ライフサイエンスコーパス: linguistic

1 rical time when nonlinguistic systems become linguistic.

2 mory utilising tasks that are not explicitly linguistic.

3 d word frequency estimation in computational linguistics.

4 ntal question for historical and comparative linguistics.

5 metabolism) and also discuss an example from linguistics.

6 l intelligence, economics, neuroscience, and linguistics.

7 e facilitate speech segmentation when common linguistic [4-8] and statistical cues [5, 9] are unrelia

8 It is not clear however, whether the limited linguistic ability seen in minimally-verbal (MV) childre

9 in the signed modality, as suggested by both linguistic acquisition and pathologies.

10 esults suggest that Cape Verdean genetic and linguistic admixture have followed parallel evolutionary

11 animals, and yield a better understanding of linguistic aerodynamics, i.e., aerophonetics.

12 with geography, but to a lesser extent, with linguistic affiliation and subsistence strategy.

13 This structure correlates neither with linguistic affiliation nor subsistence strategy, but wit

14 ons of these valleys, who share cultural and linguistic affinities with peoples found today on the Ti

15 nformation predictively to ensure that local linguistic ambiguities are dealt with "Right-First-Time"

16 Computational linguistic analyses were used to quantify the coherence

17 nflicting preferences at different levels of linguistic analysis (phonology vs. morphology).

18 ance of an encoding model in which annotated linguistic and acoustic features were combined and the d

19 s, non-progressive symptom trajectories, and linguistic and behavioural differences during clinical i

20 orbidity, symptom variability and additional linguistic and behavioural features suggest that chronic

21 Linguistic and cognitive phenotypes that were highly ass

22 visuo-motor content can affect deaf signers' linguistic and cognitive processing.

23 This study assessed a large range of linguistic and cognitive tasks across the full spectra o

24 Previous work has identified linguistic and cultural differences in time conception b

25 we took in the target article: namely, that linguistic and gestural components are two distinct yet

26 Every day we communicate using complex linguistic and musical systems, yet these modern systems

27 tion that word meaning integrates aspects of linguistic and nonlinguistic "experiential" knowledge.

28 mbinatoriality, better carve up the range of linguistic and nonlinguistic human communication.

29 ognitive algorithms productively divide both linguistic and nonlinguistic information along familiar

30 des the acoustic similarity of phonemes, and linguistic and nonlinguistic information are best repres

31 mplex multilevel representations of relevant linguistic and nonlinguistic knowledge.

32 Linguistic and psycholinguistic tests will be more usefu

33 seen considerable advances in describing the linguistic and semantic changes that happen during the a

34 ween cellular-level mechanisms, system-level linguistic and semantic function.

35 that they are grounded also in internalized linguistic and social interaction.

36 ant produced a large variety of movements in linguistic and transitional movement contexts.

37 more, neural activity clearly differentiated linguistic and transitional movements, demonstrating enc

38 We varied the linguistic and visuospatial processing demands in three

39 like spoken languages" - the view from sign linguistics and developmental research in cognition pres

40 iplines - such as anthropology, archaeology, linguistics and genetics - that have until recently evol

41 f an interdisciplinary programme integrating linguistics and psychology as part of the cognitive scie

42 opulations selected to represent geographic, linguistic, and ethnic diversities, and (ii) individuals

43 ast of Africa, Madagascar exhibits cultural, linguistic, and genetic traits from both Southeast Asia

44 auditory system as being shaped by acoustic, linguistic, and musical experience and training.

45 ed description of the longitudinal clinical, linguistic, and neuroimaging features of a cohort of 11

46 of cognitive stimulation and sensory, motor, linguistic, and social experiences common among children

47 extensive evidence in cognitive psychology, linguistics, and philosophy.

48 These results are in agreement with some linguistic, archaeological, and anthropological data ind

49 en the subject of numerous genetic, medical, linguistic, archaeological, and anthropological investig

50 wn and others' structural choices supports a linguistic architecture involving a single shallow level

51 habitable land that other datasets (genetic, linguistic) are also still trying to resolve.

52 Language is a complex construct involving linguistic as well as visual, auditory, and motor proces

53 In this review, I discuss linguistic aspects of PPA syndromes that may prove infor

54 ings is consistent with the possibility that linguistic associations shape people's implicit judgemen

55 The extent to which non-linguistic auditory processing deficits may contribute t

56 , while others are modulated by the cultural/linguistic background of the listener.

57 nts that convey iconic information tied to a linguistic base morpheme.

58 As such, understanding the ways in which linguistic bias reinforces gender and other stereotypes

59 r inequality and offers strategies to reduce linguistic bias.

60 uggest that using ML algorithms for learning linguistic biomarkers from the verbal utterances of elde

61 arned several syntactic, lexical, and n-gram linguistic biomarkers to distinguish the probable AD gro

62 eveloping a complete picture of our species' linguistic capabilities.

63 nscribing perceptual constraints into common linguistic categories with slight variations.

64 ategorisation patterns, and the processes of linguistic categorisation in both cases follow similar d

65 ptual constraints induce the universality in linguistic categorisation, yet socio-cultural transmissi

66 ea, type of review or reviewer gender on the linguistic characteristics is a sign of the robustness o

67 -analysis software was used to determine the linguistic characteristics of 472,449 peer review report

68 recommendation had the biggest impact on the linguistic characteristics of reports, and that area of

69 bitrary associations have been documented in linguistics, cognitive science, and anthropology, but th

70 The universal linguistic colour categorisation pattern as evident in t

71 relative importance of these two aspects to linguistic colour categorisation.

72 albeit imperfect agreement, suggesting that linguistic communication and visual perception convey pa

73 t brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) allow for linguistic communication but are cumbersome for expressi

74 human abilities: causal reasoning, planning, linguistic communication, moral judgment, etc.

75 f comparative linguistic data, and apply the linguistic comparative method to identify sound correspo

76 dence for differences in neural responses to linguistic competition between versus within languages,

77 uccessful communication, ranging from poorer linguistic comprehension to alterations in speech prosod

78 a fundamental challenge to proposals whereby linguistic computations, such as inhibiting irrelevant m

79 Although acknowledging the similarity to linguistic concepts toward the higher end of the propose

80 ion independently from motor, cognitive, and linguistic confounds.

81 e technology provides less information about linguistic constraints and categories.

82 natorial processing beyond prosody, and that linguistic content (i.e., structure and meaning) organiz

83 e oscillations encode endogenously generated linguistic content over and above exogenous or stimulus-

84 mation (MI) analysis revealed sensitivity to linguistic content: MI was highest for sentences at the

85 y data yield insight into a deeper past than linguistic data can, while linguistic data provide clari

86 seen as only one of the tools available for linguistic data collection.

87 individual genetic variation [11-23], their linguistic data have not considered corresponding long-r

88 deeper past than linguistic data can, while linguistic data provide clarity to ancestry data.

89 debate we develop a database of comparative linguistic data, and apply the linguistic comparative me

90 her person's gaze is critical for social and linguistic development, but functions atypically in auti

91 In this way, a simple linguistic device serves a powerful meaning-making funct

92 strate that this ubiquitous but understudied linguistic device, known as "generic-you," has important

93 Do these linguistic devices actually reduce biases that favor men

94 e one entailing cultural diffusion biased by linguistic differences is the most plausible.

95 MV-ASD children and suggest that some of the linguistic differences observed in these children arise

96 Many of the linguistic distinctions often used to support complex (o

97 n does not necessarily limit the genetic and linguistic diversity of human societies.

98 nt cultivation 10 ka, and great cultural and linguistic diversity today.

99 Linguistic diversity, now and in the past, is widely reg

100 g whether language control is uniform across linguistic domains (production and comprehension) and wh

101 ng information that are retained even in non-linguistic domains.

102 res impose unique combinatory constraints on linguistic elements [3].

103 -month-old male and female infants using the Linguistic ENvironment Analysis (LENA) system and measur

104 lays, and point to the pivotal role of early linguistic environment in the development of the neural

105 Although linguistic, ethnographic, and genetic evidence points cl

106 Data analysis adopted the perspective of linguistic ethnography.

107 14 open populations and 10 geographic and/or linguistic European isolates.

108 ) using a behavioral language assessment and linguistic event-related potentials (ERPs).

109 on their expected perceptual effects (i.e., linguistic events).

110 a et al. review historical, etymological and linguistic evidence concerning the spelling of 'neuron(e

111 Early linguistic experience may facilitate ToM development, vi

112 observed in young children, who have similar linguistic experience, rather than those in age-matched

113 tions are incorrect for cognitive-functional linguistics, exposing converging perspectives on form/me

114 The nature of mental representations of linguistic expressions in relation to the time course fr

115 y across continents and linguistic lineages (linguistic families or isolates).

116 motor planning and execution, as well as for linguistic features and working memory load; it also all

117 lude that models of brain responses based on linguistic features can serve as excellent benchmarks.

118 (STG) is critical for extracting meaningful linguistic features from speech input.

119 We also show that it enables the binding of linguistic features over time within dynamic memory regi

120 automated diagnostic models using low-level linguistic features resulting from verbal utterances cou

121 t life, long before there were more advanced linguistic features such as referential vocabulary.

122 inferior frontal gyrus were associated with linguistic features such as voice onset time, duration o

123 activity in each network covaries with some linguistic features that, behaviorally, influence on-lin

124 individual coaching appointments to receive linguistic feedback, listen to language input in their o

125 in language as a result of randomness in how linguistic forms are copied between speakers.

126 However, the complex links between linguistics forms and their phonetic realizations defy s

127 meaning is left-lateralized indicating that linguistic function and language experience shape speech

128 y low-level acoustic cues, but also by their linguistic function.

129 n blindness, this region takes on high-level linguistic functions, becoming less selective for readin

130 tence of discrete units at various levels of linguistic granularity that then must be operated upon b

131 nto haplotype sharing across different ethno-linguistic groups and the recent movement of alleles int

132 By applying different linguistic groups as well as the most likely ancestral N

133 n populations covering all major continental linguistic groups, ecosystems, and lifestyles within Afr

134 The data indicate that continents, ethno-linguistic groups, races, ethnicities, and individuals a

135 s have focused on just two of the four major linguistic groups, the Niger-Congo and Afro-Asiatic, lea

136 in economics, psychology, neuroscience, and linguistics has begun to integrate both approaches by au

137 We develop methods for identifying linguistic hierarchical structure emergent in artificial

138 Implications of these findings for the linguistic hypothesis uniting Ket and Na-Dene languages

139 ehave like functions, typically discussed in linguistics (i.e., predicators).

140 cs has uncovered a sophisticated typology of linguistic inferences, characterized by their conversati

141 amodal language processing but also that the linguistic information contained in the unfolding senten

142 Neural oscillations track linguistic information during speech comprehension (Ding

143 l stream because reading involves extracting linguistic information from visual symbols.

144 network because reading involves extracting linguistic information from visual symbols.

145 sen & Chater (C&C)'s key premise is that "if linguistic information is not processed rapidly, that in

146 ory function, track the amount of contextual linguistic information provided in sentences.

147 es, which can successfully be predicted from linguistic information unobtrusively collected through s

148 low for ever greater interference from extra-linguistic information, and that it is nevertheless the

149 ven by previous experience with acoustic and linguistic information, and with a neurophysiological ef

150 ower-level acoustic features to higher-level linguistic information.

151 ust normalize across speakers without losing linguistic information.

152 understand (1) the precise mappings between linguistic input and comprehenders' syntactic knowledge;

153 ttleneck, the brain must compress and recode linguistic input as rapidly as possible.

154 icitly, as evidence that both networks track linguistic input closely, and in a manner consistent acr

155 visual inputs from retinotopic cortices and linguistic input from the frontotemporal language networ

156 Perceiving linguistic input is vital for human functioning, but the

157 t is not clear how the human brain processes linguistic input within the rich contextual environments

158 g that this network has continuous access to linguistic input, and suggests a new typology of compreh

159 ge system must "eagerly" recode and compress linguistic input; (2) as the bottleneck recurs at each n

160 al successfully with the continual deluge of linguistic input?

161 ntextually most predictive list chunks while linguistic inputs are stored in the working memory.

162 We find that word-level methods (e.g., Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count [LIWC] 2015 and Langua

163 dit, we employed two psycholinguistic tools, Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count and Empath and activit

164 Here, we argue that successfully gaining linguistic insights from structural priming requires us

165 e, poverty, unemployment, homeownership, and linguistic isolation.

166 d by neural models for short-term storage of linguistic items in an Item-Order-Rank working memory, w

167 In addition to linguistic knowledge and fluency, nursing requires consi

168 The brain is thought to combine linguistic knowledge of words and nonlinguistic knowledg

169 tified, and thus more easily linked to their linguistic labels (spoon, horse, run, jump).

170 Independent of self-identified ethno-linguistic labels, the vast majority (97.3%) of individu

171 Menzerath's law is a linguistic law that states that, the larger the construc

172 een to test whether patterns consistent with linguistic laws are found in nonhuman animals.

173 Linguistic laws constitute one of the quantitative corne

174 the value of exploring the applicability of linguistic laws in vocal systems outside the realm of la

175 predictions for upcoming input at different linguistic levels (sounds, words, sentences, discourse).

176 ry requires nested levels of processing, but linguistic levels do not fully nest; further, it would s

177 occurring persistently across continents and linguistic lineages (linguistic families or isolates).

178 However, B&P overlook a vast (corpus-)linguistic literature that converges with - but extends

179 ain-general multiple demand (MD) regions for linguistic manipulations.

180 ssible point, recent studies have shown that linguistic markers such as word choice, utterance and se

181 s regularly use intonational pitch to convey linguistic meaning, such as to emphasize a particular wo

182 ral events that underlie the construction of linguistic meaning.

183 we observe successful "one-shot learning" of linguistic meanings, with four of the main inference typ

184 We first develop a new linguistic measure to measure historical changes in tigh

185 We develop computational linguistic methods that extract levels of respect automa

186 ples from Albanian- and Greek-speaking ethno-linguistic minorities of Southern Italy.

187 determined cognitive substrate: For example, linguistic nativism proposes a domain-specific faculty o

188 ionary stance appears to provide support for linguistic nativism, because coordinated constraints on

189 Previous studies have shown that linguistic negation reduces the accessibility of the neg

190 ntators suggested additional theoretical and linguistic nuances and extensions, links with prior work

191 or a merge operation that applies equally to linguistic objects of arbitrary complexity.

192 eam regions mediating phonological and other linguistic operations, with complementary support of are

193 With a cultural and linguistic origin in Island Southeast Asia the Lapita ex

194 g for context-free grammars in computational linguistics, our alternative dynamic programming algorit

195 ions through a visual pathway than through a linguistic pathway.

196 Attempts to explain linguistic phenomena as consequences of memory constrain

197 ently, an exciting body of work has examined linguistic phenomena through the lens of efficiency in u

198 s move from universal discrimination of most linguistic phonemic contrasts to phonemic expertise in t

199 Linguistic Platonism could offer a solution to this para

200 Referred to as "linguistic positivity bias" (LPB), this effect has been

201 indings suggest that SNA originates from pre-linguistic precursors, and pave the way to the investiga

202 thodologies showing cerebellar engagement in linguistic prediction and suggest that internal modeling

203 These results demonstrate that linguistic preferences doubly dissociate from sensorimot

204 In normally-hearing (NH) adults, this linguistic pressure on pitch appears to sharpen its neur

205 mantic relations from PubMed abstracts using linguistic principles and UMLS domain knowledge.

206 s are in line with the possibility that some linguistic principles are abstract, and they apply broad

207 variable formats, lack of digitization, and linguistic problems.

208 eech, and which aspects reflect higher-level linguistic processing related to speech comprehension.

209 -relevant brain areas, which is required for linguistic processing, may depend on the contributions o

210 signal, and speech comprehension, related to linguistic processing.

211 evidence linking the hippocampal complex to linguistic processing.

212 language system, typically recruited during linguistic processing.

213 paradigm example of the complexity of human linguistic processing; however, it is also the dominant

214 We find that the manual modality takes on linguistic properties, even in the hands of a child not

215 owever, current approaches focus only on one linguistic relationship at a time, missing the complex m

216 ers a mechanistic linking hypothesis between linguistic representation and cortical computation.

217 neurobiological mechanism when hierarchical linguistic representation became an efficient solution t

218 ng as a useful tool for the investigation of linguistic representation but not the only tool.

219 Assuming that linguistic representation has been studied only by lingu

220 he strength of inductive inference regarding linguistic representation is rather limited.

221 for language can and should be equated with linguistic representation or with language processing.

222 to produce a cognitively plausible model of linguistic representation.

223 tural priming is a valuable tool for probing linguistic representation.

224 upplant grammaticality judgments for testing linguistic representation.

225 the language system must build a multilevel linguistic representation; and (3) the language system m

226 the use of syntactic priming to investigate linguistic representations and argue that it overcomes s

227 onstraints require detailed specification of linguistic representations and memory architectures alik

228 processed in the future, which suggests that linguistic representations are not static entities that

229 ires, emotions, motivations, intentions, and linguistic representations exert direct, top-down influe

230 ructural priming paradigm is a Royal Road to linguistic representations of any kind, unobstructed by

231 provides an implicit method of investigating linguistic representations that should end the current r

232 Understanding the nature of linguistic representations undoubtedly will benefit from

233 Once integrated into linguistic representations, this visuo-motor content can

234 lds only incomplete data about the nature of linguistic representations.

235 ing levels, it cannot detect every aspect of linguistic representations.

236 e direct evidence about the nature of stored linguistic representations.

237 as the holy grail for testing the nature of linguistic representations.

238 l priming is a useful tool for investigating linguistics representations.

239 in continuous flowing speech, the cognitive/linguistic restorative processes observed after sentence

240 owed by a combination of algorithms applying linguistic rules with groups of known terms to extract c

241 he rules of word association are dictated by linguistic rules, or grammar.

242 n be generalized, a paramount requirement of linguistic rules.

243 ived visual areas, which therefore adopted a linguistic-semantic role.

244 arn to categorize, or chunk, variable-length linguistic sequences, and choose the contextually most p

245 ing on crystallised intelligence (humanistic/linguistic) showed no correlation with chronotype.

246 ign language users, gesture - in contrast to linguistic sign - is iconic, highly variable, and simila

247 nally related computations, e.g., detect the linguistic signal and perform other cognitive functions,

248 evidence of relatively poor tracking of the linguistic signal by the MD regions during naturalistic

249 To detect the linguistic signal, human brains must form hierarchical r

250 These results suggest that the cross-linguistic similarity in color-naming efficiency reflect

251 ve unexplained problems acquiring proficient linguistic skills despite adequate intelligence and oppo

252 Although AF anatomy has been related to linguistic skills, an explanation of how this fiber bund

253 We propose that the focus on linguistic status is problematic, and a shift to focus o

254 shape the representation of words and other linguistic stimuli - for example, incorporating in it th

255 Using non-linguistic stimuli devoid of meaning we assessed three k

256 d suggest that cerebellar internal models of linguistic stimuli support semantic prediction.SIGNIFICA

257 xists in primary progressive aphasia for non-linguistic stimuli.

258 oup differences in the dynamic processing of linguistic stimuli.

259 he way we remember words, but also other non-linguistic stimuli.

260 rise images, the task is unlikely to utilise linguistic strategies and suggests the maintenance of se

261 e extent to which typological differences in linguistic structure can be traced to processing differe

262 istic structure during natural speech, where linguistic structure does not follow such a palpable tem

263 nclear whether low-frequency activity tracks linguistic structure during natural speech, where lingui

264 This paper explores the knowledge of linguistic structure learned by large artificial neural

265 kinship channels can change the genetic and linguistic structure of populations.

266 uages, as these codified systems display the linguistic structure that homesign has the potential to

267 y investigating the mental representation of linguistic structure.

268 than a system of pictorial gestures without linguistic structure.

269 -based internal construction of hierarchical linguistic structure.

270 urrently tracked the time course of abstract linguistic structures at different hierarchical levels,

271 In speech, hierarchical linguistic structures do not have boundaries that are cl

272 Notably, the neural tracking of hierarchical linguistic structures was dissociated from the encoding

273 t from spoken language, with all of the same linguistic structures.

274 racted predictive features measuring affect, linguistic style, and context from participant tweets (N

275 Principles from linguistics suggest that the richness or diversity of in

276 In children, however, linguistic systems are still malleable, meaning that the

277 nts) or have focused on a specific cognitive/linguistic task (e.g. reading).

278 We employ a popular linguistic technique, n-gram analysis, to probe the "pro

279 ch biomechanics, ethnography, and historical linguistics that labiodental sounds (such as "f" and "v"

280 nfold sequentially, one word at a time, most linguistic theories propose that their underlying syntac

281 ful technique for testing the predictions of linguistic theories, but one cannot conclude anything de

282 tural priming is a powerful method to inform linguistic theories.

283 ng the syntactic structures of sentences and linguistics theories.

284 ure for language research lies in connecting linguistics to cognitive psychology and mathematical the

285 However, studies investigating linguistic tracking have either relied on non-naturalist

286 Closer analyses of linguistic trends of presidential language indicate that

287 stic information along familiar parts of the linguistic typology.

288 Usage-based cognitive linguistic (UBCL) theories offer a unifying interpretati

289 g loss to explore the possibility that a non-linguistic unaided spectrotemporal modulation (STM) dete

290 lso leads to increased awareness of words as linguistic units and to more fine-grained phonological a

291 es challenge this view, maintaining that all linguistic units exhibit gradience.

292 mmatical system, resulting in a hierarchy of linguistic units, such as words, phrases and sentences.

293 factors interact with each other to trigger linguistic universality, and serve as decisive evidence

294 Christiansen & Chater (C&C) ignore the many linguistic universals that cannot be reduced to processi

295 ks for a challenging listening task (i.e., a linguistic variant of the Posner paradigm with concurren

296 This linguistic variation is as yet unexplained but could be

297 To examine cotransmission of genetic and linguistic variation within populations, we collected ge

298 ectories, with cotransmission of genetic and linguistic variation.

299 y locations and distinct neural activity for linguistic versus transitional movements.

300 ants whose attention was occupied with a non-linguistic visual feature-detection task.

301 ive acts in both systems combine categorical linguistic (words or signs) with imagistic (gestures) co