Arguments for and against a career in surgery: a qualitative analysis

To evaluate arguments given by board-certified surgeons in Switzerland for and against a career in surgery.

Reconstructing Arguments: Formalization and Reflective Equilibrium

Traditional logical reconstruction of arguments aims at assessing the validity of ordinary language arguments. It involves several tasks: extracting argumentations from texts, breaking up complex argumentations into individual arguments, framing arguments in standard form, as well as formalizing arguments and showing their validity with the help of a logical formalism. These tasks are guided by a multitude of partly antagonistic goals, they interact in various feedback loops, and they are intertwined with the development of theories of valid inference and adequate formalization. This paper explores how the method of reflective equilibrium can be used for modelling the complexity of such reconstructions and for justifying the various steps involved. The proposed approach is illustrated and tested in a detailed reconstruction of the beginning of Anselm’s De casu diaboli.

Promoting gender-fair language: The impact of arguments on language use, attitudes, and cognitions

The present research investigates whether arguments encourage speakers to use and to approve of gender-fair language. We collected and pretested arguments regarding gender-fair language and masculine generics and created four messages which supported either gender-fair usage or masculine generics (strong and weak arguments) as well as two control texts. Results showed that speakers changed their language behavior more in the direction of gender-fairness when they had been exposed to arguments for gender-fair language than after control texts. We did not find any effect of arguments promoting masculine generics and no effect on cognitive responses and attitudes. Taken together, these results show that arguments promoting gender-fair language can motivate speakers to use gender-fair wording, a new and important finding in the context of implementing gender equality in language.

Decomposing hierarchical alignment: Co-arguments as conditions on alignment and the limits of referential hierarchies as explanations in verb agreement

Apart from common cases of differential argument marking, referential hierarchies affect argument marking in two ways: (a) through hierarchical marking, where markers compete for a slot and the competition is resolved by a hierarchy, and (b) through co-argument sensitivity, where the marking of one argument depends on the properties of its co-argument. Here we show that while co-argument sensitivity cannot be analyzed in terms of hierarchical marking, hierarchical marking can be analyzed in terms of co-argument sensitivity. Once hierarchical effects on marking are analyzed in terms of co-argument sensitivity, it becomes possible to examine alignment patterns relative to referential categories in exactly the same way as one can examine alignment patterns relative to referential categories in cases of differential argument marking and indeed any other condition on alignment (such as tense or clause type). As a result, instances of hierarchical marking of any kind turn out not to present a special case in the typology of alignment, and there is no need for positing an additional non-basic alignment type such as “hierarchical alignment”. While hierarchies are not needed for descriptive and comparative purposes, we also cast doubt on their relevance in diachrony: examining two families for which hierarchical agreement has been postulated, Algonquian and Kiranti, we find only weak and very limited statistical evidence for agreement paradigms to have been shaped by a principled ranking of person categories.