124,671 research outputs found
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
High-resolution mitochondrial DNA analysis sheds light on human diversity, cultural interactions, and population mobility in Northwestern Amazonia
No full textDispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Get PDFWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
Phlorest phylogeny derived from De Filippo et al. 2012 'Bringing together linguistic and genetic evidence to test the Bantu expansion'
No full text<p>Cite the source of the dataset as:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>De Filippo, C., Bostoen, K., Stoneking, M., & Pakendorf, B. (2012). Bringing together linguistic and genetic evidence to test the Bantu expansion. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279(1741), 3256–3263. doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.0318</p>
</blockquote>
The linguistic (pre-)history of Northern Asia
No full textInternational audienceThis talk aims to provide an overview of the prehistoric and historical events that have shaped the languages of Northern Asia. This region is home to eight language families and one isolate (Pakendorf 2020: 670), which are sometimes grouped into two broad categories, the typologically relatively homogenous “Ural-Altaic” languages and the heterogenous group of “Paleosiberian” languages. This latter term is applied to the languages spoken by peoples who are assumed to be the descendants of the original inhabitants of the region, thus representing remnants of the richer linguistic diversity that would have been found in the past (Comrie 1981: 238-239). However, population expansions from the south replaced the earlier inhabitants of Northern Asia during the Holocene (Pugach et al. 2016, Kılınç et al. 2021), and only the speakers of Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages show genetic affinities to the Mesolithic population that resettled Northern Asia after the Last Glacial Maximum (Sikora et al. 2019, Kılınç et al. 2021). Population expansions and migrations not only brought peoples and languages into Northern Asia, but also carried them from Northern Asia to Europe, as in the case of the Uralic languages (Tambets et al. 2018, Grünthal et al. 2022).The region is characterized by extremely harsh climatic conditions, with low temperatures and levels of sunlight and concomitant low primary productivity (Churkina & Running 1998). These severely limit food production, and most of the indigenous peoples of North Asia were nomadic hunters and fishers or reindeer herders, whose small, fragmented communities were dispersed over vast territories. Nevertheless, in spite of the low population density, several cases of contact-induced change have been documented, leading Anderson (2006) to propose Siberia as a linguistic area. Particularly striking are the restructured system of sibling terms in the Turkic language Dolgan following the Tungusic pattern found in Evenki (Stapert 2013: 136-144), and the verbal paradigms that were copied from the Turkic language Sakha into the Lamunkhin dialect of Even, a sister language of Evenki (Pakendorf 2009, 2019).Such structural changes are indicative of long-term bilingualism, and situations of small-scale multilingualism are indeed historically known from the Taimyr Peninsula in the Far North (Khanina & Meyerhof 2018, Khanina 2021), the Lower Kolyma region (Vaxtin 2001: 142-146, Pupynina & Aralova 2021), Chukotka (de Reuse 1994: 306), and the Lower Amur area (Zgusta 2015, Starcev 2014). Close interactions between the indigenous peoples of Northern Asia are also reflected in molecular anthropological studies, which show high levels of admixture in general, and close affinities between Nivkh and the Tungusic-speaking groups of the Lower Amur in particular (Pugach et al. 2016, Jeong et al. 2019). It is thus clear from both linguistic and genetic investigations that language contact will have played an important role in shaping the languages of North Asia.References:Anderson, G.D.S. 2006. Towards a Typology of the Siberian Linguistic Area. In Y. Matras, A. McMahon& N. Vincent (eds.), Linguistic Areas. Convergence in Historical and Typological Perspective.,266–300. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Churkina, Galina & Steven W. Running. 1998. Contrasting Climatic Controls on the EstimatedProductivity of Global Terrestrial Biomes. Ecosystems 1(2). 206–215.Comrie, B. 1981. The Languages of the Soviet Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Grünthal, Riho et al. 2022. Drastic demographic events triggered the Uralic spread. Diachronica. JohnBenjamins 39(4). 490–524.Jeong, Choongwon, et al. 2019. The genetic history of admixture across inner Eurasia. Nature Ecology& Evolution. Nature Publishing Group 3(6). 966–976.Khanina, Olesya. 2021. Languages and ideologies at the Lower Yenisei (Siberia): Reconstructing pastmultilingualism. International Journal of Bilingualism 25(4). 1059– 1080.Khanina, Olesya & Miriam Meyerhoff. 2018. A case-study in historical sociolinguistics beyond Europe:reconstructing patterns of multilingualism of a language community in Siberia. Journal ofHistorical Sociolinguistics 4(2). 221–251.Kılınç, Gülşah Merve, et al. 2021. Human population dynamics and Yersinia pestis in ancientnortheast Asia. Science Advances. American Association for the Advancement of Science 7(2).eabc4587.Pakendorf, Brigitte. 2009. Intensive Contact and the Copying of Paradigms: An Ėven Dialect inContact with Sakha (Yakut). Journal of Language Contact Varia 2. 85–110.Pakendorf, Brigitte. 2019. Direct copying of inflectional paradigms: Evidence from Lamunkhin Even.Language 95(3). e364–e380.Pakendorf, Brigitte. 2020. Contact and Siberian languages. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), The Handbook ofLanguage Contact, 2nd edition, 669–688. Malden, Mass. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Pugach, Irina, et al. 2016. The Complex Admixture History and Recent Southern Origins of SiberianPopulations. Molecular Biology and Evolution 33(7). 1777–1795.Pupynina, Maria & Natalia Aralova. 2021. Lower Kolyma multilingualism: Historical setting andsociolinguistic trends. International Journal of Bilingualism 25(4). 1081– 1101.Reuse, W.J. de. 1994. Siberian Yupik Eskimo: The Language and Its Contacts with Chukchi. (Ed.) W.R.Miller. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.Sikora, Martin, et al. 2019. The population history of northeastern Siberia since the Pleistocene.Nature 570(7760). 182–188.Stapert, Eugénie. 2013. Contact-induced change in Dolgan: An investigation into the role of linguisticdata for the reconstruction of a people’s (pre)history (LOT Dissertation Series 336). Utrecht:LOT.Starcev, Anatolij Fedorovič. 2014. Problema etnogeneza i etničeskoj istorii negidal’cev [Problems ofthe ethnogenesis and ethnic history of the Negidals]. In Anatolij Fedorovič Starcev, DmitrijViktorovič Jančev & V.L. Larin (eds.), Istorija i kul’tura negidal’cev: istoriko-etnografičeskieočerki [The history and culture of the Negidals: Historical and ethnographic sketches], 22–41.Vladivostok: Dal’nauka.Tambets, Kristiina, et al. 2018. Genes reveal traces of common recent demographic history for mostof the Uralic-speaking populations. Genome Biology 19(1). 139.Vaxtin, N.B. 2001. Jazyki narodov severa v XX veke. Očerki jazykovogo sdviga. [The languages of thepeoples of the north in the 20th century. Sketches of language shift.]. St Petersburg:Evropejskij Universitet v Sankt-Peterburge.Zgusta, Richard. 2015. The Peoples of Northeast Asia through Time. Precolonial Ethnic and CulturalProcesses along the Coast between Hokkaido and the Bering Strait. Leiden, Boston: Brill
The linguistic (pre-)history of Northern Asia
No full textInternational audienceThis talk aims to provide an overview of the prehistoric and historical events that have shaped the languages of Northern Asia. This region is home to eight language families and one isolate (Pakendorf 2020: 670), which are sometimes grouped into two broad categories, the typologically relatively homogenous “Ural-Altaic” languages and the heterogenous group of “Paleosiberian” languages. This latter term is applied to the languages spoken by peoples who are assumed to be the descendants of the original inhabitants of the region, thus representing remnants of the richer linguistic diversity that would have been found in the past (Comrie 1981: 238-239). However, population expansions from the south replaced the earlier inhabitants of Northern Asia during the Holocene (Pugach et al. 2016, Kılınç et al. 2021), and only the speakers of Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages show genetic affinities to the Mesolithic population that resettled Northern Asia after the Last Glacial Maximum (Sikora et al. 2019, Kılınç et al. 2021). Population expansions and migrations not only brought peoples and languages into Northern Asia, but also carried them from Northern Asia to Europe, as in the case of the Uralic languages (Tambets et al. 2018, Grünthal et al. 2022).The region is characterized by extremely harsh climatic conditions, with low temperatures and levels of sunlight and concomitant low primary productivity (Churkina & Running 1998). These severely limit food production, and most of the indigenous peoples of North Asia were nomadic hunters and fishers or reindeer herders, whose small, fragmented communities were dispersed over vast territories. Nevertheless, in spite of the low population density, several cases of contact-induced change have been documented, leading Anderson (2006) to propose Siberia as a linguistic area. Particularly striking are the restructured system of sibling terms in the Turkic language Dolgan following the Tungusic pattern found in Evenki (Stapert 2013: 136-144), and the verbal paradigms that were copied from the Turkic language Sakha into the Lamunkhin dialect of Even, a sister language of Evenki (Pakendorf 2009, 2019).Such structural changes are indicative of long-term bilingualism, and situations of small-scale multilingualism are indeed historically known from the Taimyr Peninsula in the Far North (Khanina & Meyerhof 2018, Khanina 2021), the Lower Kolyma region (Vaxtin 2001: 142-146, Pupynina & Aralova 2021), Chukotka (de Reuse 1994: 306), and the Lower Amur area (Zgusta 2015, Starcev 2014). Close interactions between the indigenous peoples of Northern Asia are also reflected in molecular anthropological studies, which show high levels of admixture in general, and close affinities between Nivkh and the Tungusic-speaking groups of the Lower Amur in particular (Pugach et al. 2016, Jeong et al. 2019). It is thus clear from both linguistic and genetic investigations that language contact will have played an important role in shaping the languages of North Asia.References:Anderson, G.D.S. 2006. Towards a Typology of the Siberian Linguistic Area. In Y. Matras, A. McMahon& N. Vincent (eds.), Linguistic Areas. Convergence in Historical and Typological Perspective.,266–300. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Churkina, Galina & Steven W. Running. 1998. Contrasting Climatic Controls on the EstimatedProductivity of Global Terrestrial Biomes. Ecosystems 1(2). 206–215.Comrie, B. 1981. The Languages of the Soviet Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Grünthal, Riho et al. 2022. Drastic demographic events triggered the Uralic spread. Diachronica. JohnBenjamins 39(4). 490–524.Jeong, Choongwon, et al. 2019. The genetic history of admixture across inner Eurasia. Nature Ecology& Evolution. Nature Publishing Group 3(6). 966–976.Khanina, Olesya. 2021. Languages and ideologies at the Lower Yenisei (Siberia): Reconstructing pastmultilingualism. International Journal of Bilingualism 25(4). 1059– 1080.Khanina, Olesya & Miriam Meyerhoff. 2018. A case-study in historical sociolinguistics beyond Europe:reconstructing patterns of multilingualism of a language community in Siberia. Journal ofHistorical Sociolinguistics 4(2). 221–251.Kılınç, Gülşah Merve, et al. 2021. Human population dynamics and Yersinia pestis in ancientnortheast Asia. Science Advances. American Association for the Advancement of Science 7(2).eabc4587.Pakendorf, Brigitte. 2009. Intensive Contact and the Copying of Paradigms: An Ėven Dialect inContact with Sakha (Yakut). Journal of Language Contact Varia 2. 85–110.Pakendorf, Brigitte. 2019. Direct copying of inflectional paradigms: Evidence from Lamunkhin Even.Language 95(3). e364–e380.Pakendorf, Brigitte. 2020. Contact and Siberian languages. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), The Handbook ofLanguage Contact, 2nd edition, 669–688. Malden, Mass. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Pugach, Irina, et al. 2016. The Complex Admixture History and Recent Southern Origins of SiberianPopulations. Molecular Biology and Evolution 33(7). 1777–1795.Pupynina, Maria & Natalia Aralova. 2021. Lower Kolyma multilingualism: Historical setting andsociolinguistic trends. International Journal of Bilingualism 25(4). 1081– 1101.Reuse, W.J. de. 1994. Siberian Yupik Eskimo: The Language and Its Contacts with Chukchi. (Ed.) W.R.Miller. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.Sikora, Martin, et al. 2019. The population history of northeastern Siberia since the Pleistocene.Nature 570(7760). 182–188.Stapert, Eugénie. 2013. Contact-induced change in Dolgan: An investigation into the role of linguisticdata for the reconstruction of a people’s (pre)history (LOT Dissertation Series 336). Utrecht:LOT.Starcev, Anatolij Fedorovič. 2014. Problema etnogeneza i etničeskoj istorii negidal’cev [Problems ofthe ethnogenesis and ethnic history of the Negidals]. In Anatolij Fedorovič Starcev, DmitrijViktorovič Jančev & V.L. Larin (eds.), Istorija i kul’tura negidal’cev: istoriko-etnografičeskieočerki [The history and culture of the Negidals: Historical and ethnographic sketches], 22–41.Vladivostok: Dal’nauka.Tambets, Kristiina, et al. 2018. Genes reveal traces of common recent demographic history for mostof the Uralic-speaking populations. Genome Biology 19(1). 139.Vaxtin, N.B. 2001. Jazyki narodov severa v XX veke. Očerki jazykovogo sdviga. [The languages of thepeoples of the north in the 20th century. Sketches of language shift.]. St Petersburg:Evropejskij Universitet v Sankt-Peterburge.Zgusta, Richard. 2015. The Peoples of Northeast Asia through Time. Precolonial Ethnic and CulturalProcesses along the Coast between Hokkaido and the Bering Strait. Leiden, Boston: Brill
Migration and Interaction in a Contact Zone: mtDNA Variation among Bantu-Speakers in Southern Africa
No full textPragmatic Case Studies as a Source of Unity in Applied Psychology
No full textTo unify or not to unify applied psychology: that is the question. In this article we review pendulum swings in the historical efforts to answer this question—from a comprehensive, positivist, “top-down,” deductive yes between the 1930s and the early 60s, to a postmodern no since then. A rationale and proposal for a limited, “bottom-up,” inductive yes in applied psychology is then presented, employing a case-based paradigm that integrates both positivist and postmodern themes and components. This paradigm is labeled “pragmatic psychology” and, its specific use of case studies, the “Pragmatic Case Study Method” (“PCS Method”). We call for the creation of peer-reviewed journal-databases of pragmatic case studies as a foundational source of unifying applied knowledge in our discipline. As one example, the potential of the PCS Method for unifying different angles of theoretical regard is illustrated in an area of applied psychology, psychotherapy, via the case of Mrs. B. The article then turns to the broader historical and epistemological arguments for the unifying nature of the PCS Method in both applied and basic psychology.Peer reviewe
Dr. Edwin Wright Collection: Author Unknown
Get PDFNotes - The author relates several short stories about his neighbours including Alex McDonell, homesteading and life around Meanook and Athabasca (1 page
Contact in the prehistory of the Sakha (Yakuts) : Linguistic and genetic perspectives
Get PDFP381.S59, ISO 639-3 : sah, Yakut language--Dialects, Sakha (Russia)--Language
- …
