No description available.

<p dir="ltr">This dissertation explores questions of personal change and the power of narrative with respect to both an individual and to the wider social environment. In chapter one, I explore the connections between the various facets of liminality and agency, with a focus on how it is that people can consciously craft specific ways of being an agent. In chapter two, I explore the nature of disagreements that involve our most fundamental commitments from within the context of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s posthumous <i>On Certainty</i>. Wittgenstein was pessimistic that argumentation could help in such cases, yet left it an open question as to whether they could be otherwise resolved. Here, I suggest the practice of storytelling as one strategy to resolve these disagreements. Finally, in chapter 3, I examine recent takes on conspiracy theories that include evaluating conspiracy theories as contrarian claims to secret knowledge as well as highlighting the political function that many conspiracy theories can play. Here, I will develop a claim that is common to both camps: conspiracy theories tell stories. By analyzing the characters and narrative structures at play in conspiracy theories, we can gain a deeper understanding of why conspiracy theorists think they know what they know, why particular conspiracy theories reference certain groups or agents rather than others, and why some tropes appear and reappear in conspiracy theories.</p>

This study compared simulated sales negotiations with authentic negotiations. Specifically, three areas of language were considered: (i) chat phases, (ii) mitigation in disagreements, and (iii) argumentation. Findings indicated that greatly reduced use of chat phases in the simulations led to an impoverishment of the interactional aspect of communication. A statistical analysis indicated that mitigation of disagreements was significantly reduced when compared to authentic negotiations. Finally, in spite of the difference noted between professional and non-professional negotiators in the simulated negotiations, a significant increase in the use of argumentation was found in the simulations. Even though further research would be required, it could be hypothesized that these differences may be attributed to the one-off nature of simulations, the absence of a surrounding business context and the intrinsic difficulty of using interactional language in simulations. These factors should be considered when simulations are used and designed for business and LSP training courses. / Linguistics and Modern Languages / M.A. (Linguistics)

本研究探討兒童在給予非優先應答時所採取的語用策略，以及母親在接續的對話中所給予的回應。研究的語料來自於一名以漢語為母語的四歲兒童與她的母親之間的日常對話。在分析的資料中，我們將非優先應答區分成拒絕和異議兩類，分析之後，結果發現受試兒童採取六種不同的語用策略來表達非優先應答，分別為(1)直接否定(simple negation)、(2)理由(account)、(3)挑戰(challenge)、(4)修正(correction)、(5)部分認同(partial agreement)、(6)反請求(counter-request)，而受試者的非優先應答往往結構簡單，內容直接而缺少修飾，雖然她在否定或提出異議時，能給予進一步的解釋，但是她所提出的多為以自我為中心的理由。另外，母親在面對受試者直接的拒絕或異議時，多半會以下列三種方式回應：一、再次陳述自己的要求或想法，二、提供更多的解釋來說服對方，三、提出問題要求對方進一步說明拒絕或不同意的原因，以上的三種回應策略都使母親有再一次的機會來說服受試兒童接受她的要求，或者同意她的想法。 / This study investigates children’s pragmatic strategies of delivering dispreferred responses and also how the mothers reacted in the subsequent turns. The data analyzed are a Mandarin-speaking four-year-old child’s natural conversation with her mother. In the observed verbal exchanges, the subject child’s dispreferred seconds are categorized into refusals and disagreements. After careful examination, six pragmatic strategies are identified in the dispreferred turns, namely, simple negation, account, challenge, correction, partial agreement, and counter-request. The results indicate the child’s dispreferreds are generally simple in structure, direct and unmitigated in force. Though she was capable of providing accounts for her refusals or disagreements, the reasons she gave are mostly self-oriented and serve to express her non-compliance and disapproval. As for the mother’s subsequent responses, it is found that facing the child’s direct and socially disruptive seconds, the mother generally targeted at her previous turn and attempted to carry on the prior illocutionary force. When her directive or statement was refused or denied, she tended to responded with reformulations, persuading remarks or queries, which elicited more information about the dispreferred acts. All of these three strategies provided another chance for the achievement of compliance or agreement.

人們常因為禮貌或其他因素避免對立的情況發生。然而，異議在我們日常溝通中又扮演了不可或缺的角色。之前，眾多對於異議及其相關語言活動的研究均未曾探究異議內容的本質(對於事實內容的異議或對於議題評估的異議)與異議的建構有何關係。此外，台灣鮮少研究社會因素對異議建構方式的影響。基於上述不足，本研究旨在探討何種異議(內容異議或評估異議)在日常生活中較常出現，不同異議類別的語言形式與語用策略為何，以及年齡是否會影響異議的數量多寡與建構方式。本研究採用言談分析(conversational analysis, CA)作為研究框架，並以言語行為理論(speech act theory),合作原則(Cooperative Principles)及禮貌理論(Politeness Principles)為理論基礎。 本研究以12份日常交談為語料，進行異議分析。在這12份語料中，8組對話者為同齡(4組年長者，4組年輕者)，4組對話者為跨齡。在分析過程中，先依異議的本質進行分類，進而分析討論異議中所使用的語言形式、語用策略、社會因素(年齡)，以及四者彼此之間的互動。 研究結果顯示，第一，人們使用評估異議的頻率為內容異議的兩倍之多。個人主觀式遠多於社會文化評估的異議。第二，就語言形式而言，在異議的建構中，否定句、預告詞及肯定句(依此順序)的使用頻率高於其他語言形式。然而，語言行式的選擇會隨異議的本質而有所改變。內容異議通常使用直接句型，如否定句與肯定句；評估異議則平均使用直接性的否定句與間接性的預告詞。第三，就語用策略而言，更正、解釋與質疑(依此順序)的使用頻率高於其他語用策略。語用策略的選擇亦隨異議本質的不同而有所改變。超過一半的內容異議使用更正策略，但在評估異議中，更正、解釋與質疑的使用頻率相當。第四，在評估異議中，在各個語用策略中，語言形式的種類比內容異議多。這個結果影射著評估異議對面子的威脅程度可能比內容異議來得嚴重。因此，在進行評估異議時，語言形式與語用策略的挑選用必須格外注意。第五，年齡與異議的建構有顯著的相關性。同齡組比跨齡組更容易產生異議。最後，在異議中，聽話者的角色比說話者的角色更具有影響力。 / Although people try to avoid opposition for the sake of politeness or other reasons, disagreement, which may threaten interpersonal relationship and the success of communication, is inevitable in our daily life. Previous studies on disagreement (including dispute, argument, conflict, etc.) have not probe into the nature of the referential content—whether it is content-based (in this study, C-disagreement) or evaluation-based (in this study, E-disagreement), and the influences of social factors on disagreement have rarely been examined in Taiwan. Therefore, the purposes of this study are to see what type of disagreement are most likely to occur in daily conversations and to examine whether age is an influential factor on linguistic choices for in disagreement in Chinese society. This study uses the framework of conversational analysis (CA), and adopts speech act theory (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1975), Cooperative Principles (Grice, 1975) and Politeness Principles (Brown and Levinson’s, 1978, 1987; Leech, 1983) as the theoretical foundations. 12 conversations by speakers of 8 same-age groups (including 4 old groups and 4 young groups) and 4 cross-age groups were examined for disagreement. Related data are categorized, analyzed, and discussed by types of disagreement, linguistic markers, pragmatic strategies, social variable (in this study, age), and the interaction among the four. The results of the data analyses show, first, people adopt nearly twice more E-disagreement than C-disagreement; moreover, E-disagreement based on personal judgment emerges more often than E-disagreement based on socio-cultural evaluation. Second, for linguistic markers, negation, pre-announcement marker, and affirmative (in this order) are adopted more in disagreement. However, preferences for linguistic markers change according to types of disagreement. In C-disagreement, direct syntactic markers, such as negation and affirmative, are used more frequently than the others; however, in E-disagreement, direct negation (syntactic) and indirect pre-announcement (lexical) are used with equal frequencies. Third, among pragmatic strategies, correction, account, and challenge (in this order) are adopted more frequently than the others. The usage of pragmatic strategies varies with types of disagreement. In C-disagreement, correction is highly adopted. But in E-disagreement, correction, account, and challenge are used with equal percentages. Fourth, the fact that more varieties of linguistic markers are used in each pragmatic strategy in E-disagreement than in C-disagreement may imply impoliteness, since face-threatening force is more serious in E-disagreement than in C-disagreement, which, in turn, indicates that more careful manipulation is needed in using E-disagreement. Fifth, age is influential in disagreement. More disagreements are found in the same-age groups than in the cross-age groups. Last, the hearer’s role is found to be more influential than the speaker’s role.

<p>Ova disertacija se bavi analizom jezički<br />ispoljene učtivosti na primerima filmskih<br />dijaloga kojima se ispoljava slaganje i<br />neslaganje sa sagovornikom na engleskom i<br />srpskom jeziku, kao i u titlovanim prevodima na<br />srpskom. Osnovni ciljevi istraživanja jesu da se<br />klasifikuju, opi&scaron;u i primerima potkrepe<br />strategije slaganja i neslaganja sa sagovornikom,<br />da se sumiraju i uporede dobijeni rezultati u dva<br />jezika, te da se utvrde promene prilikom<br />titlovanog prevođenja odabranih dijalog&acirc; sa<br />engleskog jezika na srpski. Pretpostavke u vezi<br />sa uklapanjem dobijenih rezultat&acirc; u<br />odgovarajuće kulturne matrice i osiroma&scaron;enjem<br />interakcijske komponente sadržaja titlovanog<br />prevoda istražene su u svetlu relevantnih<br />teorijskih razmatranja, putem kvalitativne<br />analize odabranog jezičkog materijala.</p> / <p>This thesis deals with verbally expressed<br />politeness in film dialogues of agreement and<br />disagreement with the interlocutor in English<br />and Serbian, as well as in subtitled translations<br />into Serbian. The most important goals of the<br />research are to classify, describe and exemplify<br />the strategies of agreement and disagreement in<br />selected US and Serbian films, to summarize<br />and compare the results of the analysis in the<br />two languages and to determine the changes in<br />the interactional component of meaning in the<br />subtitling mode of translation from English into<br />Serbian. The hypotheses concerning the<br />analysed cases of agreeing and disagreeing in<br />the light of prevalent politeness patterns in US<br />and Serbian culture, as well as the presumed<br />undertranslation of the interactional component<br />of meaning in the Serbian subtitles are tested<br />considering the relevant theoretical frameworks,<br />by means of applying the method of qualitative<br />analysis</p>

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-27T17:27:17Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 marcelo marin.pdf: 436365 bytes, checksum: d6cc0d4a3e39eb05d72d95f068d9c00a (MD5) Previous issue date: 2007-05-25 / Based on a comparative study between two publications by Niccolò Machiavelli and Francesco Guicciardini, respectively, the Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Lívio and the Considerazioni intorno ai Discorsi del Machiavelli, we intend to elicit how the main ideas of civil freedom and civil disagreement appear in the political philosophy of each of the authours mentioned. Taking into account examples of ancient Rome, Machiavelli tries to show situations in which civil disagreement enhanced the institutions and guaranteed civil freedom. On the other hand, Guicciardini denies Machiavelli s arguments, facing civil disagreement as an element intrinsically harmful to the maintenance of the political unit. In order to appropriately explain the thoughts of both thinkers, it was necessary to understand the way Guicciardini and Machiavelli conceived the citizens political participation in the governmental institutions. Therefore, studying these Renascentists shows us how the topic civil disagreement is important to reflect the balance and social dynamics of political communities / Com base em um estudo comparativo entre duas das obras de Niccolò Machiavelli e Francesco Guicciardini, a saber, respectivamente, os Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Lívio e as Considerazioni intorno ai Discorsi del Machiavelli, o presente estudo pretende explicitar o modo como as temáticas da liberdade cívica e das discórdias civis aparecerão no interior da filosofia política de cada um dos autores citados. Partindo de exemplos da Roma antiga, Machiavelli procura mostrar situações em que as discórdias civis foram benéficas para o aprimoramento das instituições e para a garantia da liberdade cívica. Guicciardini, por seu turno, recusa a argumentação maquiaveliana, encarando as discórdias civis como elemento intrinsecamente prejudicial à manutenção da unidade do corpo político. Ao longo desse trabalho, para bem situar as posições de ambos os pensadores no trato com a temática que os norteiam, faz-se necessária a compreensão do modo como Guicciardini e Machiavelli concebem a participação política dos cidadãos nas instituições governamentais. Assim, o estudo destes pensadores Renascentistas mostra o quanto o tema das discórdias civis é importante para que se possa refletir acerca do equilíbrio e da dinâmica social das comunidades políticas

This thesis explores reasons and disagreement in ethics, and their connection to personal identity. I begin by arguing that reasons are open; what gives them direction is how they feature in my life and weigh with me. Of course, this does not tell us what reasons are available to a person when they act. In this connection I argue against Bernard Williams’ internal reasons thesis, showing that there are occasions when we will want to say someone has a reason to act even though they are unable to see it. Continuing with Williams, I explore moral necessity, drawing also on the works of Winch, Rhees and Cordner, arguing that Williams too readily conflates psychological with ethical limits. In particular, the possibility of recanting what we took to be necessary should inform our view of moral necessity, since it can show that I had misconstrued the nature of the limits I took myself to have reached. Following this use of recantation, I explore narrative in detail, arguing that my narrative is partly constitutive of who I am. My agency is therefore interpretive. This has ramifications for thinkers such as Christine Korsgaard and Jonathan Dancy, whose work I explore in two excursuses. In different ways, both fail to appreciate the significance of our interpretive identities.

Em seu Law and Disagreement, Jeremy Waldron apresenta o que denomina de uma teoria democrática do direito, uma teoria normativa sobre a autoridade do direito baseada em sua legitimidade democrática. Para Waldron é a legitimidade do direito enquanto fruto de um processo de deliberação e votação majoritária que sustenta sua autoridade. Esse trabalho busca explicar a teoria democrática do direito de Waldron apresentando-a no contexto do liberalismo e do positivismo normativo. Dada a importância da legitimidade para a autoridade do direito em Waldron, esse trabalho discute também o que Waldron entende por legitimidade e sua distinção em relação à justificação, e defende a teoria de Waldron acerca da legitimidade como superior a outra teoria semelhante, defendida por John Simmons. Esse trabalho apresenta a teoria democrática do direito de Waldron no contexto das denominadas circunstâncias da política – a necessidade sentida de uma decisão comum e o desacordo sobre qual deve ser essa decisão. Essa tese defende que Waldron apresenta dois argumentos distintos em defesa de sua teoria: a) um argumento epistêmico, baseado na tese da justificação normal da autoridade, de Joseph Raz, adaptada ao contexto das decisões majoritárias, e que está suscetível a certos tipos de crítica, e b) um argumento de equidade, que recorre à igual consideração e respeito nas circunstâncias da política, o qual está suscetível a outros tipos de crítica. Essa tese defenderá que, dependendo do argumento, a posição de Waldron levará a distintos resultados teóricos e práticos (normativos). / In his Law and Disagreement, Jeremy Waldron presents what he names a democratic jurisprudence, a normative theory about the authority of law based in his democratic legitimacy. To Waldron, it is the legitimacy of law as a result of a process of deliberation and majoritarian voting that sustains its authority. This work seeks to explain Waldron’s democratic jurisprudence presenting it in the context of liberalism and normative positivism. Since legitimacy is important to the authority of law, this work also discuss what Waldron understands by legitimacy and its distinction from justification, and defends that Waldron’s theory about legitimacy is superior to another similar theory, defended by John Simmons. This work presents Waldron’s democratic jurisprudence in the context of the said circumstances of politics - the felt need for a common decision and the disagreement about what ought to be this decision. This thesis defends that Waldron presents two distinct arguments in defense of his theory: a) an epistemic argument, that is based on the normal justification thesis of Joseph Raz adapted to the context of majoritarian decision, and that is susceptible to certain kinds of critic, and b) an argument of fairness, that calls for equal considerations and respect in the circumstances of politics, and that is susceptible to other kinds of critic. This thesis will defend that, depending on the argument, Waldron’s position will lead to distinct theoretical and practical (normative) results.

This study compared simulated sales negotiations with authentic negotiations. Specifically, three areas of language were considered: (i) chat phases, (ii) mitigation in disagreements, and (iii) argumentation. Findings indicated that greatly reduced use of chat phases in the simulations led to an impoverishment of the interactional aspect of communication. A statistical analysis indicated that mitigation of disagreements was significantly reduced when compared to authentic negotiations. Finally, in spite of the difference noted between professional and non-professional negotiators in the simulated negotiations, a significant increase in the use of argumentation was found in the simulations. Even though further research would be required, it could be hypothesized that these differences may be attributed to the one-off nature of simulations, the absence of a surrounding business context and the intrinsic difficulty of using interactional language in simulations. These factors should be considered when simulations are used and designed for business and LSP training courses. / Linguistics and Modern Languages / M.A. (Linguistics)