title: The relationship between speaker's reference and semantic reference

authors: Lumsden, David

subjects: speaker's reference

abstract: The distinction between speaker's and semantic reference arose in connection with Donnellan's distinction between the referential use and the attributive use of definite descriptions. The central issue concerning the referential/attributive distinction is whether it is semantic or pragmatic. Kripke favours the pragmatic interpretation and developed the terminology of speaker's and semantic reference in his explanation. The notion of speaker's reference can apply also to uses of proper names, demonstratives, indefinite descriptions and quantifier expressions. The main danger for the speaker's reference/semantic reference distinction lies in controversy over the semantics/pragmatics interface. Both Relevance Theory and neo-Gricean theory acknowledge the phenomenon of pragmatic intrusion into semantics. If the pragmatic intrusion involves objective context rather than speaker's intentions this may permit a distinction between speaker's and semantic reference.

text: The relationship between speaker's reference and semantic reference The distinction between speaker's and semantic reference arose in connection with Donnellan's distinction between the referential use and the attributive use of definite descriptions. The central issue concerning the referential/attributive distinction is whether it is semantic or pragmatic. Kripke favours the pragmatic interpretation and developed the terminology of speaker's and semantic reference in his explanation. The notion of speaker's reference can apply also to uses of proper names, demonstratives, indefinite descriptions and quantifier expressions. The main danger for the speaker's reference/semantic reference distinction lies in controversy over the semantics/pragmatics interface. Both Relevance Theory and neo-Gricean theory acknowledge the phenomenon of pragmatic intrusion into semantics. If the pragmatic intrusion involves objective context rather than speaker's intentions this may permit a distinction between speaker's and semantic reference.

year: 2010

title: Impact of black swan grazing and anthropogenic contaminants on New Zealand seagrass meadows

authors: Dos Santos, Virginie

subjects: Zostera muelleri

abstract: Seagrass is the only marine angiosperm (flowering plant) and decline of seagrass meadows has been reported worldwide. The important ecological and economic values of this marine habitat make it essential to preserve. Seagrass meadows of New Zealand are composed of only one species, Zostera muelleri. They are mainly present in sheltered, intertidal sand flats in harbours. Seagrass decline has been recorded in many New Zealand estuaries during the last century. Grazing by the black swan (Cygnus atratus) and anthropogenic contaminants resulting from catchment development are postulated to contribute to seagrass meadow loss in New Zealand and these factors have been assessed in this study. The aim of this study was to quantify black swan grazing pressure and examine effects of potential anthropogenic contaminants (specifically nutrient enrichment, sedimentation and herbicide residues) on seagrass meadows in New Zealand. The impact of current levels of these anthropogenic contaminants on seagrass resilience to swan grazing was also assessed in situ. To quantify black swan grazing pressure on seagrass meadows and to evaluate the potential relationship between swan grazing pressure and seagrass standing stock, observations and measurements were conducted in Tauranga Harbour where more than a third of the seagrass meadows disappeared between 1959 to 1996. Observations have shown that black swans graze intensively on Zostera muelleri meadows during high tide and were most numerous in the harbour during autumn. Black swan grazing resulted in the formation of circular devegetated patches (0.28 m2), where 92 % of shoots, 25 % of roots and 99 % of rhizomes are removed. The consumption rate was estimated to be 394 g dry weight (DW) swan-1 day-1. Significant seagrass loss on an annual basis was detected at the most swan populated site, which also had the highest swan grazing pressure (19-20 % of biomass consumed annually). This suggests a potential threshold of 19-20 % of annual seagrass biomass removal above which black swan grazing may contribute to substantial damage on seagrass meadows. Applied at the harbour scale, where there is a total of ~29 km2 of seagrass meadows, this corresponds to a swan population (i.e. grazing pressure) > 4630 birds. To identify the potential environmental stressors affecting seagrass condition, two contrasting harbours (Tauranga and Aotea) were surveyed where a range of environmental parameters, including parameters indicative of anthropogenic contamination, and seagrass condition metrics were measured. The survey showed that many of the seagrass condition metrics were positively correlated with sediment porewater ammonium (NH4-N) concentrations suggesting that nitrogen availability regulates seagrass growth. The presence of higher porewater nitrate (NO3-N) concentrations was linked to higher proportions of urban and crop land use in subcatchments, these latter parameters being negatively correlated with light availability during high tide. In spite of this, current levels of nutrient enrichment were apparently not detrimental to seagrass condition with evidence of N-limited plant growth and abundant light availability. Herbicide compounds were detected in seagrass sediment and at consistently higher concentrations in Tauranga harbour, which is the harbour more exposed to developed land use. The seagrass photosynthetic potential was lower in more herbicide contaminated sediments, although there was no evidence of any impact on seagrass biomass or morphometry. In a final experiment, black swan grazing was simulated in situ at four sites in Tauranga Harbour differing in exposure to potential anthropogenic contaminants and environmental characteristics. Grazing was simulated by removing seagrass biomass from patches (0.25 m2) in the meadow equivalent to natural swan removals (see above). Two levels of grazing intensity were applied to these patches; ~100 % of biomass removed (high) and ~ 40% of biomass removed (low). Results showed that the cover and the biomass of the low grazing intensity patches were not significantly different to controls (0 % of biomass removed) during the entire experiment. For the high grazing intensity patches, although the cover was restored after 9 months, biomass recovery was incomplete with only 30 % of total biomass regenerated, after one year. This suggests that swan grazing at high intensity can cause long-lasting damage to seagrass meadows, and that > 3 years is probably needed for a devegetated patch to fully recover from grazing (assuming a constant plant regeneration rate). The resilience response was similar across all sites examined in this harbour, suggesting that the current magnitude and range of environmental variability and potential contaminant levels within the seagrass meadows do not affect the ability of seagrass to regenerate from grazing. In conclusion, from these results, I can not conclude that anthropogenic contaminant or black swan grazing pressure are by themselves responsible for seagrass decline in Tauranga Harbour. However, the study suggests that herbicide residues have the potential to detrimentally affect the seagrass photosynthetic activity as do high grazing pressure by the black swan on the seagrass meadow condition. Overall, this study contributes to the understanding of impacts of black swan grazing pressure combined with potential contaminant effects on seagrass ecosystems. It emphasizes the importance of herbivory in temperate seagrass systems, which it is often underestimated and highlights the seagrass habitat contamination due to coastal development. It provides crucial information that will assist resource management agencies to preserve this valuable natural ecosystem.

text: Impact of black swan grazing and anthropogenic contaminants on New Zealand seagrass meadows Seagrass is the only marine angiosperm (flowering plant) and decline of seagrass meadows has been reported worldwide. The important ecological and economic values of this marine habitat make it essential to preserve. Seagrass meadows of New Zealand are composed of only one species, Zostera muelleri. They are mainly present in sheltered, intertidal sand flats in harbours. Seagrass decline has been recorded in many New Zealand estuaries during the last century. Grazing by the black swan (Cygnus atratus) and anthropogenic contaminants resulting from catchment development are postulated to contribute to seagrass meadow loss in New Zealand and these factors have been assessed in this study. The aim of this study was to quantify black swan grazing pressure and examine effects of potential anthropogenic contaminants (specifically nutrient enrichment, sedimentation and herbicide residues) on seagrass meadows in New Zealand. The impact of current levels of these anthropogenic contaminants on seagrass resilience to swan grazing was also assessed in situ. To quantify black swan grazing pressure on seagrass meadows and to evaluate the potential relationship between swan grazing pressure and seagrass standing stock, observations and measurements were conducted in Tauranga Harbour where more than a third of the seagrass meadows disappeared between 1959 to 1996. Observations have shown that black swans graze intensively on Zostera muelleri meadows during high tide and were most numerous in the harbour during autumn. Black swan grazing resulted in the formation of circular devegetated patches (0.28 m2), where 92 % of shoots, 25 % of roots and 99 % of rhizomes are removed. The consumption rate was estimated to be 394 g dry weight (DW) swan-1 day-1. Significant seagrass loss on an annual basis was detected at the most swan populated site, which also had the highest swan grazing pressure (19-20 % of biomass consumed annually). This suggests a potential threshold of 19-20 % of annual seagrass biomass removal above which black swan grazing may contribute to substantial damage on seagrass meadows. Applied at the harbour scale, where there is a total of ~29 km2 of seagrass meadows, this corresponds to a swan population (i.e. grazing pressure) > 4630 birds. To identify the potential environmental stressors affecting seagrass condition, two contrasting harbours (Tauranga and Aotea) were surveyed where a range of environmental parameters, including parameters indicative of anthropogenic contamination, and seagrass condition metrics were measured. The survey showed that many of the seagrass condition metrics were positively correlated with sediment porewater ammonium (NH4-N) concentrations suggesting that nitrogen availability regulates seagrass growth. The presence of higher porewater nitrate (NO3-N) concentrations was linked to higher proportions of urban and crop land use in subcatchments, these latter parameters being negatively correlated with light availability during high tide. In spite of this, current levels of nutrient enrichment were apparently not detrimental to seagrass condition with evidence of N-limited plant growth and abundant light availability. Herbicide compounds were detected in seagrass sediment and at consistently higher concentrations in Tauranga harbour, which is the harbour more exposed to developed land use. The seagrass photosynthetic potential was lower in more herbicide contaminated sediments, although there was no evidence of any impact on seagrass biomass or morphometry. In a final experiment, black swan grazing was simulated in situ at four sites in Tauranga Harbour differing in exposure to potential anthropogenic contaminants and environmental characteristics. Grazing was simulated by removing seagrass biomass from patches (0.25 m2) in the meadow equivalent to natural swan removals (see above). Two levels of grazing intensity were applied to these patches; ~100 % of biomass removed (high) and ~ 40% of biomass removed (low). Results showed that the cover and the biomass of the low grazing intensity patches were not significantly different to controls (0 % of biomass removed) during the entire experiment. For the high grazing intensity patches, although the cover was restored after 9 months, biomass recovery was incomplete with only 30 % of total biomass regenerated, after one year. This suggests that swan grazing at high intensity can cause long-lasting damage to seagrass meadows, and that > 3 years is probably needed for a devegetated patch to fully recover from grazing (assuming a constant plant regeneration rate). The resilience response was similar across all sites examined in this harbour, suggesting that the current magnitude and range of environmental variability and potential contaminant levels within the seagrass meadows do not affect the ability of seagrass to regenerate from grazing. In conclusion, from these results, I can not conclude that anthropogenic contaminant or black swan grazing pressure are by themselves responsible for seagrass decline in Tauranga Harbour. However, the study suggests that herbicide residues have the potential to detrimentally affect the seagrass photosynthetic activity as do high grazing pressure by the black swan on the seagrass meadow condition. Overall, this study contributes to the understanding of impacts of black swan grazing pressure combined with potential contaminant effects on seagrass ecosystems. It emphasizes the importance of herbivory in temperate seagrass systems, which it is often underestimated and highlights the seagrass habitat contamination due to coastal development. It provides crucial information that will assist resource management agencies to preserve this valuable natural ecosystem.

year: 2011

title: Nga Taumata o te Moana - A return to rangatiratanga over the takutai moana

authors: Downs, Season-Mary

subjects: takutai moana

abstract: The Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 extinguished Māori customary rights to the foreshore and seabed at law by vesting ownership of the foreshore and seabed in the Crown.   The Act prohibited Māori from having their customary rights recognised at common law by removing the jurisdiction of the courts to investigate customary rights in the takutai moana.  The 2004 Act provided for the recognition of new lesser rights, should Māori be able to meet the tests specified in the legislation.  The legislation was heavily criticised and deemed inconsistent with the treaty,  the rule of law, and international human rights law, where it extinguished the rights of Māori, but not the rights of other right holders.   The legislation was so controversial the 2004 Act was repealed by the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.   In the Crown’s mind, the 2011 Act is final, and the longstanding foreshore and seabed dispute related to Māori customary claims to the takutai moana is resolved by the legislation. 

The purpose of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 is to “establish a durable scheme to ensure the protection of the legitimate interests of all New Zealanders” in the takutai moana.    Under the new Act, the takutai moana is now given the special status of “common marine and coastal area”; an area that is “incapable of ownership” by the Crown, Māori or anyone else.   The Act states that it “acknowledges” the “Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi)” and “recognises” the “mana tuku iho” exercised in the common marine and coastal area by iwi, hapū, and whānau as tangata whenua.    Like the 2004 Act, the 2011 Act still bars Māori from obtaining common law customary rights in the takutai moana, and instead puts in place a regime for the recognition of new legal rights that are created by the Act itself.

The primary research question is:  Is the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 consistent with te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Māori version of the treaty?

The primary research question is answered by examining the colonial experience of Te Kapotai, a coastal hapū (tribe) in the Southern Bay of Islands from pre-te Tiriti times through to the present day.  It provides an account of how, over time, Crown law, policy and practice have eroded the ability of Te Kapotai to exercise their rangatiratanga (authority) over their takutai moana.  This thesis concludes that the 2011 Act is inconsistent with te Tiriti for four key reasons:
1.	The Act was developed and implemented without negotiation and consent from Māori;
2.	The Act continues to remove the customary rights and procedure for recognition of those rights that were previously available at common law; 
3.	The Act fails to provide for the exercise of rangatiratanga by Māori over the takutai moana as guaranteed under Article 2 of te Tiriti o Waitangi; and 
4.	The Act is in breach of the principle of equity and equal treatment under Article 3 of te Tiriti o Waitangi where it treats Māori and their rights to the takutai moana differently to how all other right/interest holders in the foreshore and seabed are treated.

This research recommends a multifaceted approach to resolving the takutai moana issue, which includes pausing the implementation of the 2011 Act, and the development of interim options to increase Māori participation in the management of the takutai moana.  It promotes that a transformational approach to the takutai moana issue can be achieved when te Tiriti is implemented, and when Māori can exercise rangatiratanga over the takutai moana in a manner that was intended under te Tiriti o Waitangi.

text: Nga Taumata o te Moana - A return to rangatiratanga over the takutai moana The Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 extinguished Māori customary rights to the foreshore and seabed at law by vesting ownership of the foreshore and seabed in the Crown.   The Act prohibited Māori from having their customary rights recognised at common law by removing the jurisdiction of the courts to investigate customary rights in the takutai moana.  The 2004 Act provided for the recognition of new lesser rights, should Māori be able to meet the tests specified in the legislation.  The legislation was heavily criticised and deemed inconsistent with the treaty,  the rule of law, and international human rights law, where it extinguished the rights of Māori, but not the rights of other right holders.   The legislation was so controversial the 2004 Act was repealed by the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.   In the Crown’s mind, the 2011 Act is final, and the longstanding foreshore and seabed dispute related to Māori customary claims to the takutai moana is resolved by the legislation. 

The purpose of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 is to “establish a durable scheme to ensure the protection of the legitimate interests of all New Zealanders” in the takutai moana.    Under the new Act, the takutai moana is now given the special status of “common marine and coastal area”; an area that is “incapable of ownership” by the Crown, Māori or anyone else.   The Act states that it “acknowledges” the “Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi)” and “recognises” the “mana tuku iho” exercised in the common marine and coastal area by iwi, hapū, and whānau as tangata whenua.    Like the 2004 Act, the 2011 Act still bars Māori from obtaining common law customary rights in the takutai moana, and instead puts in place a regime for the recognition of new legal rights that are created by the Act itself.

The primary research question is:  Is the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 consistent with te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Māori version of the treaty?

The primary research question is answered by examining the colonial experience of Te Kapotai, a coastal hapū (tribe) in the Southern Bay of Islands from pre-te Tiriti times through to the present day.  It provides an account of how, over time, Crown law, policy and practice have eroded the ability of Te Kapotai to exercise their rangatiratanga (authority) over their takutai moana.  This thesis concludes that the 2011 Act is inconsistent with te Tiriti for four key reasons:
1.	The Act was developed and implemented without negotiation and consent from Māori;
2.	The Act continues to remove the customary rights and procedure for recognition of those rights that were previously available at common law; 
3.	The Act fails to provide for the exercise of rangatiratanga by Māori over the takutai moana as guaranteed under Article 2 of te Tiriti o Waitangi; and 
4.	The Act is in breach of the principle of equity and equal treatment under Article 3 of te Tiriti o Waitangi where it treats Māori and their rights to the takutai moana differently to how all other right/interest holders in the foreshore and seabed are treated.

This research recommends a multifaceted approach to resolving the takutai moana issue, which includes pausing the implementation of the 2011 Act, and the development of interim options to increase Māori participation in the management of the takutai moana.  It promotes that a transformational approach to the takutai moana issue can be achieved when te Tiriti is implemented, and when Māori can exercise rangatiratanga over the takutai moana in a manner that was intended under te Tiriti o Waitangi.

year: 2020