Univ. of Calif., Diss. u.d.T.: Goldberg, Adele E.: Argument structure constructions--Berkeley, 1992.

Made available in DSpace on 2014-06-11T19:30:27Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2006Bitstream added on 2014-06-13T21:01:09Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 papa_iaw_dr_arafcl.pdf: 621921 bytes, checksum: d70ef881bc40c25a788a823eefa09bb3 (MD5) / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) / Este trabalho tem como objetivo investigar a funcionalidade argumentativa dos recursos de presença utilizados nos livros de auto-ajuda, com o apoio teórico da Nova Retórica e da moderna lingüística cognitiva. Para isso, fizemos uma análise retrospectiva dos estudos retóricos, pondo ênfase nos estudos cognitivistas atuais, sobretudo aqueles que envolvem a parábola e a metáfora. Analisamos, também, os recursos de presença em três livros de auto-ajuda, dois nacionais, O Alquimista de Paulo Coelho e A águia e a galinha de Leonardo Boff, e um internacional, Quem Mexeu no meu Queijo de Spencer Johnson. / The aim of this study is to examine the argumentative functionality of the presence resources in self-helping books, technically supported by the New Rhetoric and the Modern Cognitive Linguistics. A retrospective analysis of the rhetorical studies was performed focusing the present cognitivist studies, especially the ones that encircle the parable and the metaphor. The presence resources were analyzed in three self-helping books: The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho, The Eagle by Leonardo Boff and the Hen and Who moved my cheese by Spencer Johnson.

The dispute over interruption is one of the most intensive and most controversial political and ethical discussions in today{\crq}s modern civilization. It includes a great number of opposed, controversial opinions and attitudes both in the sphere of medicine and on the political or ethical ground. I have selected the topic of this work on the base of personal interest in the issue of termination of pregnancy, because this issue bears the basic questions and attitudes of man to the existence of the individual. Today the issue of interruption is sharply polarized into two controversial rivalling groups, i.e. the ``pro-life{\crqq} movement and the ``pro-choice{\crqq} movement. The dispute over termination of pregnancy has been becoming more and more topical issue not only in the Czech Republic but also in the world. The aim of this work was to map the attitudes of students not only of graduation classes of selected sanitary secondary schools to the issue of interruption and to compare the mapped attitudes of students of the Faculty of Health and Social Studies and of the Theological Faculty of the University of South Bohemia with the attitudes of respondents of graduation classes of the selected sanitary secondary schools to the issue of interruption. On the base of this aim, two hypotheses were stated in the research part of the work. After that, the questionnaire investigation was performed, for which a structured questionnaire had been elaborated. The questionnaire was filled out by fifty respondents of the Faculty of Health and Social Studies and fifty respondents of the theological Faculty of the University of South Bohemia of České Budějovice. On the base of that investigation, one of the hypotheses was not confirmed. Available literature and current Internet sources were used for the theoretical and for the practical part of the work. The work should serve primarily to the students themselves and to other readers as a modest data source for this extensive issue, and the research part of this work could be used as a small summary both for laymen and for professionals teaching at universities and high schools, so that they have the possibility to look at the issue of interruption from the point of view of the students, future professionals and workers of different areas.

O Realismo Científico tem sido defendido quase exclusivamente através do Argumento do Milagre, segundo o qual ou assumimos que as teorias científicas são verdadeiras ou tornamos o sucesso da atividade científica em um fenômeno misterioso e inexplicável. No primeiro momento, as principais críticas ao argumento do milagre são reunidas em cinco objeções: (i) apresenta-se uma explicação alternativa para o sucesso da ciência que não assuma a verdade das teorias científicas e que compita com a explicação realista; (ii) defende-se que a hipótese realista não é uma explicação satisfatória para o sucesso da ciência, acusando-a de vacuidade explicativa, ou (iii) acusando-a de não satisfazer os critérios de rigor metodológico científico que ela mesmo impõe à justificação de teorias; (iv) afirma-se que o argumento seja uma petição de princípio, por pressupor uma regra de inferência abdutiva aceita apenas pela posição realista; (v) propõe-se que o argumento constitua uma falácia estatística ao ignorar um índice de fundo relevante. Ao replicar às objeções apresentadas, alguns autores propõem distinguir entre uma versão semântica do argumento, baseada no sucesso empírico obtido pelas teorias científicas enquanto entidades semânticas; e uma versão metodológica do argumento, baseada no sucesso pragmático dos cientistas em escolher teorias férteis e descobrir teorias bem sucedidas. Além disso, outros autores propõem uma segunda distinção entre uma versão geral do argumento, baseada estatisticamente no sucesso generalizado das teorias científicas, e uma versão retalhada do argumento, baseada na sua aplicação específica a uma teoria tomada individualmente. Após comparar as vantagens e desvantagens de cada interpretação, critica-se a relevância das distinções propostas e defende-se uma versão do argumento que sintetize suas diferentes interpretações de modo a solucionar as objeções inicialmente apresentadas. / Scientific Realism has been defended almost exclusively by the Non-Miracle Argument, which states that either it‘s assumed that scientific theories are true or the success of the scientific enterprise becomes a mysterious and unexplainable fact. At first, the main criticisms of the Non-Miracle Argument are gathered in five objections: (i) it‘s presented an alternative explanation to the success of science that competes with the realist explanation and does not assume the truth of the scientific theories; (ii) it‘s defended that the realist hypothesis is not a satisfactory explanation to the success of science, charging it of being an empty explanation, or (iii) charging its capacities to reach the scientific methodological rigorousness that itself imposes to the warrant of theories; (iv) it‘s affirmed that the argument is a petition principii, on account of presupposing an abductive rule of inference accepted only by the realist perspective; (v) it‘s proposed that the argument constitutes a statistical fallacy on account of neglecting a relevant base rate; When replying to the presented objections, some authors come up with the distinction between a semantic version of the argument, based on the empiric success reached by scientific theories considered as semantic entities, and a methodological version of the argument, based on the pragmatic success of scientists at choosing fruitful theories and discovering succeeded theories. Furthermore, other authors offer a second distinction between a general version of the argument, statistically based on the generalized success of science, and a retail version of the argument, based on its specific application to an individual theory. After comparing the advantages and drawbacks of each interpretation, the relevance of each distinction is reanalyzed and a new version of the argument by making a synthesis of its different interpretations is defended in a way to answer the five initial objections.

O Realismo Científico tem sido defendido quase exclusivamente através do Argumento do Milagre, segundo o qual ou assumimos que as teorias científicas são verdadeiras ou tornamos o sucesso da atividade científica em um fenômeno misterioso e inexplicável. No primeiro momento, as principais críticas ao argumento do milagre são reunidas em cinco objeções: (i) apresenta-se uma explicação alternativa para o sucesso da ciência que não assuma a verdade das teorias científicas e que compita com a explicação realista; (ii) defende-se que a hipótese realista não é uma explicação satisfatória para o sucesso da ciência, acusando-a de vacuidade explicativa, ou (iii) acusando-a de não satisfazer os critérios de rigor metodológico científico que ela mesmo impõe à justificação de teorias; (iv) afirma-se que o argumento seja uma petição de princípio, por pressupor uma regra de inferência abdutiva aceita apenas pela posição realista; (v) propõe-se que o argumento constitua uma falácia estatística ao ignorar um índice de fundo relevante. Ao replicar às objeções apresentadas, alguns autores propõem distinguir entre uma versão semântica do argumento, baseada no sucesso empírico obtido pelas teorias científicas enquanto entidades semânticas; e uma versão metodológica do argumento, baseada no sucesso pragmático dos cientistas em escolher teorias férteis e descobrir teorias bem sucedidas. Além disso, outros autores propõem uma segunda distinção entre uma versão geral do argumento, baseada estatisticamente no sucesso generalizado das teorias científicas, e uma versão retalhada do argumento, baseada na sua aplicação específica a uma teoria tomada individualmente. Após comparar as vantagens e desvantagens de cada interpretação, critica-se a relevância das distinções propostas e defende-se uma versão do argumento que sintetize suas diferentes interpretações de modo a solucionar as objeções inicialmente apresentadas. / Scientific Realism has been defended almost exclusively by the Non-Miracle Argument, which states that either it‘s assumed that scientific theories are true or the success of the scientific enterprise becomes a mysterious and unexplainable fact. At first, the main criticisms of the Non-Miracle Argument are gathered in five objections: (i) it‘s presented an alternative explanation to the success of science that competes with the realist explanation and does not assume the truth of the scientific theories; (ii) it‘s defended that the realist hypothesis is not a satisfactory explanation to the success of science, charging it of being an empty explanation, or (iii) charging its capacities to reach the scientific methodological rigorousness that itself imposes to the warrant of theories; (iv) it‘s affirmed that the argument is a petition principii, on account of presupposing an abductive rule of inference accepted only by the realist perspective; (v) it‘s proposed that the argument constitutes a statistical fallacy on account of neglecting a relevant base rate; When replying to the presented objections, some authors come up with the distinction between a semantic version of the argument, based on the empiric success reached by scientific theories considered as semantic entities, and a methodological version of the argument, based on the pragmatic success of scientists at choosing fruitful theories and discovering succeeded theories. Furthermore, other authors offer a second distinction between a general version of the argument, statistically based on the generalized success of science, and a retail version of the argument, based on its specific application to an individual theory. After comparing the advantages and drawbacks of each interpretation, the relevance of each distinction is reanalyzed and a new version of the argument by making a synthesis of its different interpretations is defended in a way to answer the five initial objections.

Submitted by Renata Lopes (renatasil82@gmail.com) on 2017-01-13T17:27:04Z No. of bitstreams: 1 thiagodeoliveiraalves.pdf: 655489 bytes, checksum: e3e858183683f82164e751d989a96b35 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Adriana Oliveira (adriana.oliveira@ufjf.edu.br) on 2017-02-07T13:56:24Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 thiagodeoliveiraalves.pdf: 655489 bytes, checksum: e3e858183683f82164e751d989a96b35 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Adriana Oliveira (adriana.oliveira@ufjf.edu.br) on 2017-02-07T14:05:47Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 thiagodeoliveiraalves.pdf: 655489 bytes, checksum: e3e858183683f82164e751d989a96b35 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-02-07T14:05:47Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 thiagodeoliveiraalves.pdf: 655489 bytes, checksum: e3e858183683f82164e751d989a96b35 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-07-18 / O uso da Lógica é de fundamental importância no desenvolvimento de teorias matemáticas modernas, que buscam deduzir de axiomas e conceitos primitivos todo seu corpo de teoremas e consequências. O objetivo desta dissertação é descrever as ferramentas da Lógica Formal que possam ter aplicações imediatas nas demonstrações de conjecturas e teoremas, trazendo justificativa e significado para as técnicas dedutivas e argumentos normalmente utilizados na Matemática. Além de temas introdutórios sobre argumentação e âmbito da lógica, o trabalho todo é apresentado por método sistemático em busca de um critério formal que possa separar os argumentos válidos dos inválidos. Conclui-se que com uma boa preparação inicial no campo da Lógica Formal, o matemático iniciante possa ter uma referência sobre como proceder estrategicamente nos processos de provas de conjecturas e um conhecimento mais profundo ao entender os motivos da validade dos teoremas que encontrará ao se dedicar a sua área de formação. / TheuseofLogicisoffundamentalimportanceinthedevelopmentofmodernmathematical theories that seek deduce from axioms and primitive concepts all your body of theorems and consequences. The aim of this work is to describe the tools of Formal Logic that may have immediate applications in the statements of theorems and conjectures, bringing justification and meaning to the deductive techniques and arguments commonly used in Mathematics. In addition to introductory topics on argumentation and scope of Logic, all the work is presented by systematic method in search of a formal criterion that can separate the valid arguments of the invalids. It follows that with a good initial preparation in the field of Formal Logic, the novice mathematician could have a reference on how to strategically proceed in conjectures evidence processes and a deeper knowledge to understand the reasons for the validity of theorems found on their training area.

No description available.

This study identifies two syntactically distinguishable types of Serial Verb Constructions (SVCs) in Mandarin Chinese (MC) and Jinjiang Southern Min (JSM), corresponding to the nuclear and core distinction made in Role and Reference Grammar (Foley and Van Valin 1984, Foley and Olson 1985, Van Valin and LaPolla 1997). This distinction is also made on the basis of a general consensus of the cross-linguistic classifications of the processes of monoclausal multi-verb construction formation (e.g., Butt 1993, 1997, Baker and Harvey 2010): namely, predicate fusion and argument fusion. In this study, I propose two sets of diagnostics to establish the distinction; these go beyond the range covered in previous studies (e.g., Olson 1981, Foley and Olson 1985, Crowley 2002, Chang 2007). In the first set of diagnostics in this study, seven inter-clausal diagnostics are considered as the threshold where the behaviours of bi-clausal structures and SVCs split. These diagnostics include independent negation, passivisation of the object of V2, independent modification by temporal adverbial, independent marking of viewpoint aspect, independent modification by manner adverbial, prosodic structure and the Coordinate Structure Constraint (Ross 1967) that is employed in a more restricted manner. In the second set of diagnostics, four intra-clausal diagnostics are adopted to make the distinction between nuclear and core SVCs, which include passivisation of O1, insertion of intervening material, coordination within the SVC, and obligatory topicalisation of undergoer argument. Of particular interest is the possibility that the same string of verbs may occur in superficially similar, but structurally different, SVCs: for example, the Cause-Effect SVC and the Excessive SVC. The diagnostics employed in this study are proposed as a novel method to establish the distinction between the SVCs and the bi-clausal structures, and more importantly, between core and nuclear types of SVC. Contributing to the originality of the new method of diagnosing the status of the SVCs proposed in this study, I add five novel diagnostics, such as passivisation of the object of V2, independent marking of viewpoint aspect, tone sandhi between adjacent verbs, coordination within the SVC and obligatory topicalisation of the undergoer argument, in addition to those that have been employed in the literature. I restrict myself to data of MC and JSM in discussing the rationale of the diagnostics. However, this novel method of identifying SVCs is expected to be cross-linguistically applicable with consistent results, while at the same time allowing for the possibility of cross-linguistic differences in the semantic sub-types of SVCs identified in each language.

In this paper I examine the existence of God through a focus on the cosmological argument as it ispresented here. My aim is to show that this argument provides support for the existence of God. To do this I examine that which I call the three steps of the cosmological argument: the first step being the accepting of the world as an ordered something, the second step being the ultimate question why this ordered something is there to begin with and the third step being that of God viewed as the only plausible answer. I argue that the ultimate question’s claim for an ultimate answer ought to be accepted due to the inability of individual things to explain the mere existence and order of things in general, which implies that the explanation for existence and order as such is to be searched beyond those things. Regarding the third step I argue that there has to be something rather than noting and that this something is to be viewed as something living due to the orderly nature of the world. From this I, finally, argue in favor of the explanatory value of a necessary being - i.e. God.

In this thesis I will explore the impersonal constructions in Modern Welsh. In doing so, I will follow the approach of the previous literature in comparing this construction with the analytic Welsh passive. The general linguistic literature on passivization assumes that both constructions involve passivization and despite some studies of Welsh concluding that the impersonal construction is not a passive, this thesis cannot support or deny this claim. I show that it is the definition of passive that obstructs a conclusive analysis for the Welsh impersonal morphology's syntactic and semantic effects, ultimately. Using the data described in detail throughout the thesis, I conclude with an assessment of the scope of our current theories of passive - be they typological or theoretical - that reveals problematic areas. Typological, prototypical and canonical approaches to the passive of course fail to include enough nuance to identify the relevant structural components of the Welsh impersonal, whilst theoretical approaches cannot account for the restrictions found on intransitive impersonals. LFG's mapping theory has the potential to accommodate the Welsh data according to current proposals and as such is examined in more depth. I have given an emphasis to using naturally occurring data whenever possible and this has led to a data-rich, descriptive work, in an attempt to expand the breadth of examples of Welsh found in discussions of linguistic theory. Additionally, this approach provide the basis for future work on Welsh verb classes by describing the behaviour of verbs in several constructions relevant to the work at hand. Along with a general synthesis of the previous literature on impersonals and analytic passives in chapter 2, I include an elaborated analysis of Welsh analytic passives and some problematic new impersonal data. The novel data on verb classes begins in chapter 3 with a study of verbs of psychological state. The lack of restriction on the impersonal contrasts with the analytic GET-passive's failure in a subset of these transitive verbs previously unobserved. In chapter 4, I investigate the availability of unaccusativity diagnostics in Welsh, in an attempt to prove that unaccusative verbs do indeed impersonalize, as suggested by previous literature. Chapter 5 then uses the diagnostic, amongst others to track down further restrictions on the impersonal and I show that whilst unaccusativity cannot be excluded as a potential restriction to impersonal morphology, the semantic restrictions are as plausible an account. This chapter uses different structural and semantic verbs and predicates and finds that animacy in intransitives is the only restriction needed to describe impersonals. In the following chapter (6) I examine this restriction in more detail and summarize the data on the impersonal in order to then probe the current linguistic theories in chapter 7.