Implementing The Lexical Approach Pdf Download ((HOT))
LINK ===== https://tiurll.com/2tiv21
The lexical approach does away with the grammar/vocabulary dichotomy and instead presents linguistic fluency as the ability to readily and rapidly appropriate stock phrases to different situations. We build sentences and communicate by using thousands of these phrases. So, language teaching should reflect this reality in the classroom.
Language teaching once restricted input, insisting that learners master one bit before they met the next. That practice is now discredited but its influence remains. Learners tend to want to understand every word, teachers to explain and laboriously practise a small number of supposedly important new items. That is why for the moment the challenge of implementing the present understanding of the Lexical Approach rests with administrators, schools, and perhaps most importantly, (conservative) teachers. The author has chosen a persuasive way by supplying readers with tasks (and suggested solutions and keys) and exercises on how to use this method to the benefit of language learners. Teachers should never take a doctrinaire approach, whether their methods are audio-lingual, structured, communicative, or lexical. A little well-chosen variety is better than dogmatic adherence to any set of principles. The implications for teacher training are clear. The present teacher as performer must be replaced by the teacher as one who understands language and language learning.
The book does what it wants to do: it shows how lexis, grammar, and phonology interact in ways that directly affect the ways learners store new language. It provides teachers with a comprehensive set of step-by-step changes and discusses in detail the importance of noticing, the value of repeating tasks, the design of lexical exercises, 30 sample exercise types, 50 activities with their lexical focus explained, and classroom reports from teachers already using the approach.
The larval zebrafish is an interesting vertebrate model organism to investigate the emergence of behavioural action sequences and how they are used to navigate in chemical gradients. In order to survive, five days old zebrafish larvae actively explore their environment avoiding toxic cues and searching for food using stereotypical locomotor episodes consisting of bouts of activity lasting few hundreds of milliseconds separated by distinct pauses [16, 17, 29, 41]. Their small size enables the recording of numerous larvae in parallel, leading to the collection of thousands of swim bouts in a few minutes. Using our lexical approach, we first investigate the behavioural action sequences, i.e., the stereotyped sequences of bout types that larval zebrafish use to spontaneously navigate their environment. Next, we take advantage of a novel chemotaxis assay in which larvae navigate in arenas with gradients of noxious stimuli (acidic pH) and effectively avoid aversive regions. The behavioural response that enables zebrafish larvae to avoid aversive environments is unknown. Examining global kinematic parameters reveals only minor differences, which makes identifying the chemotactic response challenging with classical approaches and thus makes for an appropriate benchmark for our approach.
A comprehensive measure of organizational culture was developed using a lexical approach, a method typically employed within the study of personality. 1761 adjectives were narrowed down and factor analyzed, which resulted in the identification of a nine factor solution to organizational culture, including the dimensions of: Innovative, Dominant, Pace, Friendly, Prestigious, Trendy, Corporate Social Responsibility, Traditional, and Diverse. Comprised of 135 adjectives most frequently used in describing organizational culture by current employees of several hundred organizations, the Lexical Organizational Culture Scale (LOCS) was found to predict employee commitment, job satisfaction, job search behaviors, and subjective fit better than earlier scales of organizational culture.
We compare two types of approaches to translate the FMA terms into French. The first one is UMLS-based on the conceptual information of the UMLS metathesaurus. The second method is lexically-based on several Natural Language Processing (NLP) tools.
The UMLS-based approach produced a translation of 3,661 FMA terms into French whereas the lexical approach produced a translation of 3,129 FMA terms into French. A qualitative evaluation was made on 100 FMA terms translated by each method. For the UMLS-based approach, among the 100 translations, 52% were manually rated as \"very good\" and only 7% translations as \"bad\". For the lexical approach, among the 100 translations, 47% were rated as \"very good\" and 20% translations as \"bad\".
In this study, we propose two approaches to automatically translate the FMA from English into French: a knowledge-based approach that mainly relies on the Unified Medical Language System resources (UMLS) [3], and Natural Language Processing (NLP) approach using the Multi-Terminolgical CISMeF Information System (CISMeF_IS) [2] that contains 27 terminologies (see Table 1). The main objective of this paper aims at comparing the two approaches (UMLS-based and lexical) to determine the strengths and weaknesses of each approach.
We compared two types of approaches to translate the FMA terms into French. The first one is UMLS-based on the conceptual information of the UMLS Metathesaurus. The second method is lexically-based on several Natural Language Processing (NLP) tools.
In this approach, FMA terms in English from all bilingual terminologies (English and French) were normalized and we applied an algorithm to find terms in target terminologies which were the most lexically similar. When a correspondence was found, the translation of the English target term was proposed as one possible translation of the FMA term. This algorithm was exploited in several previously reported studies to map external French and English terminologies to UMLS and HMTP [17, 34, 35]. In this method, we used some Natural Language Processing tools developed by the NLM[36]. They were designed to help users in analyzing and indexing natural language texts in the medical field in English [37, 38].
We investigated the coverage of the two methods according to the number of FMA PT translated into French. We also examined the coverage of the translated FMA terms by considering the French terminologies and the terms from these terminologies in the UMLS Metathesaurus and in CISMeF_IS for the lexically-based approach. We also compared the two approaches (lexical approach limited to the exact correspondence), by examining the number of different FMA PT translated by each approach. For each approach, we calculated the number of the English PT with at least one French translation (from the whole FMA, N = 81,020) and we calculated only the number of translations performed from FMA PT without French terms.
For the two approaches, more than one French term was proposed. However, only one term was manually chosen to be the unique translation of the English FMA term, the rest of terms were added as UMLS synonyms to the FMA term (or French synonyms in the case of the lexical approach if terms correspond to the valid mapping terms but not to the valid translation of the FMA PT). For example, for the FMA term \"abdomen\" the French term \"abdomen\" was chosen to be the French translation, whereas, the two terms \"abdomen, sai\" and \"ventre\" were added as UMLS synonyms (or French synonyms)(see Figure 3).
Using the UMLS-based approach 3,661 English FMA PT were translated when 3,129 FMA terms were translated by the exact lexical-based approach. From the FMA PT terms translated by the UMLS-based method, 647 terms are not in the set of those translated by the exact lexical methods and inversely, 115 FMA PT translated by the exact lexical method are not in the set of those translated by the the UMLS-based method (see Figure 4). When comparing Tables 5 and 6, only five terminologies were used by both methodologies: SNOMED International and MeSH provided more mapping by the UMLS-based approach than the lexical based approach respectively (6,472 vs. 1,419 and 5,287 vs. 1,340), whereas ICD10 provided more mapping for the lexical approach (170 vs. 5). WHO-ART and MedDRA provided very few mappings with both approaches (see Table 5 and Table 6).
For the UMLS-based approach, 52 translations of the 100 submitted to an expert were rated as \"very good\" and only seven translations were rated as \"bad\" or \"very bad \". For the lexical approach, 47 translations of the 100 submitted an expert were rated as \"very good\" and 20 were rated as \"bad\" or \"very bad\" (see Table 7). There is a significant difference between the two approaches (X2 test, p = 0.015).
On the other hand, the lexical approach is more difficult to implement but has the advantage of the large number of French medical terminologies included in CISMeF_IS. Qualitative evaluation demonstrate that 59% of the translations were rated as \"very good\" or \"good\". However, there are more translations rated as \"bad\" or \"very bad\" compared to the UMLS-based approach. The major types of translations rated as \"bad\" or \"very bad\" can be explained by three major reasons:
Each approach can be improved: UMLS-based approach could benefit from additional French terminologies added to the UMLS Metathesaurus or more integrated terminologies translated in French. Due to this problem we proposed multiple approaches to map several French terminologies not integrated in the UMLS to the UMLS such as the Classification Commune des Actes Médicaux (CCAM)\"A French coding system of surgical procedures\" [17] and the ORPHANET database of rare diseases [35]. For the lexical approach, several improvements can be proposed to resolve problems due to the management of ambiguous acronyms across terminologies (e.g. CMT in MeSH (\"Thyroid neoplasms\" or \"Charcot-marie-tooth disease\")), or for the terms lexically close but with a different meaning, such as sterile as a \"aspetic technique\" and sterility as \"Infertility\". These two problems can be solved by using the UMLS semantic groups (SGs) [48] when the two terms are in the UMLS. Thus, mappings between two terms that do not share the same SGs would be filtered out. Another advantage of using the UMLS SGs is that it is easy to detect possible errors of translations between English terms and French terms from UMLS. 153554b96e
https://www.lygo.fr/group/groupe-de-lygo-fr/discussion/0ed7fbd2-c37d-4e76-88f0-d974598b00cd