Issue-Event Extensions and Interaction Involvement Text-Based and Meaning-Based Discourse Strategies

Prior research focusing on textual features in the talk of high and low-involved speakers has characterized the discourse strategy of low-involved speakers as text-based and that of high-involved speakers as meaning-based. This study examined the extensions of issue-event structures by high-involved and low-involved participants to determine if this characterization of discourse strategies held on a pragmatic level as well. Results indicated that low-involved communicators extended the event significantly more directly than high-involved communicators. Furthermore, the issue extensions of low-involved communicators were shown to be more sensitive to the comprehensibitity and information value of the stimulus utterance than the issue extensions of high-involved communicators. The results confirm that low-involved communicators have more difficulty than high-involved communicators in responding to the flow of conversation and that low-involved communicators compensate by relying on a text-based discourse strategy.     

代际团结潜在类别与关系质量对自陈健康及幸福感的影响

本研究考察了成年子女与其父母的代际关系中团结和关系质量对代际双方身体和心理结果的影响。研究1中,对中国成年子女（N=1283）的潜在类别分析结果显示是六种代际团结类别,多项逻辑回归表明两代人的特征会影响团结潜在类别和关系质量。研究2中,对367对中国成年子女-父母（N=734）的报告进行等级线性建模,行动者-搭档互依模型结果指出好的团结潜在类别（自我和搭档报告的）和好的关系质量（自我报告的）与两代人的高幸福感相关,好的团结潜在类别（自我和搭档报告的）和好的关系质量（自我和搭档报告的）预测了两代人的低心理苦恼;其中代际和性别调节了团结类别和关系质量对自我报告健康及幸福感的作用,同时,两代人团结类别的交互作用和评价的相似性也影响了幸福感和心理苦恼。     

From the Good Will to the Formula of Universal Law1

In the First Section of the Groundwork, Kant argues that a good‐willed person “under subjective limitations and hindrances” is required “never to act except in such a way that [she] could also will that [her] maxim should become a universal law.” Call this argument “K”. Although recent commentators (including Barbara Herman, Christine Korsgaard, Nelson Potter, and Allen Wood) have done much to clarify and defend many of the important claims Kant makes in the First Section, they have accurately identified neither K's premises nor the reasoning by means of which K's conclusion is derived. The result of this is that K's strengths are underappreciated. My aim is to rectify this state of affairs, by providing a detailed reconstruction of K, and thereby bring out the various ways in which the argument deserves our recognition and praise.