Felicity Conditions Definition and Examples

In  pragmatics  (the study of how to do things with words)  and speech-act theory, the term felicity conditions refers to the conditions that must be in place and the criteria that must be satisfied for a speech act to achieve its purpose. In other words, says Mark Liberman, an instructor at the  University of Pennsylvania, a sentence must not only be  grammatical  to be correctly performed, it must also be  felicitous, or well-suited for the purpose. English Language and Linguistics Online  (ELLO) gives the example of a marriage scene in a movie: Have you ever asked yourself  why the words I now pronounce you husband and wife do not create a legal marriage between two people when uttered in the context of a film set? Of course, the actors in the scene are not really legally married, even if they both say I do, before the thespian justice of the peace or clergyperson recites these words. The conditions are not in place and the criteria are not satisfied for this  speech act  to achieve its purpose—namely that the bride and groom enter into a marriage that is legally binding. And the person officiating has no legal authority to pronounce the two husband and wife. Thus, the speech act in the movie marriage scene is not felicitous. Types of Felicity Conditions There are several types of felicitous conditions, notes ELLO, including the following: Propositional content, which requires participants to understand language, not to  act  like actorsPreparatory, where the authority of the speaker and the circumstances of the speech act are appropriate to its being performed successfullySincerity, where the speech act is being performed seriously and sincerelyEssential, where the  speaker intends that an utterance be acted upon by the addressee For example, Patrick Colm Hogan in Philosophical Approaches to the Study of Literature describes felicity conditions with this example: Suppose I am in a play and deliver the line I promise to kill the evil Don Fernando. I have not, in fact, promised to kill anyone. ... The speech act  fails because, among other things, I must have a certain institutional authority for my words to have the appropriate  illocutionary force. ... [The] speech act [also] fails because the words are uttered in a  context  where they are not used by the speaker, but in effect quoted from a text. In this example, Hogans speech is infelicitous because he does not meet the propositional content condition: He  is actually acting. He also does not meet the preparatory condition because he certainly  does not have the authority to kill anyone. He doesnt meet the sincerity condition because he doesnt actually intend to kill anyone—as noted, he is only acting. And he doesnt meet the essential condition because hes not expecting that his words will be acted upon; in other words, he doesnt actually intend for someone else to kill Fernando. Other Examples and Observations Performatives  are  utterances  in which saying is doing, and they are only successful if certain  felicity conditions  are fulfilled, says author  Guy Cook in his book Discourse  (Language Teaching: A Scheme for Teacher Education). For a speech act to be felicitous, says Cook: The sender believes the action should be done.The receiver has the ability to do the action.The receiver has the obligation to do the action.The sender has the right to tell the receiver to do the action. If  any one  of these conditions is not fulfilled, the utterances  are not felicitous. The reason is that felicity conditions are conventions that speakers and addressees use as a code to produce and recognize actions, says psychology professor William Turnbull in Language in Action: Psychological Models of Conversation. In other words, says Turnbull, for felicity conditions to exist, the speaker must utter words that are heard by receivers. The receiver then should take some kind of action based on those words. If the speaker is unintelligible, lacks the authority or status to speak those words, or is insincere, then her utterances are infelicitous. If the listener doesnt act on those words, then the speech is infelicitous. Only if all of these conditions are met  are the utterances from the speaker considered felicitous. Sources Cook, Guy. Discourse (Language Teaching: A Scheme for Teacher Education). Paperback, 1st Edition edition, OUP Oxford, June 29, 1989. Hogan, Patrick Colm. Philosophical Approaches to the Study of Literature. Hardcover, 1st edition, University Press of Florida, September 30, 2001. Turnbull, William. Language in Action: Psychological Models of Conversation. International Series in Social Psychology, 1st Edition, Routledge, April 13, 2003.

Factors And Issues That Influence The Behaviour Of Software Engineering Groups - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 6 Words: 1947 Downloads: 2 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category IT Essay Type Review Level High school Did you like this example? Factors And Issues That Influence The Behaviour Of Software Engineering Groups Most presentations on software engineering highlight the historically high failure rates of software projects, of up to eighty percent. Failure under the guise of budget overruns, delivery of solutions not compliant with specifications, late delivery and the like. More often than not, these failure rates are used to motivate the use of software engineering practices. The premise being that if adequate engineering practises were utilised, failure would become more of an exception rather than a rule. Best practise and lifecycles have been proposed and tailored to the various paradigms that the computer and information sciences throw up in rapid succession. There is extensive debate on what works and what does not within academia and without. The consensus being that what is best depends on the problem at hand and the expertise of those working on the problem. A few software engineering group models have been popular in the history of software development. Earlier groups tende d to be hierarchical, along the lines of traditional management teams. The project manager in-charge did not necessarily contribute in a non-managerial capacity and was responsible for putting together teams, had the last word on accepting recommendations and delegation to team members. Later groups worked around one or more chief-programmers or specialists. The specialists took charge of core components themselves and were assisted by other group members in testing, producing documentation and deployment. More recently, collegial groups have become common. Here, people with varied specialisations form groups wherein they organise themselves informally by assuming roles as needs arise. The advantage of a particular model over the others becomes evident only in the context of specific projects. The hierarchical model is best suited to relatively large projects that are decomposable into sub-goals that can be addressed by near independent teams. This is usually possible for s oftware tasks that are very well defined, that need reliable and quality controlled solutions, particularly those that are mission critical. A large project may inherently require many people working on it to successfully complete it, if it were to be deployed in multiple sites, for instance. Alternatively, a large group may be assembled to expedite delivery. In either case, structured organisation and well-defined roles facilitate coordination at a high level. A central problem with adding people to expedite delivery, or otherwise, is that the effectiveness of a group does not scale linearly. One person joining another does not mean that they are collectively twice as productive. More importantly, the contribution of the seventh person in a seven-person group is a fraction of the contribution of the second person in a two-person group. This is due to additional overheads in communication and coordination as group size increases and to the dilution of tasks assigned to indi vidual member. As is evident, this is a problem for any group; however, in very large groups the problem is exacerbated. In hierarchical settings, group members do not have a sense of ownership of the bigger solution. This may be reflected in their productivity. Because of the concentration of decision-making powers to particular individuals according to some hierarchy, the success of processes ultimately lies with them. A lot rides on their ability to pick the best practises and recommendations, delegate effectively and keep track of the bigger picture. In quality-controlled or mission-critical settings, there are not many alternatives to having large hierarchical groups with redundant contributors. Primarily in non-commercial settings, a single specialist engineers a complete software solution. Invariably, the solution being a prototype is accessible only to other specialists. In addition, it is not designed for general consumption and is put together without going thro ugh most recommended processes in software engineering lifecycles. Single programmers tend to practise evolutionary programming. This involves producing a quick working solution followed by repeated reworking of the solution to make it more accessible to the programmer for future review, incremental development and peer review or development. If demand for such a software solution gains momentum, for either its general utility or its commercial viability, the core solution would most likely be adopted for further development by a larger software engineering group. It stands to reason that the core developer, who is most familiar with the solution, retains the last word on further technical development. Other members organise themselves around the chief-programmer. In general, some form of incremental development and periodic redevelopment from scratch of software solutions are common regardless of group models. The first incrementally developed solution tends to be the leas t well-engineered solution and is a patchwork of poorly designed and tightly coupled components. This is a reflection of the difficulty involved in producing quick solutions using new tools and techniques and inexperienced software engineers. Supported by a high immediate cost barrier to reworking solutions, incumbents from pervious software development cycles, spend a lot of their post deployment time in supporting and patching what they produced. In collegial groups formed in smaller organisations or departments, software engineers assume roles as needs arise. Brainstorming may be carried out by all members and design approved by consensus but development may be carried out by a few individual members, while the others gain feedback from end-users, keep track of competitor solutions and the like. In the initial phases of a software development life cycle, the problem definition, feasibility study and system analysis phases, end users of the system and independent speciali sts may form part of the group. During the design and implementation phases, a disjoint group of outsiders could merge with the team. The external members may then be invited for their feedback post implementation during the quality assurance and maintenance phases. Generally, best practise suggests that groups should be adaptive or loosely structured during the creative phases and become more structured as the design becomes clearer. Groups with loosely defined structures are the most flexible in adapting to changing user needs. However, the greatest risk to project cancellations and overruns are ill-defined and changing requirements. Adaptiveness to an extent is crucial. Given that users change requirements so compulsively, lacking adaptiveness completely would make an engineering group not viable. If group size is variable, the learning curve of new entrants must be kept in mind. A project manager hiring additional developers late in the software development cycle, after not meeting some deadline say, must factor in delayed contributions from the newcomers as a result of time taken by them to familiarise themselves with the project and time lost in coordinating their joining the group. Following this, the next most common cause of failure is due to poor planning or management. If the person taking on the role of project manager has poor management or planning skills, the likelihood of which is heightened by the fact that each group member is called upon to serve in diverse capacities, projects are destined to fall over. A number of reasonable software engineering guidelines are ignored by software engineers commonly. When programming, using descriptive names for variables is a good example. A section of program code will immediately make sense to its author for a reasonably long period, when reviewed. However, if the code were not documented sufficiently, which includes using descriptive variable names, and with the correct intended aud ience in mind, it would take a considerable amount of time for another programmer to understand what the other had implemented. In the extreme, some programmers obfuscate because they can or to ensure that only they will ever understand what they have written thereby making them indispensable. The potential for doing a half-hearted job of writing code is obvious in that poorly structured and poorly designed code is functionally indistinct from well-structured code and is less demanding a task. If software projects were evaluated only on their functionality, this would not pose a problem but upgrades and patches require someone to review the code and add to it or repair it in the future. The long term cost of maintaining software that is not well designed and documented may rise exponentially as older technologies are phased out and finding people competent to carry out repair and review shrink. In essence, this is an instance of a quality control problem. Uncontrolled qual ity problems are the third most common cause of cancellations and overruns of software projects. It is convenient to group documentation along with quality control as they should be reviewed in tandem in a software development lifecycle. The first casualties of a late running project are quality control and documentation. The long-term costs of skimping on either have been illustrated by example above but there are short-term costs as well. In both evolutionary engineering common among specialist-centred groups and component engineering commonly employed by hierarchical groups, the quality of each revision or component affects the quality of subsequent revisions or combined components. The next most common causes of failure are unrealistic or inaccurate estimates and naÃÆ'Â ¯ve adoption of emerging technologies. The blame for the former rests with both users and planners or project managers. Most engineering groups are unrealistically optimistic about the speed with which they can deliver solutions. Their estimates may be accurate for prototypes. In actual deployment, conformance to specifications, human-computer interfaces, quality control, training and change management are essential and take time. Users have a poor understanding of how descriptive their specifications are and much too often assume that implementers are contextually familiar with the environments in which they work and intend to use the system. Project managers and implementers have an affinity to emerging technologies ignoring their core competencies that are more likely to be established proven technologies. Success among software engineering groups is a function of planning and execution. The responsibility of planning falls on a project manager. A manager must draw on the best a group has to offer, appreciate software and technical concerns, facilitate communication and coordinate a groups effort. Enforcing quality standards from the beginning by adopting design and pr ogramming guidelines, for example, helps formalise expectations. A project manager with a technical background has the advantage of understanding the position of other technical members and is likely to communicate more effectively with them and has the opportunity of leading by example. Given the emphasis on planning, it is worthwhile noting that it can be overdone. Over-engineering is not ideal engineering. It is often convenient for a single developer to take the lead for coding. Other developers and end-users should concurrently test the developing solution for functionality, usability and quality. Execution in isolation is likely to result in solutions that developers are comfortable with and even proud of but that end-users find lacking. The various stakeholders of the project must be simultaneously and consistently involved throughout the development cycle of software projects. The greater the communication between specialist designers and specialist implementers, th e more successful the group would be in terms of quality and ease-of-use of solutions. The technical crowd in a software engineering group sees the problem uniquely in terms of simplifying or making more elegant their contribution. The design crowd balances out this perspective by offering an alternative view, which is more likely to be aligned with that held by end-users, uncurtailed by technical considerations. Ultimately, end-users must be given an opportunity to have their say. The solution is theirs. Changing requirements and specifications may be an acceptable excuse from the users perspective for delays in final solution delivery. Many projects are twenty percent complete after eighty percent of the initially estimated time. More people are brought in to expedite the process, budget overruns follow and sub-par solutions are delivered, albeit, late. Given the historical frequency, project managers should factor in possible requirement changes to arrive at estimates th at are more realistic before commencing projects. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Factors And Issues That Influence The Behaviour Of Software Engineering Groups" essay for you Create order

The Opinions On Marijuana Legalization - 829 Words

Richie Adamson Ms. Royce English 6 April 2015 The opinions on marijuana I’m sure you have your own opinion on the legalization of marijuana. Whether it being you are ok with it being legalized or if your totally against it. Or you could just not care. But if you do care you should probably keep reading. If you don’t like the use of marijuana I’m sure you have a good reason for it. If you don’t I hope I can give you a reason to think it’s not so harmful. The first thing were going to talk about is the things that go into marijuana to give you a better idea of it if you don’t already know. Also the different ways that people use this substance. They either roll it up in a hand rolled cigar and this is called a (â€Å"joint†). They also use (â€Å"bongs†) or (â€Å"pipe†) but the most common way is through joint form. If you didn’t know what a bong was, a bong is a filtration device used for smoking cannabis. And a pipe is a device where you shove the cannabis is a hole and you light the end of the piece and inhale. Now that you know some of the ways that it is taken you have a better understanding and know what you’re looking at if you didn’t already know. We should talk about some of the chemicals in marijuana. One of the main chemicals in this drug is (â€Å"THC†). And if you didn’t know what THC is it’s a chemical in the drug that’s supposed to give you that (â€Å"high†) feeling. But there is also other drugs that is supposed to give y9ou the same feeling that is still legalized in ever stated inShow MoreRelatedShould Marijuana Be Legalized?1449 Words   |  6 Pageslegalize marijuana in the 1960s, Americans have become progressively more accepting of requests to liberalize laws restricting possession and use of marijuana, but the shift has not been a straight line. After 11 states decriminalized marijuana possession in the 1970s, recoil led by suburban parents led too much harsher implementation of drug laws. But since California legalized medical marijuana in 1996, outlooks toward the drug have relaxed significantly.(A Brief History of Public Opinion on MarijuanaRead MoreThe War On Drugs And Its Effects On The United States1413 Words   |  6 Pageswith it a public health issue concerning the use and abuse of illegal drugs. Responding to the crisis, the US department of Justice established the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous drugs, which was designed to control illegal drugs, specifically marijuana. Building on the prohibition, in 1971 President Richard Nixon officially declared a â€Å"war on drugs†, which resulted in an increased federal role in the warfare by providing the federal government with power to institute new mandatory sentencing lawsRead MoreShould Marijuana Legalization Be Legal?1532 Words   |  7 PagesMarijuana Legalization Marijuana legalization is an issue that the United States is currently facing. Through all branches and aspects of government, the concept of marijuana legalization can be applied and understood. In order to better frame the policy issue, the policy should be viewed through different lenses and all aspects of government. In this essay, it will be shown how marijuana legalization truly incorporates all areas of government interest. First, the politics of marijuana legalizationRead MoreLegalization of Marijuana: A Review of the Literature1843 Words   |  7 PagesCalifornia was the first state to pass a marijuana law in 1913 followed by the rest of the states in the nation until the year of 1937, when marijuana became completely illegal at the federal level. (Guither) Before then, marijuana and specifically hemp had many uses for colonists and farmers and was such a critical crop for a number of purposes, that the government even encouraged its growth. It was not until Henry J. Anslinger saw the Bureau of Narcotics as a fascinating career opportunity thatRead MoreShould Marijuana Be Legalized? Essay1685 Words   |  7 Pagesfor the legalization of medical marijuana. However, the amount of licensed medical marijuana card holders was small until 2009, when the U.S Attorney General gave the prosecution and legalization of marijuana over to the states. After this, the number of medical marijuana licenses increased greatly in Colorado. Then, in 2012, the sale of recreational marijuana was legalized in Colorado, to all those over the age of 21, and retail stores began selling marijuana in 2014 (Monte). Public opinion on MarijuanaRead MoreLevel Of Morality And Opinion On Marijuana1164 Words   |  5 PagesLevel of Morality and Opinion on Marijuana There is constant argument over what is morally appropriate and what is not. Each individual carries a different set of values and their opinions on what follows the moral code will vary. A lengthy debate continues over the legalization of marijuana, whether it is truly affective from a medical standpoint and morally right to use in a recreational situation. Although there is extensive research on the power of cannabis, it is overshadowed by its negativeRead MoreShould Marijuana Be Legalized?1232 Words   |  5 PagesIntroduction The possession, use, cultivation, transportation, and sale of marijuana are illegal under the federal law in the United States. However, the federal government announced that states are allowed to pass a law to legalize marijuana for medical and recreational use, provided that they develop a system to regulate the activities. Under the Controlled Substances Act, passed in 1970, Marijuana is classified as a substance of schedule 1, the highest listing under the legislation. The classificationRead MoreShould Marijuana Be Legalized?893 Words   |  4 Pagesbeen declared a Schedule I controlled substance since the the Marijuana Tax Act OF 1973. Nevertheless, today, some countries have legalized cannabis while other countries have not. Moreover, in the United States, some states such as Washington and Colorado have also legalized the possession and usage of marijuana for medical purposes. On the other hand, various penalties are imposed for use or possession of cannabis in most states. M arijuana should be legalize because of the medical and economical adavnagesRead MoreMedical Marijuana Laws and their Effects1556 Words   |  7 Pagesï » ¿ Medical Marijuana Laws and their Effects Keith Reese COM/156 7/23/2014 Jennifer Preus Medical Marijuana Laws and their Effects In 1936, George Herliman produced the propaganda film â€Å"Tell Your Children†, later titled â€Å"Reefer Madness†(â€Å"IMBD†, 1990-2014). This film, financed by a church group to display the exaggerated consequences of marijuana usage, was intended to inspire fear in parents and children alike. Though marijuana legalization has become a front burner topicRead MoreLegalizing Marijuana in the U.S. Essay1344 Words   |  6 PagesRunning head: LEGALIZATION OF Legalization of Marijuana: A hot topic Tonie J. Moutra GEN 499 Dr. Curt Sobolewski November 26, 2012 The legalization of marijuana for recreational usage could may be a new trend in America but the Federal government will likely oppose usage through the end of time. The Drug Enforcement Administrations (DEA) stance is that marijuana is an illegal drug and that using this drug whether for medicinal or recreational purposes is illegal

United States free essay sample

The reason why Cain is so concerned by the current exchange rate fluctuation is because, if the Canadian dollar does depreciate, then the $7. Million U. S. Obligation will become more costly for the firm. Cain would have to convert more Canadian dollars in order to meet the $7. Million U. S. Obligation if the Canadian dollar is no longer worth $1. 717 U. S. 3) Please make a detailed recommendation to Cain in regard to hedging her position. Should she hedge? Why or why not? If she should hedge, which approach should she use? If you decide to use options, specify and justify the strike price. First and foremost, neither of the strategies will provide a perfect hedge. The currencies are correct, but the date to expiration is not. This will result in some currency risk. Although these strategies will not provide a perfect hedge, it is still recommended that Cain uses one of these hedging strategies cause she will be able to buffer the currency risk. We will write a custom essay sample on United States or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Strategy 1 suggests buying a forward contract, and thus locks in the costs of the January $7. Million U. S. Purchase. I see two main problems with this strategy. First, a forward contract is an obligation to buy the U. S. Currency at a future date. In the case, the largest international trader of Canadian dollars raised the forecast for the currency at U. S. $I . 08 and stated that they believe it will not depreciate past parity until the second half of the year.Therefore, entering onto a forward contract that makes you purchase the currency at a specified date is troublesome if the value of the Canadian dollar is still appreciating when the exercise date comes. Secondly, when compared to buying a call option, the forward option exposes POSIX to 27 days Of currency risk versus a call option that exposes POSIX to 21 days of currency risk. Furthermore, the firm does not have the ability to exercise prior to the expiration date with a forward contract. Therefore, I recommend buying a call option.Call options give Cain the right, UT not the obligation to buy the $7. Million U. S. This is beneficial if the Canadian dollar continues to appreciate against the U. S. Dollar. Specifically buy the call option that can be exercised up until January 8th ATA strike price of . CANCAN. This option will have a total cost of and this is the cheapest January 8th option when compared to the other options strike and ask prices. Therefore, buying the Jan 8th call option with a strike price of 93. 500 is the best strategy for Cain to use to minimize the currency risk that POSIX faces.