451 research outputs found
The argumentative and rhetorical function of metonymy in an epidemic/ pandemic context
No full textThanks to cognitive linguistics – as defined by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson – metonymy has also been recognized as a powerful cognitive tool for conceptual contiguity that allows us to conceptualize a certain thing through its relationship with something else. Metonymic concepts form part of the ordinary and everyday way in which we live, structuring not only our language but also our thoughts, attitudes, and actions. This paper highlights how widespread discursive actions within an epidemic/pandemic context manifest themselves in argumentative and rhetorical motifs that can be identified with metonymic processes, which in turn reflect specific cognitive mechanisms and also influence the narrative forms used to describe the experience of contagion and illness affecting oneself, a family member, or on a collective level. In other words, the argumeThanks to cognitive linguistics – as defined by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson – metonymy has also been recognized as a powerful cognitive tool for conceptual contiguity that allows us to conceptualize a certain thing through its relationship with something else. Metonymic concepts form part of the ordinary and everyday way in which we live, structuring not only our language but also our thoughts, attitudes, and actions. This paper highlights how widespread discursive actions within an epidemic/pandemic context manifest themselves in argumentative and rhetorical motifs that can be identified with metonymic processes, which in turn reflect specific cognitive mechanisms and also influence the narrative forms used to describe the experience of contagion and illness affecting oneself, a family member, or on a collective level. In other words, the argumentative logic of contagion (regardless of the semantic discrepancy of the term contagion in antiquity and contemporaneity) seems to have been based on and manifested through contiguous inferential mechanisms over the centuries. ntative logic of contagion (regardless of the semantic discrepancy of the term contagion in antiquity and contemporaneity) seems to have been based on and manifested through contiguous inferential mechanisms over the centuries
Staging/In scena
No full textWhat does being canonic mean for a dramatic text? Why is a text such as "Six characters in Search of an Author, a text that broke radically with the traditional structure of drama, expressing the crisis within fundamental categories of Westernthought, considered canonic? The author analyses the problem in two joint-text essays that accompany Pirandello's work, from the perspectives of ideas and that of the history of the dramatic form and performance: "inside the text" and "staging".The book is the first of a series of volumes designed to put together the pieces of an open mosaic, which has contributed significantly to the building and expression of the European consciousness
inside the text/dentro il testo
No full textWhat does being canonic mean for a dramatic text? Why is a text such as "Six characters in Search of an Author, a text that broke radically with the traditional structure of drama, expressing the crisis within fundamental categories of Westernthought, considered canonic? The author analyses the problem in two joint-text essays that accompany Pirandello's work, from the perspectives of ideas and that of the history of the dramatic form and performance: "inside the text" and "staging".The book is the first of a series of volumes designed to put together the pieces of an open mosaic, which has contributed significantly to the building and expression of the European consciousness
Managing innovations resulting from university-industry collaborations
No full textWe consider a policy regime allowing academic institutions to grant industry the intellectual property rights (IPRs) over invention resulting from collaborations. If a firm plays an important role in generating an invention, the researcher offers the IPRs to the firm, as an incentive to collaborate. However, he retains certain domains where he can exploit an invention without having to apply for a license. The choice of these domains involves a tradeoff. In fact, the researcher either induces the firm's effort, by assigning a broad field of use, or he ensures that he can use an invention in other applications, by granting a narrow field of use. The reverse occurs if it is the researcher who plays an important role in generating an invention. The main difference, however, is that if effort were contractible, the firm could reward the researcher for supplying the first best level of effort, because, unlike the researcher, it is not cash constrained. An empirical analysis, based on École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne research contracts, supports the role of broad fields in bolstering a firm's effort, when the latter is important for generating an invention.CEMICDM working paper series; JEL classification : L26, I23, O31, D81, D8
The productivity of science & engineering PhD students hired from supervisors’ networks
No full textWe compare the scientific productivity of PhD students who are hired from a fine-grained set of mutually exclusive affiliation types: a PhD supervisor's affiliation, an external affiliation from which the supervisor derives her coauthors, and an external affiliation with which the supervisor has no coauthorship ties. Using a novel dataset of science and engineering PhD students who graduated from two major Swiss universities, we find that the most productive PhD category is the one made of students who are affiliated with universities other than their supervisors’ affiliation, but from which the PhD supervisors derive their coauthors. This result suggests an inverted U-shaped relationship between PhD students’ productivity and the social distance from their supervisors. Additionally, we find evidence consistent with the role of supervisors’ coauthor networks in resolving information asymmetries regarding PhD talent.CEM
Replication data for: What is the US Comparative Advantage in Entrepreneurship?
No full textReplication data for: Conti and Guzman. What is the US Comparative Advantage in Entrepreneurship
Micro venture capital
No full textRecently, the venture capital (VC) industry has experienced the entry of several new capital providers. Using US data on investors and their portfolio startups from 2000 to 2022, we document the emergence of a new type of investors: the micro VC. Our analysis reveals that micro Vencture Capitalists (VCs) have an idiosyncratic investment strategy, which differs from traditional VCs. Compared with these investors, micro VCs invest in riskier startups, that is, early-stage ventures initiated by less experienced founders; yet, micro VCs are less likely to syndicate, stage their investments, and replace the startup founders. Additionally, startups funded by micro VCs are less likely to experience successful exits than those backed by traditional VCs. These results can be traced to a mix of smaller capital endowments, less sophisticated limited partners, and lesser human capital of which micro VCs dispose, and that may induce them to spread their thin capital across many investments to maximize returns. Our analysis also uncovers important differences in the strategies pursued by micro VCs and business angels.Managerial SummaryThe VC industry is increasingly populated by a variety of investors with disparate characteristics and objectives. One such type of investors is represented by the so-called micro VC firms. These are VC firms that manage funds typically below $50 million and focused primarily on investing in founder-led startups. We leverage comprehensive VC data in the United States to answer three questions: (1) Who leads micro VC firms? (2) How do micro VC firms invest? (3) How do startups backed by micro VC perform? We find that micro VC firms are often led by relatively inexperienced entrepreneurs with little VC experience, and these firms are supported by less sophisticated limited partners. Although micro VC firms invest in riskier startups, they are less engaged in syndication and investment staging than traditional VC firms. Finally, micro VC-backed startups have a lower probability of successful exit as compared with those backed by traditional VC firms. Collectively, our results suggest that micro VCs differ from traditional VCs beyond being "micro.
- …
