Thank you very much for downloading applied longitudinal data analysis modeling change and event occurrence. As you may know, people have look hundreds times for their favorite novels like this applied longitudinal data analysis modeling change and event occurrence, but end up in malicious downloads. Rather than enjoying a good book with a cup of coffee in the afternoon, instead they are facing with some infectious virus inside their computer.

Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis Modeling Change And Event Occurrence

Child psychiatrists, pediatricians, and other child clinicians need to have a solid understanding of child language development. There are at least four important reasons that make this necessary. First, slowing, arrest, and deviation of language development are highly associated with, and complicate the course of, child psychopathology. Second, language competence plays a crucial role in emotional and mood regulation, evaluation, and therapy. Third, language deficits are the most frequent underpinning of the learning disorders, ubiquitous in our clinical populations. Fourth, clinicians should not confuse the rich linguistic and dialectal diversity of our clinical populations with abnormalities in child language development. The challenge for the clinician becomes, then, how to get immersed in the captivating field of child language acquisition without getting overwhelmed by its conceptual and empirical complexity. In the past 50 years and since the seminal works of Roger Brown, Jerome Bruner, and Catherine Snow, child language researchers (often known as developmental psycholinguists) have produced a remarkable body of knowledge. Linguists such as Chomsky and philosophers such as Grice have strongly influenced the science of child language. One of the major tenets of Chomskian linguistics (known as generative grammar) is that children’s capacity to acquire language is “hardwired” with “universal grammar”—an innate language acquisition device (LAD), a language “instinct”—at its core. This view is in part supported by the assertion that the linguistic input that children receive is relatively dismal and of poor quality relative to the high quantity and quality of output that they manage to produce after age 2 and that only an advanced, innate capacity to decode and organize linguistic input can enable them to “get from here (prelinguistic infant) to there (linguistic child).” In “Constructing a Language,” Tomasello presents a contrasting theory of how the child acquires language: It is not a universal grammar that allows for language development. Rather, human cognition universals of communicative needs and vocal-auditory processing result in some language universals, such as nouns and verbs as expressions of reference and predication (p. 19). The author proposes that two sets of cognitive skills resulting from biological/phylogenetic adaptations are fundamental to the ontogenetic origins of language. These sets of inherited cognitive skills are intentionreading on the one hand and pattern-finding, on the other. Intention-reading skills encompass the prelinguistic infant’s capacities to share attention to outside events with other persons, establishing joint attentional frames, to understand other people’s communicative intentions, and to imitate the adult’s communicative intentions (an intersubjective form of imitation that requires symbolic understanding and perspective-taking). Pattern-finding skills include the ability of infants as young as 7 months old to analyze concepts and percepts (most relevant here, auditory or speech percepts) and create concrete or abstract categories that contain analogous items. Tomasello, a most prominent developmental scientist with research foci on child language acquisition and on social cognition and social learning in children and primates, succinctly and clearly introduces the major points of his theory and his views on the origins of language in the initial chapters. In subsequent chapters, he delves into the details by covering most language acquisition domains, namely, word (lexical) learning, syntax, and morphology and conversation, narrative, and extended discourse. Although one of the remaining domains (pragmatics) is at the core of his theory and permeates the text throughout, the relative paucity of passages explicitly devoted to discussing acquisition and proBOOK REVIEWS

Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition

The complete title of this book runs ‘Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics using R’ and as such it very well reflects the purpose and spirit of the book. The author guides the reader in about 350 pages from descriptive and basic statistical methods over classification and clustering to (generalised) linear and mixed models. Each of the methods is introduced in the context of concrete linguistic problems and demonstrated on exciting datasets from current research in the language sciences. In line with its practical orientation, the book focuses primarily on using the methods and interpreting the results. This implies that the mathematical treatment of the techniques is held at a minimum if not absent from the book. In return, the reader is provided with very detailed explanations on how to conduct the analyses using R [1]. The first chapter sets the tone being a 20-page introduction to R. For this and all subsequent chapters, the R code is intertwined with the chapter text and the datasets and functions used are conveniently packaged in the languageR package that is available on the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN). With this approach, the author has done an excellent job in enabling researchers and students alike to reproduce the analyses and learn by doing. Another quality as a textbook is the fact that every chapter ends with Workbook sections where the user is invited to exercise his or her analysis skills on supplemental datasets. Full solutions including code, results and comments are given in Appendix A (30 pages). Instructors are therefore very well served by this text, although they might want to balance the book with some more mathematical treatment depending on the target audience. After the introductory chapter on R, the book opens on graphical data exploration. Chapter 3 treats probability distributions and common sampling distributions. Under basic statistical methods (Chapter 4), distribution tests and tests on means and variances are covered. Chapter 5 deals with clustering and classification. Strangely enough, the clustering section has material on PCA, factor analysis, correspondence analysis and includes only one subsection on clustering, devoted notably to hierarchical partitioning methods. The classification part deals with decision trees, discriminant analysis and support vector machines. The regression chapter (Chapter 6) treats linear models, generalised linear models, piecewise linear models and a substantial section on models for lexical richness. The final chapter on mixed models is particularly interesting as it is one of the few text book accounts that introduce the reader to using the (innovative) lme4 package of Douglas Bates which implements linear mixed-effects models. Moreover, the case studies included in this

Analyzing linguistic data: a practical introduction to statistics using R

中國科技大學通識教育中心英語文證照奬勵金實施要點 中華民國 105 年 1 月 8 日通識教育委員會議通過 一、 中國科技大學(以下簡稱本校)為鼓勵本校學生通過具公信力機構之英語文能力測驗或 取得證照,特訂定「中國科技大學通識教育中心英語文證照獎勵金實施要點」(以下簡 稱本要點)。 二、 學生於就讀本校期間,通過歐盟共同架構(CEFR)語言能力參考指標 B1(中級)同等級英 語文能力測驗以上(含)者,得依據本要點酌予獎勵。檢測項目請參閱本中心「歐洲語言 學習、教學、評量共同參考架構與各英語檢測分級對照表」(參見附表);未列於標準 對照表之測驗項目不給予獎助。 三、 凡本校學生,除應英系外,均得申請。大學部學生通過同等級以申請一次為限,在學期 間得重複申請,但該次申請之級別不得低於前次。 本獎勵金每學期核發乙次,每次核發全校前 10 名,各名次核發金額如附表。 四、 申請人應提供在學期間,申請當(學)期參加考試之證明文件及成績證明或證照,以憑辦 理。 五、 獎勵金申請作業:請至通識教育中心網頁下載「英語文證照獎勵金申請表」(附件 1), 填妥後檢附成績單正本及影本(背面簽名並註明與正本無異)各一份、本人金融帳戶存 簿(郵局或土地銀行)封面影本送至通識教育中心。 通識教育中心得每學期遴選受獎代表,擇期公開頒奬,並辦理後續請款作業。 六、 奬勵金申請期限:通過相關證照考試半年內應提出申請,逾期視同放棄。 七、 本要點之獎勵金由學校開設通識教育中心專戶,一切收支專款專用;每年度如有剩餘 款,則移至翌年度繼續使用。 八、 本要點經通識教育中心會議審查通過,陳請校長核定後公告實施,修訂時亦同。

文化と言語の多様性の中のCommon European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR)--それは基準か? (第10回明海大学大学院応用言語学研究科セミナー 講演)

Ethnologue: Languages of the World

This paper reports on the findings of the pragmatic abilities of Greek-speaking children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Twenty high functioning children with ASD and their typically developing age and vocabulary controls were administered a pragmatics task. The task was based on the Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation (DELV) in the context of a larger study targeting the grammar of Greek-speaking children with autism, and assessed the children’s abilities in communicative role taking, narrative, and question asking. The children with ASD showed an uneven profile in their pragmatic abilities. The two groups did not differ in communicative role taking and question asking. However, the children with ASD had difficulties on the narrative task, and more specifically, on the items assessing reference contrast and temporal links. Yet, they performed similarly on the mental state representations and the false beliefs items. Despite their good performance on mental states and false beliefs, the ASD children’s lower performance on reference contrast can be interpreted via Theory of Mind deficits if we assume that the former involve an additional level of complexity; namely, quantifying the amount of information available to the listener. Lower performance on temporal links is in line with the ASD children’s attested difficulties in organizing events into a coherent gist. Their overall profile, and, in particular, the dissociation between the different sections of the task, does not support single deficit accounts. It rather indicates that the deficits of individuals with ASD stem from distinct deficits in core cognitive processes (Happe & Frith, 2006).

Pragmatic abilities of high-functioning Greek-speaking children with autism

The study of linguistic interfaces, namely, the study of the interaction between different levels/domains of linguistic knowledge (syntax, semantics, pragmatics and so on), is crucial to the understanding of the way language works, how it is acquired, and how the system of language is organized in the mind/brain (Bos, Hollebrandese and Sleeman, 2004). Contemporary generative acquisition theory and empirical research are motivated by the hypothesis that acquisition delays in adult L2 acquisition and bilingualism (as well as L1 attrition and first language acquisition) are often related to the complexity of acquiring interface-conditioned properties that involve the integration of information from multiple cognitive modules (e.g. Belleti, Bennati & Sorace, 2007; Muller & Hulk, 2001; Paradis & Navarro, 2003; Rothman, 2007; Serratrice et al., 2004; Sorace, 2000, 2004, 2005; Tsimpli et. al., 2004; to name just a few). These studies have focused on the acquisition of a relatively wide range of structures, some related to the syntax-semantic interface, others to the syntax-pragmatic interface: e.g., the acquisition of overt vs. null pronominal subjects, word order to object expression in different languages and by different learners acquiring a wider range of languages (e.g., French, Italian, Spanish). On the other hand, other studies have revealed that despite this difficulty, adult L2 learners are able to acquire structures involving the interfaces (e.g., Borgonovo & Prevost, 2003; Borgonovo, Bruhn de Garavito & Prevost, 2005; and Borgonovo, Bruhn de Garavito, Guijarro-Fuentes, Prevost & Valenzuela, 2006; Dekydtspotter, Sprouse & Thyre, 2000; among others). These studies have investigated different linguistic phenomena related to the syntax-semantic interface: e.g., from the acquisition of mood, object drop, topicalization to quantification at a distance in a variety of language acquisitional scenarios with different populations of learners. A second interrelated area of research focuses on the level of interaction between the L1 and L2 language systems. Previous research on language transfer in SLA has assumed that the initial stage of L2 acquisition is the first language (L1) (Schwartz and Sprouse, 1994; 1996). Such hypotheses have long pointed to L1 transfer as a possible cause of L1/L2 divergences, claiming that L1 transfer alters significantly (and variably depending on the L1/L2 pairing) the L2 learning task for adult L2 learners (but see Epstein et al., 1996, 1998 for a different view on the matter). Other researchers looking at bilingualism and language attrition, however, have suggested that language transfer from one language to the other needs to meet certain conditions, and interface areas are particularly vulnerable (Hulk and Muller, 2000; Muller and Hulk, 2001). According to Hulk and Muller (2000) and Muller and Hulk (2001), language interference must be due to language internal conditions provided that the following two requirements are complied: (a) cross-linguistic influence occurs at the interface between two modules of grammar, and more particularly at the interface between pragmatics and syntax in the socalled C-domain, since this is an area which has been claimed to create problems also in L1 acquisition (Grinstead, 2004; Marinis, 2003; Platzack, 2001); and (b) syntactic cross-linguistic influence occurs only if language A has a syntactic construction that may seem to allow more than one syntactic analysis and, at the same time, language B contains evidence for one of these two possible analyses. That is to say, there has to be a certain overlap of the two systems at the surface level. Besides these two conditions put forward by Hulk and Muller (2000) and Muller and Hulk (2001) which explain the directionally of cross-linguistic effects between two language systems, there are other external factors which may also influence the directionality of cross-linguistic effects, such as language contact and/or richness of input. Our study addresses two questions concerning the two areas of research mentioned above:

The Acquisition of the PersonalPreposition a by Catalan-Spanish and English-Spanish Bilinguals

This paper investigates word-recognition in Greeklish, a spelling variation of Greek with Latin characters that follows a phonological ( ποτίζω =potizo ) or a visual/orthographic transliteration-pattern ( ποτίζω =potizw ). 22 Greek speakers underwent a lexical-decision task in Greek and Greeklish involving verbs with the character omega in the stem or suffix, and provided a sample of written production in Greeklish. Results showed that word-recognition is not influenced by the participants’ transliteration preferences. Words with omega on the stem showed shorter reaction times for the phonological transliteration, while the opposite was attested for words with omega on the suffix, demonstrating that inflectional morphology impacts on word-recognition.

/pdf/potizo-or-potizw-the-influence-of-morphology-in-the-tm56levqf7.pdf

“Potizo” or “Potizw”? The influence of morphology in the processing of Roman-alphabeted Greek*

This paper investigates the linguistic performance of a group of English-Spanish­ bilingual children (N = 44, age range: 10–14) with different degrees of language dominance in their use of the Spanish preposition ‘a’ using a completion task which measures the different conditions that relate to the distribution of this personal (Torrego 1998; Zagona 2002) The children’s performance was compared to a group of monolingual Spanish children of similar age (n = 10, age range: 12–15) All participants had also to complete an ethno-linguistic task which elicits data to address the impact of some external factors (eg, language dominance and language choices) in language performance Results revealed that bilingual children were less accurate than monolingual children in the use of the preposition ‘a’, but the two groups showed a similar pattern of errors regardless of their grade of bilingualism More importantly, their linguistic performance does not seem to be related to any of the external factors included in this study In line with previous research in the field, we also claim that phenomena involving the syntax-semantics interface are vulnerable in bilingual children irrespective of the grade of bilingualism and external factors (ie, language dominance and language choice)

Theodoros Marinis

Papers

Pragmatic abilities of high-functioning Greek-speaking children with autism

The Acquisition of the PersonalPreposition a by Catalan-Spanish and English-Spanish Bilinguals

“Potizo” or “Potizw”? The influence of morphology in the processing of Roman-alphabeted Greek*

9. Voicing language dominance

Integrating the filler : evidence from double object constructions in Greek relative clauses