English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

What sorts of entities do people distinguish in the world? How do we con- ceptualize ''objects'' and ''events'', ''time'' and ''causation''? How do we think about people interacting with each other in social worlds? Typolog- ical linguists answer these questions by uncovering universals and varia- tion in language structure, the assumption being that universals inform us of common conceptual repertoires while variation enlightens us about the potential of human mental faculties. These are the same properties that psychologists struggle to understand. Yet, most work by typologists goes unnoticed by psychologists. Why should this be so, when both groups are interested in the same underlying questions? Part of the problem is the divergence of methodologies. Psychologists espouse the scientific method. Phenomena are operationalized so that they can be measured, and data are collected through a standard proce- dure. This ensures that any finding can be replicated by other researchers. Typologists have relied more (though not exclusively) on extracting pat- terns from grammatical descriptions, with little concern for how the lan- guage data are collected or whether another typologist might replicate any conclusions they reach. This has been true of work on classical se- mantic maps. A semantic map is a plot of related grammatical functions, where functions that are expressed by a single construction are plotted adjacent to each other (usually with a connecting line). Functions not encoded by a single construction are not adjacent (or connected). The func- tions themselves, as well as the extensions of specific language construc- tions, are typically derived by the analyst from secondary sources, such as grammars. Language is idealized away from observable, measurable,

Conceptual maps using multivariate statistics: Building bridges between typological linguistics and psychology