![]() Pence’s lawyer, Greg Jacob, testified that even as Eastman lobbied the vice president on Trump’s behalf, he repeatedly acknowledged during private conversations that his scheme for Pence to declare Trump the winner would violate the Electoral Count Act of 1887. The lawyers, aides, and assorted hangers-on who surrounded Trump in the crucial, ultimately tragic weeks between November 3 and January 6 all understood that what the defeated president was attempting was not merely contesting an election, but plotting to overturn its result. What the committee established conclusively in its third public hearing, so neatly encapsulated by Eastman’s request for a pardon, was that Eastman knew that under the plan he’d devised, Trump was urging Pence to violate the law. Based on Eastman’s arguments, Trump ceaselessly pressured Pence, in public and in private, to effectively overturn the will of voters and declare him the winner-a campaign that put the vice president’s life in danger on January 6 as a mob chanting “Hang Mike Pence!” descended on the Capitol. ![]() The revelation amounted to a single highlighted sentence in an email sent days after the attack by one of Donald Trump’s lawyers, John Eastman, to another, Rudy Giuliani: “I’ve decided that I should be on the pardon list, if that is still in the works.”Įastman, a conservative law professor, has long been a central figure in the January 6 saga: In memos and White House meetings, he first advanced and then sold Trump on the absurd legal theory that then–Vice President Mike Pence had the power to unilaterally reject electors from contested states. The proposed explanation also suggests that natives and non-natives may process sentences in the SM task in rather different ways.T he most damning piece of evidence presented at today’s Select Committee hearing on the January 6 insurrection wasn’t a sound bite from a star witness, nor was it another never-before-seen video of the assault on the Capitol. The rest of the article thus seeks to explain this somewhat surprising finding. However, further experimental work reported here indicates that native speakers do not respond at all to the inverted-uninverted contrast. This finding directly contradicts the IFS-derived prediction. The results of one of the experiments reported here show that inverted sentences result in significantly shorter response times than uninverted sentences for non-native speakers. In the SM procedure, response times are elicited for particular types of sentences by measuring the time (in msec.) it takes for subjects to determine whether two sentences presented by computer are identical or different. ![]() The experimental means employed to test this prediction is the Sentence Matching (SM) procedure described originally in Freedman and Forster (1985). Clahsen's Initialization/Finalization Strategy (IFS) in particular predicts that uninverted, ADV-SVO sentences will exact less cost in terms of processing than inverted, ADV-VSO sentences, even though inverted sentences are grammatical in the target language and uninverted sentences are ungrammatical. ![]() The processing strategies described in Clahsen (1984) to explain the development of German word order make predictions that can be tested experimentally.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |