For example, the word corresponding to sense 3a of slow (which covers expressions such as slow to act) is not fast but quick. The fact that slow and derived words cover a lot more speed-related semantic ground than fast and its derivatives may be due to the fact that standard synonyms for fast, such as quick, rapid, swift, and speedy, are more readily available than those for slow (these synonyms can be explored further in the Historical Thesaurus of the OED , which has adjectival categories for swiftness and slowness). Instead verbs such as quicken or speed up are used as antonyms for the verb slow. There are no equivalent senses in the verb fast (which covers many of the same senses as fasten). Similarly, the verb slow is frequently found either simply (for example in the car slowed as it reached us) or in the phrasal verb to slow down. Fast, by contrast, is nowhere near as common as a noun referring to speed. The noun slow has various senses referring to speed including ‘a sluggish person’, ‘a slowly-bowled cricket bowl’, and (in the phrase the slows) ‘a tendency to move or act slowly’. We can see similar divergences with regards to the related nouns and verbs. While here’s the equivalent for quickly and slowly: This frequency chart from the Google Ngram Viewer shows just how rare fastly is, compared to slowly: When slow is used in expressions such as to drive slow and to walk slow it is usually regional or nonstandard by contrast, the adverb fastly meaning ‘quickly, rapidly’ is rare, with fast being the standard adverb in all contexts. ![]() Slow and slowly are both used as adverbs corresponding to the adjective slow, with slow being particularly common with participles, as in slow-cooked, slow-growing, slow-moving, etc. One striking example is the adverbs which are used to correspond to the adjectives. Given fast’s origin and development as compared to slow, it is perhaps not surprising that the two words exhibit different patterns of behaviour. The same semantic development is found slightly earlier in the adverb fastly. This sense probably arose as a specific use of sense 5c of the adverb where it is used as an intensifier with the meaning ‘vigorously, hard thoroughly, greatly’ examples include ‘Wepe fast and be sory’ (a1450) and ‘Fast sheo knokyd, till at the last the ussher opynd the dure’ (a1475). Whereas the ‘firm’ sense of fast is found in Old English, the sense to do with speed emerged in the Middle English period, and originally in the adverb rather than the adjective. It seems somewhat counterintuitive that a word meaning ‘firmly fixed’ should have developed the sense ‘quick, rapid’. Although the sense of fast referring to speed is now much more common, we can still see this first strand of meaning in words and phrases such as fast asleep, fast friends, fast and loose, steadfast, and the verb fasten. By contrast fast (the adjective and the adverb) in its earliest use refers to firmness and fixity, before developing a strand of meaning relating to speediness. Senses referring to speed or rate of progress emerge in the Middle English period. ![]() The earliest senses of the adjective slow refer to negative qualities such as sluggishness (mental and physical) and lack of liveliness. Although fast and slow are antonyms the entries, and those for derived words, do not exactly mirror each other, instead showing quite different semantic development and coverage of senses. Published this quarter are the revised entries for fastand slow. We specified a series of two-group (grade school and college) structural equation models to represent the relations among all measures and showed that individual differences in the apparently calculative processes that underlie the traditionally defined ability dimension of Numerical Facility are highly related to individual differences in Addition Efficiency and Speediness of information processing.Speed read: the revision of fast and slow Addition Efficiency and Speediness and (c) a digit-span measure of Short-Term Memory. ![]() The second analysis explored the external validity of relations among (a) two traditionally measured factor analytic dimensions of ability, Numerical Facility and Perceptual Speed (b) two information processing dimensions presumed to underlie mental addition. Patterns of convergent and discriminant validity for these models were also demonstrated. The first analysis explored the internal validity of extant chronometric models and found that three models, (a) a tabular memory network retrieval strategy (PRODUCT), (b) a nontabular memory network retrieval strategy (ERROR RATE), and (c) a computational strategy (MIN), were able to encompass individual differences in strategy choice for 155 individuals from Grades 2 to 8 and 111 college students. A production task paradigm for obtaining reaction times to mental addition stimuli was used for internal and external validation of chronometric models of mental addition processing.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |