05474nam 2200661 a 450 991045744080332120200520144314.01-283-42398-7978661342398690-272-7429-0(CKB)2550000000079767(EBL)842919(OCoLC)773566954(SSID)ssj0000589767(PQKBManifestationID)11352009(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000589767(PQKBWorkID)10657372(PQKB)10916822(MiAaPQ)EBC842919(Au-PeEL)EBL842919(CaPaEBR)ebr10526930(CaONFJC)MIL342398(EXLCZ)99255000000007976719910130d1991 uy 0engur|n|---|||||txtccrDevelopmental orthography[electronic resource] /by Philip A. LuelsdorffAmsterdam John Benjamins Pub. Co.19911 online resource (289 p.)Description based upon print version of record.90-272-2065-4 Includes bibliographical references (p. [263]-273) and indexes.DEVELOPMENTAL ORTHOGRAPHY; Title page; Copyright page; Acknowledgments; Table of contents; Preface; Introduction Uta Frith; English Vowel Spellings; Introduction; 1. The prior framework; 2. A hierarchical framework; 3. Orthographic constituent structure; 4. Conclusion; A Formal Approach to Error Taxonomy; Introduction; 1. Error taxonomy; 2. Structural errors; 3. Rank hierarchy; 4. Final remarks; Processing Strategies in Bilingual Spellers; Introduction; 1. Processing strategies; 1.1 Letter-naming; 1.2 Overgeneralization; 1.3 Transfer; 2. Summary and conclusion; NoteBilingual Intralinguistic Orthographic InterferenceIntroduction; 1. The group experiment; 2. The error framework; 3. Some conclusions; Note; The Complexity Hypothesis and Graphemic Ambiguity; 1. Introduction; 1.1 Review of the literature; 1.2 Purpose; 2. Consonant doubling in German and English; 2.1 German consonant doubling; 2.2 English consonant doubling; 3. Method; 3.1 Subjects; 3.2 Design; 3.3 Materials; 3.4 Procedure; 4. Results; 4.1 Hypothesis 1; 4.2 Hypothesis 2; 5. Discussion; 5.1 Hypothesis 1; 5.2 Hypothesis 2; 6. Conclusion; APPENDIX I; APPENDIX IIThe Complexity Hypothesis and Morphemic SpellingIntroduction; 1. Received developmental patterns; 2. Learning morphemic spelling; 3. Hierarchies of accuracy vs. hierarchies of acquisition; 4. Error patterns in morphemic spelling; 5. Summary and prospects; Note; APPENDIX: Instruction on the pronunciation and spelling of the regular past tense; Psycholinguistic determinants of orthography acquisition; Introduction; 1. Method; 2. Purpose; 3. Procedure; 4. Results; 1. Summary of data in terms of sound, grade and school type; 2. Investigation of each hypothesis separately; 3. A general model4. Prototypical errors4.1 Hauptschule; 4.2 Realschule; 4.3 Gymnasium; 5. Conclusion; Note; APPENDIX I. Tables; APPENDIX II; Developmental Morphographemics; 0. Introduction; 1. Purpose; 2. The Experiment; 3. Discussion; 3.1 The Familiarity Hypothesis; 3.2 The Part of Speech Hypothesis; 3.3 The Morphology Hypothesis; 3.4 The Morphographemic Rule Hypothesis; 4. Conclusion; APPENDIX I. Phonology-free Morphographemic Alternations; APPENDIX II. Developmental Morphographemics (N = 13); Orthographic Complexity and Orthography Acquisition; Introduction; 1. Orthographic complexity2. Orthographic complexity and orthography of inflection3. Acquisition of the orthography of inflection and contraction; 4. Acquisitional stages; 5. Individual variation; 6. Developmental orthography; 7. Conclusion; APPENDIX I: Dictation Exercise; APPENDIX II: Test Words; A Psycholinguistic Model of the Bilingual Speller; Introduction; 1. The experiment; 2. The results; 3. Discussion; 4. Conclusion; APPENDIX I. False friends: Words to dictation; APPENDIX II. False friends: Test words; APPENDIX III. False friends: Control Words; APPENDIX IV. The Results; Developmental Orthography; Introduction1. L1-English orthographyPhilip Luelsdorff's highly original approach to the grammar of orthography is to analyse in detail how German pupils learn about written English. In this collection of essays and experiments we are presented with the rich finds of a decade of programmatic research. The context is set with an exposition of current cognitive models of reading and spelling. Cognitive psychology and psycholinguistics meet in Luelsdorff's concept of linguistic error. This concept forms the basis from which it is possible to derive the grammar that governs our largely unconscious and vast knowledge of written words.English languageStudy and teachingGerman speakersEnglish languageOrthography and spellingSecond language acquisitionElectronic books.English languageStudy and teachingGerman speakers.English languageOrthography and spelling.Second language acquisition.428/.007Luelsdorff Philip155967MiAaPQMiAaPQMiAaPQBOOK9910457440803321Developmental orthography2149388UNINA05115nam 2200625 450 991081635240332120230803195504.00-19-996797-00-19-996796-2(CKB)2670000000545172(EBL)1657771(OCoLC)874029486(SSID)ssj0001136211(PQKBManifestationID)12375547(PQKBTitleCode)TC0001136211(PQKBWorkID)11103279(PQKB)11775760(MiAaPQ)EBC1657771(Au-PeEL)EBL1657771(CaPaEBR)ebr10851069(CaONFJC)MIL583021(EXLCZ)99267000000054517220140331h20142014 uy 0engur|n|---|||||txtccrPoint made how to write like the nation's top advocates /Ross GubermanSecond edition.New York :Oxford University Press,2014.©20141 online resource (426 p.)Includes index.0-19-994385-0 Cover; POINT MADE; Copyright; Dedication; Contents; Preface to the Second Edition; Acknowledgments for the First Edition; Introduction; PART ONE THE THEME; 1 Brass Tacks : Explain "who, what, when,where, why, how"; Eric Holder, In re Chiquita Banana; Joshua Rosenkranz, Facebook, Inc. v. ConnectU, Inc.; Fred Bartlit, Pinpoint v. Amazon; Brendan Sullivan, Greg Craig, and Nicole Seligman, Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v. Wachner; David Boies and Ted Olson, Hollingsworth v. Perry; Bernie Nussbaum, IBP v. Tyson Foods; Larry Robbins, United States v. Bayly2 The Short List : Number your path to victoryA. Your list is governed by factors or rules; Seth Waxman, MercExchange v. eBay; B. You need to address threshold questions before addressing the merits; Ted Olson, Robinson v. Bowen; C. Your dispute is complex or fact-driven; Maureen Mahoney, Grutter v. Bollinger; Larry Tribe, Gratz v. Bollinger; Brendan Sullivan, United States v. Forbes; Ted Olson, Office of Independent Counsel v. Favish; D. You need to regain the offensive in response to your opponent ' s arguments; Kathleen Sullivan, SEC v. Siebel SystemsHerbert Wachtell, NFL Enterprises v. EchoStar SatelliteDavid Boies, Weinstein v. Smokewood Entertainment; 3 Why Should I Care? : Give the court a reason to want to find for you; A. The fear of misconstruing a doctrineor statute; Carter Phillips, Miller-El v. Dretke; Stephen Shapiro, Stoneridge Investment Partners v.Scientific Atlantica; Barack Obama, Tyus v. Bosley; B. The fear of creating new duties, rules,or defenses; Jamie Gorelick, Carrington v. Duke University; Larry Lessig, Warner Bros. Entertainment v. RDR Books; C. The fear of reaching an unfair result or causing harmGreg Craig, United States v. Conrad BlackBernie Nussbaum, Judith Kaye v. Sheldon Silver; Stephen M. Shapiro, Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC; Stephen M. Shapiro, Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.; Kathleen Sullivan, FCC v. Fox; Ted Olson, MGM v. Grokster; Paul Smith, Keepseagle v. Vilsack; 4 Flashpoint : Draw a line in the sand; Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke; Walter Dellinger, Rumsfeld v. FAIR; John Roberts, Smith v. Doe; Morgan Chu, TiVo v. EchoStar; Mary Jo White, Trump v. O ' Brien; Nancy Abell, Jackson v. MicrosoftRoy Englert, Federal Insurance Company v. Kingdom of Saudi ArabiaPulling the techniques together: a preliminary statement dissected; Ted Wells, Terra Firma v. Citigroup; PART TWO THE TALE; Fred Bartlit, Stumpf v. Garvey; 5 Panoramic Shot : Set the stage and sound your theme; Ted Wells, Terra Firma v. Citigroup; Joe Jamail, In re Sunbeam Securities Litigation; Larry Tribe, Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Granholm; Andy Frey, BMW v. Gore; Carter Phillips, Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church v. City of New York; Joshua Rosenkranz, Facebook, Inc. v. ConnectU, Inc.6 Show, Not Tell : Let choice details speak for themselvesWith Point Made, legal writing expert, Ross Guberman, throws a life preserver to attorneys, who are under more pressure than ever to produce compelling prose. What is the strongest opening for a motion or brief? How to draft winning headings? How to tell a persuasive story when the record is dry and dense? The answers are ""more science than art,"" says Guberman, who has analyzed stellar arguments by distinguished attorneys to develop step-by-step instructions for achieving the results you want. The author takes an empirical approach, drawing heavily on the writings of the nation's 50 most infLegal briefsUnited StatesLegal compositionLegal briefsLegal composition.808.06/634Guberman Ross1647100MiAaPQMiAaPQMiAaPQBOOK9910816352403321Point made3994488UNINA