We the Citizens? : A Corpus Linguistic Inquiry into the Use of People and Citizens in the Founding Era

The last Amendment included in the Bill of Rights, the Tenth Amendment, states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”1 Employed as a tool to invalidate statutes2 and also interpreted as a “truism,”3 ultimately the Tenth Amendment has largely been regarded as an Amendment which explicitly secures what the Constitution sets forth in its structural framework: that the United States government is a federalist system, meaning that it is one of shared powers between the national government and state governments. However, a closer examination of the Amendment reveals that a portion of the Tenth Amendment—specifically, its last three words, “to the people”—is conspicuously absent from the Supreme Court’s treatment and analysis of the Amendment. Additionally, people is not the only reference to individuals in the Constitution. The Constitution is written in terms of people and citizens, which generates the question: how were those two words used differently during the Founding Era? This Article addresses the background and historical context of the people as used in the Tenth Amendment; prior research on the word people as used in the Tenth Amendment and the research question for this Article; the corpus methodology for analyzing this research question; and a comparative analysis of the words people and citizens

PrimaDonna: Lucerne Festival vom 12. August bis 11. September 2016 in Luzern

"Das Lucerne Festival, das vom 12. August bis 11. September 2016 in Luzern stattgefunden hat, widmete sich unter dem Titel 'PrimaDonna' dem gesellschaftspolitisch virulenten Thema 'Frau in der Musik'. In vielen Konzerten der internationalen Orchester, den Kammermusikkonzerten, den 'Debuts' und den Konzerten mit der Festival Academy erklangen Werke von zeitgenössischen Komponistinnen wie Musik der bedeutenden Komponistinnen des 19. Jahrhunderts. Dirigiert wurden die Konzerte von elf Dirigentinnen. Das Festival stellte die 'Maestra' neben den 'Maestro' und erhielt begeisterte Zustimmung des Publikums." (Autorenreferat)"The Lucerne Festival, which was held in Lucerne between 12 August and 11 September 2016, was dedicated to the (socio-)politically current topic of 'women in music'. The title of the 2016 festival was 'PrimaDonna'. Works by contemporary and important 19th century women composers were performed at the numerous concerts featuring international orchestras, at the chamber music concerts, the 'debuts' and the concerts by the Festival Academy. The concerts were conducted by eleven women conductors. The festival presented the 'maestra' on a par with the 'maestro', which the audiences greatly appreciated." (author's abstract

Second Language Learner Knowledge of Verb–Argument Constructions: Effects of Language Transfer and Typology

This article examines second language (L2) learner knowledge of English verb–argument constructions (VACs), for example, the ‘V against n’ construction. It investigates to what extent constructions underpin L2 learners' linguistic competence, how VAC mental representations in native speakers and learners differ, and whether there are observable effects of the learners' first language. Native speakers of English and advanced learners of 3 different first language backgrounds (Czech, German, Spanish) were asked to generate the first verb that came to mind to fill the gap in 20 sparse VAC frames like “she ____ against the….” The comparison of learner and native speaker verb responses highlights crosslinguistic transfer effects as well as effects of language typology that impact verb semantics (cf. Talmy, 1985). Our findings suggest that learners whose L1 is, like English, satellite‐framed (here Czech and German) produce more target‐like verbs than learners whose L1 is verb‐framed (here Spanish).Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/109566/1/modl12149.pd

Usage‐Based Language: Investigating the Latent Structures That Underpin Acquisition

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/96768/1/j.1467-9922.2012.00736.x.pd

Questions Involving National Peace and Harmony or Injured Plaintiff Litigation ? The Original Meaning of Cases in Article III of the Constitution

If a federal official is deliberately violating the Constitution, is it possible no federal court has the power to halt that conduct? Federal judges have been answering “yes” for more than a century— dismissing certain kinds of lawsuits alleging unconstitutional conduct by ruling the lawsuits were not “cases” as meant in the phrase “[t]he Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases” in Article III, Section Two, of the Constitution. For example, in July 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed a lawsuit that the State of Maryland and the District of Columbia brought against President Donald Trump claiming he is deliberately violating the Constitution’s prohibition against receiving emoluments from foreign states. The lawsuit alleged that foreign governments pay substantial sums for using the Trump International Hotel in Washington D.C. and that President Trump is sole owner of the Trump Organization, which in turn owns that hotel. The court said: “[T]he District and Maryland’s interest in constitutional governance is no more than a generalized grievance, insufficient to amount to a case or controversy within the meaning of Article III.” In 1911, the United States Supreme Court declared: “[T]he exercise of the judicial power is limited to ‘cases’ and ‘controversies.’ . . . By cases and controversies are intended the claims of litigants . . . . The term implies the existence of present or possible adverse parties, whose contentions are submitted to the court for adjudication.” The Supreme Court subsequently further specified the meaning of “case” within the meaning of Article III to include the following “essential core”: a plaintiff who has suffered a concrete and particularized injury that is likely to be redressed by a judicial decision. Thus, at least in the civil setting, the Court has restricted the meaning of “cases” to adversary litigation initiated by a plaintiff with a personal and concrete injury— in brief, “injured plaintiff litigation.” The claims of Maryland and the District of Columbia against President Trump were dismissed by the Fourth Circuit without consideration of the merits because, in the court’s view, the plaintiffs had failed to show “concrete and particularized” injury that was different than the alleged harm suffered by all citizens if the President is corrupted by receipt of foreign payments. Failure to meet the Supreme Court’s definition of “case” is described as a “lack of standing.” Responding to the argument that if the District of Columbia and Maryland “could not obtain judicial review of [the President’s] action, ‘then as a practical matter no one can[,]’” the Fourth Circuit cited the answer provided in a 1974 Supreme Court decision: “[The] assumption that if [the plaintiffs] have no standing to sue, no one would have standing, is not a reason to find standing.” The empirical research reported in this article suggests that this “injured plaintiff litigation” interpretation of the meaning of “cases” may be more narrow—perhaps indeed entirely different—than how the word in its Article III context would have been used and understood by those who drafted and ratified the Constitution. For the first two months of a constitutional convention that lasted less than three-and-a-half months, various versions of what would eventually become Section Two of Article III consistently provided that federal courts should have the power to “hear and determine . . . questions which may involve the national peace and harmony.” On July 18, 1787, the Convention unanimously adopted the following resolution proposed by James Madison: “[T]he jurisdiction of the national Judiciary shall extend to cases arising under laws passed by the general Legislature, and to such other questions as involve the National peace and harmony.” The authors of this article, comprised of a research team of lawyers and linguists, used a variety of computer-aided methods for examining very large data sets of Founding Era texts to explore linguistic implications suggested to them by Madison’s July 18 resolution. This research indicated that those who drafted and ratified the Constitution: Would have understood “cases arising under laws” to be a type or example of “questions as involve the National peace and harmony”; Would have understood “such other questions” to be a more general category of jurisdiction than “cases arising under laws”; and Would not have understood “cases” as having a stable, inherent meaning such as “injured plaintiff litigation”—instead “cases” in each context of use in Article III would have been read as having a different meaning, constructed through its combination with accompanying words

Corpus Linguistics for 21st Century Language Learning

[ES] Esta Language Learning Roundtable Conference se centra en ‘La lingüística de corpus para el aprendizaje de la lengua en el Siglo XXI’ y busca explorar cómo y hasta qué punto la lingüística de corpus ha impregnado el aprendizaje de las lenguas extranjeras o las segundas lenguas, con un especial hincapié en los contextos educativos españoles y latinoamericanos, tanto en términos de la descripción de la lengua nativa o extranjera, como del aprendizaje de una lengua extranjera (típicamente la lengua inglesa).[EN] This Language Learning Roundtable Conference focuses on “Corpus Linguistics for 21st Century Language Learning” and aims to explore how and to what extent corpus linguistics has permeated second and foreign language learning, with an special emphasis on Spanish and Latin American educational contexts, both in terms of the description of the native or the foreign language and of foreign language learning (typically English)

Engineered hybrid spider silk particles as delivery system for peptide vaccines

The generation of strong T-cell immunity is one of the main challenges for the development of successful vaccines against cancer and major infectious diseases. Here we have engineered spider silk particles as delivery system for a peptide-based vaccination that leads to effective priming of cytotoxic T-cells. The recombinant spider silk protein eADF4(C16) was fused to the antigenic peptide from ovalbumin, either without linker or with a cathepsin cleavable peptide linker. Particles prepared from the hybrid proteins were taken up by dendritic cells, which are essential for T-cell priming, and successfully activated cytotoxic T-cells, without signs of immunotoxicity or unspecific immunostimulatory activity. Upon subcutaneous injection in mice, the particles were taken up by dendritic cells and accumulated in the lymph nodes, where immune responses are generated. Particles from hybrid proteins containing a cathepsin-cleavable linker induced a strong antigen-specific proliferation of cytotoxic T-cells in vivo, even in the absence of a vaccine adjuvant. We thus demonstrate the efficacy of a new vaccine strategy using a protein-based all-in-one vaccination system, where spider silk particles serve as carriers with an incorporated peptide antigen. Our study further suggests that engineered spider silk-based vaccines are extremely stable, easy to manufacture, and readily customizable