No description available.

We often want to explain and predict behavior, both our own and that of others. For various reasons we want to know not only why (in the sense of etiology) someone is doing what he is, but we also have interests in understanding the agent's reasons for which he is acting as he is. Though not uncontroversial, it is common to cite intentional states when offering such explanations. Most philosophers take certain intentional states to be the causes of our actions and to play a role in accounting for the reasons for which one acts. Additionally, most theorists who adopt such a line take the relevant intentional states to be propositional attitudes, most commonly beliefs and desires (or other pro attitudes which relate one to a proposition). In many of our explanations, we do indeed cite beliefs and desires, but we also cite many other psychological states that aren't obviously beliefs or desires. In fact, some of the relevant psychological states don't even appear to be propositional attitudes. In this paper I pursue two lines of questioning, one about the explanations of action and one about intentionality. First, what role is played by these apparently non-propositional attitudes? Such attitudes turn up in Davidson's locus classicus and can be found in the most recent work on action as well, but explications are sparse. Second, are these attitudes in fact non-propositional? Despite appearances to the contrary, one might argue that such states are to be, in some way or other, assimilated to the more familiar propositional attitudes. I resist this line in the second chapter. / text

Research in communication disorders suggests that training linguistically complex forms will generalize to untrained, simpler forms with similar structural properties (see Thompson, 2007 for review). The present study investigated generalization patterns from transitive verbs to two classes of intransitive verbs following administration of Verb Network Strengthening Treatment (VNeST; Edmonds, Nadeau & Kiran, 2009). Based on the Argument Structure Complexity Hypothesis (ASCH; Thompson, 2003), it was predicted that greater generalization would occur to unergatives because unergatives bear a structural relationship to transitive verbs and unaccusatives do not. Results at post-treatment supported the hypothesis with both intransitive verb types showing generalization and slightly higher effect sizes observed for unergative than for unaccusative verbs. At maintenance, this pattern was not maintained due to improvements in production of unaccusative verbs. Results support the findings of Edmonds et al. (2009) that administration of VNeST results in gains on measures of untrained, semantically related verbs as well as standardized measures of lexical retrieval and connected speech. These results also suggest that training transitive verbs results in slight generalization to untrained intransitive verbs; however, it is inconclusive whether unergative and unaccusatives intransitives show differential improvement. / Communication Sciences

MA (Xitsonga) / Ehansi Ka Senthara ya M. E. R. Mathivha ya Tindzimi ta Afrika Vutshila na Mfuwo / Xikongomelonkulu xa ndzavisiso lowu i ku xopaxopa maendli mo susa ma xiendliwa xin’we eka Xitsonga hi ku kongomisa eka tindlela leti ma tirhaka hatona exivulweni. Xikongomelo lexi xi aviwa hi marhavi manharhu. Rhavi ro sungula ri kongomana na ku xopaxopa maendli mo susa lama paluxaka mukhuva na mbuyelo hi xikongomelo xo kumisisa michumu leyi nga tirhaka tanihi tiagumente ta nhlokomhaka na tiagumente ta swiendliwa, xikan’we na ku lavisisa michumu leyi nga tirhaka tanihi switirho swa maendli mo susa. Rhavi ra vumbirhi rona ri langutana na ku lavisisa maendli mo susa ma xiendliwa xin’we lama paluxaka mukhuva na mbuyelo lama tirheke eswivulweni ma ri na swivulwana swa mahlanganisi swa xivangelo, xikongomelo na xipimelo. Kasi rhavi ra vunharhu ri tirhana no kambisisa tinhlamuselo/mitirho ya xisemantiki leyi nyikiwaka tiagumemnte hi maendli mo susa ma xiendliwa xin’we lama paluxaka mukhuva na mbuyelo. Eka ndzavisiso lowu ku tirhisiwa thiyori ya vunongoti, ku nga thiyori leyi kongomanaka na ndlela leyi vanhu va twisisaka xiswona marito. Mhaka leyi endlekaka eka thiyori leyi, hi leswi vanhu va twisisaka xiswona marito emiehleketweni ya vona eka leswi ma vulaka swona hi ku angarhela. Swiphemu swa nkoka leswi thiyori leyi yi jikajikaka eka swona i nhlokomhaka leyi nga xiendli xa leswi susiwaka, riendli leri hlamuselaka leswi susiwaka na hilaha swi susiwaka hakona, xiendliwa lexi khumbekaka hileswi vuriwaka hi riendli, na xilandzelandzhaku lexi nga vaka ndhawu, xitirho na swin’wana ni swin’wana. Ndzavisiso lowu wu endliwa hi ku landzelela maendlelo ma nkoka, laha ku nga na maendlelo mambirhi mo kongoma ehansi ka wona; ku nga mo tirhisa ntlawa wo karhi wa vavulavuri va Xitsonga lava nga xiyayiya swivulwa leswi mulavisisi a swi vumbeke leswi vaka swi tirhisile maendli mo susa. Mulavisisi u lulamisile papila ra swivutiso leri longoloxeke swivulwa leswi a lavaka leswaku vavulavuri lava va swi xiyayiya ku xiya loko swi twala kumbe swi nga twali na maendlelo ma nxopaxopo wa vundzeni bya tsalwa lama tirhisiwaka ku xopaxopa swivulwa leswi nga tirhisiwa tanihi mahungu ya ndzavisiso lowu. / NRF

The purpose of this thesis is to examine idiomatic structures with ki in the ki-wo [transitive verb] and ki-ga [intransitive verb] constructions. It is argued that for Japanese language learners, it is crucial to be able to understand and produce ki idioms, because they are frequently used in everyday speech. There are often misconceptions regarding ki in the West for those who are fans of Japanese culture due to the influence of martial arts and anime, which paint ki as a spiritual energy that can be controlled and developed. However, upon examining the above mentioned idiomatic structures with ki, it is clear that ki can be expressed as both controllable by the subject of ki (transitive), as well as a thing that acts of its own accord and is spontaneous (intransitive). This thesis somewhat corroborates the studies of W. M. Jacobson, Zoe Pei Sui Luk , and Yoshihiko Ikegami by arguing that intransitive constructions are often used in Japanese, and examining both transitive and intransitive expressions with ki is significant to understanding the meanings produced in ki expressions. It is hoped that analyzing 37 transitive and intransitive idiomatic structures with ki will help Japanese language learners not only understand the syntactic and semantic aspects of transitivity in the Japanese language, but also to help these L2 learners conceptualize the abstract noun ki, which can be defined in so many different ways in a dictionary.