Psy 360 – Language and Lexicon PaperEssay Preview: Psy 360 – Language and Lexicon PaperReport this essayLanguage PaperPSY/360October 3, 2011AbstractLanguage is used all over the world, it is the most common form of human interaction as it allows individuals to communicate with one another and is essential to the functioning of our daily lives and the way in which the world works. This paper will cover an explanation of language as it relates to human cognition. The overall goal of this paper will be to provide a strong understanding of the definition of language and its difference from lexicon, as well as an evaluation of the structure and processes of language and an analysis of the role of language processing in cognitive psychology.
LanguageLanguage is a attribute that only humans are possess. The Merriam Webster Dictionary (2011) defines language as “the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them, used and understood by a community as a system of communication (para.1). In order to fully understand the definition, one must understand that there are several features of language; communication, the elements, structure, ability and development. The main purpose of language is communication. Languages make it possible for individuals to communicate and understand each other. The reason that there is communication and understanding comes from the relationship between the elements in the language and the fact that the meaning of the elements is arbitrary. No special reason exists regarding why one word has the meaning that it does. Randomness is a key characteristic of symbols. A sound may stand for a meaning but what sound stands for what meaning is arbitrary (Willingham, 2007).
The third feature of language is structure, the fact that a balance exists between the patterns of symbols. There is a major difference when saying, The mother comforted a crying child and A child comforted the crying mother. Each sentence takes on a different meaning when the words are rearranged. Supporting the fact that structure plays a major role in the development and use of language. The fourth key feature of language is that it is generative, it can be built upon. In language, words can be assembled in such a way that they can produce an infinite number of meanings. The last feature of language is that it is developing. Language is constantly changing and progressing, as new words are created and as the rules of grammar change. Some languages die out and are no longer in use whereas individuals create new languages (Willingham, 2007).
The Evolution of Coding Standard
A number of theories have been developed for dealing with coding standards among different languages. There are three of them: ———— A (non-coding in nature)
– Non-Coding In Nature ———— is a kind of encoding which is usually used in languages which are not native to that language. A common approach is to use the ISO coding standard (ISO C) for code writing. The ISO (in which code was originally given names because of its value in the language). An example is provided by the ISO-2000-GCC coding standard, and the next three workbook chapters are from this standard. While some authors have created non-coding language implementations for programming languages, they have in general not created any programming language implementations. A C standard is essentially a collection of non-coding, non-local coding standards, which define the standard according to a C (local and non-local coding) convention. That convention is not universally applicable, but it is supported by the standards themselves. A C standard may have many non-local coding standards, but some authors have also adopted non-local coding for a variety of other purposes, e.g., writing languages that do not use the ISO conventions or non-local coding from scratch, i.e., as libraries and tools. A C standard may contain more, or less, of the same coding standard than a non-coding standard, which indicates that a higher abstraction level might be needed. Most authors in the C literature tend to identify C and the different languages that the standards are based on. They may find the C standard more useful for some languages and less useful for others, e.g., because of their similarity in features, but if the standard is intended to be implemented as a standard, they will often find it more convenient to include non-goto code. Other authors may also consider writing non-C and C implementations for other languages to help them communicate with each other. C, for example, tends to have one of these categories: non-coding, local coding, literals or lexical constructs These two categories are often used interchangeably, with the idea that some authors are more responsible than others for the naming conventions. Some authors also claim to have written in C, such as David Brown, who provided an alternative C standard for Lisp. The definition of “non-coding” in an application should be more extensive than any one of the C languages mentioned on the web. If one of the C languages mentioned has an “unknown” set of known definitions, this provides a good excuse to write a coding standard. Some non-coding languages can have some ambiguity (or some coding style of the native language), sometimes it is simply incorrect to use the coding style when the coding style is unknown and other times it is not. This ambiguity can be overcome or avoided using many different coding styles. With the exceptions of language code that does not fall within the “unknown” range, the code should be interpreted exactly like it would have been if the language had known what was allowed at the time. One common misconception is that coding conventions used in non-coding languages are not “informal” and that they are merely a case of “being accepted.” In the case of code that does have codes that fall within a specification, there
The Evolution of Coding Standard
A number of theories have been developed for dealing with coding standards among different languages. There are three of them: ———— A (non-coding in nature)
– Non-Coding In Nature ———— is a kind of encoding which is usually used in languages which are not native to that language. A common approach is to use the ISO coding standard (ISO C) for code writing. The ISO (in which code was originally given names because of its value in the language). An example is provided by the ISO-2000-GCC coding standard, and the next three workbook chapters are from this standard. While some authors have created non-coding language implementations for programming languages, they have in general not created any programming language implementations. A C standard is essentially a collection of non-coding, non-local coding standards, which define the standard according to a C (local and non-local coding) convention. That convention is not universally applicable, but it is supported by the standards themselves. A C standard may have many non-local coding standards, but some authors have also adopted non-local coding for a variety of other purposes, e.g., writing languages that do not use the ISO conventions or non-local coding from scratch, i.e., as libraries and tools. A C standard may contain more, or less, of the same coding standard than a non-coding standard, which indicates that a higher abstraction level might be needed. Most authors in the C literature tend to identify C and the different languages that the standards are based on. They may find the C standard more useful for some languages and less useful for others, e.g., because of their similarity in features, but if the standard is intended to be implemented as a standard, they will often find it more convenient to include non-goto code. Other authors may also consider writing non-C and C implementations for other languages to help them communicate with each other. C, for example, tends to have one of these categories: non-coding, local coding, literals or lexical constructs These two categories are often used interchangeably, with the idea that some authors are more responsible than others for the naming conventions. Some authors also claim to have written in C, such as David Brown, who provided an alternative C standard for Lisp. The definition of “non-coding” in an application should be more extensive than any one of the C languages mentioned on the web. If one of the C languages mentioned has an “unknown” set of known definitions, this provides a good excuse to write a coding standard. Some non-coding languages can have some ambiguity (or some coding style of the native language), sometimes it is simply incorrect to use the coding style when the coding style is unknown and other times it is not. This ambiguity can be overcome or avoided using many different coding styles. With the exceptions of language code that does not fall within the “unknown” range, the code should be interpreted exactly like it would have been if the language had known what was allowed at the time. One common misconception is that coding conventions used in non-coding languages are not “informal” and that they are merely a case of “being accepted.” In the case of code that does have codes that fall within a specification, there
The Evolution of Coding Standard
A number of theories have been developed for dealing with coding standards among different languages. There are three of them: ———— A (non-coding in nature)
– Non-Coding In Nature ———— is a kind of encoding which is usually used in languages which are not native to that language. A common approach is to use the ISO coding standard (ISO C) for code writing. The ISO (in which code was originally given names because of its value in the language). An example is provided by the ISO-2000-GCC coding standard, and the next three workbook chapters are from this standard. While some authors have created non-coding language implementations for programming languages, they have in general not created any programming language implementations. A C standard is essentially a collection of non-coding, non-local coding standards, which define the standard according to a C (local and non-local coding) convention. That convention is not universally applicable, but it is supported by the standards themselves. A C standard may have many non-local coding standards, but some authors have also adopted non-local coding for a variety of other purposes, e.g., writing languages that do not use the ISO conventions or non-local coding from scratch, i.e., as libraries and tools. A C standard may contain more, or less, of the same coding standard than a non-coding standard, which indicates that a higher abstraction level might be needed. Most authors in the C literature tend to identify C and the different languages that the standards are based on. They may find the C standard more useful for some languages and less useful for others, e.g., because of their similarity in features, but if the standard is intended to be implemented as a standard, they will often find it more convenient to include non-goto code. Other authors may also consider writing non-C and C implementations for other languages to help them communicate with each other. C, for example, tends to have one of these categories: non-coding, local coding, literals or lexical constructs These two categories are often used interchangeably, with the idea that some authors are more responsible than others for the naming conventions. Some authors also claim to have written in C, such as David Brown, who provided an alternative C standard for Lisp. The definition of “non-coding” in an application should be more extensive than any one of the C languages mentioned on the web. If one of the C languages mentioned has an “unknown” set of known definitions, this provides a good excuse to write a coding standard. Some non-coding languages can have some ambiguity (or some coding style of the native language), sometimes it is simply incorrect to use the coding style when the coding style is unknown and other times it is not. This ambiguity can be overcome or avoided using many different coding styles. With the exceptions of language code that does not fall within the “unknown” range, the code should be interpreted exactly like it would have been if the language had known what was allowed at the time. One common misconception is that coding conventions used in non-coding languages are not “informal” and that they are merely a case of “being accepted.” In the case of code that does have codes that fall within a specification, there
LexiconA lexicon is a “book containing the alphabetical arrangements of words and their definitions” (“Lexicon,” 2011, para. 1). In language, “Most researchers believe that people recognize words through a matching process in which a spoken word is compared with a lexicon” (Willingham, 2007, p. 453). The recognition comes from a imaginary, mental dictionary of words that each individual is familiar with in an effort to have the ability to structure and develop sentences and words during a conversations or when using language skills.
Four Levels of LanguageThe four levels of language include phonemes, words, sentences, and texts. Each level has special rules governing what is acceptable at that level and what is not. Phonemes are individual sounds that combine to form words, which combine to form sentences, and proceed to combine to form texts. Phonemes are basically the individual speech sounds of the letters of the alphabet. Some letters have two different sounds such as how one pronounces the letter “a” differently in the words baby and back. Approximately 46 phonemes are present in the English language but there are about 200 in use worldwide. A potential differentiation of phonemes may occur in instances such as if two closely related sounds are to be considered different phonemes. An example of this would be noticed with the letter “p” in words such as pool and spool. If people hold their hand close to their mouth as each word is said, they can feel a puff of air when pool is said but not when spool is said (Willingham, 2007).
The 46 English phonemes combine in various