Termout.org logo/LING


Update: February 24, 2023 The new version of Termout.org is now online, so this web site is now obsolete and will soon be dismantled.

Lista de candidatos sometidos a examen:
1) arguments (*)
(*) Términos presentes en el nuestro glosario de lingüística

1) Candidate: arguments


Is in goldstandard

1
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines201 - : El artículo de Anita Mittwoch, titulado Unspecified arguments in episodic and habitual sentences, aborda el fenómeno de la saturación léxica, es decir, la propiedad de ciertos predicados que en determinadas circunstancias pueden omitir uno de sus argumentos . Específicamente, se aborda aquellos que cumplen la función del objeto. La autora explica de forma sencilla que esta propiedad se debe a que los objetos de estos predicados no se pueden cuantificar.

2
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines266 - : "They have moral premises, that is, they are about what is right; they use versions of contested values taken from a particular moral view; they have an implicit or explicit narrative structure, i. e., they all tell stories with heroes, villains, victims, common themes, etc.; they also serve as counterarguments: they undermine arguments on the other side ; they have issue-defining frames that set up problem and the solution; they use commonplaces frames -frames known so widely that they resonate immediately, whether true or not; they use language with surface frames that evoke deeper frames" (Lakoff , 2006a: 119).

3
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines319 - : What exactly is the source of the difference between ser and estar is far from settled. According to Kratzer´s (1995) and Diesing´s (1992) proposals, in which ser and estar are assumed to be the lexical exponents of IL/SL predicates, the source of the difference is the presence/absence of a spatiotemporal argument. For Arche (2007), whose analysis also views ser and estar as the lexical exponents of the IL/SL distinction, ser and estar do not differ with respect to the spatiotemporal arguments they project (since both project spatiotemporal arguments) but rather on their lexical semantics: the linking nature of estar to a specific context is lexically encoded . For Maienborn (2003, 2005) the difference between ser and estar is only pragmatic while ser and estar have identical semantics. For Schmitt (1992, 1996, 2005) and Luján (1981), the difference lies in the aspectual properties of the predicates involving ser and estar. For Clements (2005) it is essential to consider not only the

4
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines416 - : As we have mentioned earlier, the first (the left) argument is expected to be the agent or experiencer of the relation, while the second (the right) argument is expected to be the object of the relation. Therefore, the correct order of the arguments is:

5
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines424 - : Finally, for a sentence to be considered reciprocal, we must find coindexation of arguments in the two actions: the Initiator of one of the actions must be the Endpoint of the other and the Endpoint of the first must be the Initiator of the second . This condition is only fulfilled in (3′′′). In (3′′) this requirement is not met at all and in (3′) we have a double reflexive structure and, thus, coindexation of arguments falls within the scope of each single action.

6
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines434 - : This work aims at showing that, due to their mainly procedural meaning, discourse particles are linguistic devices used as instructions to ostensively guide a hearer during information processing. By means of a set of eye-tracking reading experiments, we have analyzed how counter-argumentative connectives and focus operators contribute to constraining inferential computations during reading comprehension. Results, based on these experiments, provide empirical evidence that allows supporting three theoretical arguments concerning discourse particles: a ) discourse particles are not irrelevant devices in communication (cfr. § 2.1); b) discourse particles have a mainly procedural meaning (cfr. § 2.2); and c) the processing patterns to which discourse particles give rise in utterances depend on the interaction of two factors: the properties of discourse particles themselves and the properties of the utterances in which they occur (cfr. § 2.3).

7
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines474 - : It was decided to include in the analysis one of these emotional arguments - fallacies- that has decreased in corpus 2: False reasoning or arguments . Following the classification of ^[50]Copi (1969), only those that predominate in the student emails have been collected, which are fallacies that appeal to psychological and affective means. Among them, the most frequent in the analysed emails is of the argumentum ad misericordiam type -those that are used to provoke pity in the other person. For example: “¡Profesora, no me suspenda! Mi padre no me va a pagar más los estudios, si no apruebo”. (‘Don’t fail me, professor! My father won’t pay for my studies anymore if I don’t pass.’).

8
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : The image impression construction might resemble ‘putting’ verbs in the locative construction since in both cases something is placed on a surface, but differs in the sense that with ‘creation’ verbs (e.g. ‘engrave’, ‘imprint’, ‘tattoo’, etc.), as a result of the event described by the verb, a new entity is created (i.e. a tattoo, an inscription, etc.). These verbs are ascribed to the Aktionsart active accomplishment, a type of event that is not changed by the construction. The kernel construct of these verbs in FunGramKB (exemplified in (11)) involves two arguments whose thematic roles, as explained in Section 1, are defined according to their metaconceptual distribution: a Theme, which in the metaconcept #CREATION is defined as the entity that creates another (‘members’ in example (11 )) and a Referent, conceived as the entity that is created by another entity (‘their initials’ in (11)). It is also common to find a prepositional phrase that should be analysed as an adjunct (an op

9
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : The location subject construction also involves a change of Aktionsart class, since ‘fit’ verbs in the kernel construct are causative states (where we have an activity predicate causing a state: x does something that causes y be in z), whereas the L-1 construction codifies states with two arguments: the first argument position (‘a large cafeteria’ in (16 )) is a location argument whose capacity is specified by the second argument (‘300 people’ in (16)). In terms of macrorole assignment, and following the default Actor selection principle, the highest ranking argument in the logical structure must be assigned Actor (the participant responsible for the state of affairs, i.e. the logical subject), and the lowest ranking argument must be assigned Undergoer (the logical object in the state of affairs) following the Undergoer selection principle for default linking (^[95]Van Valin, 2005).

10
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines600 - : On the contrary, the way researchers make use of the rest of the pragmatic functions is discipline and/or section sensitive. In the introductory parts, the explanation of procedures, the statement of results and the elaboration of arguments are three functions which researchers deploy with different frequencies from a statistical point of view. In the post-method sections, the explanation of procedures, the elaboration of arguments, the expression of limitations, contribution or applications and the signalling of future avenues for work, are enacted with varying different, and statistically significant frequencies, in the three disciplines analysed, as corroborated by the p values in the table below:

Evaluando al candidato arguments:


2) particles: 6
3) discourse: 6 (*)
4) verbs: 5 (*)
6) entity: 4 (*)
7) frames: 4 (*)
10) analysed: 3
11) lexical: 3 (*)
16) cfr.: 3
19) spatiotemporal: 3 (*)
20) logical: 3

arguments
Lengua: eng
Frec: 126
Docs: 58
Nombre propio: / 126 = 0%
Coocurrencias con glosario: 6
Puntaje: 6.796 = (6 + (1+5.35755200461808) / (1+6.98868468677217)));
Candidato aceptado

Referencias bibliográficas encontradas sobre cada término

(Que existan referencias dedicadas a un término es también indicio de terminologicidad.)
arguments
: Anderson, R. C., Chinn, C., Chang, J., Waggoner, M. & Yi, M. (1997). On the logical integrity of children’s arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 15(2), 135-167.
: Arcidiacono, F. & Bova, A. (2015). Activity-bound and activity-unbound arguments in response to parental eat-directives at mealtimes: Differences and similarities in children of 3-5 and 6-9 years old. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 6, 40-55.
: Augoustinos, M., Lecouteur, A. & Soyland, J. (2002). Self-sufficient arguments in political rhetoric: Constructing reconciliation and apologizing to the stolen generations. Discourse & Society, 13(1), 105-142.
: Bartha, P. (2010). By parallel reasoning: The construction and evaluation of analogical arguments. Nueva York: Oxford University Press.
: Bernard, S., Mercier, H. & Clément, F. (2012). The power of well-connected arguments: Early sensitivity to the connective because. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 111, 128-135.
: Bonnefond, M. & Van der Henst, J. B. (2009). What's behind an inference? An EEG study with conditional arguments. Neuropsychologia, 47(14), 3125-3133.
: Borer, H. (1994). The projection of arguments. En E. Benedicto & J. Runner (Eds.), Functional projections (pp. 179-208). Amherst: GLSA.
: Bova, A. & Arcidiacono, F. (2014b). Types of arguments in parents-children discussions: An argumentative analysis. Rivista di Psicolinguistica Applicata/Journal of Applied Psycholinguistics, 14(1), 43-66.
: Bova, A. (2015a). This is the cheese bought by Grandpa. A study of the arguments from authority used by parents with their children during mealtimes. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 4(2), 133-157.
: Cook, G. (2005). Genetically modified language. The discourse of arguments for GM crops and food. London: Routledge.
: Durik, A. M., Britt, M. A., Reynolds, R. & Storey, J. (2008). The effects of hedges in persuasive arguments: A nuanced analysis of language. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27(3), 217-234.
: ExtrHech processes coordinating conjunctions for verb relations and noun phrase arguments with a rule implemented according to the expression (3). For example:
: Figueroa, J., Meneses, A. & Chandía, E. (2018). Academic language and the quality of written arguments and explanations of Chilean 8th graders. Reading and Writing, 31(3), 703-723. Doi: 10.1007/s11145-017-9806-5
: Fries, P. (1983). On the status of theme in English: Arguments from discourse. En J. Petöf & E. Sözer (Eds.), Micro and macro connexity of texts. Papers in Textlinguistics 45 (pp. 116-152). Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.
: Fries, P. H. (1981). On the status of Theme in English: Arguments from discourse. Forum Linguisticum, 6(1), 1-38.
: Halliday, M.A.K. (1987). Language and the order of nature. In N. Fabb, D. Attridge, A. Durant & C. MacCabe (Eds.), The linguistics of writing: Arguments between language and literature (pp. 135-154). Manchaster: Manchester University Press.
: Hutchby, I. (1996). Confrontation talk. Arguments asymmetries and power in talk radio. Nueva Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
: Ingria, R. J. P & George, L. M. (1993). Adjectives, nominals, and the status of arguments. En J. Pustejovsky (Ed.), Semantics and the Lexicon (pp. 107-127). Dordrecht/Boston/Londres: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
: Landauer, T. (2002). On the computational basis of learning and cognition: Arguments from LSA. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 41, 43-84.
: Mercier, H. & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do human reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57-74.
: Mohanan, K. P. & Mohanan, T. (1998). Strong and weak projection: Lexical reflexives and reciprocals. En M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors (pp. 165-94). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
: Pontecorvo, C. & Arcidiacono, F. (2016). The dialogic construction of justifications and arguments in a seven-year-old child within a democratic family. Language and Dialogue, 6(2), 306-328.
: Rappaport, M. & Levin, B. (1998). Building verb meanings. En M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.),The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors(pp. 97-134). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications .
: Ritter, E. & Rosen, S. (1998). Delimiting events in syntax. En M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), The projection of arguments (pp. 135-164). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
: Stein, N. & Albro, E. (2001). The origins and nature of arguments: Studies in conflict understanding, emotion, and negotiation. Discourse Processes, 32(2-3), 113-133.
: Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of arguments. Londres: Cambridge.
: Vermeer, H. (1996). A skopos theory of translation (some arguments for and against). Heidelberg: Textkontext Wissenschaft.
: Walton, D. N. (1997). Appeal to expert opinion. Arguments from authority. Pennsylvania: State University Press.
: Weston, A. (1987). A rulebook for arguments. Cambridge: Avatar Books.