Labor or Capital Income Tax for Growth in an Aging Society

This study analyzes whether taxation of labor income or capital income maximizes growth rates, with labor-argument type model, in an aging society. There are certain conditions that maximize growth rates which are indicated by the share of public capital-public pensions. The results of this analysis taxing capital income is better in an economy where private capital is drastically larger than the public capital found in an aging society.

Argument types affect children's acquisition of a novel argument structure

Some research has suggested that the acquisition of an argument structure may be affected by the diversity of lexical types that appear in that structure (Conwell, et al., 2011; Yang, 2016). Using an argument structure learning paradigm modeled on Casenhiser & Goldberg (2005), this study asked how diversity in both verbs and arguments during learning affected 5- and 6-year-old children’s comprehension of the structure. The number of lexical types heard in the learning phase did not predict comprehension at test. However, children who only heard full NP arguments performed above chance when they encountered NP arguments at test, but not when they heard pronominal arguments, while children who heard pronouns during learning were above chance regardless of argument type at test. These results were consistent with an account by which pronominal arguments support argument structure learning by providing case information that can facilitate thematic role assignment.

Analisis Pesan Persuasif Kelompok Cyberprotest di Twitter

This study analysed persuasive messages by cyberprotest group on Twitter, especially in the case of Jaringan Masyarakat Peduli Pegunungan Kendeng (JMPPK) Rembang. Persuasive messages on Twitter were identified based on argument type, interaction type, and messages format. This study used elaboration likelihood model and quantitative content analysis method. The result of the study indicated that Twitter could be used as a persuasive communication space for protest groups. Central and peripheral route were facilitated by the features provided by Twitter.

Discours et contre-discours autour de l’enseignement de la littérature à l’université

Cette étude prend en considération quelques extraits de discours scientifique / académique (trois contributions parues le volume du colloque Enseigner la littérature à l’université aujourd’hui qui s’est déroulé à l’Université Aix-en-Provence, du 10 au 12 mars 2011) qui plaident en faveur de (continuer) l’enseignement de la littérature, afin de faire ressortir quels sont les arguments enchaînés et la typologie du raisonnement argumentatif utilisé pour gagner l’adhésion du public. En outre, cette analyse du discours rend possible le parallèle avec des exemples de discours ordinaire (la section de commentaires qui suit l’article « Pourquoi il faut continuer d'enseigner les classiques de la littérature ? » écrit par Catherine Marle-Guyon et publié le 23 mars 2013) où des locuteurs, dont l’appartenance socio-professionnelle n’est pas toujours présentée et, si elle l’est, elle n’est pas vérifiable, introduisent leur position en mobilisant des ressources linguistiques qui seront, elles-aussi, soumises à notre analyse. De surcroît, en prenant comme cadre théorique général le modèle dialogal de l’argumentation (Plantin 2005, 2010), cette étude vise à répondre aux questions suivantes: a) quels sont les points faibles et les points forts du contexte socio-économique qui favorisent ou, au contraire, entravent l’étude de la littérature ? b) dans quelle mesure le couple « discours / contre-discours » est-il actualisé dans le corpus sur l’enseignement de la littérature? Discourse and counter-discourse on the teaching of literature at university The fact that the teaching of literature goes through a period of questioning and reconsideration is no longer a novelty: numerous conferences, scientific publications and opinions of non-specialists disseminated through media point to an epistemological crisis in the teaching of literature in general, and to a didactic and methodological crisis in the teaching of French literature to foreign learners, in particular. In this context, this study takes into account several cases of scientific/ academic discourse, namely, three contributions published in the proceedings of the conference Enseigner la littérature à l’université aujourd’hui which took place at Aix-en-Provence University, France, 10–12 March 2011. These contributions argue in favour of (continuing) teaching literature and are discussed in this study in order to highlight the arguments and the typology of argumentative reasoning used to gain and/or to strengthen the audience’s commitment. In addition, this discourse analysis makes it possible to draw parallels with examples of ordinary speech, as seen in the comment section that follows the article Pourquoi il faut continuer d'enseigner les classiques de la littérature? written by Catherine Marle-Guyon and published 23 March 2013. In the comment, the speakers, whose socio-professional status is not always identifiable, express their attitude by mobilizing linguistic resources, which will be subjected to our analysis, too. Moreover, taking the dialogic model of argumentation (Plantin 2005, 2010) as a general theoretical framework, this study aims at answering the following questions: (a) what are the strengths and weaknesses of the socio-economic context favouring or, on the contrary, hindering the study of literature? (b) to what extent do the notions of discourse/ counter-discourse find practical anchorage in the corpus of the teaching of literature? In this study, the counter-discourse does not refer to the stance against teaching literature (because any reasonable individual, researcher, teacher or not, is aware that literature is necessary for education and human fulfilment), but to the stance against certain arguments wrongly rooted in the collective consciousness that would justify the study of literature. Key words: literature; argument; counter argument; type of reasoning.

Diamonds in the Rough: Claims, Evidence, and Reasoning in Facebook Pollshare.com Comments

This article studies the argumentative content of online comments posted in response to the Pollshare.com survey, “How satisfied are you with Trump as President?” Positioned within the body of research exploring the public sphere, this quantitative and qualitative content analysis identifies trends in word use, prominent phrases, and argumentative strategies used. A lack of civility and promotion of self-interest are evident in the three main categories of responses (i.e., satisfied, dissatisfied, and neutral). However, there is evidence of sound argument as well, particularly in the form of argument by comparison, found to be the most prominent argument type among those satisfied and dissatisfied. Directional arguments and argument of sacrifice and waste were identified as well.

The credibility of refutation in two-sided anti-drug messages

Purpose – This study aims to address the credibility effects of refutational versus non-refutational two-sided messages. Additionally, it aims to unravel the moderating role of issue ambivalence and argument type. Design/methodology/approach – A 2 × 2 × 2 between-subjects factorial experimental design (N = 853 adolescents) investigates the effect of eight anti-binge drinking and anti-marijuana messages on source and message credibility. Findings – The results show that refutation increases credibility compared to non-refutation. Additionally, a three-way interaction effect is found: credibility depends on the ambivalence of the issue and the argument type. Originality/value – First, this study clarifies the inconsistencies found in previous literature regarding (non-)refutational two-sided messages by addressing two important (and so far neglected) moderating variables. Second, we provide useful new insights for health practitioners who develop campaigns to prevent drug abuse among adolescents.