From maximality to bias: Biased A-not-A questions in Mandarin Chinese

This study aims to derive the epistemic bias in shi-bu-shi questions, a type of A-not-A question in Mandarin Chinese. I propose: (i) the focus marker shi presupposes that its prejacent is a possible complete answer to the current Question Under Discussion (QUD); (ii) accordingly, shi-bu-shi questions are presupposed to be part of the Focus-strategy of inquiry; (iii) the Focus-strategy of inquiry indicates the questioner's intention to close the current QUD as soon as possible, and to achieve this goal, the questioner should check the answer that she considers most likely to be true. By assuming such completeness-to-likelihood reasoning, a novel link between focus in polar questions and question bias is established. The ramifications of this proposal for related phenomena (e.g., bias in embedded questions, evidential bias) are then discussed.

Deriving Dual Dimensions of Bias: Preposed Negation Questions with EVEN

Polar interrogatives with preposed negation (e.g., Didn’t Cam help?) convey positive epistemic bias. Polar interrogatives with even-type expressions, including prosodically stressed NPIs and minimizer NPIs (e.g., Did Cam lift a finger to help?), convey negative epistemic bias and often have a rhetorical flavor. This paper examines hybrid PQ constructions with both preposed negations and even-type expressions (e.g., Didn’t Cam lift a finger to help?; henceforth even-PNQs). It first presents a series of experimental studies which reveal that even-PNQs are characterized by complex, dual dimensions of bias contributed compositionally by both the preposed negation on the one hand and the even-type expression on the other. It then explores the theoretical implications of these results. The emerging data are shown to impose certain constraints on and generate additional desiderata for both the analyses of preposed negation questions and the analyses of even-type questions. Building on this discussion, a compositional analysis of even-PNQs is proposed. The analysis supports the presence of inner vs. outer negation ambiguity in PNQs, and identifies even-PNQs as inner-negation PNQs. It also adopts an informativity-based approach to the meaning contribution of even, formulated around the settledness of alternative issues.

Intersecting Terrorism Studies

The chapter begins by looking at a feminist conceptualisation of civil disorder as related to gender and the threat of the feminine to public order. Understanding that the feminine is already disordered is important, but so is post-colonialism and Queer theory’s arguments that there are other forms of disorder as well. This idea of disorder as a deviation from power structures aligns nicely with ‘epistemic biases,’ which is both introduced and applied to terrorism. The perspective that terrorism is devoid of any rationality and morality are examples of an epistemic bias. Therefore, the rest of the chapter explores rationality and morality in further depth through the New Terrorism thesis and the Westphalian myth, respectively.

Evaluation of Research(ers) and its Threat to Epistemic Pluralisms

While some form of evaluation!has always been employed in science (e.g. peer review, hiring), formal systems of evaluation of research and researchers have recently come to play a more prominent role in many countries because of the adoption of new models of governance. According to such models, the quality of the output of both researchers and their institutions is measured, and issues such as eligibility for tenure or the allocation of public funding to research institutions crucially depends on the outcomes of such measures. However, concerns have been raised over the risk that such evaluation may be threatening epistemic pluralism by penalizing the existent heterodox schools of thought and discouraging the pursuit of new ones. It has been proposed that this may happen because of epistemic bias favouring mainstream research programmes. In this paper, I claim that (1) epistemic pluralism is desirable and should be preserved; (2) formal evaluation exercises may threaten epistemic pluralism because they may be affected by some form of epistemic bias; therefore, (3) to preserve epistemic pluralism, we need some strategy to actively dampen epistemic bias.