ANALISA PERBANDINGAN PENGGUNAAN KATA KETERANGAN DERAJAT BAHASA MANDARIN DAN BAHASA INDONESIA

Both modern Chinese and Bahasa have adverbs in common. In adverb, adverb of degree plays an important role in grammar as well as to express level of degree itself. Although there are a few of them, only around a dozen are being used frequently. Main usage of Chinese degree adverb is to qualify psychological verb, adjective and also noun. Main usage of Bahasa degree adverb is to adverbial. The position of Bahasa degree adverb is so flexible that can be used in before and after subject, or in the last sentence. There are similarities and also differences in the usage from both Chinese and Bahasa. Thus, in the process of learning the adverb of degree in Chinese, foreign student or in this case Indonesian students fnd it a little hard to understand. Indonesian students who learn Chinese usually make bias or error during the learning adverb of degree. These bias and error would influence the accuracy of expression used directly. The author will analyze degree adverb’s the similarities and differences using literature collection method in this research. At the same time, for Indonesian students learning degree adverb aspect put forward more suitable teaching and studying suggestions. Based on that, the author will only focus on commonly used adverb of degree such as “very, highly, extremely, to what extent, rather, too, fully, most, more, and a little”, to minimalize the bias that the students make. There are explanations in every example for using Chinese and Bahasa degree adverb. The author hopes this research can help Indonesian students to learn Chinese adverbs of degree further

Binding by objects in Polish docs and please-type double object unaccusatives: Testing theoretical accounts

Our paper focuses on binding relations in the Polish piacere-type psychological verb podobać się ‘to please’. In particular, we aim to test the make-up of the argument structure of this verb, which is taken in the literature to be of a double object unaccusative verb (Belletti and Rizzi 1988; Miechowicz-Mathiasen and Scheffler 2008; Jiménez-Fernández and Rozwadowska 2016; a.o.). To this end, we conduct an experimental study, which examines the ability of pre-verbally spelled-out NOM and DAT arguments of podobać się to bind possessive pronouns/reflexives. As a point of reference, we use the results of our previous study on binding relations in Polish double object constructions (DOCs). The study revealed that the higher object, in [Spec;VP], can bind only a possessive pronoun, and not a possessive reflexive embedded in the lower object. The results of our present study display analogous binding relations in podobać się, which provides an argument in favor of the double object unaccusative structure of this verb. Based on our results, we advance a theoretical account of binding in podobać się, which assumes the Index Theory of Binding (Hestvik 1992; Nikolaeva 2014) together with a slightly modified version of a recent analysis of podobać się put forward in Jiménez-Fernández and Rozwadowska (2016).

Reply to Lycan

My paper “On the Indispensability of Intentionality” is faulted on two counts by William Lycan:(i)I fail to show that there are any non-intentional psychological verbs(ii)my argument against eliminative materialism contains a false premiss.I intend to deal swiftly with Lycan's indictment, as I believe it to be patently insubstantial. The aim, in my paper, of pointing out that there are non-intentional psychological verbs was to show that Lycan and others have been mistaken in believing that every psychological verb is intentional.I shall respond first to (ii), to Lycan's charge that the fifth premiss of his reconstruction of my argument against eliminative materalism is false, or at least not obviously true. The premiss reads: “If language takes place, it takes place between persons.” The eliminative materialist can reasonably deny this premiss, Lycan maintains, since it “seems plausible” to predict that we will someday be able to explain, with no reference to people's mental states or activities, what language is and how it works. I believe that because this “prediction” is in fact self-contradictory, it casts no doubt whatsoever on the fifth premiss of my anti-materialist argument.