Frank Fischer
- Published in print:
- 2003
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780199242641
- eISBN:
- 9780191599255
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/019924264X.001.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory
In recent years a set of new ‘postempiricist’ approaches to public policy, drawing on discursive analysis and participatory deliberative practices, have come to challenge the dominant technocratic, ...
More
In recent years a set of new ‘postempiricist’ approaches to public policy, drawing on discursive analysis and participatory deliberative practices, have come to challenge the dominant technocratic, empiricist models in policy analysis. In this book, Frank Fischer brings together this work for the first time and critically examines its implications for the field of public policy studies. He describes the theoretical, methodological and political dimensions of this emerging approach to policy research. The book includes a discussion of the social construction of policy problems, the role of interpretation and narrative analysis in policy inquiry, the dialectics of policy argumentation, and the uses of participatory policy analysis. After an introductory chapter, ten further chapters are arranged in four parts: Part I, Public Policy and the Discursive Construction of Reality (two chapters), introduces the re-emergence of interest in ideas and discourse. It then turns to the postempiricist or constructionist view of social reality, presenting public policy as a discursive construct that turns on multiple interpretations. Part II, Public Policy as Discursive Politics (two chapters), examines more specifically the nature of discursive politics and discourse theory and illustrates through a particular disciplinary debate the theoretical, methodological, and political implications of such a conceptual reframing of policy inquiry. Part III, Discursive Policy Inquiry: Resituating Empirical Analysis (four chapters), offers a postempiricist methodology for policy inquiry based on the logic of practical discourse, and explores specific methodological perspectives pertinent to such an orientation, in particular the role of interpretation in policy analysis, narrative policy analysis, and the dialectics of policy argumentation. Part IV, Deliberative Governance (two chapters), discusses the participatory implications of such a method and the role of the policy analyst as facilitator of citizen deliberation .Less
In recent years a set of new ‘postempiricist’ approaches to public policy, drawing on discursive analysis and participatory deliberative practices, have come to challenge the dominant technocratic, empiricist models in policy analysis. In this book, Frank Fischer brings together this work for the first time and critically examines its implications for the field of public policy studies. He describes the theoretical, methodological and political dimensions of this emerging approach to policy research. The book includes a discussion of the social construction of policy problems, the role of interpretation and narrative analysis in policy inquiry, the dialectics of policy argumentation, and the uses of participatory policy analysis. After an introductory chapter, ten further chapters are arranged in four parts: Part I, Public Policy and the Discursive Construction of Reality (two chapters), introduces the re-emergence of interest in ideas and discourse. It then turns to the postempiricist or constructionist view of social reality, presenting public policy as a discursive construct that turns on multiple interpretations. Part II, Public Policy as Discursive Politics (two chapters), examines more specifically the nature of discursive politics and discourse theory and illustrates through a particular disciplinary debate the theoretical, methodological, and political implications of such a conceptual reframing of policy inquiry. Part III, Discursive Policy Inquiry: Resituating Empirical Analysis (four chapters), offers a postempiricist methodology for policy inquiry based on the logic of practical discourse, and explores specific methodological perspectives pertinent to such an orientation, in particular the role of interpretation in policy analysis, narrative policy analysis, and the dialectics of policy argumentation. Part IV, Deliberative Governance (two chapters), discusses the participatory implications of such a method and the role of the policy analyst as facilitator of citizen deliberation .
Frank Fischer
- Published in print:
- 2003
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780199242641
- eISBN:
- 9780191599255
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/019924264X.003.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory
This introductory chapter makes the point that public policy studies has been one of the fastest growing specializations in the social sciences, and has largely been an American phenomenon. It looks ...
More
This introductory chapter makes the point that public policy studies has been one of the fastest growing specializations in the social sciences, and has largely been an American phenomenon. It looks at what the field includes, and at the previously dominant practice of technocratic policy analysis. The problems that have emerged with the technocratic practice of policy-analytic research are then examined by looking at the policy orientation in its broader political context. The emphasis here is on the American story, which best illustrates the limitations of the practice as it has emerged. The last section of the chapter looks at the postempiricist alternative. Policy argumentation and discourse (participatory policy analysis).Less
This introductory chapter makes the point that public policy studies has been one of the fastest growing specializations in the social sciences, and has largely been an American phenomenon. It looks at what the field includes, and at the previously dominant practice of technocratic policy analysis. The problems that have emerged with the technocratic practice of policy-analytic research are then examined by looking at the policy orientation in its broader political context. The emphasis here is on the American story, which best illustrates the limitations of the practice as it has emerged. The last section of the chapter looks at the postempiricist alternative. Policy argumentation and discourse (participatory policy analysis).
Frank Fischer
- Published in print:
- 2003
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780199242641
- eISBN:
- 9780191599255
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/019924264X.003.0002
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory
This chapter examines the renewed interest in the role of ideas, language and discourse in policy studies. Distinguishing postempiricist from mainstream perspectives, the discussion sets the stage ...
More
This chapter examines the renewed interest in the role of ideas, language and discourse in policy studies. Distinguishing postempiricist from mainstream perspectives, the discussion sets the stage for a more detailed presentation of the discourse–analytic approach and the deliberative practices to which it gives rise. There are seven main sections: Reconsidering Ideas; Beyond Self-Interest: Ideas Matter; Neo-Institutionalism and Policy Ideas (neo-institutionalism is defined as a theoretical orientation that has focused on the evolutionary relationship of ideas and norms to institutional practices); Policy Communities, Issue Networks, and Learning –– the studies discussed include Heclo’s (1978) seminal conceptualization of issue networks, and the work of Haas (1992) on policy communities and networks; Critical Theory: Distorted Communication and Discursive Ideals –– this looks at the critical theory of Habermas, which supplies a normative ideal for communication and argumentation; Discourse of Power V this looks at Foucault’s focus on the role of discourses as they have functioned in specific historical contexts; and Postempiricism as Discursive Policy Inquiry.Less
This chapter examines the renewed interest in the role of ideas, language and discourse in policy studies. Distinguishing postempiricist from mainstream perspectives, the discussion sets the stage for a more detailed presentation of the discourse–analytic approach and the deliberative practices to which it gives rise. There are seven main sections: Reconsidering Ideas; Beyond Self-Interest: Ideas Matter; Neo-Institutionalism and Policy Ideas (neo-institutionalism is defined as a theoretical orientation that has focused on the evolutionary relationship of ideas and norms to institutional practices); Policy Communities, Issue Networks, and Learning –– the studies discussed include Heclo’s (1978) seminal conceptualization of issue networks, and the work of Haas (1992) on policy communities and networks; Critical Theory: Distorted Communication and Discursive Ideals –– this looks at the critical theory of Habermas, which supplies a normative ideal for communication and argumentation; Discourse of Power V this looks at Foucault’s focus on the role of discourses as they have functioned in specific historical contexts; and Postempiricism as Discursive Policy Inquiry.
Frank Fischer
- Published in print:
- 2003
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780199242641
- eISBN:
- 9780191599255
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/019924264X.003.0009
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory
This is the last of four chapters offering a postempiricist methodology for policy inquiry based on the logic of practical discourse, and explores the dialectics (logical structure) of policy ...
More
This is the last of four chapters offering a postempiricist methodology for policy inquiry based on the logic of practical discourse, and explores the dialectics (logical structure) of policy argumentation. Approaches are examined to discursive policy analysis and policy argumentation with an emphasis on the integration of empirical and normative inquiry. The discussion is oriented around a particular line of development in the argumentative turn, namely, a dialectical communications approach based on the informal or good-reasons logic of argumentation. In particular, the productive capacities of the communications model are emphasized, namely, its ability to generate ways of thinking and seeing that open new possibilities for problem-solving and action, or, in the language of Habermas’s critical theory, its ‘communicative power’. The different sections of the chapter look at argumentative discursive policy practices, the communications model of argumentative policy analysis, the search for rational procedures in argumentation, the logic of policy arguments (practical discourse), policy argumentation as practical reason, policy argumentation as communicative interaction (the role of analytical discourses), and critical rationality as undistorted communication.Less
This is the last of four chapters offering a postempiricist methodology for policy inquiry based on the logic of practical discourse, and explores the dialectics (logical structure) of policy argumentation. Approaches are examined to discursive policy analysis and policy argumentation with an emphasis on the integration of empirical and normative inquiry. The discussion is oriented around a particular line of development in the argumentative turn, namely, a dialectical communications approach based on the informal or good-reasons logic of argumentation. In particular, the productive capacities of the communications model are emphasized, namely, its ability to generate ways of thinking and seeing that open new possibilities for problem-solving and action, or, in the language of Habermas’s critical theory, its ‘communicative power’. The different sections of the chapter look at argumentative discursive policy practices, the communications model of argumentative policy analysis, the search for rational procedures in argumentation, the logic of policy arguments (practical discourse), policy argumentation as practical reason, policy argumentation as communicative interaction (the role of analytical discourses), and critical rationality as undistorted communication.
Alec Stone Sweet
- Published in print:
- 2002
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780199256488
- eISBN:
- 9780191600234
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199256489.003.0004
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics
This paper is the first part of a much longer version (co-authored by Maragaret McCown) that was presented at the Colloquium on Law, Economics, and Politics, at the Law School, New York University, ...
More
This paper is the first part of a much longer version (co-authored by Maragaret McCown) that was presented at the Colloquium on Law, Economics, and Politics, at the Law School, New York University, in October 2000; it is one of two that examine some of the problems posed by the method of law-making that is associated with the rule of precedent and the common law doctrine of stare decisis. Stone Sweet provides explicit theoretical foundations for the path dependence of legal institutions, and an argument as to why this should matter to social scientists and to lawyers. The paper elaborates a model of adjudication in which institutional development and decision-making are linked through highly organized discursive choice-contexts – meso structures called ‘argumentation frameworks’, which are curated by judges as legal precedents. Litigants and judges are assumed to be rational utility-maximizers, but they are also actors who pursue their self-interest in discursive ways, through argumentation and analogic reasoning, and sustained, precedent-based adjudication leads to outcomes that are both indeterminate and incremental: i.e. they are path dependent. The paper concludes by addressing various implications of the argument which, taken together, define an agenda for research.Less
This paper is the first part of a much longer version (co-authored by Maragaret McCown) that was presented at the Colloquium on Law, Economics, and Politics, at the Law School, New York University, in October 2000; it is one of two that examine some of the problems posed by the method of law-making that is associated with the rule of precedent and the common law doctrine of stare decisis. Stone Sweet provides explicit theoretical foundations for the path dependence of legal institutions, and an argument as to why this should matter to social scientists and to lawyers. The paper elaborates a model of adjudication in which institutional development and decision-making are linked through highly organized discursive choice-contexts – meso structures called ‘argumentation frameworks’, which are curated by judges as legal precedents. Litigants and judges are assumed to be rational utility-maximizers, but they are also actors who pursue their self-interest in discursive ways, through argumentation and analogic reasoning, and sustained, precedent-based adjudication leads to outcomes that are both indeterminate and incremental: i.e. they are path dependent. The paper concludes by addressing various implications of the argument which, taken together, define an agenda for research.
Uwe Steinhoff
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- September 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780199547807
- eISBN:
- 9780191720758
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199547807.003.0002
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics, Political Theory
According to Habermas, a universalist normative ethics cannot be justified by appeal to purposive rationality or means-end rationality. Therefore he proposes recourse to an “uncurtailed” form of ...
More
According to Habermas, a universalist normative ethics cannot be justified by appeal to purposive rationality or means-end rationality. Therefore he proposes recourse to an “uncurtailed” form of rationality that is oriented towards consensus and hence can guarantee intersubjective validity. This is an appeal to what Habermas calls “communicative” or “discursive rationality”. He tries to develop the concept of communicative rationality and to demonstrate its irreducibility to and priority over purposive rationality in his theory of communicative action. In particular, he attempts to show that the conditions of rationality for communicative action have to be explicated through a theory of argumentation, which, in turn, leads to a discourse theory of rationality. The chapter explains and critically analyses Habermas' chain of argument.Less
According to Habermas, a universalist normative ethics cannot be justified by appeal to purposive rationality or means-end rationality. Therefore he proposes recourse to an “uncurtailed” form of rationality that is oriented towards consensus and hence can guarantee intersubjective validity. This is an appeal to what Habermas calls “communicative” or “discursive rationality”. He tries to develop the concept of communicative rationality and to demonstrate its irreducibility to and priority over purposive rationality in his theory of communicative action. In particular, he attempts to show that the conditions of rationality for communicative action have to be explicated through a theory of argumentation, which, in turn, leads to a discourse theory of rationality. The chapter explains and critically analyses Habermas' chain of argument.
Uwe Steinhoff
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- September 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780199547807
- eISBN:
- 9780191720758
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199547807.003.0003
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics, Political Theory
In his preliminary considerations Habermas tries to demonstrate the initial plausibility of his programme of moral justification. He then uses Karl-Otto Apel's “transcendental pragmatics” for ...
More
In his preliminary considerations Habermas tries to demonstrate the initial plausibility of his programme of moral justification. He then uses Karl-Otto Apel's “transcendental pragmatics” for identifying rules of discourse. According to transcendental pragmatics, rules or presuppositions of discourse cannot be denied without so-called “performative self-contradictions”. The next step is to derive the fundamental discourse-ethical justification principles U and D from these discovered rules of discourse. According to U and D, only those norms are valid that in an ideal discourse situation would meet with the acceptance of each speaker affected by the norm. An alternative way of justifying U and D would appeal to Habermas' consensus theory of truth and validity. Finally, Habermas tries to show how norms that are justified with help of the principles U and D can reasonably be applied to real situations. The chapter explains and critically discusses each step in Habermas' line of reasoning.Less
In his preliminary considerations Habermas tries to demonstrate the initial plausibility of his programme of moral justification. He then uses Karl-Otto Apel's “transcendental pragmatics” for identifying rules of discourse. According to transcendental pragmatics, rules or presuppositions of discourse cannot be denied without so-called “performative self-contradictions”. The next step is to derive the fundamental discourse-ethical justification principles U and D from these discovered rules of discourse. According to U and D, only those norms are valid that in an ideal discourse situation would meet with the acceptance of each speaker affected by the norm. An alternative way of justifying U and D would appeal to Habermas' consensus theory of truth and validity. Finally, Habermas tries to show how norms that are justified with help of the principles U and D can reasonably be applied to real situations. The chapter explains and critically discusses each step in Habermas' line of reasoning.
Michael J. Struett
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- September 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780199546732
- eISBN:
- 9780191720406
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199546732.003.0005
- Subject:
- Political Science, American Politics, International Relations and Politics
The authorities of the International Criminal Court are in a position to use their autonomy to develop substantial discursive separation from the pressures of realpolitik. Because the design of the ...
More
The authorities of the International Criminal Court are in a position to use their autonomy to develop substantial discursive separation from the pressures of realpolitik. Because the design of the ICC allows its officers considerable independent authority from the pressures of the officials of the state governments that created it, these officers are in a position to argue for the fair imposition of international criminal law standards with less need to bend to the realities of interstate power politics. This chapter proposes that the flexible design of the ICC advances the procedural aspects of legitimacy through the discursive dynamics of prosecutorial authority and discretion. It argues that such discursive legitimacy constitutes a way of understanding the universalizing effects of legalism; and that the permanence of the Court ensures that reasons and arguments (discursive strategies) will be formulated in response to the effects of any negative perception(s) of foreign legalism.Less
The authorities of the International Criminal Court are in a position to use their autonomy to develop substantial discursive separation from the pressures of realpolitik. Because the design of the ICC allows its officers considerable independent authority from the pressures of the officials of the state governments that created it, these officers are in a position to argue for the fair imposition of international criminal law standards with less need to bend to the realities of interstate power politics. This chapter proposes that the flexible design of the ICC advances the procedural aspects of legitimacy through the discursive dynamics of prosecutorial authority and discretion. It argues that such discursive legitimacy constitutes a way of understanding the universalizing effects of legalism; and that the permanence of the Court ensures that reasons and arguments (discursive strategies) will be formulated in response to the effects of any negative perception(s) of foreign legalism.
Mitchel de S.-O.-l’E. Lasser
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- January 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199575169
- eISBN:
- 9780191706714
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199575169.003.0012
- Subject:
- Law, Comparative Law
This book has proposed an organisational prism for the comparative understanding of the judicial systems of France, the United States, and the European Union, one that turns on the bifurcated or ...
More
This book has proposed an organisational prism for the comparative understanding of the judicial systems of France, the United States, and the European Union, one that turns on the bifurcated or integrated structure of their respective argumentative practices and on their institutional or argumentative means of generating judicial legitimacy. Whereas the French Cour de cassation model is known for its radical bifurcation, the U.S. Supreme Court discourse is precisely (and in contrast) the publicly integrated or conglomerate form of its legitimating judicial argumentation, which is to say the way in which it integrates both its more formalising and its more policy-oriented discourses in one and the same publicly accessible space: the judicial opinion itself. This approach obviously places enormous power in — but also enormous strain on — the American judicial decision. The European Court of Justice model softens the radical French bifurcation by publishing and thus tempering its two discourses.Less
This book has proposed an organisational prism for the comparative understanding of the judicial systems of France, the United States, and the European Union, one that turns on the bifurcated or integrated structure of their respective argumentative practices and on their institutional or argumentative means of generating judicial legitimacy. Whereas the French Cour de cassation model is known for its radical bifurcation, the U.S. Supreme Court discourse is precisely (and in contrast) the publicly integrated or conglomerate form of its legitimating judicial argumentation, which is to say the way in which it integrates both its more formalising and its more policy-oriented discourses in one and the same publicly accessible space: the judicial opinion itself. This approach obviously places enormous power in — but also enormous strain on — the American judicial decision. The European Court of Justice model softens the radical French bifurcation by publishing and thus tempering its two discourses.
Frank Fischer
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- May 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780199282838
- eISBN:
- 9780191712487
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199282838.003.0005
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics
Moving beyond the traditional conceptions of value-neutrality and context independence that have dominated the epistemology of the policy sciences, this chapter offers a social constructivist ...
More
Moving beyond the traditional conceptions of value-neutrality and context independence that have dominated the epistemology of the policy sciences, this chapter offers a social constructivist interpretation of real-world practices. Introducing the constructivist perspective, it presents an alternative dialectical understanding of knowledge and its relation to practical reason in policy deliberation. Here the postempiricist expert, as deliberative policy analysis, is posited as an interpretive mediator operating between the available analytic frameworks of social science, particular policy findings, and the differing perspectives of the public actors, both those of policy decision-makers and citizens.Less
Moving beyond the traditional conceptions of value-neutrality and context independence that have dominated the epistemology of the policy sciences, this chapter offers a social constructivist interpretation of real-world practices. Introducing the constructivist perspective, it presents an alternative dialectical understanding of knowledge and its relation to practical reason in policy deliberation. Here the postempiricist expert, as deliberative policy analysis, is posited as an interpretive mediator operating between the available analytic frameworks of social science, particular policy findings, and the differing perspectives of the public actors, both those of policy decision-makers and citizens.
JOHN FOX
- Published in print:
- 2011
- Published Online:
- January 2013
- ISBN:
- 9780197264843
- eISBN:
- 9780191754050
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- British Academy
- DOI:
- 10.5871/bacad/9780197264843.003.0006
- Subject:
- Sociology, Methodology and Statistics
This chapter explores ways in which we can be equally rigorous about how to reason about and assess uncertain evidence, using a framework that allows for uncertainty but does not depend on being able ...
More
This chapter explores ways in which we can be equally rigorous about how to reason about and assess uncertain evidence, using a framework that allows for uncertainty but does not depend on being able to quantify it. It begins by defining what is meant by ‘evidence’ since it has somewhat different interpretations in different fields. It then attempts to develop a unified perspective. The central idea of this unification is that it is based on logic and the patterns of argumentation which are to be seen in deliberations and debates about evidence. The framework does not reject the importance of probabilistic methods for reasoning about evidence but offers a broader perspective which accommodates probabilistic methods when they are practical, and offers an alternative set of methods when they are not.Less
This chapter explores ways in which we can be equally rigorous about how to reason about and assess uncertain evidence, using a framework that allows for uncertainty but does not depend on being able to quantify it. It begins by defining what is meant by ‘evidence’ since it has somewhat different interpretations in different fields. It then attempts to develop a unified perspective. The central idea of this unification is that it is based on logic and the patterns of argumentation which are to be seen in deliberations and debates about evidence. The framework does not reject the importance of probabilistic methods for reasoning about evidence but offers a broader perspective which accommodates probabilistic methods when they are practical, and offers an alternative set of methods when they are not.
William Croft
- Published in print:
- 2001
- Published Online:
- September 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780198299554
- eISBN:
- 9780191708091
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
This book presents a profound critique of syntactic theory and syntactic argumentation. Recent syntactic theories are essentially formal models for the representation of grammatical knowledge. These ...
More
This book presents a profound critique of syntactic theory and syntactic argumentation. Recent syntactic theories are essentially formal models for the representation of grammatical knowledge. These theories posit complex syntactic structures in the analysis of sentences, consisting of atomic primitive syntactic categories and relations. The result of this approach to syntax has been an endless cycle of new and revised theories of syntactic representation. The book argues that these types of syntactic theories are incompatible with the grammatical variation found within and across languages. The extent of grammatical variation demonstrates that no scheme of atomic primitive syntactic categories and relations can form the basis of an empirically adequate syntactic theory. This book defends three theses: (i) constructions are the primitive units of syntactic representation, and grammatical categories are derivative; (ii) the only syntactic structures are the relations between a construction and the elements that make it up (that is, there is no need to posit syntactic relations); and (iii) constructions are language-specific. Constructions are complex units pairing form and meaning. Grammatical categories within and across languages are mapped onto a universal conceptual space, following the semantic map model in typology. The structure of conceptual space constrains how meaning is encoded in linguistic form, and reflects the structure of the human mind.Less
This book presents a profound critique of syntactic theory and syntactic argumentation. Recent syntactic theories are essentially formal models for the representation of grammatical knowledge. These theories posit complex syntactic structures in the analysis of sentences, consisting of atomic primitive syntactic categories and relations. The result of this approach to syntax has been an endless cycle of new and revised theories of syntactic representation. The book argues that these types of syntactic theories are incompatible with the grammatical variation found within and across languages. The extent of grammatical variation demonstrates that no scheme of atomic primitive syntactic categories and relations can form the basis of an empirically adequate syntactic theory. This book defends three theses: (i) constructions are the primitive units of syntactic representation, and grammatical categories are derivative; (ii) the only syntactic structures are the relations between a construction and the elements that make it up (that is, there is no need to posit syntactic relations); and (iii) constructions are language-specific. Constructions are complex units pairing form and meaning. Grammatical categories within and across languages are mapped onto a universal conceptual space, following the semantic map model in typology. The structure of conceptual space constrains how meaning is encoded in linguistic form, and reflects the structure of the human mind.
Tobias Scheer
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- May 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199556861
- eISBN:
- 9780191722271
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199556861.003.0016
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology, Phonetics / Phonology
The interactionist character of Chomskyan phase theory affords a major break in generative interface theory. One consequence is that intermodular argumentation is now possible: the chunks that are ...
More
The interactionist character of Chomskyan phase theory affords a major break in generative interface theory. One consequence is that intermodular argumentation is now possible: the chunks that are designated by the spell‐out mechanism for computation at PF must be the same on both sides. Also, the phonological and syntactic computation of these identical portions of the string must be restricted by the PIC in the same way. A particular syntactic analysis thus makes precise predictions on the phonological side, and vice‐versa. On these grounds, competing phonological analyses of affix class‐based phenomena are compared. Since Lexical Phonology, the most popular solution are morpheme‐specific phonologies, i.e. distinct computational systems that apply to strings according to their morphological composition (class 1 vs. class 2 affixes). Halle & Vergnaud (1987) and Kaye (1992, 1995) have proposed an alternative that works with just one computational system and, in the case of Kaye, with a “freezing” no look‐back device that inhibits the modification of previously interpreted strings (this is Chomsky's PIC). Since the PIC and morpheme‐specific phonologies do the same labour in the analysis of affix class‐based phenomena, no theory can afford to accommodate both: this would be redundant. If syntactic phase theory is on the right track, then, present and past solutions that rely on morpheme‐specific phonologies do not qualify: the PIC must exist in phonology. Finally, it is shown that Kaye's system also implements in phonology what is known as the phase edge in syntax (the sister of phase heads, not their maximal projection, is spelled out).Less
The interactionist character of Chomskyan phase theory affords a major break in generative interface theory. One consequence is that intermodular argumentation is now possible: the chunks that are designated by the spell‐out mechanism for computation at PF must be the same on both sides. Also, the phonological and syntactic computation of these identical portions of the string must be restricted by the PIC in the same way. A particular syntactic analysis thus makes precise predictions on the phonological side, and vice‐versa. On these grounds, competing phonological analyses of affix class‐based phenomena are compared. Since Lexical Phonology, the most popular solution are morpheme‐specific phonologies, i.e. distinct computational systems that apply to strings according to their morphological composition (class 1 vs. class 2 affixes). Halle & Vergnaud (1987) and Kaye (1992, 1995) have proposed an alternative that works with just one computational system and, in the case of Kaye, with a “freezing” no look‐back device that inhibits the modification of previously interpreted strings (this is Chomsky's PIC). Since the PIC and morpheme‐specific phonologies do the same labour in the analysis of affix class‐based phenomena, no theory can afford to accommodate both: this would be redundant. If syntactic phase theory is on the right track, then, present and past solutions that rely on morpheme‐specific phonologies do not qualify: the PIC must exist in phonology. Finally, it is shown that Kaye's system also implements in phonology what is known as the phase edge in syntax (the sister of phase heads, not their maximal projection, is spelled out).
Jon Williamson
- Published in print:
- 2004
- Published Online:
- September 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780198530794
- eISBN:
- 9780191712982
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198530794.003.0010
- Subject:
- Mathematics, Logic / Computer Science / Mathematical Philosophy
The framework developed thus far in the book is extended to cope with the situation in which causal relations themselves are causes or effects. Examples of this phenomenon are presented and the ...
More
The framework developed thus far in the book is extended to cope with the situation in which causal relations themselves are causes or effects. Examples of this phenomenon are presented and the formalism of recursive Bayesian nets is developed to handle these cases.Less
The framework developed thus far in the book is extended to cope with the situation in which causal relations themselves are causes or effects. Examples of this phenomenon are presented and the formalism of recursive Bayesian nets is developed to handle these cases.
Ruth Wodak and Scott Wright
- Published in print:
- 2007
- Published Online:
- September 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780195304794
- eISBN:
- 9780199788248
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195304794.003.0017
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Sociolinguistics / Anthropological Linguistics
This chapter analyzes the European Union’s “Futurum” discussion forum, which was intended to help close the gap (“democratic deficit”) between institutions and citizens by facilitating a virtual, ...
More
This chapter analyzes the European Union’s “Futurum” discussion forum, which was intended to help close the gap (“democratic deficit”) between institutions and citizens by facilitating a virtual, multilingual, transnational public sphere. Futurum was both an interesting example of how the EU’s language policies shape the structure of deliberative experiments and of a public debate about their relative value. Various quantitative measures of the discussions are combined with a critical discourse analysis of a thread that focused on language policies. Although the debates were predominantly in English, if a thread started in a language other than English, linguistic diversity was more prominent. Discourse and argumentation analysis of multilingual threads showed that multilingual interaction was fostered, and that the debate about language policies was politically and ideologically charged. The analysis also illustrates that deliberation and compromise were achieved, in contrast to other recently investigated discussion forums.Less
This chapter analyzes the European Union’s “Futurum” discussion forum, which was intended to help close the gap (“democratic deficit”) between institutions and citizens by facilitating a virtual, multilingual, transnational public sphere. Futurum was both an interesting example of how the EU’s language policies shape the structure of deliberative experiments and of a public debate about their relative value. Various quantitative measures of the discussions are combined with a critical discourse analysis of a thread that focused on language policies. Although the debates were predominantly in English, if a thread started in a language other than English, linguistic diversity was more prominent. Discourse and argumentation analysis of multilingual threads showed that multilingual interaction was fostered, and that the debate about language policies was politically and ideologically charged. The analysis also illustrates that deliberation and compromise were achieved, in contrast to other recently investigated discussion forums.
Philippe Besnard and Anthony Hunter
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- August 2013
- ISBN:
- 9780262026437
- eISBN:
- 9780262268400
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262026437.001.0001
- Subject:
- Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence
Logic-based formalizations of argumentation, which assume a set of formulae and then lay out arguments and counterarguments that can be obtained from these formulae, have been refined in recent years ...
More
Logic-based formalizations of argumentation, which assume a set of formulae and then lay out arguments and counterarguments that can be obtained from these formulae, have been refined in recent years in an attempt to capture more closely real-world practical argumentation. This book introduces techniques for formalizing deductive argumentation in artificial intelligence, emphasizing emerging formalizations for practical argumentation. It discusses how arguments can be constructed, how key intrinsic and extrinsic factors can be identified, and how these analyses can be harnessed for formalizing argumentation for use in real-world problem analysis and decision making. The book focuses on a monological approach to argumentation, in which there is a set of possibly conflicting pieces of information (each represented by a formula) that has been collated by an agent or a pool of agents. The role of argumentation is to construct a collection of arguments and counterarguments pertaining to some particular claim of interest to be used for analysis or presentation. The book elucidates and formalizes key elements of deductive argumentation.Less
Logic-based formalizations of argumentation, which assume a set of formulae and then lay out arguments and counterarguments that can be obtained from these formulae, have been refined in recent years in an attempt to capture more closely real-world practical argumentation. This book introduces techniques for formalizing deductive argumentation in artificial intelligence, emphasizing emerging formalizations for practical argumentation. It discusses how arguments can be constructed, how key intrinsic and extrinsic factors can be identified, and how these analyses can be harnessed for formalizing argumentation for use in real-world problem analysis and decision making. The book focuses on a monological approach to argumentation, in which there is a set of possibly conflicting pieces of information (each represented by a formula) that has been collated by an agent or a pool of agents. The role of argumentation is to construct a collection of arguments and counterarguments pertaining to some particular claim of interest to be used for analysis or presentation. The book elucidates and formalizes key elements of deductive argumentation.
David Colander and Craig Freedman
- Published in print:
- 2018
- Published Online:
- May 2019
- ISBN:
- 9780691179209
- eISBN:
- 9780691184050
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Princeton University Press
- DOI:
- 10.23943/princeton/9780691179209.003.0008
- Subject:
- Business and Management, Business History
This chapter examines the method of “argumentation for the sake of heaven.” This method entails an honest exploration by economists focused on advancing understanding, not on winning debates. ...
More
This chapter examines the method of “argumentation for the sake of heaven.” This method entails an honest exploration by economists focused on advancing understanding, not on winning debates. Argumentation for the sake of heaven can only occur if one recognizes that it is needed. Thus, implementing an argumentation for the sake of heaven methodology would require economists ascribing to opposing views on policy to willingly personally discuss the nuances of their policy differences. The mutually held goal of these debaters arguing for the sake of heaven would be to reduce differences. To the degree possible, the overriding objective would be to reach a consensus, or at least a specification of what type of evidence might persuade economists on both sides of the policy issue, to change their mind.Less
This chapter examines the method of “argumentation for the sake of heaven.” This method entails an honest exploration by economists focused on advancing understanding, not on winning debates. Argumentation for the sake of heaven can only occur if one recognizes that it is needed. Thus, implementing an argumentation for the sake of heaven methodology would require economists ascribing to opposing views on policy to willingly personally discuss the nuances of their policy differences. The mutually held goal of these debaters arguing for the sake of heaven would be to reduce differences. To the degree possible, the overriding objective would be to reach a consensus, or at least a specification of what type of evidence might persuade economists on both sides of the policy issue, to change their mind.
Demetrios S. Katos
- Published in print:
- 2011
- Published Online:
- January 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780199696963
- eISBN:
- 9780191731969
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199696963.003.0003
- Subject:
- Religion, Early Christian Studies, Church History
This chapter argues that the Dialogue on the Life of St. John Chrysostom should be understood as a legal argument in defense of John composed in accordance with the principles of late antique ...
More
This chapter argues that the Dialogue on the Life of St. John Chrysostom should be understood as a legal argument in defense of John composed in accordance with the principles of late antique judicial rhetoric found in the Art of Political Speech (Anonymous Seguerianus) and Art of Rhetoric, attributed to Apsines of Gadara. This chapter analyzes the Dialogue in terms of its four constitutive parts, namely, the introduction [proemion], narration [diegesis], argumentation [kataskeue or pistis], and conclusion [epilogos] and explains the purpose and historical value of each. This chapter reveals that Palladius used the dialogue form to mimic courtroom debate and that he subordinated all narrative elements to the argumentation. It is the argumentation that is at the very heart of the Dialogue, even though its significance has been ignored or even dismissed by most scholarship which has long viewed the dialogue as a historical or biographical narrative.Less
This chapter argues that the Dialogue on the Life of St. John Chrysostom should be understood as a legal argument in defense of John composed in accordance with the principles of late antique judicial rhetoric found in the Art of Political Speech (Anonymous Seguerianus) and Art of Rhetoric, attributed to Apsines of Gadara. This chapter analyzes the Dialogue in terms of its four constitutive parts, namely, the introduction [proemion], narration [diegesis], argumentation [kataskeue or pistis], and conclusion [epilogos] and explains the purpose and historical value of each. This chapter reveals that Palladius used the dialogue form to mimic courtroom debate and that he subordinated all narrative elements to the argumentation. It is the argumentation that is at the very heart of the Dialogue, even though its significance has been ignored or even dismissed by most scholarship which has long viewed the dialogue as a historical or biographical narrative.
Demetrios S. Katos
- Published in print:
- 2011
- Published Online:
- January 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780199696963
- eISBN:
- 9780191731969
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199696963.003.0004
- Subject:
- Religion, Early Christian Studies, Church History
This chapter continues the analysis of the Dialogue in accordance with principles of judicial rhetoric. This chapter analyzes the rhetoric of the arguments used by Palladius to defend John by ...
More
This chapter continues the analysis of the Dialogue in accordance with principles of judicial rhetoric. This chapter analyzes the rhetoric of the arguments used by Palladius to defend John by applying the principles of late antique stasis, or issue, theory as developed by Hermogenes of Tarsus. Stasis theory comprises tactics and strategies of argumentation, and it was a keystone of late antique rhetorical training. Palladius addressed four major issues: John's “eating alone,” the deposition of the bishops in Asia, the reception of the fugitive Origenist monks, and John's character, using respectively the arguments of definition (horos), conjecture (stochasmos), counterplea (antilepsis), and legal arguments (nomikas staseis),This chapter reveals that Palladius fully recognized the gravity of John's numerous violations of episcopal protocol, and that he even admitted some of John's character flaws, but that finally the reason for his removal was not grounded in any of these.Less
This chapter continues the analysis of the Dialogue in accordance with principles of judicial rhetoric. This chapter analyzes the rhetoric of the arguments used by Palladius to defend John by applying the principles of late antique stasis, or issue, theory as developed by Hermogenes of Tarsus. Stasis theory comprises tactics and strategies of argumentation, and it was a keystone of late antique rhetorical training. Palladius addressed four major issues: John's “eating alone,” the deposition of the bishops in Asia, the reception of the fugitive Origenist monks, and John's character, using respectively the arguments of definition (horos), conjecture (stochasmos), counterplea (antilepsis), and legal arguments (nomikas staseis),This chapter reveals that Palladius fully recognized the gravity of John's numerous violations of episcopal protocol, and that he even admitted some of John's character flaws, but that finally the reason for his removal was not grounded in any of these.
Erich Vranes
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- May 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780199562787
- eISBN:
- 9780191705366
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199562787.003.0005
- Subject:
- Law, Public International Law, EU Law
This chapter analyses the concept of extraterritorial jurisdiction and underlying fundamental notions, such as sovereignty, non-intervention, balancing of interests, proportionality, and legal ...
More
This chapter analyses the concept of extraterritorial jurisdiction and underlying fundamental notions, such as sovereignty, non-intervention, balancing of interests, proportionality, and legal principles. It provides a refined definition of extraterritorial jurisdiction. Moreover, it examines a plurality of ways to infer the proportionality principle from the structure of the legal order and shows that it can be classified, inter alia, as an element of teleological interpretation. The chapter argues that one cannot deny the existence of this principle in international law and that the principle of proportionality, understood as a scheme for rational argumentation, provides an adequate framework as to how exercises of extraterritorial jurisdiction can be assessed in a legally adequate manner.Less
This chapter analyses the concept of extraterritorial jurisdiction and underlying fundamental notions, such as sovereignty, non-intervention, balancing of interests, proportionality, and legal principles. It provides a refined definition of extraterritorial jurisdiction. Moreover, it examines a plurality of ways to infer the proportionality principle from the structure of the legal order and shows that it can be classified, inter alia, as an element of teleological interpretation. The chapter argues that one cannot deny the existence of this principle in international law and that the principle of proportionality, understood as a scheme for rational argumentation, provides an adequate framework as to how exercises of extraterritorial jurisdiction can be assessed in a legally adequate manner.
