Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 10

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  arguments
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The aim of the present article is to present a solution to the problem of lexical ambiguity. The ambiguity of lexical items caused by homonymy or homophony does not create any problems for the addressee of messages due to the fact that they are placed within a particular communicational and situational context. Such a context, however, is absent in machine translation (MT). In order to avoid ambiguity of Polish verbs listed for the purposes of the project “Communication Safety”, the specification of semantic roles describing the arguments of individual verbs has been drawn up. Their ambiguity was eliminated after determining the semantic roles of their arguments.
PL
Celem niniejszego artykułu jest przedstawienie zagadnienia wieloznaczności leksykalnej. Przyczyną wieloznaczności jednostek leksykalnych jest m.in. występowanie homonimii oraz homofonii. Wieloznaczność jednostek leksykalnych nie stwarza problemów odbiorcy wiadomości dzięki umiejscowieniu ich w danym kontekście komunikacyjnym i sytuacyjnym, jednakże tego rodzaju kontekstu brakuje w tłumaczeniu maszynowym. Aby uniknąć wieloznaczności polskich czasowników użytych na potrzeby projektu „Bezpieczeństwo komunikacyjne”, sporządzono zestaw ról semantycznych opisujących argumenty pojedynczych czasowników. Dokładne ustalenie ról semantycznych argumentów ponad dwóch tysięcy polskich czasowników pozwoliło wykluczyć ich wieloznaczność.
EN
On the argument-adjunct distinction in the Polish Semantic Syntax traditionThe aim of this paper is to examine the understanding of the Argument-Adjunct Distinction within the Polish Semantic Syntax (SS) tradition, associated with the name of Stanisław Karolak and presented in the nominally syntactic volume of the Grammar of contemporary Polish (Pol. Gramatyka współczesnego języka polskiego; Topolińska, 1984), especially in Karolak (1984) and Grochowski (1984), as well as in later work. Section 1 reviews the three approaches to determining the number and kind of arguments of a given predicate, as discussed in Karolak (1984), concentrating on the one that is endorsed there. Then, Sections 2–3 show that the key notions used in this approach have not been – and probably cannot be – made operational. Moreover, Section 4 briefly reviews some more recent Semantic Syntax work and shows that this lack of operational AAD in Karolak (1984) extends to the SS programme at large. Finally, Section 5 concludes that this deficiency, while common in linguistic theories, is particularly troublesome in the case of SS, which is founded on the notion of predicate-argument structure. O rozróżnieniu argumentów od modyfikatorów w polskiej tradycji „składni semantycznej”Artykuł poświęcony jest kwestii fundamentalnej dla szkoły „składni semantycznej” (kojarzonej przede wszystkim z nazwiskiem Stanisława Karolaka), a mianowicie kwestii odróżniania argumentów od modyfikatorów. Celem artykułu jest wykazanie, że w tradycji „składni semantycznej” nie została zaproponowana operacyjna procedura odróżnienia argumentów od modyfikatorów, choć istnienie takiej procedury wydaje się warunkiem koniecznym dla wyodrębnienia struktury predykatowo-argumentowej, głównego celu wielu prac zakorzenionych w tej tradycji.
EN
Autobiographical stories do not merely offer insights into someone’s experience but can constitute evidence or even serve as self-standing arguments for a given viewpoint in the context of public debates. Such stories are likely to exercise considerable influence on debate participants’ views and behaviour due to their being more vivid, engaging, and accessible than other forms of evidence or argument. In this paper we are interested in whether there are epistemic and moral duties associated with the use of autobiographical stories in mental health debates. We argue that debate participants have a responsibility to assess a story as evidence or as an argument when the story is put forward to support a given viewpoint. We also make some preliminary suggestions about what can be done to ensure that the use of stories contributes to the variety of the resources available to debate participants without compromising the quality of the argumentation or increasing polarisation.
PL
The rules of opinion journalism, presented in numerous source materials, indicate that an opinion article is constructed in line with the argumentative order: the right selection of arguments is to result in proving a thesis put forward in the text. However, more and more frequently opinion journalists offer the readers an attempt at finding out about the meanderings of politics or the economy single-handedly: temporal narration ordering fragments of texts allows to trace events “frame by frame”. Short sentences, nominal statements, verbs impersonal forms, in the present tense: the reader has no problem with following them. The reader learns about the answers to basic questions important in construing journalism information. Creation of some sort of a report is a transformation stage in an opinion journalist’s work; to a reader this is an extra and superfluous element. The phenomenon of temporality is also related to the fact that the analysed texts are about themselves: by resorting to the first person singular/plural, the author or authors describe their journalist activities, meetings with specific individuals (sources of information), problems with data verification, sometimes with obtaining data. In the course of analyses, the following relation emerges: redundancy – condensation necessitating a more in-depth analysis with respect to the rules underlying contemporary opinion journalism genres.
EN
I will attempt to define what we understand as “narrative argumentation” or “narrative arguments” through an appeal to a discussion of intercultural rational theology. In this context I offer a distinction between two concepts, which are considered usually as synonymous. Philosophical theology is regarded from the historical point of view as the whole repertoire of attempts at rational justification of the faith in God along with analysis of His attributes and actions within different religious traditions (both ancient and modern, Western and Eastern), whereas Natural Theology is regarded as a philosophical preparation for the theology of Revelation in traditional Christianity. Varieties of the teleological argument, which have been developed in the history of thought as the argument from analogy, i.e., from vivid examples aiming at persuasion of an opponent and audience in the dialectical controversy, are classified into two species of short-cut illustrative examples and the species of full-fledged theological parables, i.e., narratives in the strict sense. I conclude this discussion with an invitation to investigate other main theological arguments from a similar point of view.
EN
In this article the argument – modifier distinction in the verb structure is reconsidered. The author emphasizes the necessity and importance of this linguistic opposition, stating that its nature is semantical, therefore it cannot be detected and satisfactorily grasped by exclusively formal tests. In the paper the number of examples which have been the subject of controversy are discussed, some diagnostic tests are verified as well as certain new arguments in favour of the distinction are given.
PL
W artykule po raz kolejny rozważane jest rozróżnienie między argumentami a modyfikatorami w strukturze czasownika. Autorka podkreśla ważność i niezbywalność tej językowej opozycji, stwierdzając, że ma ona charakter semantyczny, a zatem nie może zostać wykryta ani uchwycona w satysfakcjonujący sposób wyłącznie za pomocą testów formalnych. W opracowaniu dyskutowane są przykłady budzące kontrowersję, poddaje się też weryfikacji wybrane testy diagnostyczne, jak również przedstawia się nowe argumenty na rzecz tytułowego rozróżnienia.
IT
Il presente contributo mira a presentare l’opinione degli apprendenti universitari della Facoltà di Neofilologia sul testo argomentativo. Ci interessano le loro conoscenze teoriche sull’argomentazione e i generi testuali argomentativi, nonché le loro opinioni sull’importanza dell’analisi e dell’esercitazione di diverse tipologie testuali durante i corsi di lingua straniera. Anche alla luce della nostra esperienza didattica possiamo constatare che il compito di scrivere un testo argomentativo durante il corso di lingua straniera (nel nostro caso è l’italiano) si trasforma di solito in un’attività di pura elencazione degli argomenti pro e contro una tesi. Per lo più gli argomenti elencati sono di poca efficacia argomentativa perché sono luoghi comuni, opinioni diffuse e ripetute nello stesso genere di composizioni durante i cicli educativi precedenti. Tramite un questionario somministrato a 33 studenti polacchi, spagnoli e italiani osserviamo le loro opinioni e le loro conoscenze sul discorso argomentativo.
EN
The aim of this paper is to present the views of university learners in the Faculty of Neophilology on argumentative text. We are interested in their theoretical knowledge of argumentation and argumentative text genres, as well as their opinions on the importance of analysing and practising different text types during foreign language courses. Furthermore, in light of our teaching experience, we can see that the task of writing an argumentative text in a foreign language course (in our case, Italian) usually turns into an activity of purely listing arguments for and against a thesis. The arguments listed are mostly of little argumentative effectiveness because they are commonplace, widespread opinions repeated in the same kind of compositions during previous educational cycles. Using questionnaire administered to 33 Polish, Spanish, and Italian students, we observed their opinions and knowledge of argumentative discourse.
EN
The aim of this article is to present the arguments used in the debate on the legalization of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Opponents of the legalization of the above procedures use the sanctity of life moral argument and the slippery slope non-moral argument. The assumption of the sanctity of life’s argument is the immorality of all forms of killing, the terminal illness and related suffering are not circumstances justifying the interruption [termination] of life. The protection of life is the foundation of the functioning of society. The slippery slope is based on the following premise: if an exception is made to the principle of the inviolability of life in the form of, for example, euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill persons who are of full age and make a free request based on a pressure-free will, this will lead to the killing of the sick, the old or the handicapped without their consent or even against their will. It concerns the changes in social awareness that can lead to the questioning of the value of human life. It is also possible that abuses that are difficult to control may occur. Followers of the precipitation of death formulate two moral arguments: the argument of the autonomy of the individual and the argument of the quality of life. The argument of the autonomy of the individual is presented as an expression of respect for man and the choices he makes. Everyone has the right to decide when his or her own life ceases to be of value to him or her, especially in the case of illness and suffering, and thus to choose the so-called dignified death without suffering or dependence on others. The proponents of this argument state that the principle of autonomy can be just as important or even more important than the sanctity of life principle, and at the same time it is also a response to the medical paternalism. Just this argument has been used in the countries that have legalized the physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia, (Benelux, Canada and in the following states in the USA: Oregon, Washington, Montana, Vermont, California, the District of Columbia and Colorado). Another argument in favor of the admissibility of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is the quality of life moral argument which assumes that in certain circumstances life and its continuation are not good for the person. The quality-of-life argument is based on an assessment of whether life is of value to the patient, or whether it remains only a burden or is limited to biological duration, as in the case of persons in a persistent vegetative state, for example.
PL
Celem artykułu jest prezentacja argumentów używanych w debacie nad legalizacją eutanazji i wspomaganego samobójstwa. Przeciwnicy legalizacji wyżej wymienionych procedur posługują się argumentem moralnym ze świętości życia oraz argumentem poza moralnym z równi pochyłej. Założeniem argumentu świętości życia jest niemoralność wszelkich form zabijania terminalna choroba i związane z nią cierpienie nie są okolicznościami usprawiedliwiającymi przerwanie życia. Ochrona życia stanowi fundament funkcjonowania społeczeństwa. Argument równi pochyłej opiera się na następującym założeniu: jeśli uczyniony zostanie wyjątek od zasady nienaruszalności życia w postaci np. eutanazji lub wspomaganego samobójstwa osób terminalnie chorych, które są pełnoletnie i wyrażają wolną od nacisków prośbę, w konsekwencji doprowadzi to do zabijania osób chorych, starych czy kalekich bez ich zgody lub nawet wbrew ich woli. Chodzi tu o zmiany w świadomości społecznej, które mogą doprowadzić do zakwestionowania wartości życia ludzkiego. Możliwe jest także wystąpienie trudnych do kontrolowania nadużyć. Zwolennicy przyspieszania śmierci formułują dwa argumenty moralne: argument z autonomii jednostki i argument z jakości życia. Argument z autonomii jednostki jest przedstawiany jako wyraz szacunku do człowieka i dokonywanych przez niego wyborów. Każdy ma prawo zdecydować kiedy własne życie przestaje być dla niego wartością, w szczególności zaś w przypadku choroby i cierpienia, a zatem wybrać tzw. godną śmierć bez cierpienia i zależności od innych. Zwolennicy tego argumentu stwierdzają, że zasada autonomii może być równie ważna lub nawet ważniejsza od zasady nienaruszalności życia, jednocześnie jest ona odpowiedzią na paternalizm medyczny. Właśnie tego argumentu użyto w państwach, które zalegalizowały eutanazję i wspomagane samobójstwo (państwach Beneluksu, Kanadzie oraz w następujących stanach w USA: Oregonie, Waszyngtonie, Montanie, Vermoncie, Kalifornii, Dystrykcie Kolumbii oraz Kolorado). Kolejny argument zwolenników dopuszczalności eutanazji i wspomaganego samobójstwa to argument moralny z jakości życia, zakłada on, że w pewnych okolicznościach życie i jego kontynuacja nie stanowią dobra dla osoby. Argument z jakości życia polega na oszacowaniu czy życie ma dla chorego wartość, czy też pozostaje tylko ciężarem lub ogranicza się do biologicznego trwania, jak np. w przypadku osób w przetrwałym stanie wegetatywnym. Należy zaznaczyć, że to jaka zostanie użyta argumentacja będzie miało wpływ na kształt przyszłych rozwiązań prawnych związanych z medycznie wspomaganą śmiercią.
EN
The aim of this Article is to present the arguments used in the debate on the legalization of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Opponents of the legalization of the above procedures use the sanctity of life moral argument and the slippery slope non-moral argument. The assumption of the sanctity of life’s argument is the immorality of all forms of killing, the terminal illness and related suffering are not circumstances justifying the interruption [termination] of life. The protection of life is the foundation of the functioning of society. The slippery slope is based on the following premise: if an exception is made to the principle of the inviolability of life in the form of, for example, euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill persons who are of full age and make a free request based on a pressure-free will, this will lead to the killing of the sick, the old or the handicapped without their consent or even against their will. It concerns the changes in social awareness that can lead to the questioning of the value of human life. It is also possible that abuses that are difficult to control may occur. Followers of the precipitation of death formulate two moral arguments: the argument of the autonomy of the individual and the argument of the quality of life. The argument of the autonomy of the individual is presented as an expression of respect for man and the choices he makes. Everyone has the right to decide when his or her own life ceases to be of value to him or her, especially in the case of illness and suffering, and thus to choose the so-called dignified death without suffering or dependence on others. The proponents of this argument state that the principle of autonomy can be just as important or even more important than the sanctity of life principle, and at the same time it is also a response to the medical paternalism. Just this argument has been used in the countries that have legalized the physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia, (Benelux, Canada and in the following states in the USA: Oregon, Washington, Montana, Vermont, California, the District of Columbia and Colorado). Another argument in favour of the admissibility of euthanasia andphysicianassisted suicide is the quality of life moral argument which assumes that in certain circumstances life and its continuation are not good for the person. The quality-of-life argument is based on an assessment of whether life is of value to the patient, or whether it remains only a burden or is limited to biological duration, as in the case of persons in a persistent vegetative state, for example.
EN
American theologian Avery Dulles applies models to show different aspects of God's selfcommunication. But all models of revelation he integrates by using the idea of the symbol of participation, which is the external reality by which God reveals Himself to people. According to Avery Dulles revelation is the activity of God who gives Himself to a man through revelatory symbols and communicates his divine truths in order to welcome people to eternal, redemptive union with Himself. In a question related to a rational character of revelation he explains the issues such as the possibility, necessity and nature of verification of revelation by human mind. The American theologian maintains that it is possible that revelation may occur and that it is essential to human eternal salvation. The author also claims that human mind can recognize divine revelation which is the first condition to accept revelation in faith. He maintained, moreover, that we may reach moral certainty in theology, not certainty of evidence, and that divine grace completes the rest of our religious knowledge. The next part of this article shows traditional arguments for the rational character of Christian revelation. According to Avery Dulles the argument from resurrection is the most important among other classic arguments. American scholar gives also new arguments for a rational character of Christian revelation. The argument from the testimony of Christians’ lives is typical for Avery Dulles way of thinking. Finally, when we justify God’s revelation, we can accept it reasonably.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.