5951 research outputs found
Sort by
The family of German dative constructions
No full textThe article deals with the dative case and the dative object. They have been studied in detail within the framework of projectionist theories, but the results of these studies vary according to the researchers (see Wegener 1985, Schmidt 1988, Schöfer 1992, to name just a few). One of the major difficulties for the description of dative objects results from the fact that structures with dative objects diverge from each other from a semantic point of view in spite of their formal similarity. In German, structures with a so-called “free dative”, i.e. a nominal phrase in the dative case which does not belong to the valency frame of the verb, have the same syntactic pattern as structures with a prototypical dative object which is a well-defined argument of the verb. The description of structures with a free dative object constitutes a big challenge for projectionist theories like valency grammar. Here are some examples of different structures with a free dative: (1) Maria bäckt ihm einen Kuchen (lit. ‘Maria bakes to him a cake’) (dativus commodi) (2) Ihm ist die Tasse hinuntergefallen (lit. ‘To him has the cup fallen’) (dativus incommodi) (3) Die Mutter streichelt dem Kind den Kopf (lit. ‘The mother caresses to the child the head’) (dativus possessivus) (4) Fall mir nicht aus dem Fenster! (lit. ‘Do not fall to me out of the window’) (dativus ethicus) (5) Marco raucht mir ein bißchen zu viel (lit. ‘Marco smokes to me a bit too much’) (dativus iudicantis). Such examples have been classified in various ways within the framework of projectionist theories, either in a monofunctional (see Schöfer 1992 and Wegener 1985) or polyfunctional way (e.g. Schmid 1988). In our paper we show that Goldberg’s definition of abstract constructions (1995 and 2006) and her concept of semantic roles make it possible to describe the variety of structures with a dative object as a ‘family of dative constructions’. Because the semantic roles expressed by the dative objects can overlap, the borderlines between the different dative object types are not always as clear-cut as expected. This specifically pertains to the semantic roles RECIPIENT, BENEFACTIVE and POSSESSOR, as illustrated in example (3) Die Mutter streichelt dem Kind den Kopf (lit. ‘The mother caresses to the child the head’). The distinction between more prototypical dative objects (e.g., (6) Peter gibt Maria ein Buch, ‘Peter gives Maria a book’) and the free dative object is not always clear either. We focus on the study of ditransitive constructions which express a transfer, be it concrete or metaphorical. The postulate of an abstract ditransitive construction and of a continuum between syntax and lexicon in Goldberg’s constructionist model (1995 and 2006) also offers new avenues for a unified description of ditransitive phraseologisms as (fixed) instantiations of the ditransitive construction. The central question with ditransitive phraseologisms such as (7) Ich habe ihm einen Korb gegeben (lit. ‘I have given him a basket’ = ‘I have turned his offer down’) vs. (8) Ich drücke dir die Daumen (lit. ‘I press to you my thumbs’= ‘I keep my fingers crossed’) is whether they express the idea of a transfer (ex. 6) or not (ex. 7). German being a morphologically complex language, we further show that the model of Construction Grammar as defined by Goldberg (1995 and 2006) cannot do without describing the valency properties of the verbs in the constructions (see also Herbst 2011 and Stefanowitsch 2011)
Note de synthèse BSI. Sur les traces de la Première Guerre mondiale à Bruxelles
No full textNote de synthèse du Brussels Studies Institute. Référence complète: AMARA Michaël, BENVINDO Bruno, BOUCHAT Pierre, BOUSMAR Éric, CHARON Arnaud, EGGERICKX Thierrey, GYBELS Elisabeth, KESTELOOT Chantal, KLEIN Olivier, MIHAIL Benoît, STEFFENS Sven, TALLIER Pierre-Alain, TOUSIGNANT Nathalie, VAESEN Joost, s. la dir. de JAUMAIN Serge et JOURDAIN Virginie, « Note de synthèse BSI. Sur les traces de la Première Guerre mondiale à Bruxelles », dans Brussels Studies, n° 102, 4 juillet 2016 [en ligne, www.brusselsstudies.be], 27 pp. Comprend notamment une contribution sur la commémoration de la Grande Guerre à Bruxelles rédigée conjointement par BOUSMAR Éric et KESTELOOT Chantal en vue de la Note de synthèse, puis intégrée à celle-ci
Report: A Framework for Studying Communities of Practice in a Media Cluster Context
No full textThis report is a framework for studying media communities of practice in a media cluster context, which introduces the concepts of communities of practice and explains how do we plan to study them. It aims to provide a framework for researching communities through which media workers share and develop new work practices. Communities of practice are groups of people, formal or informal, where members are sharing knowledge and develop practices (Wenger, 1998). They are of noticeable interest as they are linking workers and companies with each other, and are a valuable asset for clusters as they are seen as means to foster cooperation and innovation, which are key elements for a cluster success. Even if they were not referred to as communities of practice per se, various works and studies on clusters identified places, groups or individuals helping knowledge and innovation to spread as essential for a working and successful cluster. Innovation is a core purpose for clusters, and anything that can foster it is much valued. This report is divided in three main parts: the first part is a theoretical approach towards communities of practice, with some examples and a look at different approaches, the second part consists in the elaboration of the seven parameters (places, proximity, pertinence, profile, path-dependency, policies and performance) for studying communities of practice, and the final part introduces different methods we could use to study communities of practice in the Brussels media sector. In the first part, after giving an illustration of what are media communities of practice in Brussels, we discuss different approaches and concepts that will contribute to identify, study and analyse communities of practices in the Brussels media sphere and to understand how media workers develop practices while interacting with each other. Thus the first part presents the state-of-the-art on communities of practice, addresses how this concept first appeared and has been studied and analysed, and discusses the most frequently used definitions and characteristics. This will help us to define what are the different characteristics making a community of practice relevant for our research. The second part of this report elaborates further the seven parameters identified in Deliverable 1.1b from the perspective of communities of practice. The first parameter, place, identifies the physical location and concentration of existing communities of practice in Brussels. The second parameter, proximity, points out the different kinds of links or interconnections existing between different communities of practice and between the members of these communities. The third parameter, pertinence, addresses the domain of these communities (are they relevant for media clusters?) and their composition. The fourth parameter, profile, analyses the profiles and roles of the members of communities of practice. The fifth parameter, path-dependency, looks at the different historical and institutional factors that can explain why communities of practice are how they are today. The sixth parameter, policies, approaches the different official frameworks, actions, incentives and legal statutes that impede, encourage or regulate communities of practice. Finally, the seventh parameter, performance, analyses the benefits that media workers and media organisations in a cluster gain from participating in communities of practice. Through the analysis of these 7 parameters the study will provide important insights to consider for implementing new communities of practice or supporting better existing ones, and thereby bringing a fresh dynamic in the Brussels media sector. The third part of this report is a preliminary approach to the main methods that researchers use to study communities of practice: ethnographic studies, (semi-) structured interviews and surveys.This report is a framework for studying media communities of practice in a media cluster context, which introduces the concepts of communities of practice and explains how do we plan to study them. It aims to provide a framework for researching communities through which media workers share and develop new work practices. Communities of practice are groups of people, formal or informal, where members are sharing knowledge and develop practices (Wenger, 1998). They are of noticeable interest as they are linking workers and companies with each other, and are a valuable asset for clusters as they are seen as means to foster cooperation and innovation, which are key elements for a cluster success. Even if they were not referred to as communities of practice per se, various works and studies on clusters identified places, groups or individuals helping knowledge and innovation to spread as essential for a working and successful cluster. Innovation is a core purpose for clusters, and anything that can foster it is much valued. This report is divided in three main parts: the first part is a theoretical approach towards communities of practice, with some examples and a look at different approaches, the second part consists in the elaboration of the seven parameters (places, proximity, pertinence, profile, path-dependency, policies and performance) for studying communities of practice, and the final part introduces different methods we could use to study communities of practice in the Brussels media sector. In the first part, after giving an illustration of what are media communities of practice in Brussels, we discuss different approaches and concepts that will contribute to identify, study and analyse communities of practices in the Brussels media sphere and to understand how media workers develop practices while interacting with each other. Thus the first part presents the state-of-the-art on communities of practice, addresses how this concept first appeared and has been studied and analysed, and discusses the most frequently used definitions and characteristics. This will help us to define what are the different characteristics making a community of practice relevant for our research. The second part of this report elaborates further the seven parameters identified in Deliverable 1.1b from the perspective of communities of practice. The first parameter, place, identifies the physical location and concentration of existing communities of practice in Brussels. The second parameter, proximity, points out the different kinds of links or interconnections existing between different communities of practice and between the members of these communities. The third parameter, pertinence, addresses the domain of these communities (are they relevant for media clusters?) and their composition. The fourth parameter, profile, analyses the profiles and roles of the members of communities of practice. The fifth parameter, path-dependency, looks at the different historical and institutional factors that can explain why communities of practice are how they are today. The sixth parameter, policies, approaches the different official frameworks, actions, incentives and legal statutes that impede, encourage or regulate communities of practice. Finally, the seventh parameter, performance, analyses the benefits that media workers and media organisations in a cluster gain from participating in communities of practice. Through the analysis of these 7 parameters the study will provide important insights to consider for implementing new communities of practice or supporting better existing ones, and thereby bringing a fresh dynamic in the Brussels media sector. The third part of this report is a preliminary approach to the main methods that researchers use to study communities of practice: ethnographic studies, (semi-) structured interviews and surveys
Chacun pour soi(e) ? Lobbying, stratégies économiques et commerce international dans le secteur de la soie aux Pays-Bas espagnols (1618)
No full textEnvironmental regulation and eco-innovation: the Porter Hypothesis refined
No full textThe paper analyses the relationship between environmental regulation and environmental innovation with insights from the diffusion of innovations theory. The analysis is based on three theoretical approaches: neoclassical, evolutionary and induced innovation. The relationship is tested using a German firm-based panel and a count data model estimating the propensity of firms to innovate in response to five initiating factors, namely the fulfillment of existing legal requirements, expectations towards future legal requirements, financial incentives, demand for environmental innovations and self-commitment. The relevance of the interactions between policy instruments as well as the influence of internal factors and path dependency is also tested. In addition, R&D intensity, the region, the sector of the company are controlled for and a filter for companies that account for their environmental impact is applied. The results answer the central question concerning the design of environmental policies in order to foster innovation. Comparing a static model to a dynamic one shows that only long term objectives and market incentives are positively associated with environmental innovation. Conventional regulatory tools, namely legally binding instruments, are not effective for triggering innovative behaviour at the firm level. Lastly, the results show that the threat of future environmental regulation is a necessary condition for self-regulation. The results do not allow to confirm the Porter hypothesis but rather offer a refined version, emphasizing the nuances that apply to the conception of "regulation". In addition to the fact that not all types of regulation trigger eco-innovation, the results show that although necessary, environmental regulation is certainly not a sufficient condition for eco-innovation
Environmental regulation and eco-innovation: the Porter Hypothesis refined
No full textThe paper analyses the relationship between environmental regulation and environmental innovation with insights from the diffusion of innovations theory. The analysis is based on three theoretical approaches: neoclassical, evolutionary and induced innovation. The relationship is tested using a German firm-based panel and a count data model estimating the propensity of firms to innovate in response to five initiating factors, namely the fulfillment of existing legal requirements, expectations towards future legal requirements, financial incentives, demand for environmental innovations and self-commitment. The relevance of the interactions between policy instruments as well as the influence of internal factors and path dependency is also tested. In addition, R&D intensity, the region, the sector of the company are controlled for and a filter for companies that account for their environmental impact is applied. The results answer the central question concerning the design of environmental policies in order to foster innovation. Comparing a static model to a dynamic one shows that only long term objectives and market incentives are positively associated with environmental innovation. Conventional regulatory tools, namely legally binding instruments, are not effective for triggering innovative behaviour at the firm level. Lastly, the results show that the threat of future environmental regulation is a necessary condition for self-regulation. The results do not allow to confirm the Porter hypothesis but rather offer a refined version, emphasizing the nuances that apply to the conception of "regulation". In addition to the fact that not all types of regulation trigger eco-innovation, the results show that although necessary, environmental regulation is certainly not a sufficient condition for eco-innovation
Compte-rendu de: Casey Keck & YouJin Kim (2014), Pedagogical Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ISBN 978 9027212177 (hb), 978 9027212184 (pb), 245 pp.
No full textBio-bibliographie d’un homme hors norme
No full textBiographie et bibliographie de Jean-Pierre Nandrin (1947-2012), professeur d'histoire contemporaine aux Facultés universitaires Saint-Louis entre 1995 et 2012
Quelle formation pour quel juriste et pour quel droit ? Libération et responsabilisation de l’étudiant bruxellois
No full textExploring L2 constructionist approaches
No full textThe introductory chapter to the volume explores various aspects of the field of “Applied Construction Grammar”