Paradigm Level
Ashlyn Robello
In linguistics, morphological leveling or paradigm leveling is the generalization of an inflection across a linguistic paradigm, a group of forms with the same stem in which each form corresponds in usage to different syntactic environments,[1] or between words.[2] The result of such leveling is a paradigm that is less varied, having fewer forms.[3]
When a language becomes less synthetic, it is often a matter of morphological leveling. An example is the conjugation of English verbs, which has become almost unchanging today (see also null morpheme), thus contrasting sharply, for example, with Latin, in which one verb has dozens of forms, each one expressing a different tense, aspect, mood, voice, person, and number. For instance, English sing has only two forms in the present tense (I/you/we/they sing and he/she sings), but its Latin equivalent cantāre has six: one for each combination of person and number.
In trans-paradigmatic leveling, the process occurs between two forms originating from two separate paradigms. This means that a form from one paradigm begins to resemble the form of another from a separate paradigm.[4]
In this application of leveling, the verb to be becomes leveled to a select few forms used in the language. To be leveling is considered the extension by analogy[5][6][7] of the (more frequent) third-person singular form is to other persons, such as I is and they is. In English, this would be the use of I is for I am and they is for they are. This leveling extends to the past tense for was.[3] In dialects that use this leveling, examples would be "They was late" and "We was fixing it".
An ablaut is the vowel changes within a single root or its relations that is common to many Indo-European languages.[8] Within the terms of paradigm leveling, ablaut leveling occurs when the variation in the vowels used to differentiate between forms weakens, or lessens, to mimic a similar form.[9]
Prosody deals with the pitch, length, and loudness of the segments of words. In prosodic paradigm leveling (PPL), the prosody of the forms of a word will be leveled so that the prosodic distinction between the words is minor, or they are prosodically similar. This application of leveling occurs in two steps. The first being when a new form begins to gain use alongside an older version of the word. The second step is when the older form falls out of use and the newer one becomes the primary form of the word.[4]
In AAVE, this kind of leveling can be used to change the semantics of a sentence. When a speaker of this dialect says a phrase like, "I be working when they call," it does not mean the same as "I am working when they call." It means that the speaker is usually working when they receive the phone call. Thus, the leveling of the verb is used to show a recurring event instead of the typical immediate happening of the verb.[10]
In more general terms of Appalachian English, speakers will use the past tense form of to be instead of using the other conjugations of the verb. Thus, sentences like "We was talking" and "They was making a mess" become common in the language. They also make use of a contracted form of the verb was. These sentences look like "We's out last night." This contracted form differs from the contracted is form because of the decidedly past tense context of the sentence.[3]
An example of ablaut leveling would be the reanalysis of English strong verbs as weak verbs, such as bode becoming bided and swoll becoming swelled. The original strong forms of these and most other leveled verbs are readily understood by modern English speakers but are seldom used. Another example is how for all but a few nouns the original English plural suffixes stemming from the Old English weak declension have been replaced by one general plural marker; as late as the 16th century, shoon was still in use as the plural form of shoe, but in contemporary English the only acceptable form is shoes, using the general plural marker -s.
Historically, English has undergone a few changes in relation to prosodic paradigm leveling. For example, the word he'd in Australian English has experienced an internal leveling in terms of vowels. The original word was pronounced /hid/ (in IPA) in the same way as the word "heed" is pronounced in American English. However, it experienced influence from the weaker form of the word, /hɪd/. Thus, the primary pronunciation of the word became /hɪd/. Another example of this would be the word than. The word was originally pronounced /ːn/. This leveling occurred in terms of trans-paradigmatic leveling. The change in the word stemmed from paradigms like that (/t) and have (/hv/), from which than dropped the lengthening of the vowel to become /n/.[4]
In Germanic Languages, such as Swedish, Dutch and German, ablaut leveling occurs in relation to strong verbs. In the case of Swedish, the preterite will have a distinct vowel pattern in comparison to the past participle, specifically the preterite. An example of this would be the verb meaning to write, which is conjugated below:
The vowels for the preterite singular and past participle are "e" and "i", respectively. This follows the pattern mentioned above of Swedish keeping the two tenses separate. The leveling comes in with the fact that the other tenses match one or the other of the tenses. In this case, the infinitive/present and preterite plural tenses follow the past participle and use the vowel "i".
German and Dutch follow a different pattern, in that the vowels of the preterite singular and past participle are kept the same. However, this is only the favored pattern and certain verbs do deviate from this.
In the chart above, both the Dutch and German versions of the verb to offer keep the vowel of the preterite singular the same as the past participle. However, in the German verb to find and the Dutch verb to steal each have a different vowel used in the preterite singular and past participle.[9]
This is it: the new Paradigm, stylishly delivering an unprecedented level of audio realism. Our flagship showcase of vanguard materials, design acumen, and our most advanced technologies, all entirely Crafted in Canada.
Pure power, unleashed by clean, efficient amplification, in six models, from entry-level to the ultimate earthshaking performance. With app control and Anthem Room Correction (ARC), Defiance puts tremendous, perfectly balanced bass at your fingertips.
The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
Currently, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) facilitates a preoperative awareness of an association of an eloquent region with a tumor. This information gives the neurosurgeon helpful information that can aid in creating a surgical strategy. Typically, task-based fMRI has been employed to preoperatively localize speech and motor function. Task-based fMRI depends on the patient's ability to comply with the task paradigm, which often is impaired in the setting of a brain tumor. This problem is overcome by using resting-state fMRI (rs-fMRI) to localize function. rs-fMRI measures spontaneous fluctuations in the blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) signal, representing the brain's functional organization. In a neurosurgical context, it allows noninvasive simultaneous assessment of multiple large-scale distributed networks. Compared with task-related fMRI, rs-fMRI provides more comprehensive information on the functional architecture of the brain and is applicable in settings where task-related fMRI may provide inadequate information or could not be performed. Taken together, rs-fMRI substantially expands the preoperative mapping capability in efficiency, effectiveness, and scope. In this article, a brief introduction into rs-fMRI processing methods is followed by a detailed discussion on the role rs-fMRI plays in presurgical planning.
Although enrolment in school has increased over the years, learning levels remain low. In Nigeria for example, in spite of the various support efforts by both international and local NGOs, a 2015 report by the Nigeria Education Data Survey (NEDS) puts the literacy and numeracy rates of Nigerian primary school children at 48.4% and 54.5% respectively. The report is worrisome when we look at the rate in the foundational years P1 to P3. It shows that the literacy rate of Nigerian children stood at 27.6%, 40.8% and 54.4% for P1, P2 and P3 in that order.
From close observation, another element that makes TaRL stand out is mentoring and support. Apart from the robust training from Master Trainers, teachers/facilitators receive further mentoring and monitoring support from leaders of practice. This is a clear departure from approaches where teachers are gathered, trained and dispersed without further follow-up support. School Support Officers (SSOs) and Head teachers provide school-based mentoring support to teacher/facilitators thereby acting as leaders of practice. These leaders of practice must teach for a period of between 15 and 20 days before they can give effective support to teachers/facilitators.
In conclusion, on the strength of the above, it is no wonder that the TaRL methodology is gaining wide acceptance. This is because it is transforming education at the basic level by supporting P4 to P6 pupils to mitigate the gaps that exist in the skills they ought to have acquired from P1 to P3 and equipping them with basic foundational skills for Literacy and Numeracy.
The current challenges of implementing responsible innovation (RI) can in part be traced back to the (implicit) assumptions behind the ways of thinking that ground the different pre-existing theories and approaches that are shared under the RI-umbrella. Achieving the ideals of RI, therefore not only requires a shift on an operational and systemic level but also at the paradigm-level. In order to develop a deeper understanding of this paradigm shift, this paper analyses the paradigm-level assumptions that are (implicitly) being brought forward by the different conceptualizations of RI. To this purpose it deploys (1) a pragmatic stance on paradigms that allows discerning ontological and axiological elements shared by the RI community and (2) an accompanying critical hermeneutic research approach that enables the profiling of paradigmatic beliefs and assumptions of accounts of RI. The research surfaces the distance of four salient RI accounts from the currently dominant techno-economic innovation paradigm RI seeks to shift. With this, our contribution helps to raise the self-awareness of the RI community about their presuppositions and the paradigm level barriers and enablers to reaching the RI ideal. This insight is needed for a successful transition to responsible research and innovation practices.
ff7609af8f