Sentence examples for differing sentences from inspiring English sources

Chomsky (1957) argued that distributional analyses cannot give rise to knowledge of grammar, as there are not enough 'minimally differing' sentences in the input to enable children to figure out what the allowable contexts for a given element are.

But the 'primary linguistic data,' usually referred to as the 'pld' and comprising the set of sentences to which a child is exposed during language learning (plus any analysis performed by the child on those sentences; see below), simply cannot be assumed to contain enough of these 'minimally differing sentences' to fully determine a person's dispositions with respect to that word.

Offenders are often faced with a choice of two plea-bargains with differing jail sentences, for instance, a three-year or a one-year sentence.

Different truth theories can be given for the same language, and they can agree on the truth conditions of whole sentences while differing in which expressions they treat in the recursive clauses.

For example, if two sentences mean the same thing (e.g., "snow is white" in English, "Schnee ist weiss" in German), they express the same proposition, and if two sentences differ in meaning, they express different propositions.

Planned post-hoc comparisons revealed that neutral sentences differed significantly from disgust (F 1, 22) = 13.97, p<.01), and fearful sentences (F 1, 22) = 4.77, p<.05).

The pairs of sentences differ in the final target word or, more specifically, in the sentence-final sibilant.

Further results revealed that (a) superimposing the prosodic structure of one dialect (Bern Swiss German) onto another (Valais Swiss German) caused greater variability across some listeners than the other way around and that (b) identification performance varies as a function of sentence material used, i.e. how the sentences differ in segmental and prosodic make-up.

This parasitic characteristic explains how the turn-final ko declarative question differs from other types of declarative questions formulated with different sentence-ending devices.

This showed that the structured data from Set O is well matched to Set 1 for the Outcome Measure sentences but it is likely that the location of Intervention and Participant sentences differ between the structured sets and Set 1.

It was not immediately clear why the sentences differed.