Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Other (41) (remove)
Language
- English (41) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (41)
Keywords
- Abraham Geiger (1)
- Atomic force microscopy (1)
- Blackall (1)
- Brauch (1)
- Brownian dynamics simulation (1)
- Chanukka (1)
- Disticha Catonis (1)
- Eric Albert (1)
- Freude (1)
- Gluckel von Hameln (1)
Institute
- Universitätsbibliothek (6)
- Extern (3)
- Biochemie und Chemie (1)
- Präsidium (1)
- Rechtswissenschaft (1)
Globalized justice - fragmented justice. Human rights violations by "private" transnational actors
(2005)
Plenarvortrag Weltkongress der Rechtsphilosophie und Sozialphilosophie, 24.-29. Mai, Granada 2005. S.a. die deutsche Fassung: "Die anonyme Matrix: Menschenrechtsverletzungen durch "private" transnationale Akteure". Spanische Fassung: Sociedad global, justicia fragmentada: sobre la violatión de los derechos humanos por actores transnacionales 'privados'. In: Manuel Escamilla and Modesto Saavedra (eds.), Law and Justice in a global society, International Association for philosophy of law and social philosophy, Granada 2005, S. 529-546.
Sandra Posch, Camilo Aponte-Santamaría, Richard Schwarzl, Andreas Karner, Matthias Radtke, Frauke Gräter, Tobias Obser, Gesa König, Maria A. Brehm, Hermann J. Gruber, Roland R. Netz, Carsten Baldauf, Reinhard Schneppenheim, Robert Tampé, Peter Hinterdorfer
Mutual A domain interactions in the force sensing protein von Willebrand factor
Journal of Structural Biology, Volume 197, Issue 1, January 2017, Pages 57-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsb.2016.04.012
We here give information for a deeper understanding of single molecule force spectroscopy (SMFS) data through the example of the blood protein von Willebrand factor (VWF). It is also shown, how fitting of rupture forces versus loading rate profiles in the molecular dynamics (MD) loading-rate range can be used to demonstrate the qualitative agreement between SMFS and MD simulations. The recently developed model by Bullerjahn, Sturm, and Kroy (BSK) was used for this demonstration. Further, Brownian dynamics (BD) simulations, which can be utilized to estimate the lifetimes of intramolecular VWF interactions under physiological shear, are described. For interpretation and discussion of the methods and data presented here, we would like to directly point the reader to the related research paper, “Mutual A domain interactions in the force sensing protein von Willebrand Factor” (Posch et al., 2016).
In this paper I will discuss the formation of different types of yes/no questions in Serbian (examples in (1)), focusing on the syntactically and semantically puzzling example (1d), which involves the negative auxiliary inversion. Although there is a negative marker on the fronted auxiliary, the construction does not involve sentential negation. This coincides with the fact that the negative quantifying NPIs cannot be licensed. The question formation and sentential negation have similar syntactic effects cross-linguistically. This has led to various attempts to formulate a unifying syntactic account of the phenomena (ever since Klima 1964). One striking fact about the two syntactic contexts is that both license weak NPIs (Negative Polarity Items). It has been suggested (cf. Laka 1990, Culicover 1991) that the derivation of both interrogatives and negatives involves the same type of functional projection PolP (polarity phrase). One such account of the formation of negative interrogatives in Serbo- Croatian is offered by Progovac (2005). She proposes that there are two PolPs optionally cooccurring in the same clause, in which both positive and negative polarity items check their positive or negative features (following Haegeman and Zanuttini (1991) feature-checking account of negative structures, and the insights of Brown(1999) on the negation in Russian). On her account, the negative auxiliary question in (1d), is the case when both polarity phrases are present. The higher has [-pos +neg] features, and the lower one (below TP) is [-pos -neg]. Although her account correctly predicts the ungrammaticality of (2a) in contrast with (1c), it wrongly predicts the (2b) to be grammatical. I will argue that Progovac’s theory regarding the nature of the PolP is wrong. It employs both the binary feature valuation on the polarity head and the hierarchical ordering of the two polarity phrases, which eventually leads to overgeneration. On the account presented here the nature of the question marker (li vs zar) is highly relevant. Notice that (1b) and (1d) express presuppositions regarding the truth value of the propositions. In this way they contrast with (1a) and (1c). In addition, the type (1b) (with the question particle zar) can introduce both the positive and negative presupposition as shown in (3), which, semantically, makes this construction compatible with negative auxiliary questions in English (4a). The polarity items licensed in the relevant structures are also of the same type in both languages. The fronted-negative-auxiliary questions (1d) in Serbian are only possible with the particle li. In this case the presupposition is exclusively positive. The peculiar question/focus marking function of li (in Bulgarian and Russian) is well known. However, it is always assumed that its focus marking role is not relevant for the formation of yes/no questions. This I believe is not correct. The syntactic explanation of the interpretational facts points to the following: A) The possibility of the separate lexical encoding (particle zar) of the ‘rhetorical’ yes/no questions in Serbian allows the embedding of both positive and negated sentences, in which case the (weak) NPIs can remain in local relation with the negated verb. B) Recall that Serbian is an NC language, which requires local/c-command relation between the verbal negative marker and the NPI. With the negative inverted auxiliary questions this condition is not met, and the licensing of an n-word is not possible. C) The impossibility of licensing a weak NPI (i-words in the examples below) is due to the nature of the question marker li. (1) a. Da li je Vera videla ikoga / nekoga / *nikoga? DA Q aux Vera see.part.F.Sg anyone someone noone “Did Vera see anyone/someone/noone?” b. Zar je Vera videla ikoga / nekoga / *nikoga? ZAR aux Vera see.part.F.Sg anyone someone noone “Is it really the fact that Vera saw anyone/someone?” c. Je li Vera videla ikoga / nekoga /*nikoga? aux Q Vera see.part.F.Sg anyone someone noone “Did Vera see anyone/someone/noone?” d. Nije li Vera videla *ikoga / nekoga / *nikoga? neg+aux Q Vera see.part.F.Sg anyone someone noone “Didn’t Vera see someone?”/ “Vera saw someone, didn’t she?” (2) a. *Nije li Vera videla nikoga? neg+aux Q Vera see.part.F.Sg noone b. *Nije li Vera videla ikoga? neg+aux Q Vera see.part.F.Sg anyone (3) a. Zar je Vera videla nekoga / ikoga? ZAR aux Vera see.part.F.Sg someone/anyone b. Zar Vera nije videla nekoga/nikoga? ZAR Vera neg+aux see.part.F.Sg someone/anyone (4) a. Didn’t Vera (NOT) see someone/anyone? b. Vera saw someone, didn’t she?
Nine genera of phytoseiid mites with 22 species are described and illustrated on the basis of a survey of the literature, and by examination of material from orchards and their surroundings and of material from museum collections. Males, if available, are also described and figured. In addition to the species listed for the Netherlands, six species from around orchards in East Germany, Belgium and Poland were described briefly, and related species from other European countries (especially the British Isles and Germany) are noted. For each genus, a key to species (adult females) is given. For each species, a diagnosis is presented, and taxonomic problems are discussed for the following taxa: PhYloseius macropilis (Banks); Amblyseius reduclus Wainstein; A. cucumeris (Oudemans); A. masseei (Nesbitt); A. pOlentillae (Garman); A. rademacheri Dosse; A. isuki Chant. Keys are based on easily recognizable features and are aimed at "the interested non-taxonomist".