Перегляд вихідного коду сторінки Few Straight Forward Info Regarding Arginase Shown

This understanding of syntax is limited to linguistic domain and not fruitful for comparative research. Therefore, we use the term ��syntax,�� if not marked further, in its broad sense trough out the current paper. The notion of syntax in the broad sense raises two questions which accompany us through the whole article, but cannot be fully answered at the moment: (1) Is syntax best studied apart from semantics? (2) What is the role of syntax in sequence processing (i.e., in performance research)? Our temporary answers are: (1) Syntax and semantics cannot be separated; (2) Syntax accounts for expecting, predicting, and planning future events in a structured way. FIGURE 1 The broad sense of ��syntax�� can be investigated  at several representational levels (e.g., phonology, morphology, syntax in the narrow sense, semantics, and pragmatics) in language and can be also adapted to music. In its narrow sense ��syntax�� ... Recent comparative approaches investigate syntax of music and language on the several representational levels. In particular, musical syntax is compared to narrow-sense syntax and phonological syntax of  language. This one-to-one comparison based on theoretical considerations as well as findings from cognitive neuroscience, however, includes a conundrum: on one hand there are intriguing similarities at both levels of comparison, but there are also important differences. That is, musical syntax does not fit into the ready-made linguistic conception. So, is this distinction of narrow-sense and phonological syntax really useful for investigating syntax of music? Musical syntactic structures are headed hierarchies like linguistic syntax (Jackendoff, 2009), but represent ��noncategorical elaborative relations�� (Lerdahl, 2013), which means that principles for hierarchical structure building might differ. Moreover, musical syntax cannot be completely separated from structure of musical meaning, namely affect. Given that, as some researchers suggest (Patel, 2008; London, 2012a), syntax of music and language  cannot be apart from their meanings which are completely different in each domain, principles governing their structure building cannot be the same. In the first section of the current paper, we provide several reasons why linguistic concepts do not mesh well with findings in music research. The very similarity of music and language lies in the fact that domain-specific hierarchical structures are projected/linearized onto temporal structures (temporal integration). Thus, the aim of this paper is to find an appropriate level of comparison for the [http://www.selleckchem.com/products/BAY-73-4506.html BAY 73-4506] combinatorial properties of music and language, ideally, in a way that is independent of controversies specific to one or the other field. In comparing music and language, specific concepts developed in linguistics are adapted to music, but often prove harmful in the context of comparison. As Dempster (1998, p.