Intervention effects in clefts: a study in quantitative computational syntax

Clefts structures show an important asymmetry in interpretation: subject clefts can provide both corrective or new information foci, while non-subjects (objects, adjuncts) are only corrective. According to Belletti (2015), such an asymmetry arises from the fact that movement deriving subject clefts can target two focus positions, but non-subjects can target only one. In both cases a long-distance dependency is created, triggering locality effects. In this paper, we show that intervention effects causing ungrammaticality in certain configurations give rise to lower-than-expected frequencies in corresponding grammatical configurations. Based on sets of features that play a role in the syntactic computation of locality, we compare the theoretically expected and the actually observed counts of features in a corpus of thirteen syntactically annotated treebanks for three languages (English, French, Italian). We find the quantitative effects predicted by the theory of intervention locality. First, subject clefts, where no intervention is at play, are more frequent than object clefts, where intervention is at play. Secondly, object clefts are less frequent than expected in intervention configuration, while subject clefts are roughly as frequent as expected. Finally, we also find that the differential and direction of difference between expected and observed counts is directly proportional to the number of features that establish the intervention, the strength of the intervention. These results provide a three-fold contribution. First, they extend the empirical evidence in favour of the intervention theory of locality. Second, they provide theory-driven quantitative evidence, thus extending in a novel way the sources of evidence used to adjudicate theories. Finally, the paper provides a blueprint for future theory-driven quantitative investigations.

Michael Walzer’s Humanitarian Intervention Theory Applied to Multisided Conflicts: A Discussion of Intervention and Self-Determination in the Syrian Civil War

Humanitarian interventions have often been employed to promote the intervener’s political and economic interests. Given the issues around intervention’s morality, this article explores Michael Walzer’s humanitarian intervention theory in order to unravel the practical difficulties of legitimating humanitarian interventions in multisided conflicts. After exploring Walzer’s arguments as they relate to unilateral and multilateral interventions, this article explains why, according to the self-determination principle, intervening countries must share the victim’s cause. Later, the article uses the Syrian Civil War to exemplify the conundrum of crafting a legitimate humanitarian intervention in multisided conflicts where the victims are internally divided and have opposing political, economic, and/or religious views. This case study evidences how, in such contexts, humanitarian interventions simultaneously protect the population and promote the group that best represents the intervening state’s interests, thus turning internal conflicts into foreign proxy wars. Finally, the article argues that, despite Walzer’s proposal for a consistent theory of unilateral and multilateral humanitarian interventions, unilateral interventions should be replaced in multisided conflicts by multilateral interventions able to halt atrocities and provide a stable solution for internal conflicts.

Using theory of change to develop an intervention theory for designing and evaluating behavior change SDApps for healthy eating and physical exercise: the OCAPREV theory

Background Connected health devices and applications (referred to hereafter as “SDApps” - Smart devices and applications) are being portrayed as a new way for prevention, with the promise of accessibility, effectiveness and personalization. Many effectiveness evaluations (experimental designs) with strong internal validity exist. While effectiveness does appear to vary, the mechanisms used by these devices have not yet been thoroughly investigated. This article seeks to unpack this black box, and describes the process of elaboration of an intervention theory for healthy eating and physical activity SDApps. It includes a set of requirements relative to their impact on social health inequalities. Methods To build this theory, we drew on theory-driven approaches and in particular on the theory of change (ToC) method. To this end, we developed a cumulative and iterative process combining scientific data from the literature with knowledge from experts (researchers and practitioners) and from patients or users. It was a 3-step process, as follows: 1 - identifying the evidence base; 2 - developing the theory through design intervention and creating realistic expectations, including in our case specific work on social health inequalities (SHIs); 3 - modeling process and outcome. Results We produced an evidence-based theory according to the ToC model, based on scientific evidence and knowledge from experts and users. It sets out a causal pathway leveraging 11 key mechanisms - theoretical domains - with which 50 behavior change techniques can be used towards 3 ultimate goals: Capacity, Opportunity, Motivation – Behavior (COM-B). Furthermore, the theory specifically integrates requirements relative to the impact on SHIs. Conclusions This theory is an aid to SDAapp design and evaluation and it can be used to consider the question of the possible impact of SDApps on the increase in inequalities. Firstly, it enables developers to adopt a more overarching and thorough approach to supporting behavior change, and secondly it encourages comprehensive and contributive evaluations of existing SDApps. Lastly, it allows health inequalities to be fully considered.