tested predictions. Chapter Four establishes a hierarchy of speakers’ preferences with reference to articulatory effort (Figures 30, 31). The thesis investigates the principle of least effort in phonological processes, thus Chapter Five is devoted to the discussion of phonological processes in Natural Phonology. The chapter explains the general nature and motivation of processes as well as the development of processes in child language. It also discusses the organization of processes in terms of their typology as well as the order in which processes apply. The chapter characterizes the semantic properties of processes and overviews Luschützky’s (1997) contribution to NP with respect to processes in terms of their typology and incorporation of articulatory gestures in the concept of a process. Chapter Six investigates phonological processes. In particular, it identifies the issues of lenition/fortition definition and process typology by presenting the current approaches to process definitions and their typology. Since the chapter concludes that no coherent definition of lenition/fortition exists, it develops alternative lenition/fortition definitions. The chapter also revises the typology of phonological processes under effort management, which is an extended version of the principle of least effort. Chapter Seven concludes the thesis with a list of the concepts discussed in the thesis, enumerates the proposals made by the thesis in discussing the concepts and presents some questions for future research which have emerged in the course of investigation. The chapter also specifies the extent to which the investigation of the principle of least effort is a meaningful contribution to phonology.

The functional structure of the sentence: evidence from non-finite clauses

Non-finite clauses are sentential constituents with a verbal head that lacks a morphological specification for tense and agreement. In this paper I contend that these clauses are defective not only morphologically but also syntactically, in the sense that they all lack some of the functional categories that make up a full sentence. In particular I argue that to-infinitive clauses, gerund(ive) clauses and participial clauses differ among themselves, and with respect to other subordinate clauses, in the degree of structural defectiveness they display, which goes from the almost complete functional structure of the infinitive to the maximal degree of syntactic truncation of participial clauses (analyzed here as verbal small clauses). I also show the significant parallelism that exists in this respect between English and Spanish non-finite clauses, pointing to the implication this may have for a cross-linguistic approach to the cartography of syntactic structures.

EXPLICIT WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND LANGUAGE APTITUDE IN SLA: IMPLICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF LINGUISTIC ACCURACY

Most second language researchers agree that there is a role for corrective feedback in second language writing classes. However, many unanswered questions remain concerning which linguistic features to target and the type and amount of feedback to offer. This study examined two new pieces of writing by 151 learners of English as a Second Language (ESL), in order to investigate the effect of direct and metalinguistic written feedback on errors with the simple past tense, the present perfect tense, dropped pronouns, and pronominal duplication. This inquiry also considered the extent to which learner differences in language-analytic ability (LAA), as measured by the LLAMA F, mediated the effects of these two types of explicit written corrective feedback. Learners in the feedback groups were provided with corrective feedback on two essays, after which learners in all three groups completed two additional writing tasks to determine whether or not the provision of corrective feedback led to greater gains in accuracy compared to no feedback. Both treatment groups, direct and metalinguistic, performed better than the comparison group on new pieces of writing immediately following the treatment sessions, yet direct feedback was more durable than metalinguistic feedback for one structure, the simple past tense. Participants with greater LAA proved more likely to achieve gains in the direct feedback group than in the metalinguistic group, whereas learners with lower LAA benefited more from metalinguistic feedback. Overall, the findings of the present study confirm the results of prior studies that have found a positive role for written corrective feedback in instructed second language acquisition.

LINGUISTIC VARIATION IN THE PORTUGUESE IMMIGRANT PRESS

In this study, we discuss the complex social and linguistic experience of Portuguese immigrant, at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. The empirical patterns of clitic placement were described and analyzed in texts taken from Portuguese immigrant press. Under this approach, the social conditions of language production and reproduction are taken into account; in other words, we focus on the structure of the subjective and objective relations that underlie the speakers’ choices.

New dimeric supramolecular structure of mixed (phthalocyaninato)(porphyrinato)-europium(III) sandwiches : preparation and spectroscopic characteristics

The mixed double-decker Eu\[Pc(15C5)4](TPP) (1) was obtained by base-catalysed tetramerisation of 4,5-dicyanobenzo-15-crown-5 using the half-sandwich complex Eu(TPP)(acac) (acac = acetylacetonate), generated in situ, as the template. For comparative studies, the mixed triple-decker complexes Eu2\[Pc(15C5)4](TPP)2 (2) and Eu2\[Pc(15C5)4]2(TPP) (3) were also synthesised by the raise-by-one-story method. These mixed ring sandwich complexes were characterised by various spectroscopic methods. Up to four one-electron oxidations and two one-electron reductions were revealed by cyclic voltammetry (CV) and differential pulse voltammetry (DPV). As shown by electronic absorption and infrared spectroscopy, supramolecular dimers (SM1 and SM3) were formed from the corresponding double-decker 1 and triple-decker 3 in the presence of potassium ions in MeOH/CHCl3.