EMERGING ADULTHOOD:

Answer the questions *in only short sentences and write in a high school level***

1. Identify factors that lead post secondary students to live without housing.

2.Review Cooley’s theory of the Looking Glass Self, be able to identify from an example the factors that influence the formation of identify

3.According to Arnett, what 3 areas of identity exploration are needed in order to take on an adult role?

4.Arnett argues that most 18-25 year olds in industrialized nations are not adults yet. What are his 3 reasons?

5.According to Levinson, what is a “crisis”? “life structure”? “dream”? Be able to identify these from examples.

6.Levinson- identify a transitional period and a stable period from an example.

7.What dilemma does Erikson argue we face in young adulthood?Identify his argument as to why success in the previous stage is needed for success in the next stage. For example, what types of relationships are formed if you are not successful at the previous stage?

8. Identify the Romeo and Juliet law/defense.

•  After your initial post, respond to two (2) of your classmates' posts (minimum of 3 sentences) by:

https://othersociologist.com/2019/10/06/gender-race-and-ableism-in-joker/

Based on this article can you answer these questions

1. Identify the thesis of the article (pick out a line in the article that’s the thesis then explain it)

2. Identify the audience, tone, and the purpose

3. Identify the writing style and with proof (is ur narrative expository or persuasive)

4. Identify the organizational pattern

5. pick two lines in the article that is ethos

6. pick two lines in the article that is pathos

7. pick two lines from the article that is logos

8. Identify the methods of development.

9. Pick a line in the article that is all of these: Alliteration, repetition, personification, antithesis, metaphor, idiom, rhetorical question, juxtaposition, hyperbole, understatement.

Norwegian Binding 

Norwegian is an SVO language that is syntactically similar to English. Unlike English, Norwegian has two possessive determiners that can be used with male antecedents: hans and sin. (English only has one: his.) In this task you’ll first have to figure out whether hans is an anaphor or a pronoun. Then you’ll have to figure out whether sin is an anaphor or pronoun. In order to show that something is a pronoun or an anaphor, you’ll have to consider whether it follows Principle A or Principle B of the Binding Theory. Remember: your answers should discuss the Norwegian examples, NOT their English translations!

The Possessor Hans

Let’s start with Hans. Here are the two hypotheses under consideration:

Hypothesis A1: Possessive hans is an anaphor. 

Hypothesis B1: Possessive hans is a pronoun.

The data below illustrate how hans can - and cannot - be used. NOTE: I have glossed hans as POSS. HANS. In the English translations, hans is translated as ‘his’. Do NOT base your conclusions about what the sentences mean on the English translations! Base your conclusions on the co-indexation in the examples. Pay attention to which co-indexations are NOT acceptable!

(15) Dave(i) sa     at Frank k spiste hans (i)        mat.

Dave said            that Frank ate         POSS . HANS food

‘Dave said that Frank ate his food.’

(16) Dave(i) sa at hans(i)              mat var kald.

Dave said        that                     POSS . HANS food was cold

‘Dave said that his food was cold.’

(17) Daves(i) far k spiste hans(i)               mat.

Dave’s father          ate        POSS . HANS food

‘Dave’s dad ate his food.’

(18) Dave(i) kom inn. Hans(i)                  mat var kald.

Dave came in              POSS . HANS       food was cold

‘Dave came in. His food was cold.’

Now answer these questions. Again, make your answers complete, precise, and as concise as possible.

A. According to Hypothesis A1 does the antecedent of hans have to be local to its antecedent (i.e. within the same clause)? Why or why not? 

B. According to Hypothesis A1 does the antecedent of hans have to c-command hans? 

C. According to Hypothesis B1 does the antecedent of hans have to be local to its antecedent (i.e. within the same clause)? Why or why not? 

D. According to Hypothesis B1 does the antecedent of hans have to c-command hans? 

E. Can hans corefer with a non-local antecedent? Yes or no? 

- Identify which sentence(s) support(s) your conclusion. (Give the sentence number(s))

- Explain how the sentence(s) support(s) your conclusion.

F. Can hans corefer with a DP does not c-command it? Yes or no? 

- Identify which sentence(s) support(s) your conclusion. (Give the sentence number(s))

- Explain how the sentence(s) support(s) your conclusion.

G. Based on your answers above, state which hypothesis you think is correct. 

Here are the two new hypotheses under consideration:

Hypothesis A2: Possessive sin is a pronoun. 

Hypothesis B2: Possessive sin is an anaphor.

The data below illustrate how sin can - and cannot - be used. Once again sin is translated as ‘his’ in the English translations, but this should not be taken to mean that sin and his are the same. Do NOT base your conclusions about what the sentences mean on the English translations! Base your conclusions on the coindexation in the examples. Pay attention to which co-indexations are NOT acceptable!

(19) Dave(i) sa at Frank(k) spiste sin(k)        mat.

Dave said that Frank           ate POSS.SIN     food

‘Dave said that Frank ate his food.’

(20) *Dave(i) sa at Frank(k) spiste sin(i)                   mat.

Dave said that Frank              ate POSS . SIN            food

‘Dave said that Frank ate his food.’

(21) *Dave(i) sa at sin(i)              mat var kald.

Dave said that           POSS . SIN food was cold.

‘Dave said that his food was cold.’

(22) Daves(i) far(k)        spiste sin( k/∗i)           mat.

Dave’s father                  ate POSS . SIN           food

‘Dave’s dad ate his food.’

labelno4

Now answer these questions. Again, make your answers complete, precise, and as concise as possible.

A. According to Hypothesis A2 does the antecedent of sin have to be local (i.e. within the same clause)? Why or why not? 

B. According to Hypothesis A2 does the antecedent of sin have to c-command sin? Why or why not? 

C. According to Hypothesis B2 does the antecedent of sin have to be local (i.e. within the same clause)? Why or why not? 

D. According to Hypothesis B2 does the antecedent of sin have to c-command sin? Why or why not? 

E. Can sin corefer with a non-local antecedent? Yes or no? 

- Identify which sentence(s) support(s) your conclusion. (Give the sentence number(s))

- Explain how the sentence(s) support(s) your conclusion.

F. Can sin corefer with a DP does not c-command it? Yes or no? 

- Identify which sentence(s) support(s) your conclusion. (Give the sentence number(s))

- Explain how the sentence(s) support(s) your conclusion.

G. Based on your answers above, state which hypothesis you think is correct.