Free Essays on T-score Statistics

Introduction Technological advances in augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) have provided a â€Å"voice† to many people through various devices. This voice has been hypothesized to provide greater benefit then traditional communication board or word processing programs. However augmentative communication devices have not traditionally been used with children who are autistic. Various studies have estimated that 25% to 61% of children with autism remain essentially non speaking (Weitz, Dexter, & Moore, 1997). Children with autism have been subjected to many different treatment approaches to the disorder. In fact, when one reviews the literature, there appears to be as many different treatments as there are individuals with autism. Children with autism are subjected to an enormous variety of educational and therapeutic interventions (Heflin & Simson, 1998). One particularly promising, beneficial tool for learners in general and for persons with developmental disabilities is computer technology. Use of computers for communication and learning may provide consistency, motivation, opportunities for independence, and individualized instruction ( Heimann, Nelson, Tjus, & Gillberg, 1995). However, computer technology is rarely used by individuals with autism. Why are individuals with autism typically not given the opportunity to use computer technology? Is it because the deficits in autism are not amenable with computer technology as in contrast to cerebral palsy a motor-speech impairment? This notion is too weakly supported in the literature to be used as a rationale for not introducing computer technology to individuals with autism. To not give individuals with autism access to computer technology may be ill advised in light of the success of computer based methods in promoting communicational gains in individuals with other developmental disabilities such as mental retardation (Romski &Sevcik, 1993). The research does... Free Essays on T-score Statistics Free Essays on T-score Statistics Introduction Technological advances in augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) have provided a â€Å"voice† to many people through various devices. This voice has been hypothesized to provide greater benefit then traditional communication board or word processing programs. However augmentative communication devices have not traditionally been used with children who are autistic. Various studies have estimated that 25% to 61% of children with autism remain essentially non speaking (Weitz, Dexter, & Moore, 1997). Children with autism have been subjected to many different treatment approaches to the disorder. In fact, when one reviews the literature, there appears to be as many different treatments as there are individuals with autism. Children with autism are subjected to an enormous variety of educational and therapeutic interventions (Heflin & Simson, 1998). One particularly promising, beneficial tool for learners in general and for persons with developmental disabilities is computer technology. Use of computers for communication and learning may provide consistency, motivation, opportunities for independence, and individualized instruction ( Heimann, Nelson, Tjus, & Gillberg, 1995). However, computer technology is rarely used by individuals with autism. Why are individuals with autism typically not given the opportunity to use computer technology? Is it because the deficits in autism are not amenable with computer technology as in contrast to cerebral palsy a motor-speech impairment? This notion is too weakly supported in the literature to be used as a rationale for not introducing computer technology to individuals with autism. To not give individuals with autism access to computer technology may be ill advised in light of the success of computer based methods in promoting communicational gains in individuals with other developmental disabilities such as mental retardation (Romski &Sevcik, 1993). The research does...

Definition and Discussion of Lexical-Function Grammar

Definition and Discussion of Lexical-Function Grammar In linguistics, lexical-functional grammar is a model of grammar that provides a framework for examining both morphological structures and syntactic structures. Also known as  psychologically realistic grammar. David W. Carroll notes that the major significance of lexical-functional grammar is the shunting of most of the explanatory burden onto the lexicon and away from transformational rules (Psychology of Language, 2008). The first collection of papers on the theory of lexical-functional grammar (LFG)Joan Bresnans The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relationswas published in 1982. In the years since, notes Mary Dalrymple, the growing body of work within the LFG framework has shown the advantages of an explicitly formulated, non-transformational approach to syntax, and the influence of this theory has been extensive (Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar). Examples and Observations In LFG, the structure of a sentence consists of two distinct formal objects: C[onstituent]-structure of the familiar kind plus a functional structure (or F-structure) which displays certain additional kinds of information. Most important in the F-structure is the labeling of grammatical relations like subject and object (these are called grammatical functions in LFG).The first part of the name reflects the fact that a great deal of work is done by the lexical entries, the dictionary part of the framework. Lexical entries are usually rich and elaborate, and each one inflected from a lexical item (such as write, writes, wrote, written and writing) has its own lexical entry. Lexical entries are responsible for dealing with many relations and processes handled by different machinery in other frameworks; an example is the voice contrast between actives and passives.(Robert Lawrence Trask and Peter Stockwell, Language and Linguistics: The Key Concepts, 2nd ed. Routledge, 2007)Different Kin ds of StructuresA natural language utterance is rich in structures of different kinds: sounds form recurring patterns and morphemes, words form phrases, grammatical functions emerge from morphological and phrasal structure, and patterns of phrases evoke a complex meaning. These structures are distinct but related; each structure contributes to and constrains the structure of other kinds of information. Linear precedence and phrasal organization are related both to the morphological structure of words and to the functional organization of sentences. And the functional structure of a sentencerelations like subject-of, object-of, modifier-of, and so onis crucial to determining what the sentence means.Isolating and defining these structures and the relations between them is a central task of linguistics. . . .Lexical Functional Grammar recognizes two different kinds of syntactic structures: the outer, visible hierarchical organization of words into phrases, and the inner, more abstract hierarchical organization of grammatical functions into complex functional structures. Languages vary greatly in the phrasal organization they allow, and in the order and means by which grammatical functions are realized. Word order may be more or less constrained, or almost completely free. In contrast the more abstract functional organization of languages varies comparatively little: languages with widely divergent phrasal organization nevertheless exhibit subject, object, and modifier properties that have been well-studied by traditional grammarians for centuries.(Mary Dalrymple, John Lamping, Fernando Pereira, and Vijay Saraswat, Overview and Introduction. Semantics and Syntax in Lexical Functional Grammar: The Resource Logic Approach, ed. by Mary Dalrymple. The MIT Press, 1999) C(onstituent)-Structure and F(unctional) StructureLFG contains multiple parallel structures each modeling a different aspect of linguistic structure. The main syntactic structures are (c)onstituent-structure and f(unctional) structure . . .C-structure models the surface syntactic form of language: it is here that surface precedence and dominance relations are encoded. C-structures are phrase-structure trees, characterized by a particular form of X theory . . . designed to accommodate the large amount of phrase structure variation found cross-linguistically, from the relatively strict configurationality of languages like English to the more radically non-configurational languages of Australia. . .C-structures are always base-generated; there is no movement. . . . [T]he effect of movement is achieved by the fact that different c-structure positions can be mapped into the same f-structure via unification.The level of f-structure models grammatical relations. Unlike c-structures, which a re phrase structure keys, f-structures are attribute-value matrices. F-structure attributes may be grammatical functions (e.g. SUBJ, OBJ, COMP, also nonargument functions TOP(IC), FOC(US)), tense/aspect/mood categories (e.g. TENSE), functional nominal categories (e.g. CASE, NUM, GEND), or the predicate (semantic) attribute PRED. . . . The contents of f-structure come from the lexical items of the sentences themselves, or annotations on the nodes of the c-structure linking pieces of c-structure to parts of the f-structure.(Rachel Nordlinger and Joan Bresnan, Lexical-Functional Grammar: Interactions Between Morphology and Syntax. Non-Transformational Syntax: Formal and Explicit Models of Grammar, ed. by Robert D. Borsley and Kersti Bà ¶rjars. Blackwell, 2011) Alternate Spellings: Lexical-Functional Grammar (capitalized)