Showing papers on "Antecedent (grammar) published in 1976"
TL;DR: A number of questionnaires, measuring category width, risk-taking propensity, tolerance of ambiguity, world-mindedness and authoritarianism, were administered to samples of university students in India and Canada as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: A number of questionnaires, measuring category-width, risk-taking propensity, tolerance of ambiguity, world-mindedness and authoritarianism, were administered to samples of university students in India and Canada. The results are consistent with previous investigations and indicate that the Indians, as contrasted with the Canadians, prefer narrow categories, choose conservative risks, are less tolerant of ambiguity, are more authoritarian and, if attending a Hindu College, are less world-minded. The relationship of these orientations to other variables such as achievement motivation are discussed and the importance of antecedent child-rearing practices is noted.
6 citations
TL;DR: The authors demonstrate the inadequacy of the conventional approaches to Canadian-American relations, proffer an alternative conceptualization involving systems analysis, specifically continental subsystem dominance, and suggest concluding hypotheses warranting further research.
Abstract: relations as evidenced by crowded library shelves, colourful paperbacks in bookstores,' and an increasing number of studies dealing with the relative merits of various models and approaches.2 Most of the publications tend to be descriptive which, given the present state of research in the area, is appropriate since careful description and categorization logically stands in an antecedent relationship to more sophisticated kinds of analysis.3 But even while we describe we must also seek to generalize and theorize. In this article I shall attempt to demonstrate the inadequacy of the conventional approaches to Canadian-American relations, proffer an alternative conceptualization involving systems analysis, specifically continental subsystem dominance, and suggest concluding hypotheses warranting further research.
5 citations
TL;DR: Geach then claimed that some of the problems that raise for the changelessness of God would be lessened if there was an adequate philosophical account of change available as discussed by the authors, which would be possible to give a clear criterion of what a real change is, and to ascertain whether or not 'God wills that A' and 'God will that not-A', supposing them both to be true when uttered at different times, involve a real changes in God, or what Geach calls a 'Cambridge' change.
Abstract: Geach then claims that some of the problems that proposition (i) raises for the changelessness of God would be lessened if there was an adequate philosophical account of change available. With such an account it would be possible to give a clear criterion of what a real change is, and to ascertain whether or not 'God wills that A' and 'God wills that not-A', supposing them both to be true when uttered at different times, involve a real change in God, or what Geach calls a 'Cambridge' change. If the two statements only record a 'Cambridge' change, that is, simply record a change in what can truly be said about God at different times, then this will present no difficulties for an account of divine changelessness. God will no more have changed than Cerberus changes by becoming the most talked-of beast of fable. But if the two statements involve a real change in God, then divine changelessness will be seriously called into question. In his later paper Geach makes the same point, that the distinction between antecedent and consequent will is 'difficult of application' in the
3 citations
2 citations
01 Jan 1976
TL;DR: It is suggested that many semantic and syntactic operations usually treated separately are in fact contextually-determined - by the general semantic coherence of the discourse, and by the operation of focus within it.
Abstract: Few recent studies of relativization attempt to deal with semantic distinctions between Restrictives (Rs) and Non-Restrictives (NRs), and none satisfactorily. But the distinctions are fundamental, and must be treated by rules having semantic and contextual orientation. The functions of context are examined at some length, and it is suggested that many semantic and syntactic operations usually treated separately are in fact contextually-determined - by the general semantic coherence of the discourse, and by the operation of focus within it. The deictic implications of context-related Rs of several types are distinguished from those of the context-independent function of generic. Generic Rs are taken to be the fundamental R type. Evidence is presented suggesting that Rs and NRs derive from different sources. NRs are subsequently shown not exclusively to derive from conjunction, but often to exhibit more complex semantic relationships between antecedent and relative clauses, whereas Rs and their antecedent clauses are semantically single units. This difference is explored using a generative-semantic model, and suggesting how the context ultimately specifies not only R as against NR, but also the various types of R. Interpretive semantic models, it is suggested, cannot account for these distinctions at all; neither can sentence-grammars. Conclusions - Rs subjoin relative to antecedent clause, whereas NRs conjoin them (though not only with logical 'A'); - The basic R is generic; other deictic types are regularly derived from generic contextually. Semantic theory must therefore account for context; - The relationship of full- or partial-synonymy between (all) lexical items and (some) generic Rs suggests complete or partial identity of underlying semantic structure. At present, only Generative-Semantics (modified for context- and role-specification) can handle this; - Considerable overlaps between relative clauses and focussed constructions appear to suggest that contextual focus may eventually determine all the distinctions involved.
1 citations