The future and the common ground

2015 ◽  
pp. 21-26 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Common

scholarly journals From Similarities to Singularity: the common fate dimensions and toolkit  for cities of tomorrow: من التشابه إلى الانفراد: أبعاد وأدوات المصير المشترك لمدينة الغد

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hisham G. Abusaada
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Two Dimensions ◽  
Common Fate ◽  
Planning And Design ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Common

This article examines the common fate of the three concepts that interprets the sameness of cities. It begins with a concise exploration of “personality”, “identity” and “character” in terms of the dual singularity—difference and similarity—of cities. Whatever, there is still a significant overlap between the meaning of identity and character, which threatens to weaken both concepts. This research addresses two aspects. The first is the dimensions of the common ground between personality, identity, and character. The second explores these two dimensions in the conventional and the contemporary prospects concepts in the Western paradigms to create the cities of tomorrow for offering the toolkit of singularity. The main conclusion highlights the question is: What should be examined to produce cities that are not alike in the future? Ultimately, there is scope to further strengthen singularity- based planning and design approaches through a toolkit help specialists to dominate the sameness of cities.

Social Project Management?

2016 ◽  
pp. 2067-2071
Author(s):  
Gilbert Silvius
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Project Management ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Future Outlook ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Common ◽  
Social Project

This conclusion aims to reflect upon and summarize the lessons that may be learned from this book. In three concise paragraphs, it discusses the common ground amongst the different contributions, the ‘takeaways' from the book and the concept of ‘social project management' as the future outlook on social media in project management.

Sustainability of E-Collaboration

2011 ◽  
pp. 596-601
Author(s):  
António Dias de Figueiredo
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Group Development ◽  
Virtual Collaboration ◽  
Research And Practice ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
The Future ◽  
Long Time ◽  
The Common ◽  
Theoretical Foundations

In spite of its recognition as a field of research and practice with a lineage of several decades of prolific development (Kock & Nosek, 2005), virtual collaboration is still a domain where mixed results occur and failure crops up without warning (DeSanctis, Poole, Dickson, & Jackson, 1993; Blythin, Hughes, Kristoffersen, Rodden, & Rouncefield, 1997; Kock, 2004; Kock & Nosek, 2005). Even as its theoretical, technical, operational, and conceptual boundaries expand (Kock & Nosek, 2005), we still feel powerless when a promising experience of e-collaboration, which we could swear would last for a long time, suddenly collapses. In this article we discuss some fundamental conditions for sustainable e-collaboration. We start by introducing the concept of value proposal, the common ground of compatible interests required to make collaboration last, and we distill from it what we call the principle of sustainable e-collaboration. We then move to a discussion of the variable levels of collaboration and their relationship to group development, leadership and purpose. Finally, we briefly expound five groups of theories that we view as promising candidates for the future establishment of the theoretical foundations of sustainable e-collaboration. Figure 1 summarizes the key concepts of the article.

Social Project Management?

2016 ◽  
pp. 293-297 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gilbert Silvius
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Project Management ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Future Outlook ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Common ◽  
Social Project

This conclusion aims to reflect upon and summarize the lessons that may be learned from this book. In three concise paragraphs, it discusses the common ground amongst the different contributions, the ‘takeaways' from the book and the concept of ‘social project management' as the future outlook on social media in project management.

The Semantics of Evidentials

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah E. Murray
Keyword(s):  
Recent Work ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Formal Semantics ◽  
Empirical Support ◽  
Propositional Content ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Truth Conditional ◽  
The Common ◽  
Issue Content

This book gives a compositional, truth‐conditional, crosslinguistic semantics for evidentials set in a theory of the semantics for sentential mood. Central to this semantics is a proposal about a distinction between what propositional content is at‐issue, roughly primary or proffered, and what content is not‐at‐issue. Evidentials contribute not‐at‐issue content, more specifically what I will call a not‐at‐issue restriction. In addition, evidentials can affect the level of commitment a sentence makes to the main proposition, contributed by sentential mood. Building on recent work in the formal semantics of evidentials and related phenomena, the proposed semantics does not appeal to separate dimensions of illocutionary meaning. Instead, I argue that all sentences make three contributions: at‐issue content, not‐at‐issue content, and an illocutionary relation. At‐issue content is presented, made available for subsequent anaphora, but is not directly added to the common ground. Not‐at‐issue content directly updates the common ground. The illocutionary relation uses the at‐issue content to impose structure on the common ground, which, depending on the clause type (e.g., declarative, interrogative), can trigger further updates. Empirical support for this proposal comes from Cheyenne (Algonquian, primary data from the author’s fieldwork), English, and a wide variety of languages that have been discussed in the literature on evidentials.

Can Groups Assert That P?

2019 ◽  
pp. 326-344
Author(s):  
Deborah Tollefsen
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Speech Act ◽  
Single Individual ◽  
Constitutive Rule ◽  
The Past ◽  
Group Members ◽  
The Common ◽  
Declarative Statement ◽  
John Macfarlane

When a group or institution issues a declarative statement, what sort of speech act is this? Is it the assertion of a single individual (perhaps the group’s spokesperson or leader) or the assertion of all or most of the group members? Or is there a sense in which the group itself asserts that p? If assertion is a speech act, then who is the actor in the case of group assertion? These are the questions this chapter aims to address. Whether groups themselves can make assertions or whether a group of individuals can jointly assert that p depends, in part, on what sort of speech act assertion is. The literature on assertion has burgeoned over the past few years, and there is a great deal of debate regarding the nature of assertion. John MacFarlane has helpfully identified four theories of assertion. Following Sandy Goldberg, we can call these the attitudinal account, the constitutive rule account, the common-ground account, and the commitment account. I shall consider what group assertion might look like under each of these accounts and doing so will help us to examine some of the accounts of group assertion (often presented as theories of group testimony) on offer. I shall argue that, of the four accounts, the commitment account can best be extended to make sense of group assertion in all its various forms.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document