Study of the Relationship between the Employment Personnel Status Quo and Subjective Well-being

语言学导论一What is LanguageLanguage is a system of arbitrary vocal symbols used for human communication. To give the briefest definition, language is a means of verbal communication. Language distinguishes us from animals because it is far more sophisticated than any animal communication system.二Design Features of Language一）ArbitrarinessThe widely accepted meaning of this feature, which was first discussed by Saussure, refers to the fact that the forms of linguistic signs bear no natural relationship to their meaning. For instance, we cannot explain why a book is called /buk/.二）DualityIt means the property of having two levels of structures, such that units of the primary level are composed of elements of the secondary level and each of the two levels has its own principles of organization.三）CreativityBy creativity we mean language is resourceful because of its duality and its recursiveness. One of the reasons why language is actually a far more complicated entity is that we can use it to create new meanings.四）DisplacementDisplacement means that human languages enable their users to symbolize objects, events and concepts, which are not present (in time and space) at the moment of communication. For example, we can refer to Confucious or the North Pole, even though the first has been dead for 2,500 years and the second is situated far away.练习：1、Which of the following statements about language is NOT true?A. Animals also have languages.B. Language is a system.C. Language is arbitraryD. Language is symbolic.正确答案:Animals also have languages.2、Productivity is one of the _____ features of languages.A. DesignB. DistinctiveC. PragmaticD. Superasegmental正确答案:designFunctions of Language一）InformativeIt is the major role of language. The use of language to record the facts is a prerequisite of social development.It is also ideational function in the framework of functional grammar.二）Interpersonal FunctionIt is the most important sociological use of language, by which people establish and maintain their status in a society.Attached to the interpersonal function of language is its function of the expression of identity.三）PerformativeThis concept originates from the philosophical study of language presented by Austin and Searle, whose theory now forms the backbone of pragmatics.The performative function of language is primarily to change the social status of persons as in marriage ceremonies, the blessing of children and the naming of a ship at a launching ceremony. The kind of language employed in performative verbal acts is usually quite formal and even ritualized.四）Emotive FunctionThe emotive function of language is one of the most powerful uses of language because it is so crucial in changing the emotional status of an audience for or against someone or something. e.g. God, My, Damn it ......五）Phatic CommunionThe term originates from Malinowski's study of the function of language performed by Trobriand Islanders. It refers to the social interaction of language.We all use small, seemingly meaningless expressions such as Good morning, God bless you, Nice day to maintain a comfortable relationship between people. 六）Recreational FunctionNo one will deny the use of language for the sheer joy of using it such as baby's babbling or a chanter's chanting.七）Metalingual FunctionOur language can be used to talk about itself. For example, we can use the word "book" to talk about a book.What is Linguistics?Linguistics is a branch of science, which takes language as its object of investigation.Main Branches of Linguistics一）PhoneticsPhonetics studies speech sounds, including the production of speech, that is how speech sounds are actually made, transmitted and received, the sounds of speech, the description and the classification of speech sounds, words and connected speech, etc.二）PhonologyPhonology studies the rules governing the structure, distribution and sequencing of speech sounds and the shape of syllables. It deals with the sound systems of a language by treating phonemes as the point of departure.三）MorphologyMorphology is concerned with the internal organization of words. It studies the minimal units of meaning—morphemes and word-formation processes.四）SyntaxSyntax is about principles of forming and understanding correct English sentences.五）SemanticsSemantics examines how meaning is encoded in a language. It is not only concerned with meanings of words as lexical items, but also with levels of language below the word and above it, e.g. meaning of morphemes and sentences.六）PragmaticsPragmatics is the study of meaning in context. In other words, it is concerned with the way language is used to communicate rather than with the way language is structured.练习：1、Which branch of study cannot be included in the scope of Lingustics？A. AnthropologyB. PhoneticsC. PragmaticsD. Syntax正确答案:Anthropology2、______ is the study of the relationship between symbols and their interpreter.A. PragmaticsB. SemanticsC. SociolinguisticsD. Syntax正确答案:Pragmatics3、____ is concerned with the study of the actual use of language in communication.A. PragmaticsB. SemanticsC. SociolinguisticsD. Synchronic linguistics正确答案:Pragmatics4、Once the notion of _____ was taken into consideration, semantics spilled into pragmatics.A. ContentB. ContextC. FormD. Meaning正确答案:context5、_____ is the major concern of semantics.A. MeaningB. Phrase structure rulesC. Sentence structuresD. Words正确答案:MeaningMacrolinguistics一）PsycholinguisticsPsycholinguistics investigates the interrelation of language and mind, in processing and producing utterances and in language acquisition. The psychological constraints on the form of grammar are studied. It also studies language development in the child, biological foundations of language and the relationship between language and cognition.二）SociolinguisticsSociolinguistics is the study of the characteristics of language varieties, the characteristics of their function and the characteristics of their speakers as these three constantly interact and change within a speech community.三）Anthropological LinguisticsAnthropological linguistics deals with the emergence of language and also with the divergence of languages over thousands of years.四）Computational LinguisticsComputational linguistics is an interdisciplinary field which centers around the use of computers to process or produce human language.Important Distinctions in Linguistics一）Prescriptive & Descriptive（规定性研究与描述性研究）Do/Don't say X.People do/don't say X.The first are prescriptive commands and the second are descriptive statements. The distinction lies in prescribing how things ought to be and describing how things are. （规定性的语言学研究着重观察、总结语言中的“标准”，其目的通常是为了规定人们应该如何说话、写作，因而称为规定性研究；现代语言学诞生之前的大部分语法研究都属于此类。

P rocedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 ( 2015 ) 616 – 621Available online at 1877-0428 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license(/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of WCES 2014doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.644ScienceDirect WCES 2014Democracy and Economic Growth: Evidence in MENA countriesHoussem Rachdi a*, Hichem Saidi baFaculty of Law, Economics and Management of Jendouba, University of Jendouba, Tunisia EAF: Faculty of Economic Sciences andManagement of Tunis, University of Tunis El Manar, Tunisia b High Business School of Tunis, University of Manouba, Tunisia LAREQUAD: Faculty of Economic Sciences and Management of Tunis,University of Tunis El Manar, Tunisia AbstractThe debate on the effect of democracy on economic growth has been comprehensively growing since 1980s in theoretical and empirical literature. The existing literature provides conflicting views of this relationship. For this reason, the aim of this paper is therefore to empirically investigate this relationship in 17 MENA countries over the period 1983-2012. We explore this relationship by using fixed (FE)/random (RE) effects and generalized method of moments (GMM) system approaches. We show that a priori the sign of the effect is ambiguous. The major empirical is that democracy, measured by Institutionalized Democracy Score, Institutionalized Autocracy Score, Competitiveness of Executive Recruitment, Openness of Executive Recruitment and Executive Constraints have a robust and negative impact on growth in MENA countries .© 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of WCES 2014.Keywords: Democracy; Economic Growth; MENA Countries; FE/RE effects; GMM in system.1. IntroductionThe study of the relationship between democracy versus authoritarian regimes and economic growth has known a peak during these last decades. Democracy was seen as the process of demilitarization in emerging countries in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and the concept today is popularly identified with such features like freedom, equality, progress and modernity. Referring to El-Rufa'i (2003), democracy is defined as a political system in which attempts are made to frame rules that maximize the well-being of people. Rivera-Batiz and Rivera-Batiz (2002) defined democracy as follows: “…whether a country has checks and balances on executive powers, constitutional processes*Houssem Rachdi. Tel:+4-333-567-86.E-mail address: rachdih@uvic.ca © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of WCES 2014617H oussem Rachdi and Hichem Saidi / P rocedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 ( 2015 )616 – 621and guarantees, freedom of the press and the absence of censorship, clear and effective judicial and legal structures, incumbent term limits, and transparency, openness and citizen input in policymaking”. In this paper, we investigate analytically and empirically whether economic growth is ameliorated or no by democracy. Last decencies, there’s a surge of corpus of studies in the relationship between democracy and growth conducted, but conclusions remain mixed (Przeworski and Limongi, 1993; Przeworski et al., 2000; Krieckhaus, 2004; Brown and Mobarak, 2009; Chowdhury, 2012; Aisen and Veiga, 2013). This article challenges this consensus. Since the 17th century, democracy can stimulate economic growth. Economic growth requires what Sklar (1987) calls “developmental democracy” in which legal and electoral limits on arbitrary power give individuals the security to plan for their economic futures. This finding is consistent with the notion that democracy promotes economic growth. Kurzman et al. (2002) point out that democracy affects economic growth through many channels like investment (crucial ingredient for economic growth), State Expenditure and Social Unrest. Rock (2009) and Knutsen (2013) find a robust and positive effect of democracy on economic growth. In contrast, others points of views, like You (2011), concludes that democracy has a negative impact on growth. He shows that democracy increases the level of corruption and consequently affects negatively the rate of economic growth. Aisen and Veiga (2013) confirm this negative effect of democracy on growth. Other studies have found no relationship between democracy and growth. Narayan et al. (2011) find that the increase in democracy has a negative effect on real income. We conclude that there is no consensus on this issue. This study contributes to the exiting literature by determining the relationship between democracy and growth by two aspects: Firstly, few scientific papers treat this relationship only in the theorical framework. Secondly, no scientific papers treat this relationship in the MENA region. Finally, previous studies had found that the nexus democracy-growth is mixed. The rest of the paper proceeds as follows: Section 2 presents a brief survey of related literature. Section 3 outlines empirical models introduced data, retained variables, econometric approaches and provides results. Concluding remarks are in Section 4.2. Review of related literatureThe last two decades, many countries introduced many reforms to enhance democracy. Przeworski and Limongi (1993) point out that: “we do not know whether democracy fosters or hinders growth”. Brunetti (1997) examined 17 studies about the relationship between democracy and economic growth and found 9 studies report no relationship, one study a positive, one study a negative, 3 studies a fragile negative relationship and three studies a fragile positive relationship between democracy and economic growth. There is no consensus on this relationship. Democracy is good for investment and has a positive indirect effect on economic growth. Investment will grow in a climate of liberty, free-flowing information, and property rights secure from the arbitrary power of the state. Tavares and Wacziang (2001), using simultaneous equation framework in a panel of 65 industrial and developing countries over the period 1970-1989, find that democracy fosters growth by improving the accumulation of human capital and, by lowering income inequality. For Papaioannou and Siourounis (2008), democratic transitions are subsequently associated with a higher growth rate of real per capita income. Benhabib et al. (2003) Knutsen (2013) confirm this conclusion. Profeta et al. (2013) conclude that the relation between democracy and growth is somewhat reinforced, at least in the countries under consideration like Latin America and South-East Asia and European Union. Hellmanzik (2013) introduces a new channel to test the impact of democracy on growth: creative production -by using a historic, high-frequency dataset on the value of modern art products. He concludes that democracy has a significant positive impact both on the density of superstar painters and the collective artistic human capital in a country. Jong-A-Pin (2009), using a factor analysis to examine the effect of 25 political instability indicators and their effect on economic growth, points out that higher degrees of instability of the political regime lead to lower economic growth. This conclusion is in total concordance of findings of Alesina and Perotti (1996) that find socio-political instability generates an uncertain politico-economic environment, raising risks and reducing investment. Bjørnskov (2010) has struggled the importance of democratic process in attracting foreign aid that creates economic growth. Knutsen (2011) finds a very robust evidence for a positive, and quite substantial, effect of Proportional Representation electoral rules on economic growth because presidentialism systems promotes broad-interest-, rather than special interest, policies and produces credible economic policies. More recently, on a sample of 169 countries over the period 1960- 2004, Aisen and Veiga (2013) find that higher degrees of political instability are associated with lower growth rates of economic growth because instability negatively affects physical and human capital accumulation. Also, they conclude that only economic freedom and ethnic homogeneity are beneficial to economic growth. Another idea of the positive effect of democracy on growth is that democratic regimes spend less on the618 H oussem Rachdi and Hichem Saidi / P rocedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 ( 2015 ) 616 – 621military, and thus promote economic growth. However, autocracies regimes spend more on the military, raise taxes to pay for these expenditures, and thereby reduce economic growth. Derived from the liberal tradition and the recent Marxist literature on class compromise , democracy can stimulates economic growth by providing formal channels for the expression of grievances (Kurzman et al., 2002). In contrast, Tavares and Wacziang (2001), in a panel of 65 industrial and developing countries over the period 1970-1989, conclude that democracy hinders growth by reducing the rate of physical capital accumulation and by raising the ratio of government consumption to GDP. Kurzman et al. (2002) affirm that democracy is an obstacle for promoting investment- the single strongest predictor of economic growth – because Democracies regimes dare not impose unpopular measures to increase investment but only an authoritarian regime will be able to do so. Doucouliagos and Ulubasoglu (2008) conclude that democr acy’s net effect on the economy does not seem to be detrimental. Democracy does not have a direct impact on economic growth but positive indirect effects through higher human capital, lower inflation, lower political instability, and higher levels of economic freedom. Tanga and Yung (2008), using ARDL model in eight Asian economies, show that democratization significantly affects growth, but the effect is not consistent and not robust. They, also, find a statistically significant long-run relationship running from democratization to growth, which can be either positive or negative. Yang (2008), based on empirical analysis for a sample of 138 countries over the 1968–2002 period, concludes that in countries with high degrees of ethnic heterogeneity, democracy appears to significantly reduce growth volatility and in countries with low degrees of ethnic diversity such a relationship is not significant. Collier and Hoeffler (2009) found, that in developing countries, the combination of resource rents and democracy (measured by Polity IV) has been significantly growth-reducing. Narayan et al. (2011) and Aisen and Veiga (2013) confirm this negative effect of democracy on growth. Among others, Knutsen (2011), conducted an interesting study on a sample of 100 countries over the period 1820-2002, concludes that there is no robust effect of presidentialism or parliamentarism on growth and plural-majoritarian systems produce lower economic growth than both presidentialism and semi- presidentialism systems.3. Empirical studyThe economic growth –democracy correlation is the cornerstone of the ‘‘modernization theory’’.The empirical association is more robust than the theoretical literature. Several studies support this hypothesis. The model to be tested is the following:(1)Where: GROWTH is the GDP per capita growth. INF denotes annual change in consumer price index (CPI). Trade is Import plus export divided to GDP. POP is the Growth rate of total population. GOVTSIZE is the Ratio of Government final consumption to GDP. For democracy, we use 5 measures *: Institutionalized Democracy Score (democ), Institutionalized Autocracy Score (autoc), Competitiveness of Executive Recruitment (xrcomp), Openness of Executive Recruitment (xropen) and Executive Constraints (xconst). Data cover the 1983-2012 periods, taken from the World Bank (World Development Indicators) for macroeconomic variables and from Integrated Network for Societal Conflict Research for democracy variables. The empirical study is based on a sample of 17 countries in the MENA countries: Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt Arab Rep, Irak, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey and United Arab Emirates. Table 1 presents the estimation results of the Fixed/Random effects regressions that include democracy variables after controlling for other growth determinants.Table 1: Democracy and Growth: Random effect (RE)/ Fixed effect (FE) approaches Fixed effect (FE)* For more details see Marshall et al. (2013)democ autoc xrcomp xropenxconst GOVTSIZE -0.199 -0.202 -0.201 -0.201-0.200 (1.68)* (1.67)* (1.63) (1.63)(1.63)* INF -0.422 -0.427 -0.425 -0.425-0.425 (2.25)** (2.26)** (2.25)** (2.25)**(2.25)**it it GROWTH H E E E E E DEMOCRACY +POP + GOVTSIZE +TRADE + INF it 5it 4it 3it 2it 1619 H oussem Rachdi and Hichem Saidi / P rocedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 ( 2015 ) 616 – 621Random effect (RE)GOVTSIZE-0.011 -0.008 -0.010 -0.010 -0.011(1.68)** (2.11) (2.15)** (2.15)** (2.16)** INF-0.105 -0.150 -0.125 -0.121 -0.120(2.36)** (1.67)* (2.43)** (2.41)** (2.41)** POP0.248 0.250 0.253 0.267 0.255(1.80)* (1.78)* (1.81)* (1.85)* (1.82*) TRADE0.409 0.401 0.408 0.404 0.411(2.26)** (2.15)** (2.24)** (2.23)** (2.27)** Democracy-0.027 -0.032 -0.031 -0.031 -0.030(1.79)** (1.69)** (2.44)** (2.46) (2.45)** Constant1.100 1.285 1.107 1.119 1.152(0.64) (0.74) (0.64) (0.65) (0.68) N351 351 351 351 351 Hausman χ212.51 10.48 11.64 11.68 11.98 P-value 0.0284 0.0428 0.400 0.0394 0.0351Table 2: Democracy and Growth: GMM in system approachL. growth -0.200 -0.194 -0.195 -0.197 -0.198 (2.08)** (2.06)** (2.06)** (2.06)** (2.08)** GOVTSIZE -0.235 -0.208 -0.237 -0.227 -0.237 (2.28)** (2.27)** (2.29)** (1.28) (1.79)* INF 0.273 0.271 0.267 0.266 0.271 (2.29)** (2.29)** (2.29)** (2.29)** (2.29)** POP 15.551 15.503 15.541 15.561 15.594 (1.88)* (1.93)* (1.90)* (1.91)* (1.89)* TRADE -2.409 -2.482 -2.451 -2.478 -2.434 (2.39)** (2.41)** (1.68)* (2.40)** (0.39) Democracy -0.088 -0.083 -0.090 -0.086 -0.088 (3.98)*** (1.98)** (2.00)** (2.09)** (0.98) N AR (2) P-value Hansen P-value Wald χ2 339 1.40 0.160 12.06 0.969 18.93*** 339 1.42 0.156 12.08 0.969 18.84*** 339 1.41 0.160 12.06 0.970 18.86*** 339 1.41 0.160 12.06 0.969 18.76*** 339 1.41 0.160 12.06 0.969 18.89***Note: Estimation method is the GMM in system with robust standard errors. AB test AR (2) refers to the Arellano –Bond test that average autocovariance in residuals of order 2 is 0 (H0: no autocorrelation). Hansen: test for validity of over-identifying restrictions, distributed as indicated under null. This test of over-identi fying restrictions is asymptotically distributed as χ² under the null of instrument validity. The numbers in parentheses are absolute value of t-statistics. *, **, and *** indicate statistical significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% level.The empirical investigation includes five regressions with five different proxies for democracy in order to trace any impact of democracy on growth. For all models, the Hausman test also confirms the appropriateness of the fixed-based effects estimation procedure used in this study (P-value of Hausman statistics are lower than 5%). The coefficient on democracy is negative and statistically significant for all measures of democracy except for Openness of Executive Recruitment (xropen). Our findings point to clear evidence that democracy have a negative impact on economic growth in MENA countries. Our result is consistent with previous literature (Tavares and Wacziang 2001; Kurzman et al. 2002; Doucouliagos and Ulubasoglu 2008; Tanga and Yung 2008; Yang 2008; Collier and Hoeffler 2009; Narayan et al. 2011; Aisen and Veiga 2013). The negative impact of decomcracy on growth can be explained POP-0.853 -0.975 -0.886 -0.888 -0.866(2.34)** (0.39) (2.35)** (2.35)** (2.34)** TRADE0.519 0.539 0.530 0.527 0.532(2.48)** (2.51)** (2.60)*** (1.69)* (2.59)* Democracy-0.009 -0.017 -0.013 -0.013 -0.012(2.29)** (2.54)** (2.39)** (0.39) (1.82)* Constant7.504 7.917 7.593 7.622 7.556(1.02) (1.07) (1.04) (1.04) (1.03) R 20.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 N351 351 351 351 351620H oussem Rachdi and Hichem Saidi / P rocedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 ( 2015 )616 – 621by the very low level of democracy. Lebanon, Morocco and Turkey have the highest level of democracy in MENA region. Tunisia and Egypt are partly democratic. The remaining countries are categorized as authoritarian regimes. Freedom House categorises MENA countries as “Not Free” except for Lebanon, Kuwait, Morocco, Turkey and Israel. In some Presidential republics, like Tunisia and Algeria, there is elections but there are many critics. For Absolute Monarchy, like Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordon and United Arab Emirates, the level of democracy is lower but the growth rate is higher. In Islamic governments, like Turkey that has the highest rate of growth last decency, the political party Justice and Development is a moderate democratic party. Also, the political instability, after events of the Arab Spring such as Tunisia, Libya and Egypt, in many countries in MENA region negatively impacts investment and consequently the growth rate. For example, Libya’s economy contracted by more than 60% in 2011, but it’s expected to recoup some of those losses in 2012 with an astonishing annual growth rate of nearly 70%. In the short-run, the growth rate for new democracies (Tunisia; Egypt) is lower than the period before democratic election in 2011 because there were no viable institutions that governed business people before the Revolution of 2011. There is now a dynamic move of democracy in Tunisia and Egypt. Those new democracies are working on policy reform and reforming institutions to support the democratic transition. For robustness test and to extract consistent estimates, we use the GMM in system approach. This methodology takes into account the endogeneity, the GMM in system uses as instruments lagged values of the variable. Table 2 presents the estimation results of the GMM in system regressions. For the 5 models, the Hansen and serial-correlation tests do not reject the null hypothesis of correct specification (P-values of Hansen test and AR (2) test of Arellano and Bond are larger than 5%), lending support to our estimation results. The low p-values for the Wald tests suggest that all models are well specified and fit the data. The reported coefficients estimates are similar to the results issued from fixed effect approach.4. ConclusionThis paper attempts to answer the question of whether democracy can stimulate economic growth. Using a panel of 17 MENA countries for the period 1983-2012, this paper highlights the impact of democracy on economic growth. Our main results can be summed up as follows. First, within RE/FE, we find that the effect of democracy on economic growth is negative and statistically significant for four measures of democracy. Second, within GMM in system, we find the same conclusion. All MENA countries must strengthen institutions. Many countries are working to upgrade democratic accountability and reduce corruption and external conflicts because a well-functioning political system can positively contribute to higher rate of economic growth. Economic growth requires a long-term protection of civil and political freedoms. To enhance academic understanding of this subject, this research can be extended by introducing other determinants of democracy and other econometric frameworks (Panel data Cointegration, PSTR) because a sound well-functioning democracy regime can positively leads to provide sustained economic growth after the series of revolution in some countries.AcknowledgementsThe authors are grateful to Dr. Steven M. Ross and Dr. Fezile Ozdamli and participants of 6th World Conference on Educational Sciences for their discussions and comments on an earlier version of this paper.ReferencesAisen, A. and Veiga, F.J., (2013). How does political instability affect economic growth? European Journal of Political Economy29, pp 151–167Alesina, A. and Perotti, R., (1996). Income distribution, political instability, and investment. European Economic Review 40, pp 1203–1228.Benhabib, J., Corvalan, A., and Spiegel, M.M., (2013). Income and democracy: Evidence from nonlinear estimations, Economics Letters118, pp 489–492Bjørnskov, C., (2010). Do elites benefit from democracy and foreign aid in developing countries? Journal of Development Economics92, pp 115–124Brown D.S. and Mobarak, A.M., (2009). The transforming power of democracy: regime type and the distribution of electricity. APSR 103, pp 193–213.Brunetti, A., (1997). Political variables in cross country growth analysis, Journal of Economic Surveys11, pp 163–190.Chowdhury, M.H., (2012). The relationship between economic growth and transformation of Democracy of Bangladesh (A historical and621H oussem Rachdi and Hichem Saidi / P rocedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 ( 2015 )616 – 621strategic analysis), SSRN working papers series, pp 1-27Collier, P. and Hoeffler, A., (2009). Testing the neocon agenda: Democracy in resource-rich societies, European Economic Review53, pp 293–308Doucouliagos, H. and Ulubasoglu, M.A., (2008). Democracy and Economic Growth: A Meta-Analysis, American Journal of Political Science 52, No. 1, pp. 61–83El-Rufa'i, N.A., (2003). Is liberal democracy encouraging corruption and corrupt practices? The privatization process in Nigeria. The Nigerian Social Scientist, 5(2)Hellmanzik, C., (2013). Democracy and economic outcomes: Evidence from the superstars of modern art, European Journal of Political Economy30, pp 58–69Jong-A-Pin, R., (2009). On the measurement of political instability and its impact on economic growth. European Journal of Political Economy 25, pp 15–29Knutsen, C.H., (2011). Which democracies prosper? Electoral rules, form of government and economic growth, Electoral Studies 30, pp 83–90 Krieckhaus, J., (2004). The regime debate revisited: a sensitivity analysis of democracy’s economic effects, British Journal of Political Sciences 34(4), pp 635–55.Kurzman, C., Werum, R. and Burkhart, R.E., (2002). Democracy’s Effect on Economic Growth: A Pooled Time-Series Analysis, 1951-1980, Studies in Comparative International Development 37, No. 1, pp 3-33.Marshall, M.G., Gurr, T.R. and Jaggers, K., (2013). Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800-2012. Dataset Users’ Manual. Center for Systemic Peace, pp 1-68Narayan, P.K., Narayan S. and Smyth, R., (2011). Does democracy facilitate economic growth or does economic growth facilitate democracy?An empirical study of Sub-Saharan Africa, Economic Modelling 28, pp 900–910Papaioannou, E. and Siourounis, G., (2008). Democratization and growth, The Economic Journal 118, pp 1520–1551Profeta, P., Puglisi, R. and Scabrosetti, S., (2013). Does democracy affect taxation and government spending? Evidence from developing countries, Journal of Comparative Economics41, pp 684–718Przeworski, A. and Limongi, F., (1993), Political regime and economic growth, Journal of Economic Perspectives 7(1), pp 51–69.Przeworski, A., Alvarez, M, Cheibub, J.A. and Limongi, F., (2000). Democracy and development: political Institutions and well-being in the world, 1950-1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressRivera-Batiz, F.L. and Rivera-Batiz, L.A., (2002). Democracy, participation and economic development, Review of Development Economics 6, pp 135–150.Rock, M.T., (2009). Has Democracy Slowed Growth in Asia? World Development 37, No. 5, pp. 941–952Tanga, S.H.K. and Yung, L.C., (2008). Does rapid economic growth enhance democratization? Time-series evidence from high performing Asian economies, Journal of Asian Economics 19, pp 244–253Tavares, J. and Wacziang, R., (2001). How democracy affects growth, European Economic Review 45, Issue 8, pp 1341–1378Yang, B., (2008). Does democracy lower growth volatility? A dynamic panel analysis, Journal of Macroeconomics 30, pp 562–574You, J-S., (2011). Democracy, Inequality and Corruption: Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines Compared, SSRN working papers series, pp 1-28。

Chapter EightPragmatics⏹Definition⏹Pragmatics is generally the study of natural language understanding, andspecifically the study of how context influences the interpretation of meanings. In another word it is the study of the relationship between symbols and their interpreters.⏹In 1937,the American philosopher Charles William Morris introduced theword “Pragmatics” into literature.⏹莫里斯（C.Morris）和卡耐基（R.carnap）在1938年《符号基础理论》中提出符号三分说：⏹句法学（符号关系学）Syntactics 是研究符号与符号之间的关系；语义学semantics是研究符号与符号所指对象的关系；语用学pragmatics则是研究符号与符号解释者的关系。

⏹Teaching Focus⏹ 1. Some basic notions⏹ 2. Speech act theory⏹ 3. The theory of conversational implicature⏹ 4. Post-Gricean Developments⏹ 1. Some basic notions⏹ 1.1 The definition of pragmatics⏹ 1.2 Pragmatics and semantics⏹ 1.3 Context⏹ 1.4 Sentence and utterance⏹ 1.1 The definition of pragmatics⏹Various definitions:⏹The study of how speakers of a language use sentences to effectsuccessful communication.⏹The study of language in use.⏹The study of meaning in context.⏹The study o f speakers’ meaning,utterance meaning,& contextual meaning.⏹ 1.2 Pragmatics and semantics⏹Both semantics and pragmatics study the meaning of language.⏹没有第一层次的研究，很难进行第二层次的研究⏹语用意义不能脱离语言本身因有的内在意义⏹语义学是对语言能力(competence)的研究⏹语用学是对语言行为(performance)的研究⏹语言行为是语言能力的具体体现actual realizationWhat essentially distinguishes them is whether in the study of meaning the context of use is considered.⏹If it is not considered, the study is confined to the area of traditionalsemantics (decontextualized);⏹If it is considered, the study is being carried out in the area ofpragmatics. (contextualized)⏹Semantics & Pragmatics⏹Peter bought a car.⏹It was Peter who bought a car.⏹It was a car that Peter bought.⏹What peter bought was a car.⏹句法学：说明这些句子是同一深层经过不同转换的结果⏹语义学：这些句子都是同义的。

Cognition:It is the mental process or faculty of knowing including aspects such as awareness,perception reasoning,and judgement.Psycholinguistics studies the psychological states and mental activity associated with the use of language.Cognitive Linguistics:The scientific study of the relationship between the way we communicate and the way we think.Culture:the total way of life of a people including patterns ofbeliefs,customs,objects,institutions,techniques,and language that characterizes the life of the human community.The Cooperative principle:Make your conversational contribution such as is required,at the stage at which it occurs,by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you engaged.Stylistics:Stylistics studies the features of situationally distinctive uses of language,and tries to establish principles capable of accounting for the particularchoice.Construal is the ability to conceive and portray the same situation in alternate ways.Through specificity,different mental scanning,directionality vantagepoint,figure-ground segregation.Construal operations are the underlying psychologic processes and resources employed in the interpretation of linguistic expressions.Categorization is the process of classifying our experiences into different categaries based on commonalities and differences.Register:the type of language which is selected as appropriate to the type of situation.。

1Journal of MarketingVol.70 (October 2006),1–18©2006,American Marketing AssociationISSN:0022-2429 (print),1547-7185 (electronic)Xueming Luo & C.B.BhattacharyaCorporate Social Responsibility,Customer Satisfaction,and MarketValueAlthough prior research has addressed the influence of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on perceived customer responses, it is not clear whether CSR affects market value of the firm.This study develops and tests a conceptual framework, which predicts that (1) customer satisfaction partially mediates the relationship between CSR and firm market value (i.e., T obin’s q and stock return), (2) corporate abilities (innovativeness capability and product quality) moderate the financial returns to CSR, and (3) these moderated relationships are mediated by customer satisfaction.Based on a large-scale secondary data set, the results show support for this framework.Notably, the authors find that in firms with low innovativeness capability, CSR actually reduces customer satisfaction levels and, through the lowered satisfaction, harms market value.The uncovered mediated and asymmetrically moderated results offer important implications for marketing theory and practice.Xueming Luo is Assistant Professor of Marketing, Department of Market-ing, University of Texas at Arlington (e-mail:luoxm@).C.B.Bhat-tacharya is Associate Professor of Marketing, Department of Marketing,School of Management, Boston University (e-mail:cb@).The authors thank Biao He, Khurram Ansari, Thitikarn Rasrivisuth, and Xiaochu Yu for their assistance with data collection and analysis.They also thank the anonymous JM reviewers, Guido Berens, Donald Lichten-stein, F ernado Jaramilo, and seminar participants at the University of Texas at Arlington for their constructive and insightful comments on previ-ous versions of this article.To read or contribute to reader and author dialogue on this article, visit /jmblog.In today’s competitive market environment, corporate social responsibility (CSR) represents a high-profile notion that has strategic importance to many companies.As many as 90% of the Fortune 500 companies now have explicit CSR initiatives (Kotler and Lee 2004; Lichtenstein,D rumwright, and Bridgette 2004). According to a recent special report in BusinessWeek (Berner 2005, p. 72), large companies disclosed substantial investments in CSR initia-tives (i.e., Target’s donation of $107.8 million in CSR repre-sents 3.6% of its pretax profits, General Motors’s donation of $51.2 million represents 2.7% of its pretax profits, Gen-eral Mills’s donation of $60.3 million represents 3.2% of its pretax profits, Merck’s donation of $921 million represents 11.3% of its pretax profits, and Hospital Corporation of America’s donation of $926 million represents 43.3% of its pretax profits). By dedicating ever-increasing amounts to cash donations, in-kind contributions, cause marketing, and employee volunteerism programs, companies are acting on the premise that CSR is not merely the “right thing to do”but also “the smart thing to do” (Smith 2003, p. 52).Importantly, along with increasing media coverage of CSR issues, companies themselves are also taking direct and visible steps to communicate their CSR initiatives tovarious stakeholders, including consumers. A decade ago,Drumwright (1996) observed that advertising with a social dimension was on the rise. The trend seems to continue.Many companies, including the likes of Target and Wal-Mart, have funded large national ad campaigns promoting their good works. The October 2005 issue of InStyle maga-zine alone carried more than 25 “cause” advertisements.Indeed, consumers seem to be taking notice; whereas in 1993, only 26% of people surveyed by Cone Communica-tions could name a company as a strong corporate citizen,by 2004, the percentage surged to as high as 80% (Berner 2005).Motivated, in part, by this mounting importance of CSR in practice, several marketing studies have found that social responsibility programs have a significant influence on sev-eral customer-related outcomes (Bhattacharya and Sen 2004). More specifically, on the basis of lab experiments,CSR is reported to affect, either directly or indirectly, con-sumer product responses (Brown 1998; Brown and D acin 1997), customer–company identification (Sen and Bhat-tacharya 2001), customer donations to nonprofit organiza-tions (Lichtenstein, Drumwright, and Bridgette 2004), and,more recently, customers’product attitude (Berens, Van Riel, and Van Bruggen 2005).Although this stream of research has contributed a great deal of insight, there is still a limited understanding of whether and how CSR affects financial outcomes of the firm, such as its market value. Yet it is important to evaluate CSR’s impact on market value (i.e., stock-based firm per-formance) because a firm’s financial health is the ultimate test for the success or failure of any strategic initiative.Moreover, prior laboratory studies and anecdotal examples are yet to be complemented with a large-scale analysis using secondary data. Indeed, Brown and D acin (1997, p.80) urgently call for research on “how societally oriented activities might bring about positive outcomes for the firm.”Echoing this, Berens, Van Riel, and Van Bruggen (2005)energetically call for research efforts that directly link CSR to stock market performance.Our research responds to this call by investigating the linkage between CSR and firm market value with a longitu-dinal, archival data set. In keeping with contingent linkages between CSR and consumer responses that prior researchers articulated (see, e.g., Bhattacharya and Sen 2004), we do not predict a simple, unconditional relation-ship between CSR and market value. This is because firms are not the same in executing, supporting, and exploiting CSR initiatives in the marketplace (Brown 1998; Sen and Bhattacharya 2001). Specifically, companies may generate different (i.e., positive, nonsignificant, and negative) market returns from CSR under different conditions. For example, Starbucks’s superior brand equity and its successful CSR initiatives with the charity agency CARE are due, at least in part, to its superior product quality, innovative skills, and ability to obtain and sustain customer satisfaction over time. In contrast, many companies find that CSR results in nega-tive financial returns because of the added costs of making extensive charitable contributions and the diverted attention from improving product quality that would have allowed them to better satisfy customer needs and wants (McGuire, Sundgren, and Schneeweis 1988; Sen and Bhattacharya 2001). Thus, the research questions in this study are as fol-lows: (1) Under what conditions do CSR initiatives result in positive financial performance? and (2) Does customer sat-isfaction matter in the relationship between CSR and firm performance?To address these questions, we develop and test a con-ceptual model that proposes that CSR initiatives enable firms to build a base of satisfied customers, which in turn contributes positively to market value. Specifically, we pre-dict that customer satisfaction partially mediates the rela-tionship between CSR and market value. Although extant marketing literature has addressed the direct impact of cus-tomer satisfaction on firm shareholder value (e.g., Ander-son, Fornell, and Mazvancheryl 2004; Fornell et al. 2006), the mediating role of customer satisfaction in the financial contribution of CSR has been ignored. In this study, we explicitly theorize this role and argue that building cus-tomer satisfaction represents part of the underlying mecha-nism through which the financial promises of CSR are capitalized.Furthermore, we explore the boundary conditions under which firms may derive positive or negative market value from CSR. Drawing on various theoretical bases, we argue that firms that have better inside-out corporate abilities (i.e., product quality and innovativeness) to begin with tend to generate more market value from outside-in strategic initia-tives (i.e., CSR programs). Conversely, firms that exhibit poorer corporate abilities may find that CSR actually harms customer satisfaction and, because of the lowered satisfac-tion, decreases stock performance.Based on multiple secondary data sets that comprise rat-ings of large companies, the results show support for the CSR →customer satisfaction →firm market value causal linkage. In addition, we find that a proper combination of external CSR initiatives and internal corporate abilities can lead to synergistic returns. However, the data also reveal a previously neglected “dark side” of CSR. That is, CSR actually reduces customer satisfaction levels in firms with low innovativeness capability and, through this negative impact, harms firm market value. The uncovered mediated and asymmetrically moderated results suggest a more nuanced understanding of the financial returns to CSR for both practitioners and marketing researchers.Conceptual Framework andHypothesesCSR and Market ValueBroadly defined, CSR is a company’s activities and status related to its perceived societal or stakeholder obligations (Brown and D acin 1997; Sen and Bhattacharya 2001; Varadarajan and Menon 1988). Although studies in strategy and finance have explored the relationship between CSR actions and firm performance, empirical evidence to date has been rather conflicting (for a review, see Orlitzky, Schmidt, and Rynes 2003; Pava and Krausz 1996). For example, the returns to CSR are found to be positive in some studies (e.g., Fombrun and Shanley 1990; Soloman and Hansen 1985) but negative in others (e.g., Aupperle, Carroll, and Hatfield 1985; McGuire, Sundgren, and Schneeweis 1988). Thus, Margolis and Walsh (2003, p. 277) conclude that the relationships between CSR and financial performance are decisively “mixed.”There are at least two explanations for these conflicting findings. First, existing studies have largely related CSR to backward-looking firm profitability (i.e., accounting-based return on investment) but not to forward-looking firm mar-ket value (i.e., stock-based Tobin’s q). Theoretically, how-ever, market value is different from (and perhaps more important than) return on investment because “accounting measures are retrospective and examine historical perfor-mance. In contrast, the market value of firms hinges on growth prospects and sustainability of profits, or the expected performance in the future” (Rust, Lemon, and Zeithaml 2004, p. 79). Second, the equivocal link between CSR and firm performance may be due, in part, to extant strategy and finance literature having largely omitted the underlying processes or contingency conditions that may explain the range of observed relationships (Sen and Bhat-tacharya 2001).We precisely examine these research issues in this study. In particular, as we show in Figure 1, our framework proposes that the relationship between CSR and firm mar-ket value is better understood by the mediating link of cus-tomer satisfaction. In recent times, scholars (e.g., Anderson, Fornell, and Mazvancheryl 2004; Fornell et al. 2006) have demonstrated the positive relationship between customer satisfaction and market value. We build on this literature and institutional theory to propose that CSR is a driver of customer satisfaction and that the CSR–firm market value linkage exists (at least partially) because of the underlying process through customer satisfaction. In addition, drawing on work in the area of corporate identity and associations (e.g., Brown and Dacin 1997), we posit that a firm’s corpo-rate abilities (i.e., product quality and innovativeness capa-2/ Journal of Marketing,October 2006Corporate Social Responsibility,Customer Satisfaction,and Market Value / 3antecedent that has been empirically shown to promote cus-Array tomer satisfaction (Fornell et al. 1996; Mithas, Krishnan, and Fornell 2005b). In our context, all else being equal, cus-tomers likely derive better perceived value and, conse-quently, higher satisfaction from a product that is made by a socially responsible company (i.e., added value through good social causes). Furthermore, engaging in CSR may allow firms to understand their generalized customers better and thus improve their customer-specific knowledge (Sen and Bhattacharya 2001). Because improving customer knowledge represents another antecedent that has been found to enhance customer satisfaction (Jayachandran et al. 2005; Mithas, Krishnan, and Fornell 2005a), we believe that CSR initiatives may help promote customer satisfaction.H1: All else being equal, firms that are viewed more favorably for their CSR initiatives enjoy greater customersatisfaction.The Mediating Role of Customer SatisfactionThe existing marketing literature shows accumulating evi-dence for the influence of customer satisfaction on firm mar-ket value. For example, firms with satisfied customers tend to enjoy greater customer loyalty (e.g., Bolton and D rew 1991; Oliver 1980), positive word of mouth (Szymanski and Henard 2001), and customer’s willingness to pay premium prices (Homburg, Koschate, and Hoyer 2005), all of which can increase a firm’s market value. Indeed, several studies find that firms with higher levels of customer satisfaction are able to achieve higher levels of cash flows (e.g., Gruca and Rego 2005; Fornell 1992; Mittal et al. 2005) and less volatility of future cash flows, thus leading to superior mar-ket value (e.g., Anderson, Fornell, and Mazvancheryl 2004; Fornell et al. 2006; Srivastava, Shervani, and Fahey 1998).In linking this evidence for the influence of customer satisfaction on firm market value with our first hypothesis on the influence of CSR on satisfaction, a mediating role of customer satisfaction in the CSR–performance linkage might logically be expected. That is, CSR affects customer satisfaction, which in turn affects market value. In other words, customer satisfaction represents the mediational pathway through which CSR actions affect firm market value.However, there may be “noncustomer routes” by which CSR affects market value. For example, both textbooks (e.g., Kotler and Lee 2004; Pava and Krausz 1996) and aca-demic articles (e.g., Godfrey 2005; Margolis and Walsh 2003) have pointed to the impact of CSR on multiple stake-holders, such as employees and investors as well as con-sumers. In particular, positive “moral capital” as a result of CSR (Godfrey 2005, p. 777) could directly affect market value by improving employee morale and productivity. In addition, CSR creates public goodwill (Houston and John-son 2000; McGuire, Sundgren, and Schneeweis 1988), which provides an “insurance-like” protection to share-holder wealth. As a consequence, putting the pieces together, we predict a partially mediating role of customer satisfaction on the impact of CSR on market value.H2: All else being equal, firms that are viewed more favorablyfor their CSR initiatives enjoy higher market value, and a4/ Journal of Marketing,October 2006identify (Bhattacharya and Sen 2003). When coupled with high corporate abilities, a firm’s CSR actions are more likely to generate favorable attributions and consumer iden-tification. This would ultimately promote performance-enhancing behaviors, such as customer loyalty (Bhat-tacharya and Sen 2004). Indeed, if a firm can accommodate customers and other stakeholders and meet different sets of norms (e.g., pragmatic and social norms) by not merely executing CSR initiatives but also developing strong corpo-rate abilities to support and exploit these CSR actions, it is in a better position to win the social contract, institutional allegiance, moral legitimacy, and consumers’support for the organization (cf. Handelman and Arnold 1999, p. 34; Scott 1987). Taken together, these beneficial effects suggest a positive market return to CSR for firms with high levels of corporate abilities. Therefore, we propose an asymmetric moderating effect of corporate abilities on the association between CSR and firm market value.H3: Corporate abilities (i.e., product quality and innovative-ness capability) moderate the relationship between CSRand market value. The relationship will be negative forfirms with low corporate abilities but will be positive forfirms with high corporate abilities.The Mediating Role of Customer Satisfaction in the Moderated RelationshipsFinally, as we have argued, part of the mechanism by which CSR actions influence a firm’s market value is customer satisfaction. Thus, it is conceivable that the positive impact of CSR on firms with high levels of corporate abilities enhances the level of customer satisfaction, which then leads to enhanced market value (Anderson, Fornell, and Mazvancheryl 2004; Brown and Dacin 1997; Sen and Bhat-tacharya 2001).On the contrary, for firms that are low in corporate abil-ity (i.e., they are neither innovative nor competent in prod-uct quality), CSR actions may not be able to generate much institutional legitimacy, customer–company identification, or customer satisfaction (Scott 1987). As a result, CSR ini-tiatives may relate little to financial results and market value (e.g., Margolis and Walsh 2003; Mithas, Krishnan, and For-nell 2005b) in firms with low levels of corporate abilities. Thus:H4: A firm’s customer satisfaction at least partially mediates the moderated relationship among CSR, corporate abili-ties (i.e., product quality and innovativeness capability),and market value.Data and Variable ConstructionIn this section, we describe the secondary data that we col-lected to test the hypotheses. We also present the construc-tion of the variables, such as CSR, corporate abilities, cus-tomer satisfaction, and market value. In Table 1, we report the variables, their definitions, and data sources. We col-lected data for the publicly traded Fortune500 companies from multiple archival sources: COMPUSTAT, Fortune America’s Most Admired Corporations (FAMA), the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), Competi-tive Media Reporting (CMR), and Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP).Measuring CSROne approach to measuring market perceptions of firms’CSR initiatives is to rely on the amount of CSR investments disclosed in firms’annual reports to shareholders. However, there are many important doubts about the validity of the announced CSR investments, despite the seeming attrac-tiveness of this approach. For example, there is a lack of consensus on what should be included (or excluded) in CSR investments (Margolis and Walsh 2003; Orlitzky, Schmidt, and Rynes 2003; Tsoutsoura 2004). Few companies have their announced CSR investments audited or validated externally by third parties. Thus, some firms may overreport CSR investments for impression management (i.e., exagger-ating their giving). Other firms may underreport CSR investments because they may regard CSR investments only as donated cash or in-kind products and services (excluding investments that benefit the environment and their employ-ees). Furthermore, although some external sources (e.g., 100 best corporate citizens by Business Ethics, , Social Responsibility Initiative reports) may track companies’CSR investments objectively, the nature and amount of CSR investments for the same firm can change dramatically from one source to another (Berner 2005; Fombrum and Shanley 1990; Margolis and Walsh 2003).Therefore, we turn to subjective measures of CSR. Although some studies use small-scale survey data with a limited set of firms (e.g., Christmann 2000), prior research suggests the use of a more comprehensive, large-scale sur-vey data set available from FAMA to measure CSR (McGuire, Sundgren, and Schneeweis 1988). More specifi-cally, in ranking the United States’most admired corpora-tions each year, FAMA polls more than 10,000 financial analysts, senior executives, and Wall Street investors from more than 580 large companies (see Fortune2005, p. 68).For each firm-year observation, FAMA collects ratings of CSR that have been made on an interval scale ranging from 0 to 10, with 10 as the highest; the ratings represent a comparison among major competing companies in a given industry. Studies in both marketing and strategy (e.g., Fom-brum and Shanley 1990; Houston and Johnson 2000; McGuire, Sundgren, and Schneeweis 1988) have reported evidence of reliability and validity of this data source. In particular, McGuire, Schneeweis, and Branch (1990, p. 170) note, “Fortune reputation is one of the most compre-hensive and widely circulated surveys of attributes avail-able. Both the quality and number of respondents are com-parable or superior to the ‘expert panels’usually gathered for such purposes.”Houston and Johnson (2000, p. 12) also acknowledge it as the “best secondary” data source.Prior research has shown that there is a reverse-causality concern between CSR and financial performance (e.g., McGuire, Sundgren, and Schneeweis 1988). That is, a firm’s CSR affects its future performance, and a firm’s his-tory of financial performance contributes to its current CSR involvement. We accommodate this concern by using the approach that Roberts and Dowling (2002) recommend. InCorporate Social Responsibility,Customer Satisfaction,and Market Value / 56/ Journal of Marketing,October 2006essential for reaching new customer bases and catering to Array ever-changing customer needs.Formally, product quality can be defined as the mini-mum condition or the threshold of product attributes that afirm must meet when offering its products/services incompetitive markets (Rust, Moorman, and D ickson 2002;Vargo and Lusch 2004; Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Berry1990). Prior studies have established that a firm’s ability toprovide a superior product/service quality is critical for itslong-term survival and success (e.g., Buzzell, Gale, andSultan 1975; Mittal et al. 2005; Rust, Moorman, and Dick-son 2002).In a similar fashion to CSR, we measure product qualityby FAMA ratings in 2001, 2002, and 2003 (published in2002, 2003, and 2004) as the underlying indicators. Again,because of the reverse causality between financial perfor-mance and FAMA ratings, we control for this bias andobtain clean measures for product quality and innovative-ness capability by employing the same residual approach asin the case of CSR (e.g., Roberts and Dowling 2002).Innovativeness capability is a firm’s ability to apply itsinternal knowledge stock to produce new technology, newproducts/services, and other new fronts (D rucker 1993;Griffin and Hauser 1996). According to exploration learn-ing theory (March 1991), innovation is also critical for thesurvival and success of organizations because dynamic mar-kets constantly shake out the players that lack capabilitiesto explore new market opportunities (Gatignon and Xuereb1997; Schumpeter 1934). Similar to product quality, wemeasure the latent variable of a firm’s innovativeness capa-bility by using its Fortune ratings in 2001, 2002, and 2003from FAMA (published in 2002, 2003, and 2004) as threeseparate indicators underlying this construct. Prior researchhas employed this data source to measure companies’inno-vativeness capability (Cho and Pucik 2005).Measuring Customer SatisfactionWe used the ACSI database to measure customer satisfac-tion. In the marketing literature, the ACSI has been shownto be a reliable source of measuring customer satisfaction.Several studies employ this database to assess overall cus-tomer satisfaction of total purchase and consumptionexperience at the firm level (e.g., Anderson, Fornell, andMazvancheryl 2004; Fornell et al. 2006; Gruca and Rego2005; Mithas, Krishnan, and Fornell 2005b; Mittal et al.2005). The National Quality Research Center at the Univer-sity of Michigan developed and maintains the ACSI dataset. It has data for nearly 200 Fortune large companies thatspan all major economic sectors and constitute approxi-mately 43% of the U.S. economy. To obtain ACSI data,more than 50,000 household consumers (actual productusers) of these large firms are polled on a quarterly basis.Each valid respondent has passed screening questionsrelated to predefined purchase and consumption periods.The ACSI uses an interval scale ranging from 0 to 100, with100 as the highest level of customer satisfaction.Based on multi-item, multiconstruct criteria, the ACSIis a reliable data source because it employs the same surveyquestionnaire, random sampling, and estimation modelingCorporate Social Responsibility,Customer Satisfaction,and Market Value / 7the CMR database for advertising-spending data (Rao, Agarwal, and Dahlhoff 2004). We control for the influence of advertising expenditures on performance because intense advertising promotes customer awareness, brand equity, and sales revenues (e.g., Joseph and Richardson 2002; Morgan and Rego 2006).Firm size is the log of number of employees. We control for the influence of firm size because large firms may have more resources and thus enjoy economies of scale, but small firms may have higher strategic flexibility when seek-ing entrepreneurial rents (D utta, Narasimhan, and Rajiv 1999; Rao, Agarwal, and Dahlhoff 2004).Strategic focus is the number of business segments in which the firm operates (Rao, Agarwal, and D ahlhoff 2004). This variable is available directly from the menu choice at the Compact D isclosure (CD-ROM), which defines it as “the number of unique business segments of an individual company.” We control for this influence because of possible diversification effects. That is, more diversified firms may have a faster asset turnover rate and exhibit economies of scope. However, highly diversified firms may lack focus in the highly segmented, competitive market-place and thus experience negative returns (Fombrum and Shanley 1990; Gruca and Rego 2005).We measure competition intensity by using the Herfind-ahl concentration index, derived from COMPUSTAT. Fol-lowing prior work (Gruca and Rego 2005; Mithas, Krish-nan, and Fornell 2005a), we calculate this concentration index at the primary four-digit industry level of Standard Industrial Classification codes (which has been replaced by the North American Industry Classification System) for each firm-year observation. We use this covariate to control for impact of industry competition level (Rao, Agarwal, and Dahlhoff 2004).Finally, we control for the influence of ROA in predict-ing stock return and Tobin’s q (Chauvin and Hirschey 1993). In particular, we measure ROA as the ratio of net income after extraordinary items to book value of total assets, derived from COMPUSTAT. We used the average of the 2002, 2003, and 2004 data points as the measure of ROA. We include ROA as a covariate variable because of the impact of financial information on the stock market (Chauvin and Hirschey 1993; Erickson and Jacobson 1992). Table 2presents the summary statistics for all variables in this study.Despite having these stringent controls, in light of our moderation hypotheses, a lingering issue is whether there are systematic industry differences between firms that are rated high on product quality (and/or innovativeness) and those that are rated low. A close examination of the top and bottom firms on the dimensions of product quality and innovativeness allays this concern. We find that both the top and the bottom firms in terms of their innovativeness and product quality ratings cover a variety of industries, such as retail, services, and manufacturing. More specifically, top innovativeness firms include Apple, Google, Procter & Gamble, FedEx, Nike, and Target, among others; bottom innovativeness firms include United Airlines, D illard’s, Kmart, and Qwest Communications, among others, accord-ing to Fortune’s large-scale survey data in 2005. In other words, neither the low-innovativeness nor the high-innovativeness firms are dominated by particular industry types.Merged Final Data SetWe merged data from these different archival sources and obtained unbalanced panel time-series, cross-sectional data consisting of 452 firm-year observations across 113 firms for the 2001–2004 periods. However, one year’s data are lost because we employed the lagging process (2001–2003 for CSR, product quality, and innovativeness; 2002–2004 for customer satisfaction, Tobin’s q, and stock return) to reduce the endogeneity bias and reverse-causality concerns described previously. Thus, we were able to use 339 data points for hypotheses testing. This merged data set includes individual firms in various industries, ranging from durables (e.g., automobiles, household appliances, personal computers), to nondurables (e.g., cigarettes; athletic shoes; services, such as airlines, hotels, and utilities), to retail (e.g., department stores, discount stores, supermarkets), among others. Although FAMA has ratings of CSR, innovativeness capability, and product quality for approximately 580 firms (Cho and Pucik 2005; Fortune2005) and ACSI has data on approximately 190 firms/brands (Fornell et al. 1996; For-nell et al. 2006; Gruca and Rego 2005; Morgan and Rego 2006), we were not able to obtain a larger sample of firms in the merged final data set. This is because many firms included in Fortune’s source are not represented in the ACSI source and because the same firm may have several brands in the ACSI (Anderson, Fornell, and Mazvancheryl 2004). We also tried to search other relevant secondary sources (Standard & Poor’s industry reports, company annual reports, Compact Disclosure, and Moody’s report) to cross-validate our final data set spanning the period from 2001 to 2004.Note that COMPUSTAT does not have complete data points for all variables. For example, because COMPUS-TAT does not require companies to report their R&D invest-ments (volunteered responses only; see Joseph and Richard-son 2002), we found that more than 40% of observations for the control variable of R&D are missing across the years. Before testing the hypotheses, we controlled for the covari-ates using the same approach applied in prior studies (e.g., Ahearne, Bhattacharya, and Gruen 2005; Pan, Ratchford, and Shankar 2002). In particular, we ran a linear regression with all control variables (firm-level and industry-level) as independent variables and Tobin’s q as the dependent variable. We saved the unstandardized residuals from this regression and then used them as the surrogate for Tobin’s q in all structural equation models (SEMs). We also applied this approach to obtain the surrogates for stock return.Analyses and ResultsMeasurement Model ResultsFollowing the work of Anderson and Gerbing (1988), we employ confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the validity of the measures. Overall model statistics show that the chi-square for the model is 90.73 (d.f.= 48, p> .05),8/ Journal of Marketing,October 2006。

自学考试《现代语言学》自测试题带答案自学考试《现代语言学》自测试题带答案高等教育自学考试，简称自考，是一种对自学者进行以学历考试为主的，个人自学、社会助学和国家考试相结合的'高等教育考试制度，创立于20世纪80年代初。

下面是店铺收集整理的自学考试《现代语言学》自测试题带答案，希望大家喜欢。

Ⅰ.Multiple ChoiceDirections:Read each of the following statements carefully. Decide which one of the four choices best completes the statement and put the letter A,B,C or D in the brackets.(2%×10=20%)1.The famous quotation from Shakespeare’s play “Romeo and Juliet”: “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet” well illustrates _______.( )A.the conventional nature of languageB.the creative nature of languageC.the universality of languageD.the big difference between human language and animal communication2.Of the following sound combinations，only _______ is permissible according to the sequential rules in English.( )A.kiblB.bkilC.ilkbD.ilbk3.The sentence that has a NP and a VP can be shown in a _______ formula “S→NP VP”。

. Sociolinguistics：is a branch of linguistics which studies all aspects of the relationship between language and society.What are the main factors leading to the growth of sociolinguistics?A. The general recognition of the importance of the fact that language is a very variable phenomenon and that this variability may have as much to do with society as with language.B. The demand made by the development of modern sciences and society and the financial support given by some capitalist governments such as the U.S. government.C. The healthy climate for its growth created by the development of disciplines like sociology, anthropology and psychology as it takes concepts and findings from them.Sociolinguistics and related disciplinesSociolinguistics is related to other disciplines such as anthropology, psychology, education and planning as it has drawn a lot (e.g. taking concepts and findings) from the work done by anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, educators and planners who also use much work of sociolinguistics to help their studies.The present situation of sociolinguistics？a. It has been a very important new branch of linguistics.b. It has been a recognized part of most courses at university level on linguistics or language.c. It is one of the main growth points in the study of language, from the point of both teaching and research.Features of the present sociolinguistics:Many numerous theories, vast amounts of data, and important consequences of new discoveries for areas such as education and language planning, but there is no central doctrine that must be adhered to。