An embodied approach to language: the role of bodily feedback in discourse processing

Theories of embodied cognition argue that language processing arises not from amodal symbols that redescribe sensorimotor and affective experiences, but from partial simulations (reenactments) of modality-specific states. Recent findings on processing of words and sentences support such a stance emphasizing that the role of the body in the domain of language comprehension should not be overlooked or dismissed. The present research was conducted to extend prior work in two important ways. First, the role of simulation was tested with connected discourse rather than words or sentences presented in isolation. Second, both “online” and “offline” measures of discourse comprehension were taken. In Experiments 1 and 2 participants’ facial postures were manipulated to show that preparing the body for processing of emotion-congruent information improves discourse comprehension. In Experiment 3 the direction of body posture was manipulated to show that implicit properties of simulations, such as spatial dimension or location, are at least somewhat involved in processing of large language segments such as discourse. Finally, in Experiments 4 and 5 participants’ body movement and body posture were manipulated to show that even understanding of language describing metaphorical actions physically impossible to perform involves constructing a sensorimotor simulation of the described event. The major result was that compatibility between embodiment and language strongly modulated performance effectiveness in experiments on simulation of emotion and metaphorical action. The effect of simulation on comprehension of discourse implying spatial dimension was fragile. These findings support an embodied simulation account of cognition suggesting that sensorimotor and affective states are at least partially implicated in “online” and “offline” discourse comprehension.

The sectionalism of the tariff bill. Speech of Hon. John L. McLaurin, of South Carolina, in the Senate of the United States

This document contains a speech by John L. McLaurin, representative of South Carolina. Sections of the speech include: sectionalism exposed, the bill might have been defeated, the south plundered of its rights, not a protectionist, fraudulent demands of New England, Hon. Randolph Tucker, Hon. W.R. Morrison, and Hon. R.Q. Mills strangers to the doctrine in 1882, a tariff for revenue against the doctrine of free raw material, don’t want Cleveland’s interpretation, contest of schedules, and my remedy.

Speech of Hon. John Lowndes McLaurin, of South Carolina, in the Senate of the United States, Monday, December 9, 1901

This document contains a speech by John L. McLaurin of South Carolina presented in the Senate of the United States. Sections of the speech include: sectionalism the cause, conditions in South Carolina, the federal administration in South Carolina, should not array class against class, freedom of thought and speech, the issues, under caucus dictation the Senate no longer a deliberative body, the beginning of the fight, matter of arraying class against class, freedom of thought and speech, and issues.

Consolidation. An account of parties in the United States, from the convention of 1787, to the present period

This document is an account of a convention of South Carolina state representatives following the drafting of the Declaration of Independence. There were three parties involved in the convention and the account is based on the notes of Mr. Luther Martin who attended as well Mr. Justice Yates’ account. The first party wished to abolish all state governments and have one uniform monarchical government for the continent that would be restricted and limited. The second party did not wish to abolish state governments to give their own state some importance. The third party was advocating for a federal government in conjunction with state government. This document is an account of the convention.

Speech of Hon. James H. Hammond, of South Carolina, on the relation of states; delivered in the Senate of the United States, May 21, 1860

The speech is a response by Hon. James H. Hammond as to whether or not the territorial governments established by Congress have the power to define and declare what shall be and what shall not be property within the territorial boundaries. The speech goes on to discuss colonists who went to newly purchased territory and claimed land as their own. He argues whether or not these people have sovereignty of the land over the government.

Speech of Hon. John Lowndes McLaurin, of South Carolina, in the Senate of the United States, Monday, December 9, 1901

This speech is to address the statement that Mr. McLaurin has been excluded from the caucuses of his party and thus that he will be without assignment on any committee. He goes on to explain his exclusion and defend his views that led to his exclusion.

Speech of Mr. Calhoun, of South Carolina, on the slavery question. Delivered in the Senate of the United States, March 4, 1850

The speech addresses the question, how can the union be preserved? He goes on to explain the threats to the union and give suggestions for how the threats can be handled.

Stable standard essential for prosperity. Speech in the Senate of the United States, February 4, 1878

This speech was given when the United States Senate was considering a bill to authorize the free coinage of the standard silver dollar and to restore its legal tender character. Mr. Bayard argues against the bill in this speech. He is interrupted during his speech multiple times and questioned about his points.

Liberalization of Labor Relations in Germany and the United States: A firm-centered comparison of cross-national labor organizing at Amazon and Volkswagen

Thesis (Master's)--University of Washington, 2015

How does globalization affect the tax burden on labour income, capital income and consumption in different welfare regimes? The case of Western and Eastern EU Member States

This article analyzes the effects of globalization on implicit tax rates (ITRs) on labor income, capital income, and consumption in the EU15 and Central and Eastern European New Member States (CEE NMS). We find supportive evidence for an increase in the ITR on labor income in the EU15, but no effect on the ITR on capital income. There is evidence of convergence in terms of the ITR on consumption, as countries with higher than average ITR on consumption respond to globalization by decreasing their tax rates. There are important differences among the welfare regimes within the EU15. Social-democratic countries have decreased the tax burden on capital, but increased that on labor due to globalization. Globalization exerts a pressure to increase taxes on labor income in the conservative and liberal regimes as well. Taxes on consumption decrease in response to globalization in the conservative and social-democratic regimes. In the CEE NMS, there is no effect of globalization on the ITR on labor and capital income, but we find a negative impact on the ITR on consumption in the CEE NMS with higher than average ITR on consumption. (JEL H23, H24, H25, F19, F21)

The resilience of democratic institutions in Britain, Australia and the United States under conditions of total war

To what extent are democratic institutions resilient when nation states mobilise for war? Normative and empirical political theorists have long argued that wars strengthen the executive and threaten constitutional politics. In modern democracies, national assemblies are supposed to hold the executive to account by demanding explanations for events and policies; and by scrutinising, reviewing and, if necessary, revising legislative proposals intended to be binding on the host society or policies that have been implemented already. This article examines the extent to which the British and Australian parliaments and the United States Congress held their wartime executives to account during World War II. The research finds that under conditions approaching those of total war, these democratic institutions not only continued to exist, but also proved to be resilient in representing public concerns and holding their executives to account, however imperfectly and notwithstanding delegating huge powers. In consequence, executives—more so British and Australian ministers than President Roosevelt—were required to be placatory as institutional and political tensions within national assemblies and between assemblies and executives continued, and assemblies often asserted themselves. In short, even under the most onerous wartime conditions, democratic politics mattered and democratic institutions were resilient.