Determining intended evidence relations in natural language arguments

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/72555/1/j.1467-8640.1991.tb00386.x.pd

Information and Experience in Metaphor: A Perspective From Computer Analysis

Novel linguistic metaphor can be seen as the assignment of attributes to a topic through a vehicle belonging to another domain. The experience evoked by the vehicle is a significant aspect of the meaning of the metaphor, especially for abstract metaphor, which involves more than mere physical similarity. In this article I indicate, through description of a specific model, some possibilities as well as limitations of computer processing directed toward both informative and experiential/affective aspects of metaphor. A background to the discussion is given by other computational treatments of metaphor analysis, as well as by some questions about metaphor originating in other disciplines. The approach on which the present metaphor analysis model is based is consistent with a theory of language comprehension that includes both the intent of the originator and the effect on the recipient of the metaphor. The model addresses the dual problem of (a) determining potentially salient properties of the vehicle concept, and (b) defining extensible symbolic representations of such properties, including affective and other connotations. The nature of the linguistic analysis underlying the model suggests how metaphoric expression of experiential components in abstract metaphor is dependent on the nominalization of actions and attributes. The inverse process of undoing such nominalizations in computer analysis of metaphor constitutes a translation of a metaphor to a more literal expression within the metaphor-nonmetaphor dichotomy

Sympathy and Reflection in Hume's Philosophy: Mind, Morals, Art and Politics

Hume, as an “anatomist” of human nature, believes that “the science of man is the only solid foundation for the other sciences”. The naturalistic and experimental analysis of human nature, as it informs his epistemology, is the basis for other areas. Thus, in order fully to understand his philosophy, we need to shed light on the connection between Hume’s experimental analysis of human nature in epistemology, and his naturalistic account in ethics, aesthetics, and political philosophy. However, too often, writers on the latter are not always fully informed on his general philosophy and vice versa. A principal aim of this research is to bring together investigation of his naturalistic epistemology, and his ethics, aesthetics and political philosophy. This project brings close attention to bear on all of these areas, focusing on three key concepts: sympathy, general rule, and reflection. First, I examine the nature of sympathy. I argue against recent interpreters who use his concept of sympathy to construct a solution to the Problem of Other Minds. On my interpretation, Hume employs the concept of sympathy for his ethics, aesthetics and political philosophy, not for his epistemology. Second, I show that the concept of general rule plays an essential role in his philosophy. On my interpretation, Hume first establishes the general rules of human nature. He then establishes the general rules of his ethics, aesthetics and political philosophy. Third, I uncover the role of reflection in his philosophy. According to him, it is wrong to apply abstract reasoning to matters of fact; Instead, we should adopt the experimental reasoning that he terms “reflection” to observe and generalise matters of fact, thus establishing general rules in ethics, aesthetics and political philosophy. In this way, we can see the intimate connections between these diverse aspects of his philosophical writings

Perceived Disabilities, Social Cognition, and Innocent Mistakes

Employment discrimination takes many more forms than the current models in our antidiscrimination laws explicitly recognize. As new forms of employment discrimination are identified, courts must decide whether or not to apply our existing statutes, which many continue to believe were narrowly constructed to focus primarily on conscious acts of prejudice. Litigants have had more success challenging that notion with respect to Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the ADA ), because Congress was relatively clearer about the multifaceted nature of disability discrimination. Legislators openly acknowledged that disability discrimination may result not only from invidious animus, but simply from unthinking conduct. However, even under the ADA, courts repeatedly face new types of conduct that appear to be discriminatory in nature but that do not fit easily within the still rather limited concepts of discrimination that are formally described in the statute. Courts often frame these questions solely as an issue of liability. Judges either decide that an employer\u27s conduct is close enough to a prototypic form of discrimination to be treated similarly, thereby triggering full liability, or they decide that the employer\u27s conduct is too far away from prototypic discrimination claims to be covered by the statute, thereby resulting in no liability at all. Just as the statutory definitions of discrimination are often too narrow and rigid, so is this judicial liability-focused approach. Framing the issue solely in terms of a liability question is at once both overinclusive and underinclusive, imposing too great a punishment on some forms of discrimination, while leaving other forms completely unchecked. When courts identify discriminatory employment practices that do not fit the primary statutory models of discrimination, courts should not limit themselves to an all-or- nothing decision. A more flexible approach would place greater emphasis on tailoring various remedies to fit the particular type of conduct. One way to achieve this shift in focus is to frame questions about nonprototypic employment discrimination in the language of tort law, which provides a more nuanced taxonomy of legal categories than is used in most discussions of antidiscrimination law. Rather than relying so heavily on an intentional tort model, it would be more useful to also discuss nonprototypic forms of employment discrimination in terms of strict liability or negligence models, which already have embedded a concept of tailored remedies. This approach would provide protection from a wider range of discriminatory practices than the current all-or-nothing choices, while recognizing that all forms of discrimination are not the same. This Article uses one particular aspect of disability discrimination law to help illustrate this limited remedies approach. This Article is about mistakes, their origins, and what their consequences should be. More specifically, it is about how the law should deal with an employer that takes a negative employment action against a nondisabled employee based on a mistaken belief that the employee is disabled. While misperceived but otherwise able-bodied employees may not have been the primary concern of antidiscrimination legislation, an employer\u27s mistake does not make the consequences of discriminatory employment decisions any less real. It is of little solace to a person denied employment to know that the employer\u27s view of his or her condition is erroneous, one court has observed; [t]o such a person, the perception of the employer is as important as reality