Torsional nystagmus during head thrust test

A only few chapters are pending for seeking contributors..If any one is interested to contribute the chapter, please inform me. The book project of ear diseases of dogs under approval of Bentham Publication.

Chapter 3: Ceruminous Otitis in dogs

Chapter 5: Ceruminoliths and its clinical Management

Chapter 6: Ruptured eardrum and its clinical management

Chapter 7: Inflammatory ear Polyps and its clinical Management

Chapter 8: Laser Surgery of ear: A Practical Guide

Dear Sir

Could you please share and publish my published research in my profile on google scholar?

Looking forward to hearing from you

1. Related to Phonetic and phonology.

2. Related to language, gender, and politics.

3. Related to endangered languages.

Is it possible to compensate for the effect or lack of immunity after the eradication process?

The topic of this research question is as follows:

Is the severity of aphasia predicative of the need for the implementation of indirect therapy in the treatment of persons with aphasia?

Independent variable: severity of aphasia

Dependent variable: need for indirect therapy

H0: no effect of severity of aphasia

Ha: an effect of severity of aphasia

Level:

- independent variable: nominal

- Dependent variable: continuous

Independent is measured by:

- Distribution severity by subscale semantics.

- Severity distribution by subscale phonology

- Severity distribution by subscale syntax

Dependent is measured by mean score of 4 likert items, which form a likert scale

Which test is appropriate to conduct this study? This may be for each subscale of the independent variable separately.

We were thinking of a Fisher Freeman Halton-exact test.

Can anyone help us?

Kind regards

The Influence of Parental Language Mode on the Relationship between Academic Performance and Disenchantment Rate of Middle School Students.

are there any theories of pragmatics and psychology to help with this topic.

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, also known as (the) linguistic relativity (hypothesis), more or less states (in one of the most specific descriptions by Whorf): users of markedly different grammars are directed by their grammars towards a different evaluation of reality ('Language, Thought and Reality' (selected writings by Benjamin Lee Whorf), 1940: 221).

To my knowledge, research into this hypothesis has to date not touched on the paradox it introduces (and please let me know when I'm mistaken). How is this hypothesis paradoxical?

When someone denies the hypothesis, it means that he or she has arrived at a different evaluation of reality than Whorf, as witnessed by his articulation of the hypothesis. Understanding that Whorf not necessarily meant 'actual wording' by 'grammar' (implying that it's not because those people don't understand the sentence that they reject it), upon asking for clarification of their rejection, they will rationalize their opinion as to why they consider the hypothesis to be wrong. In other words: although in all likeliness expressed in English, their rationalization will reflect an underlying logic different to the one they will say to have read in the hypothesis they rejected. That underlying logic (expressed in a configuration of arguments) will therefore indicate a different 'grammar' which orients the intention of the words they use.

The paradox is that, when people reject linguistic relativity, they can only attempt to make their rejection understood by creating a different grammar intended to persuade their opponents to share their evaluation of reality, not Whorf's. Two grammars, two evaluations of reality (hypothesis is wrong, hypothesis is right). They will, at that point, have paradoxically proven the hypothesis.

Or am I wrong?