Evaluability: an alternative approach to polarity sensitivity

Based on Brandtler (2012), this paper argues that polarity items are sensitive to evaluability, a concept that refers to the possibility of accepting or rejecting an utterance as true in a communicative exchange. The main distinction is made between evaluable and non-evaluable utterances. The evaluable category comprises any clause that asserts, presupposes or entails the truth of an affirmative or a negative proposition. In contrast, the non-evaluable category contains clauses that do not assert, presuppose or entail the truth of an affirmative or a negative proposition. According to the Evaluability Hypothesis, non-evaluable environments are natural hosts for both NPIs and PPIs. Hence, the occurrence of polarity items in non-evaluable clauses does not require formal licensing, and this is the reason we find both PPIs and weak NPIs in yes/no-questions and conditionals. Evaluable clauses, in contrast, are restricted environments and may only host polarity items that are formally (i.e. syntactically) licensed. Hence, NPIs require the presence of a licensing element, and PPIs require the absence of such elements. This analysis leads to an important change of perspective, as the occurrence of polarity items in negative and affirmative sentences becomes the marked, or exceptional, case

The ubiquity of state fragility : fault lines in the categorisation and conceptualisation of failed and fragile states

In the last three decades, the categories of fragile and failed states have gained significant importance in the fields of law, development, political science and international relations. The wider discourse plays a key role in guiding the policies of international community and multilateral institutions and has also led to the emergence of a plethora of indices and rankings to measure and classify state fragility. A critical and theoretical analysis of these matrices brings to light three crucial aspects that the current study takes as its departure point. First, the formulas and conceptual paradigms show that fragility of states is far more ubiquitous than is generally recognised, and that the so-called successful and stable states are a historical, political and geographical anomaly. Second, in the absence of an agreed definition of a successful state or even that of a failed or fragile state, the indicators generally rely on negative definitions to delineate the failed and fragile state. They generally suggest that their reading is built on a Weberian ideal–typical state, which takes the idea of monopoly over legitimate violence as its starting point. The third and final point suggests that the indicators and rankings, misconstruing the Weberian ideal–typical state, actually end up comparing fragile states against an ideal–mythical state. The article argues that this notional state is not only ahistorical and apolitical, but it also carries the same undertones that have been the hallmark of theories of linear development, colonialism and imperialism

Virtue, character and situation

Philosophers have recently argued that traditional discussions of virtue and character presuppose an account of behaviour that experimental psychology has shown to be false. Behaviour does not issue from global traits such as prudence, temperance, courage or fairness, they claim, but from local traits such as sailing-in-rough-weather-with-friends-courage and office-party-temperance. The data employed provides evidence for this view only if we understand it in the light of a behaviourist construal of traits in terms of stimulus and response, rather than in the light of the more traditional construal in terms of inner events such as inclinations. More recent experiments have shown this traditional conception to have greater explanatory and predictive power than its behaviourist rival. So we should retain the traditional conception, and hence reject the proposed alteration to our understanding of behaviour. This discussion has further implications for future philosophical investigations of character and virtue

DHARMAKIRTI, DAVIDSON, AND KNOWING REALITY

If we distinguish phenomenal effects from their noumenal causes, the former being our conceptual(ized) experiences, the latter their grounds or causes in reality as it is independent of our experience, then two contradictory positions with regards to the relationship between these two can be distinguished: either phenomena are identical with their noumenal causes, or they are not. Davidson is among the most influential modern defenders of the former position, metaphysical non-dualism. Dharmakirti\u27 strict distinction between ultimate and conventional reality, on the other hand, may be one of the most rigorously elaborated theories of the opposite position, metaphysical dualism. Despite this fundamental difference, their theories about the connection between phenomena and their noumenal causes are surprisingly similar in important respects. Both Dharmakirti in his theory of apoha and Davidson in his theory of triangulation argued that the content of words or concepts depends on a process involving at least two communicating beings and shared noumenal stimuli. The main point of divergence is the nature of classification, but ultimately Dharmakirti\u27s and Davidson\u27s conclusions on the noumenal-phenomenal relationship turn out to be complementary more than contradictory, and an integrative reconstruction suggests a middle path between dualism and non-dualism

An extra-memetic empirical methodology to accompany theoretical memetics

Abstract Purpose: The paper describes the difficulties encountered by researchers who are looking to operationalise theoretical memetics and provides a methodological avenue for studies that can test meme theory. Design/Methodology/Approach: The application of evolutionary theory to organisations is reviewed by critically reflecting on the validity of its truth claims. To focus the discussion a number of applications of meme theory are reviewed to raise specific issues which ought to be the subject of empirical investigation. Subsequently, the empirical studies conducted to date are assessed in terms of the progress made and conclusions for further work are drawn. Findings: The paper finds that the key questions posed by memetic theory have yet to be addressed empirically and that a recurring weakness is the practice of assuming the existence of a replicating unit of culture which has, however, yet to be demonstrated as a valid concept. Therefore, an 'extra-memetic' methodology is deemed to be necessary for the development of memetics as a scientific endeavour. Narrative analysis is abducted as an appropriate avenue for the operationalisation of extra-memetic empirical research. Originality/Value: The paper highlights inconsistencies, embedded in much of the memetic literature, which have not previously been recognised and the colloquial nature of the discipline is challenged from a positive but critical perspective. Consequently, the paper develops a rationale for the adoption of a widely recognised social science methodology for memetics which has been absent to date. In proposing narrative orientated research, knowledge concerning memes' validity can be facilitated whilst avoiding the current circularity in memetic truth claims. Key Words: Meme, Memetics, Narrative, Complexity, Evolution Classification: Conceptual Pape