Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Language-specific analysis / Re: Please look at this sentence
« Last post by Daniel on Today at 08:30:46 AM »
It seems OK. Is there a speicfic issue?
2
Semantics and Pragmatics / Re: Saying the address in English
« Last post by Daniel on Today at 08:25:10 AM »
(3) sounds odd. The others work. (But I'm American, and your example is British so I don't know if you want all varieties of just want sounds best in England.)
3
Morphosyntax / Re: Sentence ungrammaticality
« Last post by Daniel on Today at 08:24:04 AM »
It sounds odd because it seems to presuppose he's... not dead... now? But as a stative description as something like "I wanted to meet with him, but he was dead", I guess works.
4
Morphosyntax / Re: Sentence ungrammaticality
« Last post by mallu on March 17, 2019, 02:16:06 PM »
He was dead is ok, isnt it?
5
Language-specific analysis / Please look at this sentence
« Last post by mallu on March 17, 2019, 02:10:59 PM »
   Is this sentence ok ? John even gave only TEN CENTS to MARY.
6
Outside of the box / Re: Croatian toponyms
« Last post by FlatAssembler on March 16, 2019, 05:05:56 AM »
Anyway, what do you guys here think about the k-r-pattern in the Croatian river names I attempted to calculate the p-value for? You can read about it on my web-page, by clicking the "click here"-link in the "Birthday Paradox" paragraph. I tried to publish a paper in which I calculated p-values for a few patterns I saw in the Croatian place names (the k-r-pattern in river names having the strongest p-value) in the Pozega Ethnological Journal, and my paper was rejected as unclear (without, as far as I am aware of, being reviewed by an actual linguist or a mathematician).
7
Semantics and Pragmatics / Saying the address in English
« Last post by Natalia on March 15, 2019, 03:14:21 PM »
Tell me please which of the following is the best way to say your address:

1. I live at Flat 4, 25 Green Street in London.
2. I live in Flat 4 at 25 Green Street in London.
3, I live at Flat 4 at 25 Green Street in London.
8
Outside of the box / Waveform Model of Vowel Perception and Production
« Last post by Mike Stokes on March 03, 2019, 06:48:16 PM »
The Waveform Model of Vowel Perception and Production (2009) was discovered after visually reviewing over 20,000 waveforms and effectively reading raw complex waveforms (Stokes, 1996 - https://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.1121/1.415250).  The Waveform Model of Vowels (WMV) organizes American English vowel’s into categorical pairs defined by the number of F1 cycles per pitch period.  F2 values then provides the distinguishing cue between the categorical pairs.  Below is a short list of WMV achievements.

1) WMV is the first to explain vowel perception, production, and perceptual errors.  A working model must be able to explain each of these facets (Klatt, 1988).
2) Presented human performance on the Hillenbrand et al. (1995) dataset at an Acoustical Society of America conference (ASA, 2011 - https://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.1121/1.3587910).
3) Presented human performance on the Peterson and Barney (1952) dataset at an ASA conference in 2014 (https://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.1121/1.4899482).
4) Achieved human performance on streaming speech (the Hillenbrand et al. wav files).  This work is being prepared for publication.
5) Recent work has been focused on identifying concussions from h-vowel-d productions (preliminary results presented at an ASA conference in 2014 - https://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.1121/1.4900386).  Since 2014, a total of 4,129 vowels across 45 concussion subjects and 840 vowels across 20 control subjects have been recorded for this project which is the only federally recognized research to identify concussions from speech.  Acoustic measurements have been taken every 6 milliseconds across every production creating over 150,000 rows of data.
6) The logic of the WMV has been successfully introduced into algorithms and achieved human performance on the most cited datasets in the literature.  As a model of cognition, the WMV is the first to be introduced into a working algorithm achieving human performance. 

Although the WMV was published almost 10 years ago, it has not been recognized.  However, this has provided the time to validate the model and refine the programming achieving human performance.  Also, there is still no other model that has successfully described production or perception.  By extension, no model of perceptual errors has even been possible.  This is succinctly illustrated in the title of one presentation; From speech signal to phonological features - A long way (60 years and counting). Henning Reetz, presented at the 164th Acoustical Society of America meeting in October, 2012.

I understand this area is to introduce models and debate their merits.  I appreciate the opportunity to enter the WMV into the debate.  Dr. Reetz’s presentation was made 3 years after the publication of the WMV.  I hope the WMV will be considered before another researcher prepares a 70 years and counting presentation.  I look forward to a discussion about perception, production, errors, or the working algorithm of cognition.

http://www.waveformcommunication.com
9
Morphosyntax / Re: Argument-Adjunct Asymmetry and Exhaustivity
« Last post by Daniel on March 01, 2019, 03:36:48 AM »
Well, a casual explanation might be that because adjuncts can already move around somewhat freely, there's no need to focus them in Spec,CP. This might mean it's also possible to do so (so the complementizer could show up), or that it just isn't used like that, although it wouldn't explain why it is strictly ungrammatical. Maybe a "Last Resort" explanation? Are you sure that even with the right kind of emphatic intonation it isn't possible to get this?

In English, Do-support is said to be a Last Resort operation when tense must be spelled out without attaching to the lexical verb, but we can get an emphatic reading as in "He DID read the book." Without that emphasis it is "ungrammatical" but it is possible to generate, even as a Last Resort, if there is emphasis.
10
Typology and Descriptive Linguistics / Re: Why we use have + past participle?
« Last post by Audiendus on February 28, 2019, 10:07:47 PM »
Originally, perfectives with HAVE as an auxiliary came from a different source, namely transitive constructions with a sort of possessive sense of a stative description like "I have the window broken", parallel to "I saw the window broken".
In French, the gender and number of the past participle agree with those of an object pronoun (but not with those of an object noun):

J'ai vu la fille. (I have seen the girl)
Je l'ai vue. (I have seen her)

J'ai acheté les livres. (I have bought the books)
Je les ai achetés. (I have bought them)

It is as if we are saying "I have her seen", "I have them bought".
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10