Cross-Cultural Differences in Informal Argumentation: Norms, Inductive Biases and Evidentiality
نویسندگان
چکیده
منابع مشابه
Cultural Transmission and Inductive Biases in Populations of Bayesian Learners
Recent research on computational models of language change and cultural evolution in general has focused on the analytical study of languages as dynamic systems, thus avoiding the difficulties of analysing the complex multi-agent interactions underlying numerical simulations of cultural transmission. The same is true for the examination of the effects of inductive biases on language distributio...
متن کاملCross-Cultural Differences and Pragmatic Transfer in English and Persian Refusals
This study aimed to examine cross-cultural differences in performing refusal of requests between Persian native speakers (PNSs) and English native speakers (ENSs) in terms of the frequency of the semantic formulas. Also examined in this study was whether Persian EFL learners would transfer their L1 refusal patterns into the L2, and if there would be a relation between their proficiency level an...
متن کاملUniversals and Cultural Differences in Meta - Norms about Peer Punishment
Violators of cooperation norms may be informally punished by their peers. How such norm enforcement is judged by others can be regarded as a meta-norm (i.e., a second-order norm). We examined whether meta-norms about peer punishment vary across cultures by having students in eight countries judge animations in which an agent who over-harvested a common resource was punished either by a single p...
متن کاملNegation and Inductive Norms
In 1982, N. Immerman proved that (positive) least fixed point logic was closed under negation. He used a construction similar to that of Moschovakis [34]: if a logic admits an “inductive norm” that partitions a relation into blocks labelled by integers, then an appropriate “stage comparison relation” might be used to construct a negation of that relation within that logic. In this paper, we gen...
متن کاملPrioritized Norms in Formal Argumentation
To resolve conflicts among norms, various nonmonotonic formalisms can be used to perform prioritized normative reasoning. Meanwhile, formal argumentation provides a way to represent nonmonotonic logics. In this paper, we propose a representation of prioritized normative reasoning by argumentation. Using hierarchical abstract normative systems, we define three kinds of prioritized normative reas...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
ژورنال
عنوان ژورنال: Journal of Cognition and Culture
سال: 2018
ISSN: 1567-7095,1568-5373
DOI: 10.1163/15685373-12340035