Specialized Terms Research Articles

Assessing Children's Language in Naturalistic Contexts (review)

Usher's syndrome focuses on a specific area. It is refreshing to see that the new information has started to include a wider scope of aspects on Ushers. Kathryn A. Nebel, B.A. Graduate Student Western Maryland College Westminster, MD 21157 Assessing Children's Language in Naturalistic Contexts , Nancy J. Lund, Ph.D. and Judith F. Duchan, Ph.D., 349 pp., $20.95, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632, 1983. This text gives a thorough review of language assessment techniques used for normal and language -impaired children based on contemporary child language research, linguistics, and clinical experiences. The authors advocate a technique of assessment called structural analysis . This approach examines individual child behaviors in natural interactions, then analyzes the data for underlying patterns of language behaviors. The chapters cover areas such as phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and cognitive precursors of language . The text then relates each area to child development and outlines steps to assess each area. Each chapter ends with practice exercises for the student. Additional features of this book include detailed case studies which give concrete information on young children's language behaviors. This book would be appropriate for a graduate level course in normal language acquisition and assessment. Some background knowledge in phonetics and phonology would be desirable for the student. Although the book does not specifically address language issues with respect to the effects of a hearing impairment on language development, it would provide the teacher trainee in hearing impairment with a clear presentation of how children with normal hearing learn language. However, if the authors ' methods are used with a hearing-impaired population, the eliciting procedures proposed in this book must be modified. For example, asking questions would not be a valid technique to assess hearing-impaired children's knowledge of English as many deaf children do not comprehend question formations. Jean F. Andrews, Ph.D. Visiting Assistant Professor Eastern Kentucky University Richmond, KY 350 CHARLESCTHOMAS·PUBLISHER New! ENGLISH SYNTAX: An Outline for Clinicians and Teachers of Language Handicapped Children (2nd Ed.) by Charles H. Hargis. The new Second Edition of this training manual and reference relates basic information on English syntax in a way that will allow professionals to assess syntactic problems and to help children overcome such difficulties. Chapters devoted to syntactic structures have been amended and expanded , and new chapters on special problems and on analysis of samples have been added. Aug. '84, about $28.50 New! A SIGN LANGUAGE MANUAL by M. Ann Gautney Boles and illustrated by Kay Stanley-Nichols. There are thirty-two chapters in this basic manual of sign language that cover all types of general and specialized terms. Following an initial introduction to the manual alphabet, chapters focus individually on various topics, parts of speech, or concepts. Signing exact English is stressed; practice pages are provided. The progressive nature of individual segments allows the manual to be used profitably by young and old, novices and experts. '84, $29.75 New! COMPREHENSIVE REFERENCE MANUAL FOR SIGNERS AND INTERPRETERS by Cheryl M. Hoffman. Designed for those already proficient in the skill, this dictionary of sign language provides them with an in-depth reference. The author uses an abbreviated, keyed code to allow for maximum breadth of coverage. Nearly six thousand entries, both vocabulary and idioms, are thus detailed; cross-references are included. '84, $19.75 New! ONE-TO-ONE LIPREADING LESSONS FOR ADULTS written and illustrated by Jill Auerbach. This eclectic assortment of illustrated lipreading lessons is designed to amuse and delight adults of all ages. Each lesson has practical applications to adult conversation; the book itself is organized specifically to meet the needs of clinicians who teach lipreading on a one-toone basis. '84, $13.75 We fill all orders promptly · Books sent on approval MasterCard, Visa & prepaid orders sent postpaid Catalog sent on request · Write or call (217) 789-8980 2600 South First Street Springfield · Illinois · 62717 A.A.D I September 1984 ...

DOES OUR LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION CONFUSE BEGINNING READERS?

ABSTRACT The author assesses students’ understanding of several print‐related concepts toward the conclusion of one year of formal reading instruction. There may be some need for teachers to alter their language of instruction so as to eliminate specialized terms that create confusion among beginning readers.

Cytophysiological features of hemocytes in cockroaches.

The wide range of functional activities of circulating and sessile insect hemocytes expresses itself in highly specialized cytological terms. Electron microscopic studies carried out in five species of normal and experimentally manipulated cockroaches, in conjunction with light microscopic information, reveal a broad spectrum of structural organization and an apparent capacity for cellular modulation. In addition to conventional organelles, these hemocytes contain a class of unusual cytoplasmic inclusion bodies which seem to undergo striking transformations in response to specific functional demands. A variety of transitional forms attests to the existence of close links between tubule containing (type 1), electron dense (type 2), and large globular (type 3) inclusion bodies, and reveals the derivation of yet another special (lamellated, fusiform) inclusion from type 2 bodies. Confluence of the type 3 configurations into still larger lacunae may precede the release of their contents into the hemolymph, a process whose major effect seems to be the initiation of the clotting process.

The Leaching of Substances from Plants

Leaching as used in this review is defined as the removal of substances from plants by the action of aqueous solutions, such as rain, dew, mist, and fog. Various specialized terms may be found in the literature to describe specific aspects of the phenomenon.

A Comparison of Two Approaches to the Construction of Models for Quantal Responses to Mixtures of Drugs

The authors amplify certain aspects of their past work on the construction of models for quantal responses to mixtures of drugs, introduce some new material, and compare their approach with that adopted by Ashford and Smith. The authors point out that their attitude towards classification of joint drug actions has changed since 1952, although they disagree with Ashford and Smith's suggestion that the authors' classification of 1952 is subject to anomalies. The authors' later work has emphasized a general method for development of mathematical models to correspond with specific biological situations, and questions of classification of biological or mathematical models appear to them less important than formerly. Perhaps the most important difference between the two approaches lies in the concept of dose as a variable. The authors have used the word 'dose' in its usual sense, to mean a quantity of drug measured in ordinary scientific units, whereas Ashford and Smith use it to mean any monotonic transformation of the dose as ordinarily conceived. This drastic generalization of the dose variable inevitably leads to mathematical models that are in general almost devoid of predictive properties. However, such generalization seems to be unnecessary for most pharmacological and toxicological situations. Concerning more specialized terms, it is stressed that Ashford and Smith use several of the same terms as the authors do, but with different meanings. The significance of Ashford and Smith's concepts is discussed.

THE NEW BOTANICAL EXHIBITION GALLERY AT THE BRITISH MUSEUM (NATURAL HISTORY)

Now that our new exhibition gallery is open, we wish to take this opportunity of drawing the attention of our colleagues in other institutions to this work and commending to them the problem of making botany more widely known and understood. A number of our more senior colleagues will remember passing through the old public gallery on their visits to this museum before the war. As is well known, an oil bomb fell on the east wing of the museum during an air raid on the night of September 9-10th, 1940. Unfortunately at that time the scientific collections had not been evacuated and the fire that resulted from the bomb did a great deal of damage. Many valuable specimens were destroyed and a very large number of sheets were scorched and saturated by the water used to put the fire out. The old exhibition gallery was extensively damaged and most of its contents spoilt beyond repair. After the war the General Herbarium (Flowering Plants excluding those of Europe) was rehoused on the top floor of the west wing of the museum. The damaged east wing has been completely rebuilt behind the original facade, which was retained to preserve the architectural unity of the building. There are now two floors where previously there was only one. The Cryptogamic collections and main working space occupy the original floor level; the new upper floor has the gallery in the nearest half while in the further half there is the Cryptogamic sub-library, a laboratory and offices for senior members of the staff working on these plant groups. In the five years that we have been engaged in the preparation of our gallery, we have learned a great deal and we are anxious to make our ideas and methods freely available to other institutions, with the hope that they will continue to develop the suggestions that we are able to offer. When we started the scientific planning and development for this project there was a widespread feeling that this was just another burden to be carried, and a tiresome complication making inroads into the time available for taxonomic study and research. As time passed however, we became aware of the considerable interest in and great opportunities for the development of this kind of work. It is certainly not my purpose to deny the paramount importance of research work in the development of botany. On the contrary, I would say that the scientist who is an active research worker is the ideal man to plan an exhibit dealing with his particular group. One must however make the proviso that the scientist must be prepared to try to see his plants with the eye and mind of the ordinary layman. It is inevitably difficult for the expert to explain his group simply and concisely but without misleading over-simplification. He knows all the problems and complexities, and is used to describing his plants with a whole array of specialized technical terms. He has a difficult task but he is undoubtedly the right person to guide the display specialists. If he is really prepared to come to grips with the problem he will find that it is both a rewarding and a fascinating piece of work. It must be remembered that most botanical institutions are financed from public funds of some kind. Those of us who enjoy these facilities have a responsibility to keep the public well informed about out work and in the last analysis a well-informed public is more likely to support our activities than one that feels that botanists have little time to make their subject intelligible to the layman. It would appear that many museums in the United States of America have a better understanding of public relations than most institutions in Europe.

Presentation of the Proposed American Standard Letter Symbols for Rocket Propulsion

WITH this article, the rocket propulsion industry and profession are invited to comment upon and to criticize the present informal (and therefore unofficial) publication of a proposed American Standard Letter Symbols for Rocket Propulsion. In responding to this invitation, it will be appreciated if all comments are addressed to J. P. Layton, Secretary, ASA Y10 Subcommittee 17, c/o The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 29 W. 39th St., New York 18, N. Y., prior to December 15, 1955. Alternatively, for those who will be attending the 25th Anniversary Annual Meeting of the American Rocket Society in Chicago this month, a cordial invitation is extended to participate in the Forum on Letter Symbols for Rocket Propulsion at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, November 15, 1955. BACKGROUND. Preparation of the proposed standard has been the responsibility of Subcommittee No. 17 on Rocket Propulsion, one of seventeen subcommittees appointed by Sectional Committee ASA Y10 on Letter Symbols. The other subcommittees cover Mathematics, Hydraulics, Mechanics of Solid Bodies, Structural Analysis, Heat and Thermodynamics, Photometry, Electrical and Magnetic Quantities, Radio, Physics, Chemical Engineering, Acoustics, Meteorology, Feedback Control Systems, Abbreviations, and General Principles of Letter Symbol Standardization. Sectional Committee Y10 was organized under the procedure of the American Standards Association in January 1926 with the American Society of Civil Engineers, the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, the American Society for Engineering Education, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, as joint sponsors. The committee was reorganized in October 1935, and it now consists of representatives of 42 national societies and associations, under the reorganization of April 1951. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers has assumed the role of sole sponsor and maintains a Standards Department devoted to the editing and publishing of American Standards. Subcommittee No. 17 was established as a result of discussions arising during 1952 on the revision of American Standard, Letter Symbols for Aeronautical Sciences, ASA Z10.7—1950. During its discussions, Subcommittee No. 7 on Aeronautical Sciences found that a great many specialized terms in the field of rocket propulsion (particularly concerning internal aspects of rocket powerplants) were being proposed for inclusion in the revised Aeronautical Sciences Standard. C. W. Chillson, a member of Subcommittee No. 7, undertook the task of recommending which of these symbols should be included in the revised Aeronautical Sciences Standard. Subcommittee No. 7 adopted several of the proposed symbols and at the same time recommended to the ASA Sectional Committee on Letter Symbols the establishment of a new subcommittee to formulate an American Standard on Letter Symbols for Rocket Propulsion. Subcommittee No. 17 was originally constituted in 1952