* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINGUIST List logo Eastern Michigan University Wayne State University *
* People & Organizations * Jobs * Calls & Conferences * Publications * Language Resources * Text & Computer Tools * Teaching & Learning * Mailing Lists * Search *
* *
LINGUIST List 16.1418

Wed May 04 2005

Qs: Systematic Ungrammaticality; Medical Emails

Editor for this issue: Jessica Boynton <jessicalinguistlist.org>

We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate. In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have taken the trouble to respond to the query. To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.
        1.    Paul Llido, Systematic Ungrammaticality
        2.    David McGeady, Patient-Physician Emails

Message 1: Systematic Ungrammaticality
Date: 04-May-2005
From: Paul Llido <pllideauyahoo.com>
Subject: Systematic Ungrammaticality

Hello All,

I'd like to know if anybody knows of any work I could read about the
systematic use of ungrammatical sentences to discover the structure of
grammatical sentences. I'm studying cebuano CEB (ethnologue: an
austronesian language). I've used the standard squib tools in GB/PP:
postposing, preposing, deletion and substitution. CEB displays instances of
ergativity in a highly equational structure and I'm thinking of ways to
represent this structurally by studying where a grammatical sentence can
become ungrammatical and how far it can be considered ungrammatical. I'm
experimenting on the one hand with GB/PP and with LFG on the other so I can
explain the non-configurationality. I will post a summary of the replies.

Many thanks,
Paul Llido
Department of Languages and Literature
University of San Carlos
Cebu City

Linguistic Field(s): Syntax

Message 2: Patient-Physician Emails
Date: 03-May-2005
From: David McGeady <dave.mcgeadygmail.com>
Subject: Patient-Physician Emails


Currently I am writing my master's thesis on the impact of patient physcian
emailing on clinical efficiency and effectivness.

This has been examined from a medical perspective by looking at clinical
outcomes. It has also been examined from an operations point of view by
timing physicians as they respond to emails. Nevertheless, what has so far
been neglected is an examination of the quality of these communications in
comparison to telephone calls and face-to-face visits.

Am not a linguist myself, but would be really interested in finding out if
anything like this has been done yet?

Key Questions:

How does email compare with the telephone?

Can patients articulate their condition adequately?

How many emails would it take to convey the same amount of information as a
telephone call?

It really is a fascinating area, and if someone isn't writing about it yet,
they certainly should! Many thanks for your help,


David McGeady B.A. B.A.I.
HEMA Research Group
Helsinki University of Technology

Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics

Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Please report any bad links or misclassified data

LINGUIST Homepage | Read LINGUIST | Contact us

NSF Logo

While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.