Irina Nikolaeva and Andrew Spencer
- Published in print:
- 2012
- Published Online:
- January 2013
- ISBN:
- 9780199604326
- eISBN:
- 9780191746154
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199604326.003.0009
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology, Theoretical Linguistics
The chapter addresses a set of semantic, syntactic, and categorial criteria for canonical attributive modification and canonical inalienable possession. Canonical attributive modification is ...
More
The chapter addresses a set of semantic, syntactic, and categorial criteria for canonical attributive modification and canonical inalienable possession. Canonical attributive modification is expressed by a dedicated word class (adjective) denoting a property concept, while canonical possession is inalienable possession of a relation noun (kin term, (body) part). Irina Nikolaeva and Andrew Spencer argue that modification-by-noun and alienable possession constructions can be analysed as non-canonical variants of canonical modification and possession. In many languages the same morphosyntax is used to express various combinations of the four constructions and the authors explore some of the typological variation in terms of selective violations of canonical properties.Less
The chapter addresses a set of semantic, syntactic, and categorial criteria for canonical attributive modification and canonical inalienable possession. Canonical attributive modification is expressed by a dedicated word class (adjective) denoting a property concept, while canonical possession is inalienable possession of a relation noun (kin term, (body) part). Irina Nikolaeva and Andrew Spencer argue that modification-by-noun and alienable possession constructions can be analysed as non-canonical variants of canonical modification and possession. In many languages the same morphosyntax is used to express various combinations of the four constructions and the authors explore some of the typological variation in terms of selective violations of canonical properties.
Thanh V. Tran, Tam Nguyen, and Keith Chan
- Published in print:
- 2017
- Published Online:
- February 2018
- ISBN:
- 9780190496470
- eISBN:
- 9780190496500
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190496470.003.0002
- Subject:
- Social Work, Research and Evaluation
The overall process of cross-cultural instrument development and assessment are discussed in this chapter. Research instrument is defined as a systematic and standardized tool for data collection. It ...
More
The overall process of cross-cultural instrument development and assessment are discussed in this chapter. Research instrument is defined as a systematic and standardized tool for data collection. It includes all types of research questionnaires and standardized scales. There are three methods of cross-cultural research instrument development: adopting an existing instrument, adapting or modifying an existing instrument, and developing a new instrument. In order to develop a cross-culturally valid questionnaire or instrument, the concepts or constructs selected for the investigation must be clearly defined and bear the same meanings across the selected cultural groups. No good questionnaire can be developed without clear definitions. This is a matter of utmost importance for all levels of cultural comparative research and evaluation whether it is a gender or racial/ethnic comparison within one society or across nations.Less
The overall process of cross-cultural instrument development and assessment are discussed in this chapter. Research instrument is defined as a systematic and standardized tool for data collection. It includes all types of research questionnaires and standardized scales. There are three methods of cross-cultural research instrument development: adopting an existing instrument, adapting or modifying an existing instrument, and developing a new instrument. In order to develop a cross-culturally valid questionnaire or instrument, the concepts or constructs selected for the investigation must be clearly defined and bear the same meanings across the selected cultural groups. No good questionnaire can be developed without clear definitions. This is a matter of utmost importance for all levels of cultural comparative research and evaluation whether it is a gender or racial/ethnic comparison within one society or across nations.
