關於 function word meaning ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

[時事英文] Alzheimer’s Prediction May Be Found in Writing Tests

沒想到英文寫作可以用來預測阿爾茨海默症。

受試者當中應該沒有第二語言學習者吧。

音檔: https://bit.ly/3lcBTxr

★★★★★★★★★★★★

Alzheimer’s Prediction May Be Found in Writing Tests
阿爾茨海默症可以預測嗎？寫作測試也許提供了答案

Is it possible to predict who will develop Alzheimer’s disease simply by looking at writing patterns years before there are symptoms? According to a new study by IBM researchers, the answer is yes. And, they and others say that Alzheimer’s is just the beginning. People with a wide variety of neurological illnesses have distinctive language patterns that, investigators suspect, may serve as early warning signs of their diseases.

• Alzheimer’s disease 阿爾茨海默症
• symptoms 癥狀、症狀
• according to a new study 根據一個新研究
• a wide variety of 多種～的
• neurological illnesses 神經系統疾病
• distinctive language patterns 獨特的語言模式
• an early warning sign of ～的早期預警訊號

有沒有可能在出現癥狀之前的幾年裡，僅僅通過觀察書寫模式來預測誰會患上阿爾茨海默症？ 根據IBM研究人員的一項新研究，答案是肯定的。而且，他們和其他一些研究人員表示，阿爾茨海默症的預測只是開始。研究人員懷疑，患有多種神經系統疾病的人都有著獨特的語言模式，可能是他們疾病的早期預警信號。

★★★★★★★★★★★★

The researchers examined the subjects’ word usage with an artificial intelligence program that looked for subtle differences in language. It identified one group of subjects who were more repetitive in their word usage at that earlier time when all of them were cognitively normal. These subjects also made errors, such as spelling words wrongly or inappropriately capitalizing them, and they used telegraphic language, meaning language that has a simple grammatical structure and is missing subjects and words like “the,” “is” and “are.”

• word usage 詞彙使用情況
• subtle differences 細微差別
• artificial intelligence 人工智慧
• repetitive 重複的
• telegraphic language* 電報式語言
• simple grammatical structure 簡單的語法結構

研究人員利用一個人工智慧程序，檢查受試者的詞彙使用情況，尋找語言上的細微差別。他們鑒定出一組受試者，在早期所有人的認知能力都正常的情況下，他們的用詞重複情況更為嚴重。這些測試對象還會犯一些錯誤，比如拼寫錯誤或者大寫使用不當，而且會使用電報式語言——語法結構簡單，漏掉主語以及「the」、「is」和「are」這樣的詞。

*telegraphic language is speech during the two-word stage of language acquisition in children, which is laconic and efficient but lack of function words, tense and plural endings on nouns.

★★★★★★★★★★★★

The members of that group turned out to be the people who developed Alzheimer’s disease. The A.I. program predicted, with 75 percent accuracy, who would get Alzheimer’s disease, according to results published recently in The Lancet journal EClinicalMedicine. “We had no prior assumption that word usage would show anything,” said Ajay Royyuru, vice president of health care and life sciences research at IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, N.Y., where the A.I. analysis was done.

• develop a disease 患上疾病
• with % accuracy 準確率達～％
• no prior assumption 沒有先想到、先假設到
• usage （詞語或語言的）用法
• A.I. analysis 人工智慧分析

這群人後來都患上了阿爾茨海默症。根據《柳葉刀》(The Lancet)子刊《臨床醫學》(EClinicalMedicine)最近發表的研究結果，該人工智慧能夠預測誰將患上阿爾茨海默症，準確率達75%。「我們之前沒有想到用詞情況還有這個用途，」紐約州約克敦高地的IBM托馬斯·沃森研究中心(IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center)醫療保健和生命科學研究副總裁阿賈伊·羅伊尤魯(Ajay Royyuru)說。人工智慧分析就是在該中心進行的。

★★★★★★★★★★★★

文章來自《紐約時報》: https://nyti.ms/3pXsI5l

圖片來源: http://bit.ly/3qsX3sb

Ideologies just got mixed into doctrinal basis ...

For my friends who are interested in the Evangelical Theological Society, please take a look at this important message from past president Stan Gundry, who, like me, is vitally interested in the continuing health of the Society. He has given me permission to copy it here.

WHENCE AND WHITHER ETS?
An Open Letter to the Members of ETS
Stanley N. Gundry
President of the Evangelical Theological Society, 1978

The following resolutions were adopted in the last business session of the 2015 national meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society:
(1) We affirm that all persons are created in the image and likeness of God and thus possess inherent dignity and worth.
(2) We affirm that marriage is the covenantal union of one man and one woman, for life.
(3) We affirm that Scripture teaches that sexual intimacy is reserved for marriage as defined above. This excludes all other forms of sexual intimacy.
(4) We affirm that God created men and women, imbued with the distinct traits of manhood and womanhood, and that each is an unchangeable gift of God that constitutes personal identity.
In the immediate aftermath of this business session, many ETS members were deeply troubled that any ETS members would vote against these resolutions. The post-ETS blogs of a few ETS members and the comments of their followers expressed dismay that anyone who claims to be evangelical and subscribes to the Doctrinal Basis of the Society would cast a negative vote.
But there was also a significant minority that opposed and voted against these resolutions. These members were troubled that such resolutions would be introduced, that they were not ruled out of order or at least tabled, and that they were passed by a significant majority of those present and voting. I was among the minority that voted “Nay.”
Why? It is a question that deserves to be answered because I am convinced that the future of ETS depends on our repudiation of what happened in that session and that ETS members must realize that resolutions of this nature are not consistent with the nature of the Society. In fact, the issue at stake is whether or not ETS will remain committed to the original purpose for which ETS was formed. I have not taken even an informal poll of others who voted against the resolutions, but I have discussed the matter with enough members to give me confidence that many members agree that the future of ETS is at stake.
My history within ETS uniquely qualifies me to address the concerns these resolutions raise. I have been immersed in the culture and affairs of ETS since my student days in the 1950s and 1960s. I knew on a first-name basis many of the first-generation ETS members. I was taught by some of them. I have been a full member of the Society since about 1968. I have attended most national meetings since 1970, and in the 1970s I was an active participant in the Midwestern section of ETS, serving also as president of that section and on its leadership committee. Then in 1978 I served as the national president of ETS and planned the program for the 30th Annual Meeting of ETS in collaboration with Dr. Kenneth Kantzer, followed by serving the allotted time on the ETS Executive Committee. Relevant to the concerns at hand, my first-hand knowledge of the workings of ETS and its Constitution, most especially the Purpose and Doctrinal Basis of the Society as stated in the Constitution, and my acquaintance with many of the founders and first-generation members of ETS give me insight into their intentions in forming the Society.
So why did I vote against the resolutions? Because the resolutions went beyond the Doctrinal Basis of the Society and were inconsistent with the clearly stated Purpose of ETS. But I run ahead of myself and it is a bit more complicated than that. So let me start at the beginning, the resolutions themselves.
First, it is unfortunate that the resolutions were presented at the last business meeting and then discussed and voted on as a group. My understanding is that those responsible for the agenda did not anticipate that the resolutions would be controversial and so they were scheduled to be considered in the last business session. This was not inconsistent as such with the ETS Constitution or Bylaws, but in a case like this, members should have had advance warning of the nature of the resolutions and ample opportunity to discuss them among themselves and on the floor of the business meeting. Further, many members had already left the conference or were absent for other reasons. Thus, members could not deliberately consider in advance whether or not voting on such resolutions was even consistent with the Purpose of ETS; and, given the time constraints of the program, there was not sufficient time to debate the merits of the individual resolutions and to vote up or down on each one.
The resolutions were so poorly stated that they needed such careful consideration. For instance, the second resolution ignored the question of biblical grounds for divorce and remarriage. And given the diversity of views on divorce and remarriage within ETS, is this really a question on which ETS should be taking a position even in the form of a resolution? What about the third resolution? Viewed superficially, who could possibly object to that resolution? But looked at more closely, “sexual intimacy” and “all other forms of sexual intimacy” are squishy descriptors. Are they intended to refer to physical sexual intimacy, and if so, are holding hands, kissing, or hugging forbidden? My fundamentalist and separatist father would have thought so, but what about the membership of ETS? Would we have a consensus on that question?
And what about the fourth resolution affirming “distinct traits of manhood and womanhood”? While I suspect all members of ETS (even those of us who self-identify as biblical egalitarians) believe that men and women in many respects are complementary to one another, many of us also believe that the terms “manhood” and “womanhood” are reifications of socially and culturally conditioned patterns of behavior more than they are descriptors of biblically supported male and female characteristics. Rather than being biblically supported, the terms tend to refer to stereotypical lists of alleged gender characteristics to which men and women are expected to conform. Even self-avowed complementarians have no consensus on what constitutes “manhood and womanhood,” so why would a scholarly society like ETS that includes both complementarians and egalitarians even take such a resolution seriously?
So I return to the opening statement of this first point—scheduling the resolutions for consideration as a group at the second business meeting without prior notice meant there was not adequate time to consider and debate the merits and wording of the resolutions and it made it impossible to carefully consider whether or not voting on such resolutions was even consistent with the Purpose of ETS.
Second, this broader issue needs to be considered by the Society. Is it even appropriate for resolutions to be introduced, debated, and voted on that go beyond the Doctrinal Basis and officially stated Purpose of the Society? I believe the answer is a clear and unequivocal “No!” Members tend to forget that ETS was never intended to have a doctrinal statement to which members had to subscribe. We have a “Doctrinal Basis,” one that originally had one affirmation: The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. Years later, the Trinitarian statement was added to the Doctrinal Basis out of concern that anti-Trinitarians such as Jehovah’s Witnesses might successfully claim membership in ETS. But even with that addition, it remains a Doctrinal Basis, not a doctrinal statement. Some members seem not to understand and/or remember the significance of the fact that we function as a scholarly society with a Doctrinal Basis. But even many who remember that we have a Doctrinal Basis all too easily and sloppily refer to it using the phrases “doctrinal basis” and “doctrinal statement” interchangeably, suggesting they do not really understand (or perhaps accept) the significance of the distinction. But this distinction is at the very heart and Purpose of ETS. A bit of historical context will be useful here.
When ETS was formed in 1949, evangelical biblical and theological scholarship was just beginning to emerge from its decline in the dark days of the modernist-fundamentalist debate and the loss of so many mainline denominations and associated colleges, seminaries, and missionary agencies to the takeover of these institutions by theological liberals. For at least fifteen or twenty years, fundamentalists and evangelicals at the local church and grassroots level had a profound suspicion of serious biblical and theological scholarship. But in the mid and late 1940s, this began to change as scholars who were willing to self-identify as fundamentalists (in the classic meaning of that term) and/or evangelical began to find each other, come together, and realize that in spite of all that divided them, they held one thing in common—the Bible and the Bible alone in its entirety is God’s Word written, it speaks truthfully on whatever it intends to say and teach, and hence it is the only rule for Christian faith and practice. Eventually in 1949 many of the fundamentalist and evangelical scholars who shared this conviction agreed there was a need for a scholarly society where members shared the same basis on which conservative scholarship and research should be discussed and debated. On that Doctrinal Basis, they formed the Evangelical Theological Society.
It is easy to forget, or perhaps many ETS members do not know, how deep and sometimes rancorous the divisions were that otherwise separated these same scholars. These divisions ranged from matters of church polity to biblical hermeneutics to the various loci of systematic theology. In fact, dispensational and amillennial theologians were accustomed to trading charges that the hermeneutical methods and theological systems of the other undermined the authority of Scripture. Scholars who practiced secondary separation risked their reputations if they joined with other evangelical scholars who practiced only primary separation or who were inclusivists. At least four of the ETS presidents in the first twenty years of the society would have been sympathetic to what is now known as biblical egalitarianism, a matter over which ETS members today have profound disagreements. Yet these scholars came together in ETS as did Pentecostals and cessationists, believer-immersionists and paedo-sprinklers, Arminians and Wesleyans and Reformed and Lutheran, as well as those who held to congregational, or presbyterial, or episcopal church polity.
A quick scan of the listing of ETS presidents over the past sixty-seven years and the institutions they represented makes the same point. Schools represented range from Wycliffe College, to Dallas Theological Seminary, to Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, to Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, to Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, to Moody Bible Institute. The theological spectrum represented by ETS presidents is also quite remarkable. As I look at the list I can identify at least twelve presidents associated with one of five or six varieties of Presbyterian and Reformed communions, thirteen who were dispensationalists, five who were covenant premillennialists, one Pentecostal, three Wesleyans, and twelve sympathetic with biblical egalitarianism.
Throughout its history, ETS has been a demonstration of the Purpose for which ETS was formed: The Purpose of the Society shall be to foster conservative biblical scholarship by providing a medium for the oral exchange and written expression of thought and research in the general field of the theological disciplines as centered in the Scriptures.
So I return to the opening question and statement of my second point—“Is it even appropriate for resolutions to be introduced, debated, and voted on that go beyond the Doctrinal Basis and officially stated Purpose of the Society?” I believe the answer is a clear and unequivocal “No!” Why? Because such resolutions are inconsistent with the Purpose of ETS and the reason why we have a Doctrinal Basis and not a doctrinal statement.
Third, the introduction and passage of the four-fold resolution package and the internet conversations following the 67th Annual Meeting are symptomatic of the desire of some ETS members to move the Society in the direction of precise, doctrinal, and interpretive clarity and definition, ideally in the form of a doctrinal statement and other “position statements.” I am trained not only as a theologian but as a church historian; consequently I am inclined to be skeptical of conspiracy theories unless there is compelling evidence. Nevertheless, based on the evidence, some of us are now wondering if there is a conspiracy within ETS to:
1) ease out biblical egalitarians,
2) exclude women from the leadership of ETS,
3) let qualified women scholars know they are not part of “the old boys network,”
4) shut down discussion of contentious ethical and theological issues,
5) marginalize those who do not come out on the “right side” of those issues,
6) “pack” the nominating committee so as to get their compatriots in the positions of leadership,
7) question the evangelical and inerrantist bona fides of those who ask hard questions and come up with answers that most of us are not persuaded by, and
8) propose and pass a poorly framed set of four resolutions that makes the Society sound more like the Family Research Council or the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood than the intentionally diverse “medium for the oral and written expressions of thought and research in the general field of the theological disciplines as centered in the Scriptures” as stated in the ETS Purpose statement.
Lest I be misunderstood, I do believe that theological boundaries are important within the church and its institutions, and as an evangelical Protestant, I believe it is appropriate for churches and parachurch organizations to draw those boundary lines, based on their understanding of Scripture. But ETS is not a church and it was formed to serve a clearly defined purpose. It is significant that it takes an 80% majority vote to amend only three things in the ETS constitution—the Doctrinal Basis, the Society’s Purpose, and the requirement for an 80% majority to amend the first two items. The founders of our Society could hardly have made it clearer that they regarded the Purpose and Doctrinal Basis of ETS to be essential to the organization they were creating.
Why is it important to guard the integrity of the original Purpose and Basis of ETS? I will answer with another question. What better forum is there for collegial discussion and debate of complementarianism and egalitarianism, open theism and classical theism and all points in between, eschatology, the “new perspective” on Paul, and yes, even the question of whether same-sex “marriages” can be defended biblically, than a forum where we have agreed to appeal to the sole source of authority for Christian faith and practice, the Bible, God’s Word written?
Copyright © 2016 by Stanley N. Gundry. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

★ ★ 重新思考英語學習：There is still a long way to go ★ ★

我在不同的文章裡多次強調，對於英文老師而言，用心研究和批改大量學生作文和口說作業的英文的重要性。因為唯有如此，才能透徹地了解到學生的困難處，後而想辦法找合適的下手處幫助學生。也能夠幫助學生如何「自學」，乃為語言學習的一大目標 (也是自己所教授的改變一生文法班的終極目標)。

這次談的現象，是在長年觀察學生寫作中（幾乎不管哪一國人），結論出可以說是最嚴重的一個現象（ 之一）。而這樣的現象，可由下面這句話做說明：

“...it provideS me WITH an opportunity to get AN overview of a (THE) semiconductor industry and to *discuss (WORD CHOICE) advanceD techniqueS of semiconductors...”
(大寫的是修訂)

短短的一句話中，可看出至少8個錯誤。但以討論的內容和整體sentence structure來看，可知道這學生英文一定不差。但在寫作 (output)的過程當中，完全性地忽略了 (或錯用）很多的 “function words”, 也就是所謂的冠詞、連接詞、介係詞、助動詞等長期以來被很多語言學家認為，不太carry meanings 的字群 （這樣的觀點備受爭議; 但大致方向為 I school yesterday 這樣的句子, 大多人可以拼湊出I went to school yesterday 一句子，讓即便文法大錯也溝通無礙 ).

對此現象，不少學者利用「母語影響」來解釋。而近10年較主流的解釋是由 Bill VanPatten Clahsen & Felser, Nick Ellis 等學者提出。

Dr. VanPatten 提出的 “The Meaning Primacy Principle” 認為，學生在寫和說時 (其實閱讀也是)，通常會讓所有的腦資源優先處理 “meaning” (通常由動詞、名詞、形容詞呈現) 而非 “form”. 而 Clahsen & Felser 所提出的 “The Shallow Structure Hypothesis” 也認為 “the representations adult second language learners compute during processing (i.e. 閱讀、聽..) contain less syntactic (文法上的) detail than those of child and adult native speakers.” 簡而言之，受到母語的影響，跟母語人士比起來，學生在閱讀和寫作時，習慣性地忽略掉一些文法小細節，因很多學生錯誤地認為，那些東西不會影響到他們意思的表達 （因而在學習時不注意它們）。

有鑑於此，我常常跟學生講，要我們現在做到自己檢查得出來我知道還太難。一則思考模式早已被母語洗腦，一則有些文法本來就不知如何使用 (e.g. 冠詞系統)。現有的下手處， 就是在看原文書和英文文章時，多去注意母語人士如何使用那些文法小細節。閱讀可以有很多purposes, 可以reading for comprehension, reading for pleasure, reading for learning vocabulary, reading for gaining information, 也當然可以 reading for learning grammar. 但要學習地最有效率，一次讓自己不要focus在兩種purposes以上。

將注意文法小細節的awareness培養起來後，就離進步的路不遠了。