Word Order Variation is Partially Constrained by Syntactic Complexity

Previous work suggests that when speakers linearize syntactic structures, they place longer and more complex dependents further away from the head word to which they belong than shorter and simpler dependents, and that they do so with increasing rigidity the longer expressions get, for example, longer objects tend to be placed further away from their verb, and with less variation. Current theories of sentence processing furthermore make competing predictions on whether longer expressions are preferentially placed as early or as late as possible. Here we test these predictions using hierarchical distributional regression models that allow estimates of word order and word order variation at the level of individual dependencies in corpora from 71 languages, while controlling for confounding effects from the type of dependency (e.g., subject vs. object), and the type of clause (main vs. subordinate) involved as well as from trends that are characteristic of individual languages, language families, and language contact areas. Our results show the expected correlations of length with position and variation only for two out of six dependency types (obliques and nominal modifiers) and no difference between clause types. These findings challenge received theories of across-the-board effects of complexity on word order and word order variation and call for theoretical models that relativize effects to specific kinds of syntactic structures and dependencies.     

Priming productive study strategies with preparatory quizzes in an engineering course

One approach to encourage productive study strategies is to incorporate preparatory quizzes (or pre‐quizzes) in which students are required to submit answers to questions before the underlying material is covered in class. In the present study, students took an introductory mechanical engineering class that either included pre‐quizzes (treatment group) or did not (control group). Students in the treatment group visited the online textbook more often and earlier in advance of deadlines, indicating better management of their study time—behaviors that have been shown to be productive study strategies. They also performed better in the course, indicating that techniques intended to prime productive study strategies can pay off. Finally, measures of productive learning strategies correlated with measures of course performance for both groups. These findings support the pretesting principle, which holds that students study more effectively and learn better when they take practice tests before a lesson.     

Blind justice: Fairness to groups and the do-no-harm principle

People are reluctant to harm some people in order to help others, even when the harm is less than the forgone help (the harm resulting from not acting). The present studies use hypothetical scenarios to argue that these judgments go against what the subjects themselves would take to be the best overall outcome. When the outcomes in question are income gains and losses for two groups of farmers, subjects judge the harm they would not impose through their action to be smaller than the harm they would impose through inaction. Some subjects refuse to reduce cure rates for one group of AIDS patients in order to increase cure rates more for another group, even when group membership was unknowable to anyone, so that, from each patient's point of view, the change would increase the probability of cure. Likewise, they resisted a vaccine that reduced overall mortality in one group but increased deaths from side effects in another group, even when, again, group membership was unknowable. Some people apply a do-no-harm principle to groups without apparent understanding of how such a principle might be justified in terms of its consequences. The capacity for such judgments makes them vulnerable to learning principles that have no justification at all.     

身体拥有感及其可塑性：基于内外感受研究的视角

身体自我表征中的身体拥有感(即我的身体属于我的感受)问题一直是自我意识研究的核心话题。大量的已有研究表明, 身体拥有感的体验涉及不同感官信号的整合, 当前大多数研究只重视视觉、触觉等外感受的作用, 一方面忽视了内感受的作用, 另一方面也缺乏对两类感受整合的关注。橡胶手错觉实验和身体障碍患者身上所表现出的外感受和内感受对身体拥有感的影响支持了身体拥有感的可塑性假设, 自由能量原理认为身体拥有感形成的基础是大脑不断评估更新可能性表征来维持稳定。未来的研究需要从改善内感受的测量和刺激呈现方法, 探索影响内感受的高阶认知因素以及关注某些神经症患者的内感受等方面寻求突破。     

The relevance of Rawls' principle of justice for research on cognitively impaired patients

An ethical conflict arises when we must performresearch in the interest of future patients,but that this may occasionally injure theinterests of today's patients.In the case of cognitively impaired persons, thequestion arises whether it is compatible withhumane healthcare not only to treat, but alsoto use these patients for research purposes.Some bioethicists and theologians haveformulated a general duty of solidarity, alsopertaining to cognitively impaired persons, as ajustification for research on these persons. Ifone examines this thesis from the theory ofjustice according to John Rawls, it is revealedthat such a duty of solidarity cannotnecessarily be extrapolated from Rawls'conception of justice. This is at least true ofRawls' difference principle, because accordingto the difference principle only those measuresare justifiable which serve the interest of therespective least well off. Those measures whichwould engender additional injury for the leastwell off could not be balanced by any utilityaccording to Rawls.However, John Rawls' difference principleis subordinate to the first principle,which is that each person has an equalright to the most extensive basic libertycompatible with the same liberty for others.These primary goods are determined by thefreedom and integrity of the person.This integrity of decisionally impaired personswould be in danger if one would abstain fromresearch and thus forego the increase inknowledge related to their disease. Thus onecould conclude, at least from Rawls' firstprinciple, that society must take on a duty toguarantee the degrees of freedom forcognitively impaired persons and thus alsosupport the efforts for their healing.     

“Hands up Who Wants to Die?”: Primoratz on Responsibility and Civilian Immunity in Wartime

The question of the morality of war is something of an embarrassment to liberal political thinkers. A philosophical tradition which aspires to found its preferred institutions in respect for individual autonomy, contract, and voluntary association, is naturally confronted by a phenomenon that is almost exclusively explained and justified in the language of States, force and territory. But the apparent difficulties involved in providing a convincing account of nature and ethics of war in terms of relations between individuals has not prevented liberal theorists from attempting this task. This paper examines a recent attempt by Igor Primoratz to sketch out the implications of a consistent liberalism for just war doctrine and, in particular, as regards the question of who may be a legitimate target of attack in wartime. Primoratz’s paper itself is a critique of Michael Waltzer’s authoritative exposition of just war theory for failing to be sufficiently and consistently liberal. The debate between these two authors is a productive site for investigating the potential and limitations of liberal theories of just war.     

Quantized Linear Logic,Involutive Quantales and Strong Negation

A new logic, quantized intuitionistic linear logic (QILL), is introduced, and is closely related to the logic which corresponds to Mulvey and Pelletier's (commutative) involutive quantales. Some cut-free sequent calculi with a new property quantization principle and some complete semantics such as an involutive quantale model and a quantale model are obtained for QILL. The relationship between QILL and Wansing's extended intuitionistic linear logic with strong negation is also observed using such syntactical and semantical frameworks.     

Learning from the law to address uncertainty in the precautionary principle

Environmentalists have advocated the Precautionary Principle (PP) to help guide public and private decisions about the environment. By contrast, industry and its spokesmen have opposed this. There is not one principle, but many that have been recommended for this purpose. Despite the attractiveness of a core idea in all versions of the principle—that decision-makers should take some precautionary steps to ensure that threats of serious and irreversible damage to the environment and public health do not materialize into harm—even one of the most widely endorsed principles needs considerable specification and refinement before it can be used. Moreover, the PP is an approach or guide to utilizing scientific evidence in social or legal decision-making contexts. In this it does not differ in kind from other approaches to using factual information such as in the law. The law provides some models for different strategies to guide decision-making under uncertainty when factual issues cannot be resolved with certainty. These in turn can help guide the formulation of different versions of PP and help clarify some presuppositions of the principle. Once some plausible versions of PP are articulated, I suggest some applications to existing environmental problems.     

Moral Responsibility, Determinism, and the Ability to do Otherwise

In his classic paper, The Principle of Alternate Possibilities, Harry Frankfurt presented counterexamples to the principle named in his title: A person is morally responsible for what he has done only if he could have done otherwise. He went on to argue that the falsity of the Principle of Alternate Possibilities (PAP) implied that the debate between the compatibilists and the incompatibilists (as regards determinism and the ability to do otherwise) did not have the significance that both parties had attributed to it -- since moral responsibility could exist even if no one was able to do otherwise. I have argued that even if PAP is false, there are other principles that imply that moral responsibility entails the ability to do otherwise, and that these principles are immune to Frankfurt-style counterexamples. Frankfurt has attempted to show that my arguments for this conclusion fail. This paper is a rejoinder to that reply; I argue that he has failed to show this.     

不确定性决策违背“确定事件原则”的心理机制再探

不确定性决策违背＂确定事件原则＂的心理机制再探从决策理由切入,在现实情境中考察了违背确定事件原则（sure-thing principle）的心理机制,检验了基于理由（reason-based）的假设。研究结果表明,违背确定事件原则的被试在不确定条件下知觉到的理由冲突程度显著高于遵循确定事件原则的被试在不确定条件下知觉到的理由冲突程度;违背确定事件原则的被试在不确定条件下知觉到的理由清晰程度显著低于其在两种确定条件下知觉到的理由清晰程度,而遵循确定事件原则的被试在不确定条件下知觉到的理由清晰程度则介于其在两种确定条件下知觉到的理由清晰程度之间。研究结果支持了基于理由的假设。