语言资源观刍议

一般认为，社会性、工具性、系统性、全民性是语言的属性，其中社会性是语言的本质属性。从资源学的角度对语言进行分析表明．语言具有再生性、共有性、转移性、可利用性、价值性和守恒性等特点．这些特征是一般资源的共性特征．所以资源性也是语言的基本特征。语言研究的资源学视角是一个新的研究角度。     

大学英语教学中文化教学的可行性研究

本文从分析文化、语言、跨文化交际能力的关系入手,指出在大学英语教学中必须改变片面强调语言知识教学,忽视文化知识教学的现状,阐述了大学英语教学中导入文化教学的必要性、可行性以及文化教学的目标和内容。     

旅游业发展与旅游专业外语人才的培养

旅游业的迅猛发展需求大量的旅游专业外语人才。为适应这种需求 ,旅游外语专业人才的培养模式必须改革     

啸的起源——兼论语言的起源张应斌

人类的啸与动物的天籁近似,人类在前语言时期用啸进行交流,利用啸的生物语言特性狩猎,在啸的发生发展中蕴涵着丰富的文化人类学内容。     

学校早期读写训练对儿童读写成绩的影响

利用儿童家庭一学校早期语言与识字能力系列测验对每个目标儿童语言与识字能力发展进行了评定，并解释了这些测量结果与儿童学校早期语言与识字测量指标之间的关系。结果表明：(1)儿童丰富的同伴关系与词汇量、应变识字能力、下定义能力和理解力有关；(2)教师语言的丰富性有助于儿童语言与识字能力发展；(3)识字课程变量与三岁儿童的应变识字成绩和四岁儿童词汇量和故事理解有关；(4)影响儿童语言与识字能力的因素不是单一的，而是一个因素群。     

Bootstrap Estimation of Benchmark Doses and Confidence Limits with Clustered Quantal Data

The benchmark dose (BMD) is an exposure level that would induce a small risk increase (BMR level) above the background. The BMD approach to deriving a reference dose for risk assessment of noncancer effects is advantageous in that the estimate of BMD is not restricted to experimental doses and utilizes most available dose-response information. To quantify statistical uncertainty of a BMD estimate, we often calculate and report its lower confidence limit (i.e., BMDL), and may even consider it as a more conservative alternative to BMD itself. Computation of BMDL may involve normal confidence limits to BMD in conjunction with the delta method. Therefore, factors, such as small sample size and nonlinearity in model parameters, can affect the performance of the delta method BMDL, and alternative methods are useful. In this article, we propose a bootstrap method to estimate BMDL utilizing a scheme that consists of a resampling of residuals after model fitting and a one-step formula for parameter estimation. We illustrate the method with clustered binary data from developmental toxicity experiments. Our analysis shows that with moderately elevated dose-response data, the distribution of BMD estimator tends to be left-skewed and bootstrap BMDL s are smaller than the delta method BMDL s on average, hence quantifying risk more conservatively. Statistically, the bootstrap BMDL quantifies the uncertainty of the true BMD more honestly than the delta method BMDL as its coverage probability is closer to the nominal level than that of delta method BMDL. We find that BMD and BMDL estimates are generally insensitive to model choices provided that the models fit the data comparably well near the region of BMD. Our analysis also suggests that, in the presence of a significant and moderately strong dose-response relationship, the developmental toxicity experiments under the standard protocol support dose-response assessment at 5% BMR for BMD and 95% confidence level for BMDL.     

频率与投射在二语习得中的互补性

以频率为中心的二语习得理论认为,输入频率是影响第二语言习得顺序的重要因素,并对语言结构的能产性起着决定作用。投射假设则认为,语言习得并不完全以语言输入为基础,学习者对某个语言参数的习得往往蕴含着对另外一个相关参数的习得。频率和投射从不同的侧面揭示了第二语言习得的特点,在教学中恰当地利用这种互补有利于促进语言习得的进程,提高教学效率。     

Summary of the Workshop on Issues in Risk Assessment: Quantitative Methods for Developmental Toxicology

This report summarizes the proceedings of a conference on quantitative methods for assessing the risks of developmental toxicants. The conference was planned by a subcommittee of the National Research Council's Committee on Risk Assessment Methodology ⁴ in conjunction with staff from several federal agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission, and Health and Welfare Canada. Issues discussed at the workshop included computerized techniques for hazard identification, use of human and animal data for defining risks in a clinical setting, relationships between end points in developmental toxicity testing, reference dose calculations for developmental toxicology, analysis of quantitative dose-response data, mechanisms of developmental toxicity, physiologically based pharmacokinetic models, and structure-activity relationships. Although a formal consensus was not sought, many participants favored the evolution of quantitative techniques for developmental toxicology risk assessment, including the replacement of lowest observed adverse effect levels (LOAELs) and no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) with the benchmark dose methodology.     

What to do with “I Don't Know:” Elicitation in Ethnographic & Survey Interviews

When a researcher enters an interview, she has already construed it as being a standard type of communicative event. This article considers how a researcher's construal of a communicative event as either an ethnographic or survey interview shapes the production of information. Interview standards entail epistemological assumptions that directly inform the type of information sought and produced. I consider this process through a comparison of the elicitation techniques I employed in survey and ethnographic interviews conducted during research in Mexico. I draw on theory in linguistic anthropology on the nature of meaning in language, examining how dialogicality and interaction are essential to understanding the construal of communicative events.     

Intuitive Toxicology: Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks

Human beings have always been intuitive toxicologists, relying on their senses of sight, taste, and smell to detect harmful or unsafe food, water, and air. As we have come to recognize that our senses are not adequate to assess the dangers inherent in exposure to a chemical substance, we have created the sciences of toxicology and risk assessment to perform this function. Yet despite this great effort to overcome the limitations of intuitive toxicology, it has become evident that even our best scientific methods still depend heavily on extrapolations and judgments in order to infer human health risks from animal data. Many observers have acknowledged the inherent subjectivity in the assessment of chemical risks and have indicated a need to examine the subjective or intuitive elements of expert and lay risk judgments. We have begun such an examination by surveying members of the Society of Toxicology and the lay public about basic toxicological concepts, assumptions, and interpretations. Our results demonstrate large differences between toxicologists and laypeople, as well as differences between toxicologists working in industry, academia, and government. In addition, we find that toxicologists are sharply divided in their opinions about the ability to predict a chemical's effect on human health on the basis of animal studies. We argue that these results place the problems of risk communication in a new light. Although the survey identifies misconceptions that experts should clarify for the public, it also suggests that controversies over chemical risks may be fueled as much by limitations of the science of risk assessment and disagreements among experts as by public misconceptions.