Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

1

Contextualism and Disagreement

100%

Qin W.

Lodz Papers in Pragmatics

|

2011

|

tom 7

|

nr 2

309-322

EN

This paper argues that attributor contextualism is in conflict with ordinary language methodology. Attributor contextualism has at its center the thesis that, the truth-values of knowledge attributions vary with the conversational (speaker) contexts. This thesis entails that if two speakers in similar contexts make conflicting knowledge attributions, at least one of these attributions is false. One important argument for attributor contextualism depends on ordinary language methodology, a methodology that places great trust in ordinary speakers and prevents judging a substantial group of ordinary speakers' simple knowledge attributions false. I argue that there is strong empirical evidence that ordinary speakers do extensively disagree in similar contexts. My conclusion is that one cannot coherently hold the attributor contextualist thesis and use ordinary language methodology, because the lesson we learn from the empirical evidence is that using the methodology would prove the thesis false. Since prominent attributor contextualists explicitly adopt the methodology, and that the methodology is what distinguishes attributor contextualism from its main rival, invariantism, the conflict with the methodology is a problem for attributor contextualism.

2

Disagreements in Iranian dissertation defenses

100%

Izadi A.

Lodz Papers in Pragmatics

|

2013

|

tom 9

|

nr 2

199-224

EN

Despite having unwelcome effects on interpersonal relationships, disagreements constitute the mainstream of talk in dissertation defense sessions. This paper reports on variations in the design of disagreement turns in 20 Iranian defense sessions in L2 English. Drawing on and modifying Locher’s (2004) classification of disagreement strategies, turns were classified into two main categories of “mitigated” and “unmitigated”. Then, for each category, linguistic and paralinguistic devices, which were used in framing disagreements, were identified. The data features almost an equal number of mitigated and unmitigated disagreements. “But with hedged contradictory remarks”, and “hedges” were the most frequent mitigating strategies, whereas “Direct opposite views” and “but with contradictory remarks” were the most frequent strategies in unmitigated and aggravated disagreements. Finally, the implications of the results for research on face and institutional talk are discussed.

3

How Moderate Relativists Should Explain the Appearance of Disagreements About Taste

100%

Hirvonen S.

Lodz Papers in Pragmatics

|

2011

|

tom 7

|

nr 2

223-240

EN

Moderate relativists such as Kölbel (2003, 2009) and Lasersohn (2005) have motivated the semantic framework by arguing that unlike contextualism, it can explain why there appear to be disagreements of taste. The solution relies on the relativist notion of a proposition whose truth depends on a judge parameter. This notion coupled with the view that contradicting propositions create an appearance of disagreement allegedly enables them to secure the right predictions. This paper questions the argumentative strategy by showing that there are no basis to infer pragmatic data (an appearance of disagreement) from formal semantics (locating an element of truth-conditions to the circumstance rather than propositional content). I then present a way to understand the relativist framework from the point of view of mental representation. The view put forward explains the missing relation between the semantic framework and pragmatics, and predicts why there is an appearance of disagreements about taste.

4

Towards a Logic of Value and Disagreement via Imprecise Measures

100%

Faroldi F. L. G.

Bulletin of the Section of Logic

|

2021

|

tom 50

|

nr 2

131-149

EN

After putting forward a formal account of value disagreement via imprecise measures, I develop a logic of value attribution and of (dis)agreement based on (exact) truthmaker semantics.

5

The Many Uses of Predicates of Taste and the Challenge from Disagreement

88%

Zeman D.

|

tom 46

|

nr 1

79-101

EN

In the debate between contextualism and relativism about predicates of taste, the challenge from disagreement (the objection that contextualism cannot account for disagreement in ordinary exchanges involving such predicates) has played a central role. This paper investigates one way of answering the challenge consisting on appeal to certain, less focused on, uses of predicates of taste. It argues that the said thread is unsatisfactory, in that it downplays certain exchanges that constitute the core disagreement data. Additionally, several arguments to the effect that the exchanges in question don’t amount to disagreement are considered and rejected.

6

Conflict talk and argumentative strategies in highly adversarial talk shows: The case of Al-Jazeera’s The Opposite Direction

88%

Migdadi F. , Badarneh M. A. , Abbas K. A.

Lodz Papers in Pragmatics

|

2013

|

tom 9

|

nr 1

93-121

EN

This study examines the conflict strategies used in the highly adversarial and popular Arabic-language talk show broadcasted weekly on Al-Jazeera satellite channel, known as Al-Ittijah Al-Mu’aakis 'The Opposite Direction'. The study identifies the conflict strategies and verbal conflict expressions and approaches them in the light of Interactional Sociolinguistics. The analysis of three episodes debating three different topics shows that disputants used several types of strategies including "impoliteness", "aggravated impoliteness", topic restriction, lengthy holding of the floor, and sarcasm. The speakers' bald-on-record expressions of disagreement are expected as a result of the controversial and polemical nature of the show, which creates fierce competition between the two guests to present their arguments in an aggressive way.

7

Approaches to Teaching Agreement and Disagreement in Selected Coursebook Series

88%

Válková S. , Kořínková J.

|

tom 9

|

nr 1

1-20

EN

The article focuses on the explicit teaching of language used to express agreement and disagreement in the popular English language coursebooks English File and Navigate. It reviews the current research on teaching various aspects of polite language and politeness-sensitive speech acts and analyses and compares the explicitly taught phrases of agreement and disagreement in the two selected coursebook series, as well as the methods of their presentation and the amount of background theoretical information provided to students and teachers to facilitate their proper usage. Differences were identified not in the inventories and language representation of the explicitly taught phrases, but mainly in the background support available for students and teachers on their usage.

8

Disagreement, Cognitive Command, and the Indexicality of Moral Truth

88%

Reichardt B.

|

nr 1

7-16

EN

Moral Relativism can be considered an attractive alternative to realism because relativists can make good sense of cultural and societal disagreements by seeing them as faultless. However, we can show that this advantage is made possible by systematically disagreeing with moral phenomenology. Relativists make a substantial distinction between intercultural and intracultural discourses which turns out to be incoherent. This can be shown by making use of Crispin Wright’s notion of Cognitive Command.

9

Ministerstwa na Twitterze. Strategie reagowania na negatywne komentarze użytkowników na profilach wybranych ministerstw

75%

Tereszkiewicz A.

Studia Medioznawcze

|

2016

|

nr 2 (65)

39-49

PL

Artykuł jest poświęcony strategiom stosowanym przez przedstawicieli ministerstw w reakcji na negatywne komentarze użytkowników, które są publikowane na profilach wybranych resortów na Twitterze. Analiza miała na celu charakterystykę najczęściej występujących strategii oponowania. Wykazała ona, że wśród stosowanych strategii można odnotować zarówno bezpośrednie, jak i pośrednie akty odrzucania, odrzucanie i podważanie sądów przez zaprzeczanie, stosowanie aktów unikowych, m.in. podkreślanie braku wiedzy i kompetencji, strategie obejmujące odsyłanie odbiorcy do innych źródeł informacji oraz ironizowanie czy stosowanie aktów grzecznościowych w formie podziękowań i pozdrowień.

EN

The goal of this paper is to discuss strategies used by ministerial representatives in reaction to negative comments made by users on Twitter profiles of selected ministry offi ces. It aims at mapping the strategies for dealing with disagreement used by the government representatives. The analysis shows that strategies encompass both direct and indirect forms of disagreement, evasive strategies, e.g. underlining lack of knowledge or competence, acts of directing users to other sources of information, as well as irony and politeness strategies, such as thanks and greetings.

10

Major constructional dispute causes in Turkey

63%

Yildizel S. A. , Dogan E. , Kaplan G. , Ergut A.

Archives of Civil Engineering

|

2016

|

tom Vol. 62, nr 4/II

193--204

EN

The possibility of construction disputes can be reduced, but they cannot be avoided due to the uncertain and risky nature of the building industry. Conflicts between construction parties often have very unfavourable effects, such as cost increases, poor construction quality and time extension in the schedule. Lots of studies have been carried out in order to try and avoid these disagreements. However, there are no common resolution tools or techniques due to the improving conditions and scope of contracted works. Advanced methods and dispute reasons should be fully monitored and updated for the applicable solutions. This paper discusses the current major constructional dispute reasons in Turkey. The questionnaire method was applied within the scope of this study. The questionnaire documents were randomly distributed to 80 contractors to analyse major dispute reasons in Turkey. Analysis of the questionnaire results indicates that the major current dispute causes are poor quality of performed works, delays in progress payments, inefficient site management, poorly written contracts and design mistakes.

PL

Prawdopodobieństwo sporów budowlanych może zostać obniżone, jednakże nie można ich uniknąć, ze względu na niepewną i ryzykowną naturę przemysłu budowlanego. Konflikty pomiędzy stronami inwestycji często mają bardzo niekorzystny wpływ, taki jak wzrost kosztów, słaba jakość konstrukcji oraz wydłużenia czasowe w harmonogramie. W celu uniknięcia tych nieporozumień, przeprowadzono wiele badań. Jednakże, nie ma wspólnych narzędzi lub technik rozwiązywania tych problemów, ze względu na poprawiające się warunki oraz zakres prac budowlanych. Metody zaawansowane oraz powody sporów powinny być w pełni monitorowane i aktualizowane pod kątem stosownych rozwiązań. Niniejsza praca omawia obecne, główne powody sporów budowlanych w Turcji. W zakresie niniejszej pracy zastosowano metodę ankietowania.

11

Zgoda domniemana a cele transplantacji

51%

Ochotny P.

|

nr 3

29-35

EN

The author, in his paper, pays close attention to a presumed consent and wider a right to self-determination, which is meant as an act of decision in a transplantology context. Polish legislation of transplantation from 2005 in article 4 lists four reasons for transplantation of organs: post-mortem autopsy, therapeutic, academic and didactic. Simultaneously, article 5 states that transplantation of organs for a therapeutic reason is possible when the deceased person distinctly hadn’t disagreed for such an action. If there are no clear objections against transplantation, and the deceased person does not carry a note of which could suggest otherwise, the physician can legally assume that the person had agreed for an organ sampling (from a presumed consent). A phrase “for a therapeutic reason” evidently points out that donor’s disagreement is only valid in a face of organ, tissue and cell harvest for a medicinal cause. However, organs sampling: post-mortem autopsy, which is both academic and didactic as, does not fall under the same regulations, as it will be conducted regardless of presence or lack of permit of family or the will statement of the deceased one. On the other side, every organ sampling for academic and didactic reasons, requires a separate declaration from a donor as lack of their disagreement is not sufficient in this case. To resolve this forensic-legal deadlock, it is suggested to extend a presumed consent of organs sampling.

PL

Autor w swoim artykule zwraca uwagę na problem zgody domniemanej, i szerzej prawo do samostanowienia sięgającego poza granice życia człowieka, w kontekście celów transplantacji. Podstawowy akt prawny zawierający uregulowania dotyczące transplantacji, a mianowicie Ustawa z dnia 01.05.2005 r. o pobieraniu, przechowywaniu i przeszczepianiu komórek, tkanek i narządów (Dz. U. z 2005 r. Nr 169, poz. 1411), wylicza cztery cele, dla których mogą być pobierane komórki, tkanki i narządy ze zwłok ludzkich: diagnostyczny, terapeutyczny, naukowy i dydaktyczny. Zgodnie z art. 5 ust. 1 „pobrania komórek, tkanek lub narządów ze zwłok ludzkich w celu ich przeszczepienia można dokonać, jeżeli osoba zmarła nie wyraziła za życia sprzeciwu”. Zapis ten jest przykładem tzw. zgody domniemanej, na podstawie której przyjmuje się, iż dany człowiek za życia wyraził się aprobująco o możliwości ofiarowania swoich organów, a więc faktycznie nie złożył odpowiedniego sprzeciwu, podważającego domniemanie zgody. Sformułowanie „w celu ich przeszczepienia” wyraźnie wskazuje, że instytucja sprzeciwu ma zastosowanie jedynie w przypadku pobierania tkanek, komórek i narządów w celach leczniczych. Dawca nie ma jednak prawa do wyrażania ewentualnego sprzeciwu wobec pozostałych celów: diagnostycznego, naukowego i dydaktycznego. W celu rozwiązania swoistego impasu prawnego proponuje się rozszerzenie zakresu zgody domniemanej.

12

Перевод номинаций русских жестов согласия и несогласия на болгарский язык (на материале жестов головы)

51%

Гочев Г.

|

2022

|

nr 21

49-62

EN

The aim of this article is to identify the peculiarities of translating the nominations of Russian gestures of agreement and disagreement into Bulgarian. The aim necessitates an analysis of gestures from the point of view of: a) their execution and the nature of their nominations, and b) the correctness/incorrectness of translation choices regarding Russian gesture nominations. The study, based on the methods of description and comparison, has led to the following findings: Russian gestures are standard, i.e. agreement has a primary connection with vertical head movement, and disagreement with horizontal head movement. In Bulgarian communication, along with such standard gestures, there are non-standard ones whose meaning does not depend on the vertical or horizontal movement of the head but on the movement of the chin. These differences determine the nature of their nominations: the Russian nominations have primary, permanent connections between agreement and vertical, as well as disagreement and horizontal. Bulgarian nominations, on the other hand, do not have such connections – they are characterized by homonymy, i.e. they denote both standard and non-standard gestures. Based on these differences, recommendations to translators have been put forward: conduct a careful analysis of the context which determines the meaning of the Russian gesture, and in the absence of an indication of its meaning, be guided by its primary connection, and the Bulgarian translation must necessarily remove the resulting homonymy that allows for the Bulgarian gesture nomination to be interpreted both as agreement and disagreement. The article relates to the little-explored area of comparative study of non-verbal Russian and Bulgarian means of communication.

RU

Цель настоящей статьи заключается в выявлении особенностей перевода русских номинаций жестов согласия и несогласия на болгарский язык. Цель обусловила анализ жестов с точки зрения: а) их исполнения и характера номинаций; б) корректности / некорректности переводческих решений русских жестовых номинаций. Исследование, основывающееся на методах описания и сопоставления, привело к следующим результатам: русские жесты являются стандартными, т.е. согласие обладает первичной связью с движением головы по вертикали, а несогласие – с движением головы по горизонтали. В болгарском общении наряду с такими стандартными жестами функционируют и нестандартные, значение которых не зависит от вертикального или горизонтального движения головы, а от движения подбородка. Эти различия определяют характер их номинаций: русские номинации обладают первичной и постоянной связью согласие – вертикаль, несогласие – горизонталь; болгарские номинации не обладают такой связью, они характеризуются омонимичностью, т.е. ими обозначаются как стандартные, так и нестандартные жесты. На базе этих различий сформулированы рекомендации переводчикам: внимательный анализ контекста, определяющего значение русского жеста, а в случае отсутствия в нем указания на значение – руководствоваться его первичной связью; болгарский перевод обязательно должен снимать возникшую омонимию, позволяющую интерпретировать болгарскую жестовую номинацию и как согласие, и как несогласие. Статья имеет отношение к малоизученной области сопоставительного изучения невербальных русских и болгарских средств общения.

13

Remedium wobec diagnozy, czyli jak liberalizm polityczny odpowiada na fakt niezgody

51%

Ciszewski W. , Dyrda A.

|

2013

|

nr 37

13-33

PL

Problematyka politycznej niezgody (political disagreement) stanowi istotny punkt wyjścia dla konstruowania współczesnych teorii politycznych. Zarazem wartość każdej teorii politycznej może być oceniona pod kątem skuteczności radzenia sobie z każdym rodzajem niezgody (sporu) politycznego. W artykule zostaje przeanalizowanych kilka filozoficznych hipotez dotyczących źródeł politycznej niezgody (teoria błędu, pluralizm wartości, idea pojęć z istoty spornych W.B. Galliego oraz kognitywistyczna teoria metafor językowych). W dalszej kolejności autorzy starają się odpowiedzieć na pytanie, czy teoria liberalizmu politycznego (J. Rawlsa i jego kontynuatorów) stanowi dobre remedium dla faktu politycznej niezgody, w świetle przedstawionych jego wyjaśnień. Przedstawiona taktyka argumentacji prowadzi do umiarkowanie entuzjastycznych wniosków, ukazując słabe strony teorii liberalizmu politycznego.

EN

The problem of political disagreement is one of the most important problems, which provides the starting point for the construction of any contemporary political theory. Moreover, each and every theory can be evaluated by taking into account the efficacy of coping with different types of political disagreements. This paper discusses four different types of political disagreement (the error theory, value pluralism, the essential contestability of concepts, Lakoff’s metaphor theory) and aims at answering the question whether the theory of political liberalism (founded by J. Rawls) is a good (i.e. efficacious) remedy for political disagreement. The result is moderately positive, as far as it reveals the weak points of this theory.