568 resultados para Erasmus Rotterdamilainen
Resumo:
CCBE S. XVI
Resumo:
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Resumo:
By F. van der Haeghen.
Resumo:
Authors include Erasmus, Sleidanus & Beza.
Resumo:
CCBE S. XVI
Resumo:
First edition, 1898; reprinted 1899.
Resumo:
Mode of access: Internet.
Resumo:
Editors: J. E. Harper and others.
Resumo:
Editor: J. E. Harper and others.
Resumo:
Second language acquisition is a field that has fascinated linguists for numerous years and is a topic that is very much connected to how English teachers in Sweden try to teach the English language to the students in their classrooms. In 2009 Sundqvist examined what possible effects extramural English could have on learners' oral proficiency and their vocabulary. In her study she found out that extramural English “is an independent variable and a possible path to progress in English” (Sundqvist, 2009, p. i). In 2014, three Swedish secondary- and upper secondary school teachers started a project for the Erasmus+. These three teachers tried to create better teaching conditions and to come up with new methods for teaching English. During their investigation they noticed that students who had only been in Sweden for four years or less, seemed to get less exposed to English in their spare time than native Swedish students, which created a disadvantage for them. Since the time when these two studies were carried out, the number of immigrants has increased drastically, which creates the need for further investigation within this area of second language acquisition. In this study, I therefore investigate how much and in what way students come in contact with the English language outside of school. I also examine if there are any differences between native Swedish students versus non-native Swedish students and if so, how this might affect the students and their grades in English. The study was conducted through the use of questionnaires and through observations of different teaching situations, including the participating teachers' methods and the participating students' reactions. The results show that there are differences between native- and non-native students when it comes to extramural English activities. The results also show that these differences seem to affect the students' grades in English, in favour of the native Swedish students. The native students tend to spend more time on extramural English activities, especially in connection to the Internet and computer games, than the non-native students. These results indicate that something needs to be done in order to compensate for the non-native students' disadvantage.
Resumo:
Although much has been written about Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, the part played by Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802) has been almost entirely neglected. This is odd as, apart from some ghost stories, Dr Darwin is the one influence mentioned in both the 1816 and 1831 prefaces to the book. The present contribution aims to redress that omission. It aims to show that Darwin's ideas about spontaneous generation, his anti-establishment ideas, and his literary genius played a significant role in forming the 'dark and shapeless substance' surging in Mary Shelley's mind during the summer of 1816 and from which her tale of Gothic horror emerged. It is, however, ultimately ironic that Frankenstein, which warns against a too enthusiastic use of scientific knowledge, should have been partly inspired by one of the most optimistically forward-looking of all late eighteenth-century thinkers. © 2007 Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining.
Resumo:
Nous souhaitons nous pencher ici sur un emploi particulier de la périphrase en aller + infinitif qui n’a fait l’objet – à notre connaissance – que d’un article (Lansari 2010). Cet emploi « modalisant » que Lansari limite à la formule 'on va dire' mériterait d’être approfondi pour plusieurs raisons. D’une part, l’emploi n’est décrit que sur base de « vingt exemples tirés d’internet, de blogs ou de forums » (Lansari 2010: 120) alors que, de l’aveu de Lansari elle-même, l’emploi relève de l’oral. Il serait donc utile d’enrichir – quantitativement et qualitativement - le corpus et d’y intégrer des occurrences d’oral authentique. D’autre part, Lansari restreint l’emploi modalisant à la séquence 'on va dire' ; on pourrait s’interroger sur la capacité de séquences comme 'je vais dire' à remplir les mêmes fonctions discursives. Dans cet article, nous commencerons par un – forcément bref – état de la question. Après avoir présenté le corpus, nous testerons les hypothèses précédemment défendues à la lueur du corpus rassemblé: (a) Le corpus CFPP2000 issu du projet Discours sur la ville. Corpus de Français Parlé Parisien des années 2000 (disponible en ligne à http://cfpp2000.univ-paris3.fr/Corpus.html). CFPP2000 donne la parole à 41 informateurs en 28 interviews (2198 min) et a généré 96 occurrences de on va dire modalisant. (b) Le corpus CLAPI comprenant 45 heures d’interactions interrogeables en ligne à http://clapi.univ-lyon2.fr/analyse_requete_aide.php?menu=outils. On y a relevé 12 exemples de on va dire modalisant. (c) Un corpus personnel d’interviews (163min) réalisées pendant l’année académique 2009-10 auprès de cinq étudiants Erasmus français grâce au soutien d’une bourse de la Délégation Générale à la Langue Française et aux Langues de France (DGLFLF). Les entretiens avec une assistante de recherche, basés sur les thèmes suivants, étaient supposés générer l’emploi d’une variété de temps verbaux : - Récits de rêve (imparfait) - Récits biographiques (personnage historique vs autobiographie) (PC vs PS) - Narration de film vs d’épisode historique (PC/ PRES vs PS) - Présentation de projets d’avenir vs conjectures (Futur périphrastique ou simple) Le corpus contient dix-sept occurrences de on va dire générés par deux des cinq informateurs : 15 par A. et 2 par J. Notre réflexion se basera donc sur 125 occurrences orales de 'on va dire'.
Resumo:
Coleridge, looking back at the end of the ‘long eighteenth century’, remarked that the whole of natural philosophy had been ‘electrified’ by advances in the understanding of electrical phenomena. In this paper I trace the way in which these advances affected contemporary ‘neurophysiology.’ At the beginning of the long eighteenth century, neurophysiology (in spite of Swammerdam’s and Glisson’s demonstrations to the contrary) was still understood largely in terms of hollow nerves and animal spirits. At the end of that period the researches of microscopists and electricians had convinced most medical men that the old understanding had to be replaced. Walsh, Patterson, John Hunter and others had described the electric organs of electric fish. Gray and Nollet had demonstrated that electricity was not merely static, but flowed. Franklin had alerted the world to atmospheric electricity. Galvani’s frog experiments were widely known. Volta had invented his ‘pile.’ But did ‘animal electricity’ exist and was it identical to the electricity physicists studied in the inanimate world? Was the brain a gland, as Malpighi’s researches seemed to confirm., and did it secrete electricity into the nervous system? The Monros (primus and secundus), William Cullen, Luigi Galvani, Alessandro Volta, Erasmus Darwin, Luigi Rolando and François Baillarger all had their own ideas. This paper reviews these ‘long-eighteenth century’ controversies with special reference to the Edinburgh medical school and the interaction between neurophysiology and physics.
Resumo:
∗ Thematic Harmonisation in Electrical and Information EngineeRing in Europe,Project Nr. 10063-CP-1-2000-1-PT-ERASMUS-ETNE.