![]() From this analysis, it emerges that the pauper writers made markedly less use of certain vernacular features than speakers in the Mayhew Corpus. The paper focuses on certain grammatical differences between the language of the pauper letters and the language in the Mayhew Corpus. The paper is based on two historical sources: (1) The Essex Pauper Letters (Sokoll in Essex pauper letters, 1731–1837, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001), which consists of letters written by paupers applying for charitable relief, and (2) the Mayhew Corpus, a corpus of interviews with the destitute of London carried out by Sir Henry Mayhew in the 1850s. This paper discusses the way early nineteenth century English paupers used language for the pragmatic purpose of securing charitable relief. The second case study relates s/th-variation in the language of a single writer, Margaret Cavendish, to major shifts in her personal life. The first case study compares the past tense formation of strong verbs in writers without access to higher education to that of writers with an extensive training in Latin. In the second part, we present two small case studies to illustrate how rich contextualization can guide the interpretation of quantitative corpus-linguistic findings. We cover the conceptual decisions and practical implementations at various stages of the compilation process: from text-markup, encoding and data preprocessing to metadata enrichment and verification. The first part of the article is a detailed description of EMMA’s first release as well as the sociolinguistic and methodological principles that underlie its design and compilation. EMMA enables the study of language as both a social and cognitive phenomenon and allows us to explore the interaction between the individual and aggregate levels. It comprises the writings of 50 carefully selected authors across five generations, mostly taken from the 17 th -century London society. As a large-scale specialized corpus, EMMA tries to strike the right balance between big data and sociolinguistic coverage. The present article provides a detailed description of the corpus of Early Modern Multiloquent Authors (EMMA), as well as two small case studies that illustrate its benefits. ![]() ![]() In particular, posterior LIFG seems to underlie grammatical functions encompassing inflectional morphology and syntax. Furthermore, they highlight the role of LIFG in processing inflectional morphology, in addition to syntactic processing as has been emphasized in previous research. The findings provide evidence for combinatorial processing of morphologically complex words and inform psycholinguistic accounts of complex word processing. Furthermore, LIFG involvement was maintained in meta-analyses of subsets of experiments that matched phonological complexity between conditions, although diagnostic analyses suggested that this conclusion may be premature. Diagnostic analyses revealed that involvement of posterior LIFG was robust against potential publication bias and over-influence of individual studies. Specifically, the left inferior frontal gyrus (LIFG) was found to be consistently involved in morphological complexity. Significant functional convergence was found in several mainly left frontal regions for processing inflectional morphology. 16 studies (279 subjects) comparing regular inflection with stems or irregular inflection met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were subjected to a series of activation likelihood estimation meta-analyses. The present study aimed to shed light on the neural correlates of morphological processing by examining functional convergence for inflectional morphology reported in previous neuroimaging studies.Ī systematic literature search was performed on PubMed with search terms related to morphological complexity and neuroimaging. Relatively less is known about the neural underpinnings of morphological processing compared to other aspects of grammatical competence such as syntax. A controversial issue in psycho- and neurolinguistics is whether morphologically complex words consisting of multiple morphemes are processed in a combinatorial manner and, if so, which brain regions underlie this process. Morphemes are the smallest building blocks of language that convey meaning or function. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |