The study explores the use of Anglicisms in the discourse of Russian speaking fashion influencers on YouTube, focusing on the thematic usage and linguistic adaptation of English borrowings to the Russian language. This topic is highly relevant due to the unprecedented popularity of digital social media and influencers who manipulate consumers’ opinions. Research methodology implies content analysis of 30 videos on YouTube by famous Russian fashion influencers: Alexander Rogov, Diana Milkanova and Alina Charova. The analysis reveals twelve thematic clusters where Anglicisms are prevalent: general fashion terms; types of clothes, shoes and bags; textiles; colors; makeup; fashion images and styles; sales and retail; music; sports and vehicles; food; and digital content. It proves that fashion is not a separate artistic industry but an active, ongoing set of practices which can be witnessed through language, the use of Anglicisms in particular. Moreover, the survey examines key morphological processes such as suffixation (including diminutization), prefixation and compounding, and it demonstrates how foreign terms are transformed to align with Russian grammatical structures. The study also shows the use of Anglicisms on lexical and syntactic levels. These adaptations not only facilitate the incorporation of global fashion terms to attract and maintain the attention of the audience but also allow influencers to sustain a distinct professional identity, being Russian‑speaking individuals. This research contributes to the understanding of the interconnection of fashion with other social domains and it expands the studies of Anglicisms in the digital fashion discourse.

Employing a self-paced reading experiment, a read-aloud production task and a pen-and-paper questionnaire, we examined if Turkish (L2) and native (L1) speakers of English rely on similar or different mechanisms in comprehending and producing English subject–verb number agreement. The results showed that the syntactic distance of an attractor to the head noun affected the L1 speakers’ parsing decisions, while the L2 speakers were influenced by its linear proximity to the verb. The results also showed singular attraction in comprehension for both groups and (a tendency for) plural attraction in production. We argue that L1 and L2 speakers differ in the sources of attraction and in their cue weighting/encoding while processing and producing S-V agreement. Whereas syntactic proximity is more crucial in the L1 speakers’ agreement computation, L2 speakers weigh linear distance cue more heavily. We also argue that S-V agreement computation is governed through different mechanisms in comprehension and production.

This paper defends a broadly Thomistic understanding of simplicity against a range of contemporary criticisms. Critics of divine simplicity argue that simplicity leads us to identify God with an abstract property and that it renders theological language semantically vacuous because divine simplicity cannot ground a plurality of true intrinsic predicates. I defuse these criticisms by employing some central Fregean distinctions – specifically, the distinctions between object and concept, predication and identification, and sense and reference. While these Fregean distinctions help to dissolve initial logical difficulties, they do not by themselves explain how theological predicates can have determinate content or truth-conditions. I therefore situate the relevant Fregean diagnostics within the Thomistic metaphysical framework of analogy. This framework supplies principled constraints on theological predication without reintroducing composition into God. I conclude by arguing that the Thomistic doctrine of analogy does not eliminate semantic openness but renders theological language sufficiently determinate for meaning and practice, grounding meaningful God-talk in both metaphysics and the formative practices of religious life.

We introduce a geometric model of shallow multiplicative exponential linear logic (MELL) using the Hilbert scheme. Building on previous work interpreting multiplicative linear logic (MLL) proofs as systems of linear equations, we show that shallow MELL proofs can be modelled by locally projective schemes. The key insight is that while MLL proofs correspond to equations between formulas, the exponential fragment of shallow proofs corresponds to equations between these equations. We prove that the model is invariant under cut-elimination by constructing explicit isomorphisms between the schemes associated with proofs related by cut-reduction steps. A key technical tool is the interpretation of the exponential modality using the Hilbert scheme, which parameterises closed subschemes of projective space. We demonstrate the model through detailed examples, including an analysis of Church numerals that reveals how the Hilbert scheme captures the geometric content of promoted formulas. This work establishes new connections between proof theory and algebraic geometry, suggesting broader relationships between computation and scheme theory.

Children (aged five-to-six and nine-to-ten years) and adults rated the acceptability of well-formed sentences and argument-structure overgeneralization errors involving the prepositional-object and double-object dative constructions (e.g. Marge pulled the box to Homer/Marge pulled Homer the box). In support of the entrenchment hypothesis, a negative correlation was observed between verb frequency and the acceptability of errors, across all age groups. Adults additionally displayed sensitivity to narrow-range semantic constraints on the alternation, rejecting double-object dative uses of novel verbs consistent with prepositional-dative-only classes and vice versa. Adults also provided evidence for the psychological validity of a proposed morphophonological constraint prohibiting Latinate verbs from appearing in the double-object dative. These findings are interpreted in the light of a recent account of argument-structure acquisition, under which children retreat from error by incrementally learning the semantic, phonological, and pragmatic properties associated with particular verbs and particular construction slots.

Free association (e.g., what is the first word that comes to mind when given a cue word) can reveal multiple linguistic relationships between cues and responses, even when a specific association (i.e., semantic, phonological) is intended. In this study, we investigated the influence of morphological similarity on semantic and phonological free association. Previously collected large datasets were used to evaluate morphological similarity between cues and responses in a semantic association task and a phonological association task. The results indicate that morphologically related cue–response word pairs comprised less than 2% of pairs in both association tasks. When morphologically related responses were detected in both tasks, we found more words that were non-compounds than compounds, more decomposition than composition and more suffixation than prefixation. There were task-specific differences in the psycholinguistic properties of cue words eliciting morphologically related responses. We interpret the results following a two-stage lexical model, where free association primarily involves the exploration of conceptual/lemma representations in the mental lexicon, as opposed to form/lexeme representations.

As people increasingly interact with large language models (LLMs), a critical question emerges: do humans process language differently when communicating with an LLM versus another human? While there is good evidence that people adapt comprehension based on their expectations toward their interlocutor in human–human interaction, human–computer interaction research suggests the adaptation to machines is often suspended until expectation violation occurs. We conducted two event-related potential experiments examining Chinese sentence comprehension, measuring neural responses to semantic and syntactic anomalies attributed to an LLM or a human. Experiment 1 revealed reduced N400 but larger P600 responses to semantic anomalies in LLM-attributed text than human-attributed one, suggesting participants anticipated semantic errors yet required increased composition/integration efforts. Experiment 2 showed enhanced P600 responses to LLM-attributed than human-attributed syntactic anomalies, reflecting greater reanalysis or integration difficulty in the former than in the latter. Notably, neural responses to LLM-attributed semantic anomalies (but not syntactic anomalies) were further modulated by participants’ belief about humanlike knowledge in LLMs, with a larger N400 and a smaller P600 in participants with stronger belief of humanlike knowledge in LLMs. These findings provide the first neurocognitive evidence that people develop mental models of LLM capabilities and adapt neural processing accordingly, offering theoretical insights aligned with multidisciplinary frameworks and practical implications for designing effective human–AI communication systems.

Pater's (2019) target article builds a persuasive case for establishing stronger ties between theoretical linguistics and connectionism (deep learning). This commentary extends his arguments to semantics, focusing in particular on issues of learning, compositionality, and lexical meaning.

This article proposes a syntax and a semantics for intonation in English and some related languages. The semantics is ‘surface-compositional’, in the sense that syntactic derivation constructs information-structural logical form monotonically, without rules of structural revision, and without autonomous rules of ‘focus projection’. This is made possible by the generalized notion of syntactic constituency afforded by combinatory categorial grammar (CCG)—in particular, the fact that its rules are restricted to string-adjacent type-driven combination. In this way, the grammar unites intonation structure and information structure with surface-syntactic derivational structure and Montague-style compositional semantics, even when they deviate radically from traditional surface structure.

The article revises and extends earlier CCG-based accounts of intonational semantics, grounding hitherto informal notions like ‘theme’ and ‘rheme’ (a.k.a. ‘topic’ and ‘comment’, ‘presupposition’ and ‘focus’, etc.) and ‘background’ and ‘contrast’ (a.k.a. ‘given’ and ‘new’, ‘focus’, etc.) in a logic of speaker/hearer supposition andupdate, usingaversion of Rooth's alternative semantics. A CCG grammar fragment is defined that constrains language-specific intonation and its interpretation more narrowly than previous attempts.

This article presents four experiments that investigate the meaning of English and Italian statements containing the epistemic necessity auxiliary verb must/dovere, a topic of long-standing debate in the philosophical and linguistics literature. Our findings show that the endorsement of such statements in a given scenario depends on the participants' subjective assessment about whether they are convinced that the conclusion suggested by the scenario is true, independently from their objective assessment of the conclusion's likelihood. We interpret these findings as suggesting that English and Italian speakers use epistemic necessity verbs to communicate neither conclusions judged to be necessary (contrary to the prediction of the standard modal logical view) nor conclusions judged to be highly probable (contrary to the prediction of recent analyses using probabilistic models) but conclusions whose truth they believe in (as predicted by the analysis of epistemic must as an inferential evidential). We suggest that this evidential meaning of epistemic must/dovere might have arisen in everyday conversation from a reiterated hyperbolic use of the words with their original meaning as epistemic necessity verbs.