In the realm of causativization, the traditional tension between explaining crosslinguistic variation while maintaining that a phenomenon has a common universal source can be stated specifically as follows: how can we explain the fact that if a certain type of verb causativizes in both languages A and B, the derived predicate usually has the same syntactic and semantic properties, while also ac...

So far, the discussions in this text have focused mainly on the process of constructing arguments. For ease of understanding, this text has spoken about making arguments to support or oppose a motion as if those arguments existed in their own space, without regard to any other debaters or any other issues. Of course, in an actual debate, arguments are made always with an eye toward how they int...

Modern banks have shifted their function as purely administrative, economic and industrial entities into socio-political institutions that must be sensitive to the surrounding environment. This function has always been neglected. This study was conducted based on primary, secondary, and tertiary data and reviews the full text of 75 studies selected from more than 245 studies. The selected elect...

this study explores the nature of relatively free word order of verbs and their arguments in persian. based on the theory of phases and multiple spell-out which is an instantiation of minimalist program, we attempt to account for the restrictions on these word order variations. having a direct interaction with the syntax-phonology interface rather than a purely syntactic one, these restrictions...

In this talk I discuss two relations between normative reasoning and formal argumentation. First I consider formal argumentation as a kind of normative reasoning. An attack of argument A on argument B is interpreted either as “either A is not accepted or B should be accepted” or as “A and B cannot both be accepted, and it is preferred to accept A over B”. The difference between the two interpre...

Argumentation Frameworks Dung s Abstract Argumentation framework * AF = (Args, Attack) where Attack Args Args Calculus of opposition applied to determine winning arguments A1 A2 A3 (publish) (not political) (political) (Args, Attack) abstracts from underlying logic based definition of Args and Attack Args = proofs of conclusions (claims) Attack = logic specific definition of conflict x * P. M. ...