Children learn to distinguish registers for different roles: talk as child versus as adult, as girl versus boy, as parent versus child, as teacher, as doctor, marking each “voice” with intonation, vocabulary, and speech acts. They learn to mark gender and status with each role; what counts as polite, how to address different people, how to mark membership in a speech community (e.g., family, school, tennis players, chess players), and how to convey specific goals in conversation. They reply on experts for new word meanings and identify some adults as reliable sources of such information. They mark information as reliable or as second-hand, through use of evidentials. They adapt their speech to each addressee and take into account the common ground relevant to each from as young as 1;6 on. They keep track of what is given and what new, making use of articles (a versus the), and moving from definite noun phrases (new) to pronouns (given). They learn to be persuasive, and persistent, bargaining in their negotiations. They give stage directions in pretend play. And they start to use figurative language. They learn how questions work at school. And they learn how to tell stories.

Children add more information to their utterances by packing more material into a single clause. They can specify roles, modify nouns with adjectives and verbs with added locatives and adverbs. They can add demonstratives (those) and quantifiers (many) to nouns, and make clearer what they are referring to. Young children’s early constructions tend to mirror parental usage, just as their lexical choices do. They follow preferred argument structure and place given information in the Agent slot of transitive verbs, and keep the Object slot of transitives and the Subject slot of intransitives for new information. They may omit given information at this stage and only later add the relevant pronoun subjects. In both questions and negations, they take time to master the use of auxiliary verbs and rely on fixed “frames” for some time as they learn the meaning of each wh- question word. Children also take time in learning how different perspectives can be marked within the clause, with choices of causative, location, or voice alternations. Here children must learn the options verb by verb.

This chapter begins by differentiating qualitative and quantitative research. While some have argued that these approaches are incommensurable paradigms, this chapter argues that they are commensurable but suited to answering different research questions. It introduces a typology of research questions, with six types of question – three qualitative (describing phenomena, theoretical framing, and generating explanations) and three quantitative (measuring phenomena, testing theory, and exploring explanations). The chapter ends by reviewing heuristics to help researchers generate novel and productive research questions.

This chapter examines the use of ecquis in Roman comedy, especially in Plautus. Although formally belonging to the class of adjectives, pronouns or adverbs, the interrogative markers in ec-, introducing independent as well as subordinate clauses, function as particles introducing “total” questions. The ambiguity needs to be clarified by taking into account the fact that the second constituent qu- plays the role of an indefinite, not of an interrogative element, and that its value tends to fade leaving the prefix ec- as the main semantic determinant of the term. In this respect, it is useful to compare numquis, which, unlike ecquis, is still rarely used in the early period. The controversial etymology of ec- is discussed in the light of the semantic and pragmatic nuances that are revealed in different contexts in relation to the previous or following utterance. While in most cases ec- confers on the question a character of insistence and urgency, thus producing different effects of rhetorical meanings, the value of the questions introduced by ecquis seems fundamentally neutral; ecquis, therefore, does not per se orient the interrogation either in a positive or in a negative sense.

This unit introduces students to the elemental greetings in Spanish, to nationalities and professions, enabling them to be able to give basic information about themselves and ask other people for the same. They are also introduced to subject pronouns and the present tense of ser and of reflexive verbs.

This unit introduces students to the elemental greetings in Spanish, to nationalities and professions, enabling them to be able to give basic information about themselves and ask other people for the same. They are also introduced to subject pronouns and the present tense of ser and of reflexive verbs.

Chapter 2 focuses on voir dire, or the questioning of prospective jurors. The traditional view is that this stage is supposed to enable judges and lawyers to determine which prospective jurors are biased and need to be removed and which are unbiased and can serve on the jury. The transformation view is that voir dire has little value as a means of finding jurors who have subtle biases, but it has a lot of value in helping to transform citizens into impartial jurors. Other than in extreme cases of bias, there is little evidence that the kind of biases that everyone has can or should be identified during voir dire. Instead, voir dire really begins the process of helping prospective jurors to put aside their private concerns, to understand the need to manage their own biases, and to see themselves as part of a group endeavor. There is often a moment when prospective jurors stop formulating their excuses and start thinking about serving. At that moment, a transformation begins in earnest. This chapter also describes how voir dire can be reformed to bring about the transformation of citizens into jurors even more effectively than current practice does.

Chapter 20 investigates the longstanding and controversial topic of the indefinite reading of so-called wh-words in Korean. The chapter reviews arguments regarding their historical development, typological observation, grammatical properties, and processing strategies.

Chapter 13 provides an overview of the institutional framework provided by the Committee on Safeguards, and a description of its multiple functions. Some of these functions ensure that Members exert real surveillance over safeguard actions, and others provide a rather adjudicating function to the Committee, which may collide with the exclusive jurisdiction of the WTO dispute settlement system to adjudicate safeguard-related claims of infringement.

Hausa retains the widespread Chadic three-term system of masculine singular, feminine singular, and plural (gender neutral). This is reflected in nominal forms and in agreement patterns. With a few grammatical morphemes, e.g. the Linker (na/ta/na) the masculine singular and the plural share the same marker. Tense–Aspect–Mood (TAM) is generally indicated by an overt marker after the subject pronoun and before the verb. The finaln in the Completive paradigm is not a TAM marker as often said, but rather a plural formative. The marker in the Subjunctive is zero. This form historically also indicated the Aorist, which still occurs but in the negative only. The causative is and was formed syntactically using a main verb sâa ‘to cause’ (lit. ‘to put’) and not by means of a morphological extension on the verb. Indirect objects have changed significantly from Old Hausa, in word order, in the form of the marker(s), and in the specific pronouns used. Verbs in the grade system vary in their pre-indirect object usage. Reflexives are built on the noun ‘head’, the question being whether they originally might have employed ‘body’ instead, which is now found in reciprocals.

This chapter deals with inquiry, a central tenet of geographical learning as set out in the Australian Curriculum. It examines the reasons for using inquiry in the classroom, in terms of both pedagogical theory and practical classroom teaching. It then suggests a number of ways in which inquiry can be put into practice.

Why do we assess students? Is it simply to ensure they have memorised key dates, names and places that our culture views as significant? The answer to this is clearly a resounding ‘no’. Assessment is driven by the aims of the curriculum, and as with many discipline areas, the purview of history curricula both in Australia and around the world has broadened from rote learned, mono-cultural national narratives to a focus on the benefits of developing what many term ‘historical consciousness’ (Jeissman, 1979, p.40–42). So how do we ensure that students have gained both substantive and disciplinary knowledge, or the historical knowledge, historical thinking skills and historical consciousness that our national curriculum aims for? We need to make use of a wide range of assessment types that allow students to demonstrate the full breadth and depth of their learning so that we can make an informed judgement about their progress. We can do this through diagnostic assessments, which are assessments for learning that help inform teacher planning; formative assessments, which are assessments as learning that help students understand where the gaps in their knowledge and skills lie; and summative assessments, which are assessments of learning that provide information to both teachers and students about how the student has been able to demonstrate the syllabus objectives to date.

Entering the gourmet cheese shop, the customer is confronted with dozens and sometimes hundreds of different cheeses. This chapter discusses how the search, identification, and selection of a possible buyable is accomplished, through actions that characterize the beginning of the purchase and that are consequential for the possibility (or not) to engage in a closer sensorial exploration of the materiality of the cheese. The first access to the cheese products is distant, characterized by sighting, looking and starring, within actions that either display the customer knows what they want or not. Chapter 3 shows how customers not knowing what they want look around in the shop asking for advice or/and then adopt a focused look on one product and ask questions about it. These actions constitute a praxeological, interactional and sensorial context that emergently projects the relevance of a closer examination of the materiality of cheese.

As seen for touch and smell, the closer sensorial access to the materiality of the product is characterized by an orientation of all participants to the normativity of sensorial practices, which might be forbidden – for reasons of hygiene and for preserving the integrity of the product – but also permitted – when that is relevant for the progression into the selling encounter. In the case of tasting, the customer either requests to taste or is offered to taste. Tasting as a sensorial access to the object supposes its ingestion and therefore its destruction: this practical problem is solved by the seller cutting a tiny sample from a bigger piece and giving it to the customer. The chapter explores the distinctive circumstances in which tasting is requested and offered and their consequences for the next actions, explored in Chapter 8. In particular, it focuses on the sequential environments in which offers to taste are produced by the seller, which connect back to some epistemic features emerging at the very beginning of the purchase (explored in Chapters 3 and 4).

This chapter develops an approach to questions as sets of possible answers, with answers now construed as sets of assignments (possibilities). Type-driven movement of the question operator introduces quantification over assignments. Compositional derivations are provided for various types of shifting phenomena, such as in yes/no questions, wh questions, “interrogative flip,” and conditional and correlative questions. Additional topics for discussion include D-linking and weak crossover with wh words; commonalities among interrogative, conditional, and correlative clauses; and comparisons among expressions analyzed as choice-function pronouns throughout the book (wh words, relative words, indefinites, anaphoric proforms, names).

This final chapter examines some critical questions and possible objections, provides further clarifications and reviews some of the main themes developed in earlier chapters.