The Influence of spanish vihuela and lute music on the development of early seventeenth century english keyboard music as exemplified in the Fitzwilliam virginal book

Digitoitu 29.10 2008.

A Diachronic Study of the Practises of Translation of Gerunds and Gerundives from Latin into Old English and Middle English in History Narratives

This is a philologically oriented thesis which studies the possible adoption of a grammatical feature from one language into another from historical linguistic perspective. The foci of the study are, on the one hand, the Latin gerund and gerundive and, on the other hand, the English gerund. The material of this study consists of excerpts from two British history narratives in Latin and from the Old English and Middle English translations of these history narratives. The British history narratives selected for the material of this thesis are the 8th century Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum by Bede and the 14th century Polychronicon by Ranulf Higden. Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum has been compared with its Old English translation from the 11th century, the author of which is unknown. The Polychronicon, on the other hand, has been compared with two different Middle English translations: one from the 14th century, by John Trevisa; the other from the 15th century, the author of which is also unknown. The purpose of this thesis is to investigate whether the gerund, which was adopted into English by the Middle English period, has been used to translate the Latin gerunds and gerundives. At the basis of the study is the hypothesis that the English gerund has been used to translate the Latin gerunds and gerundives at least occasionally. The methodology of this thesis consists of detailed and qualitative study of the primary material. The primary material has been studied from synchronic, diachronic and paratextual perspective. The results of this thesis confirm that the English gerund has occasionally been used to translate the Latin gerunds and gerundives. The instances that confirm with the hypothesis are so rare, however, that the relationship between the English gerund and the Latin gerund and gerundive seems to be indirect or at least enshadowed by wide-ranging grammatical differences.

Equivalence and translation strategies in multilingual thesaurus construction

In the present dissertation, multilingual thesauri were approached as cultural products and the focus was twofold: On the empirical level the focus was placed on the translatability of certain British-English social science indexing terms into the Finnish language and culture at a concept, a term and an indexing term level. On the theoretical level the focus was placed on the aim of translation and on the concept of equivalence. In accordance with modern communicative and dynamic translation theories the interest was on the human dimension. The study is qualitative. In this study, equivalence was understood in a similar way to how dynamic, functional equivalence is commonly understood in translation studies. Translating was seen as a decision-making process, where a translator often has different kinds of possibilities to choose in order to fulfil the function of the translation. Accordingly, and as a starting point for the construction of the empirical part, the function of the source text was considered to be the same or similar to the function of the target text, that is, a functional thesaurus both in source and target context. Further, the study approached the challenges of multilingual thesaurus construction from the perspectives of semantics and pragmatics. In semantic analysis the focus was on what the words conventionally mean and in pragmatics on the ‘invisible’ meaning - or how we recognise what is meant even when it is not actually said (or written). Languages and ideas expressed by languages are created mainly in accordance with expressional needs of the surrounding culture and thesauri were considered to reflect several subcultures and consequently the discourses which represent them. The research material consisted of different kinds of potential discourses: dictionaries, database records, and thesauri, Finnish versus British social science researches, Finnish versus British indexers, simulated indexing tasks with five articles and Finnish versus British thesaurus constructors. In practice, the professional background of the two last mentioned groups was rather similar. It became even more clear that all the material types had their own characteristics, although naturally not entirely separate from each other. It is further noteworthy that the different types and origins of research material were not used to represent true comparison pairs, and that the aim of triangulation of methods and material was to gain a holistic view. The general research questions were: 1. Can differences be found between Finnish and British discourses regarding family roles as thesaurus terms, and if so, what kinds of differences and which are the implications for multilingual thesaurus construction? 2. What is the pragmatic indexing term equivalence? The first question studied how the same topic (family roles) was represented in different contexts and by different users, and further focused on how the possible differences were handled in multilingual thesaurus construction. The second question was based on findings of the previous one, and answered to the final question as to what kinds of factors should be considered when defining translation equivalence in multilingual thesaurus construction. The study used multiple cases and several data collection and analysis methods aiming at theoretical replication and complementarity. The empirical material and analysis consisted of focused interviews (with Finnish and British social scientists, thesaurus constructors and indexers), simulated indexing tasks with Finnish and British indexers, semantic component analysis of dictionary definitions and translations, coword analysis and datasets retrieved in databases, and discourse analysis of thesauri. As a terminological starting point a topic and case family roles was selected. The results were clear: 1) It was possible to identify different discourses. There also existed subdiscourses. For example within the group of social scientists the orientation to qualitative versus quantitative research had an impact on the way they reacted to the studied words and discourses, and indexers placed more emphasis on the information seekers whereas thesaurus constructors approached the construction problems from a more material based solution. The differences between the different specialist groups i.e. the social scientists, the indexers and the thesaurus constructors were often greater than between the different geo-cultural groups i.e. Finnish versus British. The differences occurred as a result of different translation aims, diverging expectations for multilingual thesauri and variety of practices. For multilingual thesaurus construction this means severe challenges. The clearly ambiguous concept of multilingual thesaurus as well as different construction and translation strategies should be considered more precisely in order to shed light on focus and equivalence types, which are clearly not self-evident. The research also revealed the close connection between the aims of multilingual thesauri and the pragmatic indexing term equivalence. 2) The pragmatic indexing term equivalence is very much context-depended. Although thesaurus term equivalence is defined and standardised in the field of library and information science (LIS), it is not understood in one established way and the current LIS tools are inadequate to provide enough analytical tools for both constructing and studying different kinds of multilingual thesauri as well as their indexing term equivalence. The tools provided in translation science were more practical and theoretical, and especially the division of different meanings of a word provided a useful tool in analysing the pragmatic equivalence, which often differs from the ideal model represented in thesaurus construction literature. The study thus showed that the variety of different discourses should be acknowledged, there is a need for operationalisation of new types of multilingual thesauri, and the factors influencing pragmatic indexing term equivalence should be discussed more precisely than is traditionally done.

Conference Proceedings. Academic Mobility Blending Perspectives - Mobilité Académique Perspectives croisées

Les 21, 22 et 23 septembre 2006, le Département d’Études Françaises de l’Université de Turku (Finlande) a organisé une conférence internationale et bilingue (anglais et français) sur le thème de la mobilité académique ; le but de cette rencontre était de rendre possible la tenue d’un forum international et multidisciplinaire, susceptible d’être le siège de divers débats entre les différents acteurs de la mobilité académique (c’estàdire des étudiants, des chercheurs, des personnels enseignants et administratifs, etc.). Ainsi, ont été mis à contribution plus de cinquante intervenants, (tous issus de domaines aussi variés que la linguistique, les sciences de l’éducation, la didactique, l’anthropologie, la sociologie, la psychologie, l’histoire, la géographie, etc.) ainsi que cinq intervenants renommés1. La plupart des thèmes traités durant la conférence couvraient les champs suivants : l’organisation de la mobilité, les obstacles rencontrés par les candidats à la mobilité, l’intégration des étudiants en situation d’échange, le développement des programmes d’études, la mobilité virtuelle, l’apprentissage et l’enseignement des langues, la prise de cosncience interculturelle, le développement des compétences, la perception du système de mobilité académique et ses impacts sur la mobilité effective. L’intérêt du travail réalisé durant la conférence réside notamment dans le fait qu’il ne concentre pas uniquement des perspectives d’étudiants internationaux et en situation d’échange (comme c’est le cas de la plupart des travaux de recherche déjà menés sur ce sujet), mais aussi ceux d’autres corps : enseignants, chercheurs, etc. La contribution suivante contient un premier corpus de dixsept articles, répartis en trois sections : 1. Impacts de la mobilité étudiante ; 2. Formation en langues ; 3. Amélioration de la mobilité académique. À l’image de la conférence, la production qui suit est bilingue : huit des articles sont rédigés en français, et les neuf autres en anglais. Certains auteurs n’ont pas pu assister à la conférence mais ont tout de même souhaité apparaître dans cet ouvrage. Dans la première section de l’ouvrage, Sandrine Billaud tâche de mettre à jour les principaux obstacles à la mobilité étudiante en France (logement, organisation des universités, démarches administratives), et propose à ce sujet quelques pistes d’amélioration. Vient ensuite un article de Dominique Ulma, laquelle se penche sur la mobilité académique régnant au sein des Instituts Universitaires de Formation des Maîtres (IUFM) ; elle s’est tout particulièrement concentrée sur l’enthousiasme des stagiaires visàvis de la mobilité, et sur les bénéfices qu’apporte la mobilité Erasmus à ce type précis d’étudiant. Ensuite, dans un troisième article, Magali Hardoin s’interroge sur les potentialités éducationnelles de la mobilité des enseignantsstagiaires, et tâche de définir l’impact de celleci sur la construction de leur profil professionnel. Après cela arrive un groupe de trois articles, tous réalisés à bases d’observations faites dans l’enseignement supérieur espagnol, et qui traitent respectivement de la portée qu’a le programme de triple formation en langues européennes appliquées pour les étudiants en mobilité (Marián MorónMartín), des conséquences qu’occasionne la présence d’étudiants étrangers dans les classes de traductions (Dimitra Tsokaktsidu), et des réalités de l’intégration sur un campus espagnol d’étudiants américains en situation d’échange (Guadalupe Soriano Barabino). Le dernier article de la section, issu d’une étude sur la situation dans les institutions japonaises, fait état de la situation des programmes de doubles diplômes existant entre des établissements japonais et étrangers, et tente de voir quel est l’impact exact de tels programmes pour les institutions japonaises (Mihoko Teshigawara, Riichi Murakami and Yoneo Yano). La seconde section est elle consacrée à la relation entre apprentissage et enseignement des langues et mobilité académique. Dans un premier article, Martine Eisenbeis s’intéresse à des modules multimédia réalisés à base du film « L’auberge espagnole », de Cédric Klapish (2001), et destinés aux étudiants en mobilité désireux d’apprendre et/ou améliorer leur français par des méthodes moins classiques. Viennent ensuite les articles de Jeanine Gerbault et Sabine Ylönen, lesquels traitent d’un projet européen visant à supporter la mobilité étudiante par la création d’un programme multimédia de formation linguistique et culturelle pour les étudiants en situation de mobilité (le nom du projet est EUROMOBIL). Ensuite, un article de Pascal Schaller s’intéresse aux différents types d’activités que les étudiants en séjour à l’étranger expérimentent dans le cadre de leur formation en langue. Enfin, la section s’achève avec une contribution de Patricia KohlerBally, consacrée à un programme bilingue coordonné par l’Université de Fribourg (Suisse). La troisième et dernière section propose quelques pistes de réflexion destinées à améliorer la mobilité académique des étudiants et des enseignants ; dans ce cadre seront donc évoquées les questions de l’égalité face à la mobilité étudiante, de la préparation nécessitée par celleci, et de la prise de conscience interculturelle. Dans un premier chapitre, Javier Mato et Bego

Sivistyksestä sivilisaatioon. Kulttuurikäsitys J. V. Snellmanin historiallisessa ajattelussa

From Bildung to Civilisation. Conception of Culture in J. V. Snellman’s Historical Thinking The research explores Johan Vilhelm Snellman’s (1806–1881) conception of culture in the context of his historical thinking. Snellman was a Finnish, Swedish-speaking journalist, teacher and thinker, who held a central position in the Finnish national discourse during the nineteenth century. He has been considered as one of the leading theorists of a Finnish nation, writing widely about the themes such as the advancement of the national education, Finnish language and culture. Snellman is already a widely studied person in Finnish intellectual history, often characterised as a follower of G. W. F. Hegel’s philosophical system. My own research introduces a new kind of approach on Snellman’s texts, emphasising the conceptual level of his thought. With this approach, my aim is to broaden the Finnish research tradition on conceptual history. I consider my study as a cultural history of concepts, belonging also to the field of intellectual history. My focus is on one hand on the close reading of Snellman’s texts and on the other hand on contextualising his texts to the European intellectual tradition of the time. A key concept of Snellman’s theoretical thinking is his concept of bildning, which can be considered as a Swedish counterpart of the German concept of Bildung. The Swedish word incorporated all the main elements of the German concept. It could mean education or the so-called high culture, but most fundamentally it was about the self-formation of the individual. This is also the context in which Snellman’s concept of bildning has often been interpreted. In the study, I use the concept of bildning as a starting point of my research but I broaden my focus on the cognate concepts such as culture (kultur), spirit (anda) and civilisation. The purpose of my study is thus to illustrate how Snellman used and modified these concepts and from these observations to draw a conclusion about the nature of his conception of culture. Snellman was an early Finnish philosopher of history but also interested in the practice of the writing of history. He did not write any historical presentations himself but followed the publications in the field of history and introduced European historical writing to the Finnish, Swedish-speaking reading audience in his newspapers. The primary source material consists of different types of Snellman’s texts, including philosophical writings, lecture material, newspaper articles and private letters. I’m reading Snellman’s texts in the context of other texts produced both by his Finnish predecessors and contemporaries and by Swedish, German and French writers. Snellman’s principal philosophical works, Versuch einer spekulativen Entwicklung der Idee der Persönlichkeit (1841) and Läran om staten (1842), were both written abroad. Both of the works were contributions to contemporary debates on the international level, especially in Germany and Sweden. During the 1840s and 1850s Snellman had two newspapers of his own, Saima and Litteraturblad, which were directed towards the Swedish-speaking educated class. Both of the newspapers were very popular and their circulations were among the largest of their day in Finland. The topics of his articles and reviews covered literature, poetry, philosophy and education as well as issues concerning the economic, industrial and technical development in Finland. In his newspapers Snellman not only brought forth his own ideas but also spread the knowledge of European events and ideas to his readers. He followed very carefully the cultural and political situation in Western Europe. He also followed European magazines and newspapers and was well acquainted with German, French and also English literature – and of course Swedish literature to with which he had the closest ties. In his newspapers Snellman wrote countless number of literary reviews and critics, introducing his readers to European literature. The study consists of three main chapters in which I explore my research question in three different, yet overlapping contexts. In the first of these chapters, I analyse Snellman’n theoretical thinking and his concepts of bildning, kultur, anda and civilisation in the context of earlier cultural discourse in Finland as well as the tradition of German idealistic philosophy and neo-humanism. With the Finnish cultural discourse I refer to the early cultural discussion in Finland, which emerged after the year 1809, when Finland became an autonomous entity of its own as a Grand Duchy of Russia. Scholars of the Academy of Turku opened a discussion on the themes such as the state of national consciousness, the need for national education and the development of the Finnish language as a national language of Finland. Many of these academics were also Snellman’s teachers in the early years of his academic career and Snellman clearly formulated his own ideas in the footsteps of these Finnish predecessors. In his theoretical thinking Snellman was a collectivist; according to him an individual should always be understood in connection with the society, its values and manners, as well as to the traditions of a culture where an individual belongs to. In his philosophy of the human spirit Snellman was in many ways a Hegelian but his notion of education or ‘bildning’ includes also elements that connect him with the wider tradition of German intellectual history, namely the neo-humanist tradition and, at least to some extent, to the terminology of J. G. Herder or J. G. Fichte, for example. In this chapter, I also explore Snellman’s theory of history. In his historical thinking Snellman was an idealist, believing in the historical development of the human spirit (Geist in German language). One can characterise his theory of history by stating that it is a mixture of a Hegelian triumph of the spirit and Herderian emphasis on humanity (Humanität) and the relative nature of ‘Bildung’. For Snellman, the process of ‘bildning’ or ‘Bildung’ is being realised in historical development through the actions of human beings. Snellman believed in the historical development of the human civilization. Still Snellman himself considered that he had abandoned Hegel’s idea about the process of world history. Snellman – rightly or wrongly – criticised Hegel of emphasising the universal end of history (the realisation of the freedom of spirit) at the expense of the historical plurality and the freedom of each historical era. Snellman accused Hegel of neglecting the value and independency of different historical cultures and periods by imposing the abstract norm, the fulfilment of the freedom of spirit, as the ultimate goal of history. The historicist in Snellman believed in the individuality of each historical period; each historical era or culture had values, traditions and modes of thought of its own. This historicist in Snellman could not accept the talk about one measure or the end of history. On the other hand Snellman was also a universalist. He believed that mankind had a common task and that task was the development of ‘Bildung’, freedom or humanity. The second main chapter consists of two parts. In the first part, I explore the Finnish nationalistic discourse from the cultural point of view by analysing the notions such as a nation, national spirit or national language and showing how Snellman formulated his own ideas in a dialogic situation, participating in the Finnish discourse but also reacting to international discussions on the themes of the nation and nationality. For Snellman nationality was to a great extent the collective knowledge and customs or practices of the nation. Snellman stated that nationality is to be considered as a form of ‘bildning’. This could be seen not simply as affection for the fatherland but also for the mental identity of the nation, its ways of thinking, its practices, national language, customs and laws, the history of the nation. The simplest definition of nationality that Snellman gives is that nationality is the social life of the people. In the second part of the chapter I exam Snellman’s historical thinking and his understanding about historical development, interaction between different nations and cultures in the course of history, as well as the question of historical change; how do cultures or civilisations develop and who are the creators of culture? Snellman did not believe in one dominating culture but understood the course of history as a dialogue between different cultures. On the other hand, his views are very Eurocentric – here he follows the ideas of Hegel or for example the French historian François Guizot – for Snellman Europe represented the virtue of pluralism; in Europe one could see the diversity of cultures which, on the other hand, were fundamentally based on a common Christian tradition. In the third main chapter, my focus is on the writing of history, more precisely on Snellman’s ideas on the nature of history as a science and on the proper way of writing historical presentations. Snellman wrote critics on the works of history and introduced his readers to the writing of history especially in France, Sweden and German-speaking area – in some extend also in Britain. Snellman’s collectivistic view becomes evident also in his reviews on historical writing. For Snellman history was not about the actions of the states and their heads, nor about the records of ruling families and battles fought. He repeatedly stressed that history is a discipline that seeks to provide a total view of a phenomenon. A historian should not only collect information on historical events, since this information touches only the surface of a certain epoch or civilisation; he has to understand an epoch as totality. This required an understanding about the major contours in history, connections between civilisations and an awareness of significant turning points in historical development. In addition, it required a holistic understanding about a certain culture or historical era, including also the so-called inner life of a specific nation, a common people and their ways of life. Snellman wrote explicitly about ‘cultural history’ in his texts, referring to this kind of broad understanding of a society. In historical writing Snellman found this kind of broader view from the works of the French historians such as François Guizot and Jules Michelet. In all of these chapters, I elaborate the conceptual dimension of Snellman’s historical thinking. In my study I argue that Snellman not only adopted the German concepts of Bildung or Kultur in his own thinking but also developed the Swedish concepts in a way that include personal and innovative aspects. Snellman’s concept of bildning is not only a translation from ‘Bildung’ but he uses the Swedish concept in a versatile way that includes both the moral aspect of human development and social dimension of a human life. Along with ‘bildning’ Snellman used also the terms ‘kultur’ and ‘civilisation’ when referring to the totality of a certain nation or historical era, including both the so-called high culture (arts, science, religion) and the modes of thought as well as ways of life of the people as a whole. Unlike many of his Finnish contemporaries, Snellman did not use civilisation as a negative concept, lacking the moral essence of German term ‘Bildung’ or ‘Kultur’. Instead, for Snellman civilisation was a neutral term and here he comes close to the French tradition of using the term. In the study I argue that Snellman’s conception of culture in fact includes a synthesis of the German tradition of ‘Bildung’ and the French tradition of ‘civilisation’.