Items filtered by date: April 2025

Comienza el martes 14/03/17

Martes 17.30-19.00 hs. 1er. martes de cada mes

Coordina: Cecilia Hidalgo

 NOTA CRÍTICA

IN MEMORIAM

The Sociedad Argentina de Análisis Filosófico (SADAF), namely, the publisher of Análisis Filosófico, is committed to meeting and upholding standards of good practice in academic publishing at all stages of the publication process of the journal. Below is a summary of our Code of Conduct for editors, peer-reviewers and authors and our Procedures for Dealing with Academic Misconduct, which adhere to the latest publications ethics and malpractice policies.These Good Publishing Practice Guidelines are meant to be periodically revised.

CODE OF CONDUCT

Editors’ responsibilities
*    To act in a balanced, objective and fair way while carrying out their expected duties, without discrimination on grounds of gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, ethnic or geographical origin of the authors.
*    To handle submissions for supplements or special issues in the same way as regular submissions, so that articles are considered and accepted solely on their academic merit and without undue influence.
*    To adopt and follow reasonable procedures in the event of complaints of an ethical or conflicting nature. To give authors a reasonable opportunity to respond to any complaints. All complaints should be investigated no matter when the original publication was approved. Documentation associated with any such complaints should be retained.

Reviewers’ responsibilities
*    To contribute to the decision-making process, and to assist in improving the quality of the published paper by reviewing the manuscript objectively, in a timely manner.
*    To maintain the confidentiality of any information supplied by the editor or author. To not retain or copy the manuscript.
*    To alert the editor to any published or submitted content that is substantially similar to that under review.
*    To be aware of any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative or other relationships between reviewer and author) and to alert the editor of these, if necessary withdrawing their services for that manuscript.

Authors’ responsibilities
*    To confirm that the manuscript as submitted is not under consideration or accepted for publication elsewhere. Where portions of the content overlap with published or submitted content, to acknowledge and cite those sources. Additionally, to provide the editor with a copy of any submitted manuscript that might contain overlapping or closely related content.
*    To confirm that all the work in the submitted manuscript is original and to acknowledge and cite content reproduced from other sources. To obtain permission to reproduce any content from other sources when needed.
*    To declare any potential conflicts of interest that could be considered or viewed as exerting an undue influence on his or her duties at any stage during the publication process.
*    To notify promptly the journal editor or publisher if a significant error in their publication is identified. To cooperate with the editor and publisher to publish an erratum, addendum, corrigendum notice, or to retract the paper, where this is deemed necessary.

Publisher responsibilities
* SADAF through the editorial committee shall ensure that good academic publishing practice is maintained to the standards outlined above.
 

PROCEDURES FOR DEALING WITH ACADEMIC MISCUNDUCT

Identification of unethical behavior

*    Misconduct and unethical behavior may be identified and brought to the attention of the editor and publisher at any time, by anyone.
*    Whoever informs the editor or publisher of such conduct should provide sufficient information and evidence in order for an investigation to be initiated. All allegations should be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a successful decision or conclusion is reached.

Investigation
*    An initial decision should be taken by the editor, who should consult with or seek advice from the publisher, if appropriate.
*    Evidence should be gathered, while maintaining confidentiality and avoiding spreading any allegations beyond those who need to know.

Minor breaches
* Minor misconduct might be dealt without the need to consult more widely. In any event, the author should be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations.

Serious breaches
*    Serious misconduct might require that the employers of the accused be notified. The editor, in consultation with the publisher, should make the decision whether or not to involve the employers, either by examining the available evidence themselves or by further consultation with a limited number of experts.

Outcomes (in increasing order of severity; may be applied separately or in conjunction)

*    Informing or educating the author or reviewer where there appears to be a misunderstanding or misapplication of acceptable standards.
*    A more strongly worded letter to the author or reviewer covering the misconduct and a warning to future behavior.
*    Publication of a formal notice detailing the misconduct.
*    Publication of an editorial detailing the misconduct.
*    A formal letter to the head of the author’s or reviewer’s department or funding agency.
*    Formal retraction or withdrawal of a publication from the journal, in conjunction with informing the head of the author or reviewer’s department, Abstracting & Indexing services and the readership of the publication.
*    Imposition of a formal embargo on contributions from an individual for a defined period.
*    Reporting the case and outcome to a professional organization or higher authority for further investigation and action.

David Embick (University of Pennsylvania)

Lunes 19 y miércoles 21 de diciembre de 2016

In these lectures I will examine connections between three phenomena or effects. The first involves the idea that certain competitions for form evidently do not have a unique winner, such that a single structure receives multiple pronunciations: e.g. the nouns cover, coverage, and covering (the last on the non-gerund reading). This "Apparently Non-Unique Competition" is noted in recent works on derivational morphology (e.g. Embick and Marantz 2008, Borer 2013) but has not been analyzed in detail. A second effect is the intuition that speakers have concerning the "incorrect" selection of certain derivational allomorphs, such as confusal rather than confusion (compare e.g. refusal and refusion). Though the effect remains to be made precise, speakers have the intuition that some of the "non-existing" forms are possible outputs of their grammar, whereas e.g. incorrect tense forms like bended instead of bent are not.  The third effect involves apparently "long distance" effects in allomorph selection, where it appears that a suffix is sensitive to the identity of a prefix. For example, and assuming following much prior work (e.g. Aronoff 1976) that MIT is a bound Root in English, we find nominals permit, and permission, but not e.g. permittal; whereas with trans- we find transmittal and transmission, but no noun transmit.  According to theories that incorporate linear adjacency into allomorph selection (e.g. Embick 2010), such effects are not expected.

 The core of the lectures asks whether there is a unified explanation for why these three effects are found, and considers an answer that posits what I call polymorphy. Essentially, polymorphy is free selection of allomorphs under certain circumstances, a move that requires elaboration of typically employed competition mechanisms. Allowing polymorphyin some form resonates with difficult (and unresolved) questions from the early stages of morphological theory, in particular the notion of the potential lexicon from Halle (1973). The main direction of the argument is that while the effects mentioned in the first paragraph might provide an argument in favor of polymorphy, the pressing question that must be addressed is why some morphemes allow it, while others do not.  I will look at some different ways of making the relevant distinction(s) between morphemes, in ways that will begin to make contact with theories of context for polysemy resolution (allosemy).