To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This study aimed to develop and evaluate a blind-deconvolution framework using the alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMMs) incorporated with weighted L1-norm regularization for light microscopy (LM) images. A presimulation study was performed using the Siemens star phantom prior to conducting the actual experiments. Subsequently, the proposed algorithm and a total generalized variation-based (TGV-based) method were applied to cross-sectional images of a mouse molar captured at 40× and 400× on-microscope magnifications and the results compared, and the resulting images were compared. Both simulation and experimental results confirmed that the proposed deblurring algorithm effectively restored the LM images, as evidenced by the quantitative evaluation metrics. In conclusion, this study demonstrated that the proposed deblurring algorithm can efficiently improve the quality of LM images.
One of the most important issues in the study of language processing concerns the universality of sentence processing strategies across different languages (e.g. Hillert, 1998; de Vincenzi, 2000). As all researchers agree, if the goal of psycholinguistics is to study the human sentence processor and not the sentence processing mechanisms of a specific language, the test of universality is not an option but a necessary condition for evaluating various models of sentence processing.
Crosslinguistic comparisons of sentence processing can be attempted from two different perspectives. One is the universality hypothesis. It argues that there are universal processing strategies that apply to all languages, because processing strategies are independent of specific languages and are based on cognitive universals. The strategies or principles that could be considered as being universal are minimal attachment and late closure (Frazier, 1987;) as well as the minimal chain principle (de Vincenzi, 1991). These principles are assumed to operate in all languages, with only the ‘vocabulary,’ i.e. lexical items and specific grammar, differing across languages.
Another reason to do crosslinguistic studies might be the expectation that different languages show different processing strategies, under an assumption that parsing strategies are a reflection of language-specific characteristics and a by-product of exposure to a given language. Some processing strategies may not be universal but are instead language specific or parameterized (e.g. Mazuka, 1998). So, there is no need, at least in principle, to test the same strategy in different languages.
This chapter briefly introduces some characteristics of the Korean language and its writing system and gives an overview of the chapters treated in this volume on Korean psycholinguistics.
Korean has the eleventh largest group of speakers in the world, approximately 73 million. Its dialects are mutually intelligible except for the Jeju (Cheyjwu) Island dialect, which retains old forms but is becoming endangered.
Korean has an SOV (subject-object-verb) head-final feature like Japanese and unlike Chinese or English. Sentence types such as declarative, interrogative, imperative and promissive are distinguished by means of markers that appear at the end. Nominals take case markers or postpositions after them and verb stems take tense, modal, speech level, and S-type markers linearly in that order after them agglutinatively. It is similar to Japanese in this respect. Honorification is a pragmatically motivated syntactic agreement phenomenon to show the speaker's respect for the subject. Speech levels mark the speaker's various attitudes toward the hearer including (non-)politeness. Honorification in Korean is a little more grammatical than in Japanese. The three East-Asian languages are topic-prominent, with object deletion via topicality unlike pro-drop languages such as Romance languages, although Korean and Japanese have subject or nominative markers as well as topic markers, unlike Chinese. Korean and Japanese have SOV in both matrix and embedded Ss unlike German. Korean and Japanese have a null argument in a relative clause, which is coreferential with the head noun on the right hand side of the clause.
A large body of knowledge has accumulated in recent years on the cognitive processes and brain mechanisms underlying language. Much of this knowledge has come from studies of Indo-European languages, in particular English. Korean, a language of growing interest to linguists, differs significantly from most Indo-European languages in its grammar, its lexicon, and its written and spoken forms - features which have profound implications for the learning, representation and processing of language. This handbook, the third in a three-volume series on East Asian psycholinguistics, presents a state-of-the-art discussion of the psycholinguistic study of Korean. With contributions by over sixty leading scholars, it covers topics in first and second language acquisition, language processing and reading, language disorders in children and adults, and the relationships between language, brain, culture, and cognition. It will be invaluable to all scholars and students interested in the Korean language, as well as cognitive psychologists, linguists, and neuroscientists.
This is the third and last volume of the three-companion-volume series on East Asian psycholinguistics. East Asian here includes Chinese, Japanese and Korean, the languages that have received increasing interest in psycholinguistic research beyond the Indo-European languages. The three languages reveal extremely interesting typological characteristics; Japanese and Korean are strikingly similar in structure and various other respects, although they show surprisingly important and subtle differences. Chinese, on the other hand, contrasts more sharply with Japanese and Korean in typological patterns, although the three share certain areal commonalities such as the use of numeral classifiers. Korean and Japanese are similar grammatically, but not lexically and phonologically. Because of many commonalities in grammar, the two languages are often compared and contrasted linguistically and psycholinguistically (see Japanese/Korean Linguistics 1 to 15, CSLI, among others). Korean is generally hypothesized to belong to the Altaic language family, which encompasses Manchu-Tungusic, Mongolian, and Turkic languages. Japanese is also often believed to be an Altaic language, whereas Chinese belongs to the Sino-Tibetan language family. Korean and Japanese are thus distinct from Chinese genetically and typologically. However, the two languages have a vast amount of culturally borrowed Sino-Korean and Sino-Japanese lexical items, respectively, even adopting Chinese characters minimally in Korean and vastly in Japanese in their writing systems.
Therefore, the idea of the trio in companion volumes is crucial for comparative studies, not only among the three but also between the three and other languages including English.