On how to achieve reference to covert social constructions

What does it mean to say that some features, such as gender, race and sexual orientation, are socially constructed? Many scholars claim that social constructionism about a kind is a version of realism about that kind, according to which the corresponding kind is a social construction, that it, it is constituted by social factors and practices. Social constructionism, then, is a version of realism about a kind that asserts that the kind is real, and puts forward a particular view about the nature of the kind, namely, that it is constituted by social factors and practices. Social constructivists about human kinds such as gender, race and sexual orientation often make an additional claim, namely, that these kinds are social constructions but they are typically believed to be biological kinds (that is, people are typically wrong about the nature of these kinds). Ron Mallon (2017) calls social constructions that are (falsely) taken to be biological kinds covert social constructions. This paper is about how we could have terms in our natural language that come to refer to covert social constructions

Constructions: a new unit of analysis for corpus-based discourse analysis

We propose and assess the novel idea of using automatically induced constructions as a unit of analysis for corpus-based discourse analysis. Automated techniques are needed in order to elucidate important characteristics of corpora for social science research into topics, framing and argument structures. Compared with cur-rent techniques (keywords, n-grams, and collo-cations), constructions capture more linguistic patterning, including some grammatical phe-nomena. Recent advances in natural language processing mean that it is now feasible to auto-matically induce some constructions from large unannotated corpora. In order to assess how well constructions characterise the content of a corpus and how well they elucidate interesting aspects of different discourses, we analysed a corpus of climate change blogs. The utility of constructions for corpus-based discourse analy-sis was compared qualitatively with keywords, n-grams and collocations. We found that the unusually frequent constructions gave interest-ing and different insights into the content of the discourses and enabled better comparison of sub-corpora.

Impersonal and generic reference: a cross-linguistic look at Finnish and English narratives

In linguistic communication, in addition to referring to specific, known referents, we also need to deal with unknown, generic or non-specific referents. I investigated how the English generic you and impersonal they compare to the Finnish zero person construction and impersonal passive, respectively. In the first part of this paper, I compare the semantic, pragmatic and syntactic properties of these constructions, using examples from a range of sources. In the second part of this paper, I investigate how English generic you and impersonal they are translated into Finnish. As we will see, the differences in the semantic, pragmatic and syntactic properties of these constructions mean that the translator sometimes has to opt for alternative constructions (such as first person expressions or generic nouns). A detailed analysis of these patterns sheds light on our understanding of these typologically different constructions, and contributes to our understanding of how reference to generic and impersonal entities is accomplished in language

Odd structures are odd

By an odd structure we mean an algebraic structure in the category of graded vector spaces whose structure operations have odd degrees. Particularly important are odd modular operads which appear as Feynman transforms of modular operads and, as such, describe some structures of string field theory. We will explain how odd structures are affected by the choice of the monoidal structure of the underlying category. We will then present two `natural' and `canonical' constructions of an odd modular endomorphism operad leading to different results, only one being correct. This contradicts the generally accepted belief that the systematic use of the Koszul sign convention leads to correct signs.Comment: Minor revision and a reference added. Accepted for publication in Advances in Applied Clifford Algebra

Bounded Modality

What does 'might' mean? One hypothesis is that 'It might be raining' is essentially an avowal of ignorance like 'For all I know, it's raining'. But it turns out these two constructions embed in different ways, in particular as parts of larger constructions like Wittgenstein's 'It might be raining and it's not' and Moore's 'It's raining and I don't know it', respectively. A variety of approaches have been developed to account for those differences. All approaches agree that both Moore sentences and Wittgenstein sentences are classically consistent. In this paper I argue against this consensus. I adduce a variety of new data which I argue can best be accounted for if we treat Wittgenstein sentences as being classically inconsistent. This creates a puzzle, since there is decisive reason to think that 'Might p' is classically consistent with 'Not p'. How can it also be that 'Might p and not p' and 'Not p and might p' are classically inconsistent? To make sense of this situation, I propose a new theory of epistemic modals and their interaction with embedding operators. This account makes sense of the subtle embedding behavior of epistemic modals, shedding new light on their meaning and, more broadly, the dynamics of information in natural language

Meaning and social reality of sexuality in the lives of children in Aotearoa New Zealand

How sexuality in pre-pubescent childhood is spoken about varies enormously within societies: almost swinging like a pendulum between perspectives of healthy and normal exploration, to panic of children being victims of abuse and ideas of sexualisation by the media (Egan and Hawkes 2008; Jackson 1982, 1990; Postman 1994). Reflecting initially from my practice as a family counsellor, and more recently as a counsellor educator and researcher, this chapter explores multiple discourses in children’s lives on the meaning and social reality of sexuality. The aim is to question and deconstruct concepts that have shaped discourse of childhood and sexuality, and which is currently a binary position of children who are safe (i.e. asexual or un-sexual) or not (sexualised) (see, for example, Postman 1994). The intention behind this questioning of constructions is not to deny this dominant discourse, but to expose the presence of multiple discourses, and multiple meanings for children’s words and actions. Put simply: children’s sexual actions are frequently ascribed adult notions of sexuality, or taken to mean that maltreatment has occurred. My argument here from counselling practice and research is that sexual actions by children do not necessarily mean some harm has occurred, but that adults’ understandings and responses are informed by discourses that guide them to assume the worst. This can have effects for children’s identities, through disruption of their relationships within family, in addition to experiences of isolation and exclusion within school, neighbourhood and friendship contexts

Using a cognitive architecture to examine what develops

Different theories of development propose alternative mechanisms by which development occurs. Cognitive architectures can be used to examine the influence of each proposed mechanism of development while keeping all other mechanisms constant. An ACT-R computational model that matched adult behavior in solving a 21-block pyramid puzzle was created. The model was modified in three ways that corresponded to mechanisms of development proposed by developmental theories. The results showed that all the modifications (two of capacity and one of strategy choice) could approximate the behavior of 7-year-old children on the task. The strategy-choice modification provided the closest match on the two central measures of task behavior (time taken per layer, r = .99, and construction attempts per layer, r = .73). Modifying cognitive architectures is a fruitful way to compare and test potential developmental mechanisms, and can therefore help in specifying “what develops.