Linguistic Element - an overview (2022)


Y. Huang, in , 2001

Anaphora can be defined as a relation between two linguistic elements, in which the interpretation of one (called an anaphor) is in some way determined by the interpretation of the other (called an antecedent). It can be intrasentential, that is, when the anaphor and its antecedent occur within a single sentence. It can also be discoursal, that is, when the anaphor and its antecedent cross sentence boundaries. This essay presents typologies of anaphora on the basis of syntactic categories, truth-conditions, and reference-tracking systems. It also provides a critical survey of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic approaches to intrasentential anaphora, and of the topic continuity/distance-interference, hierarchy, cognitive, and pragmatic models of discourse anaphora.

View chapterPurchase book

Read full chapter



S.R. Anderson, in , 2001

1.2 Phonology as a System of Rules and Representations

A basic insight in the development of Generative Phonology was the proposal that it is not only the representation of linguistic elements in terms of basic contrasts that matters: an adequate theory must characterize what a speaker knows about the sound system of the language, and that includes regularities of variation and alternation as well as inventories of basic elements. Combining these two aspects of phonological knowledge required the explicit recognition of a system of rules (expressions of regular patterns of contrast and variation in sound shape) in addition to the theory of representations. Developing an adequate theory of phonological rules, in turn, necessitated a notion of phonological representation that was related to surface phonetic reality in a much more complex and indirect way than the phonemic representations of structuralist linguistics. The central problems of phonological theory came to be articulated in terms of the theory of rules, their nature, and their interaction, and the underlying phonological representations that need to be posited in order to allow them to be expressed in their full generality.

View chapterPurchase book

Read full chapter


Constituent Structure: Syntactic

M.R. Baltin, in , 2001

The same considerations that were illustrated above for noun phrases lead us to establish the other phrasal categories, such as verb phrases, adjective phrases, and prepositional phrases. There are a variety of processes that operate in grammar, which can move or delete linguistic elements. An example of movement is given in (7), and an example of deletion is given in (8):


Though he may laugh, it won't matter.


Laugh though he may, it won't matter.


John laughed, and Bill laughed as well.


John laughed, and Bill did_____as well.

View chapterPurchase book

Read full chapter


Lexical Semantics

D.A. Cruse, in , 2001

2.2 Holistic/Contextual Approaches

An atomistic approach to word meaning is predicated on the assumption that the meaning of a word can in principle be specified in isolation, without taking into account the meanings of other words in the language's vocabulary. Holistic approaches, on the other hand, maintain that words do not have meaning in isolation, but only in relation to the rest of the vocabulary.

A typical holistic approach is that of Lyons (1963, 1968, 1977), who espouses and develops the basic Saussurean notion that the ‘value’ of any linguistic element, whether phonological, syntactic or semantic, is essentially contrastive, that is to say, its identity is constituted by its difference from other elements with which it potentially contrasts. So, for instance, the essence of the meaning of dog is that it is ‘not-cat,’ ‘not-wolf,’ ‘not-horse,’ and so on. An important consequence of this is that it is not possible to learn the meaning of any word in isolation from other members of its contrast set; or, to put it another way, it is not enough to be able, for instance, to assign the label dog to any canine animal—one must also know to withhold the label from nondogs, such as foxes, wolves and so on. Lyons expounds an extended version of this, making it truly holistic, and defines the sense of a word as its position in a network of sense relations, direct or indirect, with all other items in the vocabulary. This network includes not only contrastive relations like that between dog and cat, but also relations of inclusion like that between animal and dog, and dog and collie.

(Video) Understanding the Finite Element Method

View chapterPurchase book

Language and Philosophy

P.A.M. Seuren, in , 2001

3 Formal Semantics

Since Aristotle, philosophers and linguists have striven to define the logical structure of sentences, i.e., the translation of sentences into some logically analytical language. In modern times this has been the Language of Predicate Calculus (LPC) devised by Russell, with its quantifiers and variables. These efforts are motivated by the wish to specify as exactly as possible under which conditions the propositions expressed by sentences are true or false. Logic is taken to provide such a specification; language is not; hence the desire to relate the latter to the former by translation.

The most explicit way of achieving this is formal or model-theoretic semantics, which defines how linguistic elements are to be translated into LPC, and how, for any given ‘world,’ LPC expressions are to be valued true or false. By generalizing over all possible ‘worlds,’ the truth conditions of sentences should, in principle, be statable, including those that involve intensional contexts. Clauses under verbs of thought are now taken to refer not to thoughts but to the sets of those possible worlds in which they are true. Sophisticated formal machineries should then account for the phenomena.

This program was initiated by Montague (1973). Although it seemed very promising during its first years, it has met with serious difficulties. It seems in principle unable to grasp certain cognitively determined aspects of lexical meaning (e.g., why can a speed bump be called Schwelle in German, but not ‘threshold’ in English?). More seriously, it fails to solve the problem of intensional contexts. Since a clause C containing a contradiction is false in all possible worlds, it should be synonymous with any other contradictory clause D. Yet ‘John believes that not all circles are round’ is not synonymous with ‘John believes that not all bachelors are unmarried,’ even though both embedded clauses are necessarily false and hence refer to the empty set of possible worlds; likewise for necessarily true clauses, which refer to the set of all possible worlds. This problem has so far proved unsolvable in the context of model-theoretic semantics (Dowty et al. 1981, pp. 170–5), for which reason many semanticists are now looking for a more cognitively oriented semantic theory.

View chapterPurchase book

Read full chapter


Case study

Nikolai Mansourov, Djenana Campara, in System Assurance, 2011

12.5.2 Enhancing the baseline model with the system architecture facts

The baseline system model, consisting of the Code views, Data views, User Interface views, and Platform views, must be further enhanced to match the level of granularity at which the assurance case is formulated and at which most of the cybersecurity knowledge exists. Within the framework of the standard protocol for exchanging system facts, this is done by adding the corresponding elements of the KDM Abstraction Layer into the integrated system model and establishing the vertical traceability links from the new elements to the existing low-level elements of the baseline system model. The system fact discovery phase includes five steps: adding structure elements, adding functional elements, identifying entry points, adding linguistic elements, and adding rule elements. Enhanced system facts use KDM Structure views, KDM linguistic views, KDM behavior views, and KDM event views. Several examples have already been provided in Chapter 11, when the corresponding KDM views were presented.

System structural elements (subsystems, architectural layers, components, etc.) are identified in the CONOPS document and more detailed architecture description documents. There is a growing trend for system engineering projects to use machine-readable architecture repositories (this is one of the reasons we used DoDAF as an example in Chapter 4). Machine-readable architecture artifacts, such as SysML models, can be imported into the integrated system model and then linked with the baseline facts. In Chapter 8 this import was described as the concrete knowledge discovery protocol. Note, that a SysML or a UML architecture model, while machine-readable, is not fact-oriented, as its foundation is a class with properties and attributes. In order to import information from a SysML or a UML model into a fact-based repository, the corresponding vocabulary of noun and verb concepts must be identified, as described in Chapter 4, and then the properties of classes must be decomposed into elementary verb concepts. The noun concepts of the fact-oriented approach do not have any attributes. Alternatively, high-level structure components can be discovered in the code by a bottom-up process—modeling in reverse—where the analyst reviews the system using the baseline views, rationalizes the organization of elements, and identifies high-level subsystems. This way, the implementations of subsystems are identified first, the new KDM elements are entered second, and the traceability links are established last. When existing machine-readable architecture elements are imported, the new KDM elements are created first, then the analyst identifies their implementations and creates traceability links. The latter is a more efficient process. On the other hand, there are various elements of guidance to identification of the high-level structure in the Inventory and Code views themselves.

Similar notes apply to the functional elements and linguistic elements. SBVR vocabulary can be imported into the integrated system model. In particular, the key terms of the SBVR vocabulary, the ones corresponding to the operational conceptual schema subset of the full linguistic model, are represented as KDM TermUnit and FactUnit elements and connected to the implementation elements by the vertical traceability links. The resulting facts are illustrated in Chapter 11, in the section on Linguistic views.

Let's first look at an example of how a structure model, like the one presented in Chapter 11, in the section on the Structure viewpoint, can be discovered bottom-up by using the baseline model. To begin with, the Code view already contains initial information about the structure of the system, which makes review and manipulation of the Code view very efficient, but which may or may not be relevant to the logical architecture of the system. We are talking about the physical organization of files into directories and packages. The KDM Code view captures these facts. You have already noticed that the KDM views involve many facts with the designator “contains” and “is implemented by.” These facts define the hierarchies of system elements. For example, Figure 3 illustrates what the top elements of the Code view from the baseline model for Clicks2Bricks look like. The nodes at the diagram are KDM Package elements, corresponding to the top-level Java packages. The nodes with the names “ENV:SRC” and “ENV:SNK” represent the rest of the system (the environment of the current diagram).

Linguistic Element - an overview (1)

Figure 3. A view of the top-level Java packages in Clicks2Bricks

The entire hierarchy can be reviewed one level at a time (see Figure 4). Here, the “org” package contains two packages: “apache” and “savarese”, and the “savarese” package contains individual classes (the class diagram at the third level of the hierarchy is presented in Chapter 11; see the section on the Code viewpoint).

Linguistic Element - an overview (2)

Figure 4. The Hierarchy of Java packages in Clicks2Bricks

So, even when the analyst is working bottom-up to discover high-level elements of software systems, he works with a manageable hierarchically organized model.

One can make a query to the KDM fact repository to select all leaf packages (the ones that do not contain further packages) and show them in one view. This view is illustrated in Figure 5. Each node represents a leaf package (containing no further packages). The four highlighted nodes are application packages.

Linguistic Element - an overview (3)

(Video) Semantics in Language: Lens through English Linguistics

Figure 5. A view of all leaf Java packages in Clicks2Bricks

This view strongly suggests that the Clicks2Bricks system uses a Model-View-Controller architecture, based on the names of the packages and the fabric of relationships to the platform packages, such as “net,” “apache,” “servlet,” “io,” and “sql.”

The hierarchy of the baseline Code view is defined by the “contains” facts, which identifies the single parent “defining” hierarchy of each Code element (e.g., a MethodUnit is contained in one and only one ClassUnit). On the other hand, the new view is an ArchitectureView element in a Structure view which uses “is implemented by” facts that are many-to-many relationships between different levels of granularity. As a result, the “barehttp” package can be linked to mutiple hierarchies. For the above illustration we have created a new Structure view called “All leaf packages” with a single ArchitectureView element with the name “package view.” The elements in the above diagram are “implementations” of the “package view.” Let's create another view called “application packages,” containing only application packages (see Figure 6).

Linguistic Element - an overview (4)

Figure 6. View of the application packages in Clicks2Bricks

The package “barehttp” is related to the new element “application packages” as “is implemented by” relationship (not visible at the diagram, and only available in the KDM fact base).

The next logical step is to create a Structure view with the Model, View, and Controller subsystems like the one illustrated in Chapter 11 in the section on the Structure viewpoint.

Relationships in the above views are the so-called KDM aggregated relationships. They do not correspond to separate verb concepts; instead, they are aggregations of the low-level relationships as follows. The relationship between the node “barehttp” and the node “servlets” represents all low-level relationships, where the source “is contained” in the “barehttp” node, and the target “is contained” in the “servlets” node. The “is implemented by” relationship also determines aggregated relationships, in the same way as “contains.” In other words, there are two unique locations in the entire code base of the Clicks2Bricks system, where the first location is in one of the elements (transitively) contained in the “barehttp” package and where the second location is in one of the elements (transitively) contained in the “servlets” package. A query to the KDM fact-based repository can list these locations by using the standard links to the source code. The two locations are illustrated below as fragments of source code, both in the class “HTTPSession,” one in the method “processServletRequest” and another one in the static initialization of class members (as illustrated at Figure 7).

Linguistic Element - an overview (5)

Figure 7. Aggregated relationships provide traceability links

KDM views support assurance analysis through the mechanism of “environment.” All KDM views are “closed” and contain information about the entire fact base in the following sense: Each KDM view is capable of showing the aggregated relationships to the nodes within the current view from the rest of the system (ENV:SRC) and from the nodes of the current view to the rest of the system (ENV:SNK). Thus, the above diagram supports the claim that “package servlets” is not used by any other package except the package “barehttp.” KDM has the following important property: not only an aggregated relationship in a KDM view is the evidence of a dependency between two elements, but also the absence of an aggregated relationship is the evidence of the lack of dependency between the two elements.

View chapterPurchase book

Read full chapter



Kenneth A. Rasinski, in Encyclopedia of Social Measurement, 2005


Survey research is a popular and powerful means by which to study people and organizations in society. It consists of a rich set of techniques used to obtain information about individual attitudes, values, behaviors, opinions, knowledge, and circumstances. Surveys are also used to study organizations and institutions, for example, assessing their culture, policies, and finances. This article discusses both of these uses of surveys but emphasizes surveys conducted on individuals. The goal of this article is to inform the consumer of survey information about survey techniques and their impact on the interpretation of results. Most of the discussion about individual-level surveys applies to interpretation of surveys about organizations.

A social survey is a standardized and systematic method for obtaining information about a population by using a questionnaire to measure elements sampled from that population. Standardization and systemization facilitate replication, which is a hallmark of the scientific method. Thus, surveys are an important tool in advancing social science. The sampling component—that is, the ability to study a sample and make projections to a population—makes the sample survey an efficient tool for studying the characteristics of populations. The questionnaire is the main method for extracting information, and careful questionnaire construction is important in order to obtain high-quality data. Social, cognitive, and linguistic elements are at play in questionnaire construction. The means for administering the questionnaire encompasses both the training of interviewers, who are the information collection agents, and the selection of a modality of the interview. Modalities include face-to-face administration, administration by telephone, mail and computerized self-administered questionnaires, and, recently, surveys via the Internet and the World Wide Web.

Most surveys involve the following steps, although not necessarily in the order presented. First, a population one wishes to study is determined and a list of the population elements, called a sample frame, is obtained. Second, a topic or topics of interest are determined. The first and second steps combined may be thought of as defining a research question (or set of questions). For example, studying the employment patterns of high school dropouts necessitates both selecting topics relevant to employment and obtaining a sample of high school dropouts. The third step in the survey process is designing a method for sampling elements from the population. The fourth step is designing a questionnaire that reflects the topical areas of interest. The fifth step is deciding on a modality of administration. The fourth and fifth steps are important to consider together because the mode of administration will affect the design of the questionnaire. The sixth step consists of training interviewers in the administration of the questionnaire (which is sometimes, but not always, necessary for self-administered surveys), and the seventh step involves devising a method for compiling and aggregating the survey information. The analysis of the information is the eighth step. This article focuses on the first six steps.

Before the steps are discussed in detail, it is worthwhile to examine the types of surveys. There are three general types of surveys. A cross-sectional survey represents a population at a given point in time. A well-known example of a national cross-sectional survey is the General Social Survey (GSS) conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. In the GSS, which has been conducted nearly every year on independent samples of Americans for the past 30 years, some questions appear in only 1 year, whereas others are repeated year after year. Repeating questions in cross-sectional surveys is useful for assessing trends in opinions, attitudes, values, knowledge, or behavior. When cross-sectional samples include the same items year after year, the entire set of surveys is called a repeated cross-section design. Trend data for repeated cross-section designs over an extended period represent a combination of change (or stability) in responses to the questions and in the population demographics.

A second type of survey is the longitudinal survey. In this type of survey, the same respondents are interviewed repeatedly over time. Some longitudinal surveys are of an age cohort; the age group is followed over time, sometimes for as long as 20 years. For example, the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth consists of a sample of the senior class of 1978. This group has been reinterviewed nearly every year since that time. Another type of longitudinal survey is the panel survey. An example of this is the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) conducted by the Institute for Survey Research at the University of Michigan. In this type of survey, a sample is selected and interviewed. Sample members are then reinterviewed, sometimes at fixed intervals and other times to track the effects of some important social event. The sample is not an age cohort but a cross section of the population at the time the panel was created. Some panel surveys consist of only two rounds of interviews. Others, like the PSID, have many rounds. More complicated designs include combinations of cross sections and panels.

View chapterPurchase book

Read full chapter


User research throughout the world

Thomas Visby Snitker, Jared Jeffers, in Handbook of Global User Research, 2010

7.10 Italy

Written by Luca Petroni

The practice of user research, specifically usability tests, is not yet widespread in Italy. Even online systems, “business critical” and high-integration systems (e.g., home banking, e-commerce systems, and estimators), are sometimes launched without any usability tests being carried out for clients.

Although in recent years there has been more talk of usability and of the importance of customers/users in general, little attention is paid to methods to simplify and make technology more intuitive. A strong skepticism persists, particularly toward qualitative methodologies, which managers believe are insufficient to justify redesigns because they are not based on statistically significant samples.

One of the results, but also partly the cause, of a design culture that is little attuned to usability is an inadequate professional service offering. Marketing research and public opinion poll institutes increasingly provide “hard discount” offers, but because they have more of a market survey background, such polls are often performed without specialized personnel and using methodologies that are not grounded in usability. For these reasons, they are considered to be less reliable in relation to usability studies conducted by practitioners trained in the behavioral sciences.

(Video) Intercultural and Transcultural Language Awareness in Language Teaching Element

Although some large companies are beginning to consider the issue of user-centered design as a process that should support product innovation, there are very few internal usability departments within companies. Instead, there is an overall tendency to only carry out studies as part of a more general implementation process that is still highly influenced by technological aspects.

Various intercultural factors should be taken into consideration when planning and performing usability tests in Italy. The first unquestionably relates to the extreme variability of local subcultures. In other words, the region or type of urban context (e.g., large city or provincial center) produces a surprising difference in attitudes on aspects that can influence test results to varying degrees. For example, from a linguistic perspective, local variations can have a sometimes significant impact on the evaluation of technologies that base interaction on linguistic elements (such as IVR and sometimes even the labeling of a Web site).

Attitudes toward technology are also heavily influenced by the social and infrastructural context. Indeed, in Italy the notion of digital divide is strongly felt, largely due to the delay in extending broadband Internet access to a considerable portion of the population. However, this attitude is spread inconsistently over the various channels. For example, complete inexperience of the Web is often unexpectedly combined with advanced skills in using mobile telephones. In short, geographic and sociodemographic variables can have a significant effect on test results, and one must have an in-depth knowledge of the Italian context to obtain a good sample of participants.

A second aspect to take into consideration is the attitudes of Italian participants toward logistical–administrative matters associated with usability tests. Although participation show rates are actually higher than in other countries, the percentage of no-shows can sometimes reach astonishing rates, again with different percentages depending on geographic variables. In some cases, it is almost impossible to organize parallel or group evaluations, particularly with specific professional categories (e.g., highly paid professionals) that are less sensitive to incentives. When respondents are chosen from lists of people who have registered to participate in studies, there is a decidedly higher tendency than in other countries to provide false information, both in terms of the research code of ethics (e.g., participation in other previous studies in the same sector) and in terms of their own sociodemographic and behavioral characteristics. Consequently, the use of random sampling or customer lists provided by the client offers a sound guarantee, even if the rate of last minute no-shows tends to be higher.

A third factor is a general tendency of test participants to “shoulder the blame.” Due to the delay in adopting computer technology by a large share of the population, in many cases – particularly among targets representing the “average” population – there is a tendency to “justify” their difficulties in using test stimuli and to attribute it to their lack of skills. This makes it difficult to carry out participatory design studies and in any case requires the involvement of an expert in Italian culture to run the studies by interpreting between the client and the participant.

The final aspect that must be highlighted is a general inability on behalf of participants to interact with researchers who are not familiar with the Italian mother tongue or Italian culture. As well as being able to interact in Italian, it is very important for researchers to be able to understand aspects of local culture and lifestyle in order to interact correctly with the users and to correctly interpret their comments.

In addition to the previously mentioned intercultural issues, which must be discussed with the client to draw up a test protocol that meets the client's needs, the client should also be briefed on a tendency for lateness of participants as well as last minute no-shows, in addition to the fact that sessions will produce the best result when performed in Italian. It might also be beneficial to have someone present to serve as a “cultural mediator” who can correctly interpret session results based on factors that are specific to Italian culture.

View chapterPurchase book

Read full chapter


Context in Content Composition

Nicholas Asher, in Philosophy of Linguistics, 2012

1.2 From the lexicon to discourse

In fact there is a two-way interaction between semantics and the lexicon. In the previous section, I argued that a good type-driven, lexical semantics is needed for a good discourse semantics. In the present section I will argue that a good, type-driven lexical semantics is dependent on discourse semantics and on a sophisticated account of semantic composition.

Many theories of word meaning countenance a rich typology, at least in principle, but these views still await a proper formal and conceptual analysis. Taking types seriously in one's lexical semantics brings with it complexities and puzzles, some of which I want to bring out here. In general, these puzzles involve context dependency of a sort most compositional semanticists have ignored. For these semanticists, context sensitivity typically stops with anaphoric pronouns and indexical expressions; I believe, however, that context dependence pervades the lexicon.4

One of the intriguing but not well-understood observations about the composition of meaning is that when word meanings are combined, the meaning of the result can vary from what standard compositional semantics has led us to expect. In applying, for instance, a property term ordinarily denoting a property P to an object term ordinarily denoting an object a, the content of the result sometimes involves a different but related property P′ applied to an object b that is related to but distinct from a. While the choice of words obviously affects the content of a predication, the discourse context in which the predication occurs also affects it, where by discourse context I mean not only the predicational environment but also the discourse context to date. An important theme of current lexical and compositional semantics is how to make sense of this interaction. I illustrate with three types of context/lexical interactions.

Discourse intrusions

Prior discourse can sometimes affect how lexical meanings interact.


All the children were drawing fish. Suzie's salmon was blue.

In (3) we understand the relationship between Suzie and salmon in a complex way: Suzie is drawing a picture of a salmon that is blue. This interpretation is due not only to the genitive construction but also to its discourse environment. Here is an example of a different construction with the same moral.


Julie began with the kitchen, proceeded to the living room and finished up with the bedrooms.


Yesterday Julie cleaned her house. Julie began with the kitchen, proceeded to the living room and finished up with the bedrooms.


Last week, Julie painted her house. Julie began with the kitchen, proceeded to the living room and finished up with the bedrooms.

As I argue in [Asher, 2011], the discourse in (4a) is not very felicitous because we don't know what Julie is doing with the kitchen and the other rooms. It's like trying to interpret an utterance of she's nice in acontext with no salient antecedent. However, once discourse specifies an activity, (4b) and (4c) are completely felicitous.

We will need something like SDRT's rich notion of a discourse context and text meaning to account for discourse intrusions, something I will come back to in section 7. The problem is to specify in a precise and detailed way how this interpretation comes about without going so far as to say that any meaning shift ispossible when made salient by the context.

Concealed questions

In a very interesting paper on concealed questions, [Percus, 2010] investigates meaning shifts concerning concealed questions. Consider these examples.


John didn't know how much the vase cost. John asked the price of the sales clerk. (what the price was).


John didn't know who Sam's parents were. # He asked Sam's mother of Julie (who Sam's mother was).

(5b) is unintelligible whereas (5a) is fine. (5a) shows that in combination with certain noun phrases or DPs, ask can shift the meaning of its direct object or internal argument DP to have the meaning of an indirect question. But (5b) shows that it cannot do this for all DP internal arguments. Thus the meaning shift operation, however, it is to be implemented, cannot be a general operation over syntactic categories like DP; it must actually pay close attention to the meaning or semantic type of the internal argument.

Aspectual coercion

Aspectual coercion, in which an aspectual operator is applied to a verb phrase denotation, which specifies an eventuality type inter alia, to produce another verb phrase denotation and eventuality type description, is another example of a meaning shift. Aspectual coercion is quite language specific, and thus is not the result of any general pragmatic operation such as that considered by Neo-Griceans or relevance theorists such as [Sperber and Wilson, 1986; Recanati, 2004]. Consider, for example, (6), which involves the progressive aspect.


#John is knowing French.


John is being silly.


John is just being John.


John's being an asshole.

One of the truisms about the progressive aspect is that stative constructions don't support it, as shown in (6a). Nevertheless, (6b-d), which are progressivizations of the stative constructions John is silly, John is John, and John is an asshole, are perfectly unproblematic. Interestingly, aspectual coercion with the progressive appears to be a particular feature of the English progressive aspect morpheme. Languages like French that lexicalize progressive aspect do not seem to support this meaning shift:


Jean est idiot.


#Jean est en train d'être idiot.


Jean est en train de faire l'idiot.

(Video) Accent Expert Breaks Down 6 Fictional Languages From Film & TV | WIRED

Aspectual coercion is a thus language specific phenomenon and thus cannot be the result of a general cognitive principle of strengthening or weakening due to Gricean or Neo-Gricean constraints on communication. Such meaning shifts must be a part of the linguistic system, due to the meaning of particular words.

Another language specific aspectual coercion concerns the application of a perfective aspectual operator to a verb phrase containing an ability modal. Consider the following French examples. (8) translates roughly as Jeanne had to take the train and (8a) and (9a) use the perfective aspect, while (8b) and (9b) have imperfective aspect.


Jeanne a du prendre le train. → Jeanne a pris le train.

(Jeanne had to take the train. → Jeanne took the train).


Jeanne devait prendre le train. ↛ Jeanne a pris le train.

(Jeanne was supposed to take the train. ↛ Jeanne took the train.)


Jeanne a pu prendre le train. → Jeanne a pris le train.

(Jeanne was able to take the train. → Jeanne took the train.)


Jeanne pouvait prendre le train. ↛ Jeanne a pris le train.

(Jeanne was able to take the train. → Jeanne took the train.)

The → signifies an actuality entailment. Were we to consider ability modals as true modals that we can symbolize with □ and ⋄, the actuality entailments in (8a) and (9a) would translate, respectively, to (10a) and (10b):


□ϕ → ϕ.


□ϕ → ϕ or ϕ → □ϕ.

which implies a collapse of the modality (Bhatt 1999). However, with the imperfective aspect, these inferences vanish, and there is no collapse. The puzzle is, how can an application of the aspectual perfect collapse the modality? This is unpredicted and indeed bizarre from a Montagovian view of composition.

Actuality entailments with certain verb forms, like coercion with the progressive aspect, is a phenomenon particular to certain languages. In English, for instance, the actuality entailment does not appear to exist:


John was able to take the train.


John had to take the train.


?John has been able to take the train.

None of these have the actuality entailment, though they might have what one could call an actuality implicature. Once again, the actuality entailment cannot be the result of some general cognitive but non linguistic principle of strengthening. It is a semantic and lexically constrained kind of inference.

Matters are still more complex when one considers how temporal adverbials interact with modality and aspect to produce actuality entailments.5


Soudain, Jean pouvait ouvrir la porte.

(Suddenly, Jean could open the door.)

In (14) the actuality entailment holds, despite the fact that the imperfective aspect is used. This is explained by the general observation that adverbs like suddenly coerce the imperfective aspect into an incohative one with a perfective meaning. But once again we have a shift of meanings.

I believe that the apparent meaning shifts discussed in 1.2-1.2 should receive as uniform a treatment as possible within a semantic/pragmatic framework of lexical meanings and semantic composition—that is, how lexical meanings compose together to form meanings for larger semantic constituents like propositions or discourses. But we can only address this issue adequately within a larger view of how context affects interpretation. To this end, I will review the outlines of how dynamic semantic frameworks, including theories like SDRT, view discourse content computation. This will give us the tools with which to understand context effects at the level of clausal content composition and apparent meaning shifts. I will then discuss a couple of classic meaning shift cases and spell out the general approach to these that I favor, comparing it to recent pragmatic as well as semantic accounts.

View chapterPurchase book

Read full chapter


An integrative review of security and integrity strategies in an academic environment: Current understanding and emerging perspectives

Alexander Amigud, ... Ana-Elena Guerrero-Roldan, in , 2018

4.3.3 Behavioral biometrics

Student interactions with ICT and learning content (Moore and Kearsley, 2005) result in an abundance of mineable data. Behavioral biometrics is a set of techniques that checks consistency across user actions. The rationale behind this strategy is that students exhibit different preferences in language use and use of input devices such as their keyboard, and actions performed by the same student are expected to show greater similarity than those of different students. Stylometry is the term used to describe the process of measuring quantifiable stylistic features for the purposes of authorship analysis. Monaco etal. (2013) define stylometry as “the study of determining authorship from the authors' linguistic styles. Traditionally, it has been used to attribute authorship to anonymous or disputed literary documents” (p. 1). Stylistic preferences are thought to be author-specific, where predictions can be made based on the presence or absence of certain linguistic elements in a text. When applied to the e-learning context, this approach is unique in that learner identity is derived from authorship, which makes it a one-tiered application to attain both identity and authorship assurance. This approach begins with authorship enrollment, where student-generated content is used to create a profile that subsequent validation will be performed against. For more information on trends in authorship analysis, please refer to PAN/CLEF evaluation lab (Stamatatos etal., 2015).

A framework for providing identity and authorship assurance using supervised machine learning techniques and stylometry behavioral biometrics was proposed by Amigud etal. (2016). Their method does not aim to monitor the learning environment, but to analyze learner-generated textual content for stylistic consistency. An experimental study conducted by Monaco etal. (2013) – building upon the work of Stewart etal. (2011) – compared the performances of keystroke dynamics and stylometric analysis. The results were promising, although keystroke dynamics slightly outperformed the stylometric approach. Both keystroke dynamics and stylometry behavioral biometrics have several benefits. They provide both identity and authorship assurance and are accessible, because they work with the standard computer keyboard. Moreover, data collection and processing can be automated and performed in the background without the need for user interaction. However, one key difference between the two techniques is that stylometry-based authorship assurance does not require continuous verification of user input, therefore, content can be produced off-line using tools and methods that students feel comfortable using.

View article


What are the linguistic elements? ›

Linguists have identified five basic components (phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics) found across languages.

What are the three linguistic elements? ›

There are three major components of language. These components are form, content, and use. Form involves three sub-components of syntax, morphology, and phonology.

What are the 7 components of language? ›

Language courses include 7 language components that aim at developing learners' language competency. These are vocabulary, grammar, functions, reading, listening, speaking, and writing.

What are the 4 components of language? ›

Language is a complex system involving several components. The components of language include phonology, semantics, syntax, and pragmatics. Language development occurs in a fairly predictable fashion. Most typically developing children acquire the skills in each of the four areas by the end of their ninth year of life.

What is linguistic and its types? ›

Types of Linguistics

Here are the major branches of linguistics: Phonology: The sounds in a speech in cognitive terms. Phonetics: The study of sounds in a speech in physical terms. Syntax: The study of formation and structure of sentences. Semantics: The study of meanings.

What are two types of linguistics? ›

What are the two types of linguistics? Comparative and descriptive.

What are the 3 purposes of linguistics? ›

The informative, expressive, and directive purposes of language.

What is linguistics example? ›

The definition of linguistics is the scientific study of language. The study of the English language is an example of linguistics.

What do you mean by linguistics? ›

Linguistics is the systematic study of the structure and evolution of human language, and it is applicable to every aspect of human endeavor.

What are the 6 components of language? ›

In the broadest definition, oral language consists of six areas: phonology, grammar, morphology, vocabulary, discourse, and pragmatics. The acquisition of these skills often begins at a young age, before students begin focusing on print-based concepts such as sound-symbol correspondence and decoding.

What are the 3 types of language? ›

The three types of language are written, oral and nonverbal.

What is the basic element of a language? ›

1 Answer. The explanation: The basic element for a language is the random variable, which can be thought as a part of world and its status is initially unknown.

What are the 5 stages of language development? ›

Students learning a second language move through five predictable stages: Preproduction, Early Production, Speech Emergence, Intermediate Fluency, and Advanced Fluency (Krashen & Terrell, 1983).

Why are the 5 domains of language important? ›

So why is it important that we know about these 5 domains? These domains of language cover all that we do in therapy and the evidenced-based approaches behind our decision making. They include how language delays/disorders are defined and diagnosed.

What are the main characteristics of linguistics? ›

What are some common linguistic characteristics of heritage language learners?
  • Native-like pronunciation.
  • Strong listening and speaking skills.
  • Intuitive (if simplified) understanding of grammatical structures.
  • Strong command of high-frequency vocabulary learned at home/in the community.

What is importance of linguistics? ›

Linguistics helps us understand our world

Apart from simply understanding the intricacies of world languages, this knowledge can be applied to improving communication between people, contributing to translation activities, assisting in literacy efforts, and treating speech disorders.

What is the purpose of linguistics? ›

The main goal of linguistics, like all other intellectual disciplines, is to increase our knowledge and understanding of the world. Since language is universal and fundamental to all human interactions, the knowledge attained in linguistics has many practical applications.

What is the nature of linguistics? ›

Linguistics is concerned with the nature of language and communication. It deals both with the study of particular languages, and the search for general properties common to all languages or large groups of languages.

What are the basic concepts of linguistics? ›

Morphology - the study of the formation of words. Syntax - the study of the formation of sentences. Semantics - the study of meaning. Pragmatics - the study of language use.

What is the study of linguistics? ›

Linguistics is the scientific study of language, and its focus is the systematic investigation of the properties of particular languages as well as the characteristics of language in general.

What are the 4 functions of language? ›

Specifically, language has four functions. They are expressive, informative, directive and survival. The first use of language is defined as expressive, it allows people to express how they feel. It is a combination of multiple form of languages.

What is linguistics essay? ›

Applied Linguistics Essay

Linguistics focuses mainly on the sound, syntactic and meaning level of a language under the names of Phonetics, Syntax and semantics/ Pragmatics as the core of Linguistics.

What are the language structure? ›

Language Structures refer to sentence-level comprehension of text, including how the arrangement of words within sentences impacts the meaning. While vocabulary supports readers' understanding of individual word meanings, language structure understanding helps readers interpret the meaning of full sentences.

What are the five 5 components of oral language instruction? ›

Oral language is made up of at least five key components (Moats 2010): phonological skills, pragmatics, syntax, morphological skills, and vocabulary (also referred to as semantics).

What is A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2? ›

The three broad levels are A1/A2 ("Basic User"), B1/B2 ("Independent User"), and C1/C2 ("Proficient User"). Let's take a look at what you should be able to communicate at the various levels set out by CERF. Language learning levels explained from A1, A2, B1, B2, C1 to C2.

What are the four levels of linguistic analysis? ›

There are six levels of linguistic analysis. They range in depth between the specifics of the sounds we make to form language to the context surrounding speech events. They are (from most specific to the broadest) phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics.

What are the 5 stages of first language acquisition? ›

There are six stages in children‟s first language acquisition, namely:
  • Pre-talking stage / Cooing (0-6 months) ...
  • Babbling stage (6-8 months) ...
  • Holophrastic stage (9-18 months) ...
  • The two-word stage (18-24 months) ...
  • Telegraphic stage (24-30 months) ...
  • Later multiword stage (30+months.

What are the 5 characteristics of language? ›

Five fundamental characteristics of language include cultural relevance, symbolism, flexibility, variation, and social importance.

Is language a basic element of communication? ›

The message or content is the information that the sender wants to relay to the receiver. Additional subtext can be conveyed through body language and tone of voice. Put all three elements together — sender, receiver, and message — and you have the communication process at its most basic.

What is the linguistic stage? ›

Linguistic Stage: 15 Months to 8 Years. Children starts to use words around twelve months and by fifteen months they have developed their own word for an object or person and use it consistently. They then go on to use holophrases– using a single word to express several meanings by changing the sound and using gestures ...

What are the 4 stages of language acquisition? ›

The Stages of Language Acquisition for ELLs
  • Pre-Talking. This stage takes place from birth to around six months of age. ...
  • Babbling. The babbling phase occurs from around six to eight months old. ...
  • Holophrastic. ...
  • Two-Word. ...
  • Telegraphic. ...
  • Multiword. ...
  • Fluency. ...
  • Setting.
Apr 1, 2021

What are the 5 rules of language and their meanings? ›

There are Five Levels of Linguistic Rules to be learned and applied to go from Deep Structure to Surface Structure.
  • Phonologic Rules.
  • Morphologic Rules.
  • Syntactic Rules.
  • Semantic Rules.
  • Pragmatic Rules.

What is language and its components? ›

Language is the system of words and symbols, whether they are spoken, written, or signed that are used to communicate meaning. This encompasses both expressive (speaking, writing) and receptive (listening, following directions, reading) language.

What is the basic element of a language? ›

1 Answer. The explanation: The basic element for a language is the random variable, which can be thought as a part of world and its status is initially unknown.

What are the main characteristics of linguistics? ›

What are some common linguistic characteristics of heritage language learners?
  • Native-like pronunciation.
  • Strong listening and speaking skills.
  • Intuitive (if simplified) understanding of grammatical structures.
  • Strong command of high-frequency vocabulary learned at home/in the community.

What are the key concepts of linguistics? ›

More specifically, linguistics is concerned with analyzing the language and its structure Brinton and Brinton, 2010, Payne, 2006. The study includes phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics (Dawson and Phelan, 2016).

What are linguistic features in English? ›

Like any language or dialect, Southern American English is characterized by certain features related to how words are pronounced and arranged in a sentence, as well as what words are actually used.

Why are the elements of language important? ›

The first important element of language is clarity, or the use of language to make sure the audience understands a speaker's ideas in the way the speaker intended. While language, or verbal communication, is only one channel we can use to transmit information, it is a channel that can lend itself to numerous problems.

Is language a basic element of communication? ›

The message or content is the information that the sender wants to relay to the receiver. Additional subtext can be conveyed through body language and tone of voice. Put all three elements together — sender, receiver, and message — and you have the communication process at its most basic.

What is the purpose of linguistics? ›

The main goal of linguistics, like all other intellectual disciplines, is to increase our knowledge and understanding of the world. Since language is universal and fundamental to all human interactions, the knowledge attained in linguistics has many practical applications.

What is linguistic explain? ›

Linguistics is the scientific study of language, and its focus is the systematic investigation of the properties of particular languages as well as the characteristics of language in general.

What are the examples of linguistics? ›

The definition of linguistics is the scientific study of language. The study of the English language is an example of linguistics.

What are the 3 purposes of linguistics? ›

The informative, expressive, and directive purposes of language.

What are the six branches of linguistics? ›

Phonology is related to other branches of linguistics like phonetics, morphology, syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Phonology is different from phonetics. Phonetics analyses the production or articulation of speech sounds irrespective of the language, but phonology analyses the sound patterns of a particular language.

What are linguistic features in literature? ›

Linguistic Features to Observe

It means that they see the surrounding features of language inside a text. In conducting a stylistic study, we pay attention to the context of situation which refers Page 2 The 1st Literary Studies Conference to, among others, linguistic features in a text.


1. Parasite — The Power of Symbols
(Lessons from the Screenplay)
2. Introduction to Finite Element Method (FEM) for Beginners
(Solid Mechanics Classroom)
3. দুপুর ২টার বাংলাভিশন সংবাদ | Bangla News | 28_July_2022 | 2:00 PM | Banglavision News
4. বিকেল ৪টার বাংলাভিশন সংবাদ | Bangla News | 28_July_2022 | 4:00 PM | BanglaVision News
5. #MyitalkiStory: Carter Stays Motivated Through Human Connection on italki
6. How to recognize a dystopia - Alex Gendler

Top Articles

Latest Posts

Article information

Author: Otha Schamberger

Last Updated: 12/28/2022

Views: 5295

Rating: 4.4 / 5 (75 voted)

Reviews: 82% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Otha Schamberger

Birthday: 1999-08-15

Address: Suite 490 606 Hammes Ferry, Carterhaven, IL 62290

Phone: +8557035444877

Job: Forward IT Agent

Hobby: Fishing, Flying, Jewelry making, Digital arts, Sand art, Parkour, tabletop games

Introduction: My name is Otha Schamberger, I am a vast, good, healthy, cheerful, energetic, gorgeous, magnificent person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.