Konsekvenser av rollövertagandet : ”I”, ”me” och individualiteten

Consequences of role taking: the ”I”, the ”me” and individuality This paper analyzes the tendency of taking the ”I” and the ”me” in G. H. Meads theory of role taking as two separate, qualitatively different parts of human personality, the ”I” being of individual origin, the ”me” of social. In the original Meadian sense role taking gives rise to both the ”I” and the ”me”. They are dialectically united rather than dualistically separated aspects. They refer to the joint functional power of the subject, finding itself as an object, mediated by the Other. As a consequence, the link between body and the social world becomes theoretically more stringent, as the body is given its place as a cognitive social object among others, this by contrast to interpretations where the body is left as an object mainly outside the human social experience and as a source of agency sui generis, a conception which is in opposition to Meads. The stress on the ”I”-phase, as related to body and concrete action in combination with its direct relation to the ”me”-phase, actualizes Mead as a forerunner in modern biologic/neurologic research on human perceptual, motivational and intentional capacity.Swedish Mead interpreters are critically analyzed. Interpretations of Charon, Giddens, Joas and Habermas are partly scrutinized. The author defines the conceptual pair in terms of activity, subjectivity, temporal relativity and distance.

Attitudes Towards and Uses of the Japanese Adverbzenzen by Swedish Learners of Japanese

The word zenzen is an adverb that is used frequently in daily conversational Japanese. From the Meiji period (1868-1912) until the early Showa period (1924-1989) the word was used together with both affirmative and negative words to form expressions. In the early Showa period the grammatical rules in education changed so that the only acceptable use was together with a negative word. From the 1990’s onward, the use together with an affirmative word has made a comeback especially among younger Japanese people. However even though the usage together with an affirmative word has made a comeback and was considered normal once in history, in today’s society it is still considered as slang and thus not recommended usage in formal situations. Foreign language learners however, tend not to learn a language only by textbooks but also by imitating the language of native Japanese speakers and Japanese popular culture. This may lead to a confusion regarding what words are acceptable to use in conversations. Therefore in this study, an online survey that examines the usage and attitudes regarding the word zenzen aimed at Japanese language learners at Swedish universities was conducted. The results of the survey showed that although a majority of the learners showed a good understanding of the usage, more than half of the learners displayed a feeling of confusion regarding the usage of the word. The gender comparison regarding the usage showed no major differences. Having lived in Japan, having Japanese friends whom you speak Japanese with regularly and length of Japanese study was associated with an increased understanding of the usage. Regular consumption of Japanese popular culture, however, was not associated with an increased understanding of the usage. A literature analysis was also conducted to examine the attitudes regarding the usage of zenzen in a variety of books with topics including business language and books aimed at Japanese language teachers. The results showed that zenzen used together with a negative word was considered as the norm while zenzen used together with an affirmative word was not recommended to be used in formal situations. When recommending proper usage of the word zenzen together with an affirmative word to foreign learners of Japanese, hijou-ni and totemo was seen as better alternatives to zenzen in a formal situation.

Pro-premiär eller pro-president? : Om distinktionen mellan parlamentarism, presidentialism och semi-presidentialism

Propremiar or pro-president? On the distinction between parliamentarism, presitentialism and semi-presidentialism. From comparative research on the constitutional development in Central and Eastern Europe and also from the longstanding debate on whether parliamentarism or presidentialism best facilitates democracy, it is apparent that there has been and continues to be, a certain degree of confusion concerning the concepts of semi-presidentialism and presidentialism. Different scholars mean different things by the terms and therefore classify countries differently. In this article I argue that the conceptual dichotomy between pro-premiär (premier-presidentialism) and pro-president systems (presidentparliamentary systems) provide the best solution to several of the problems related to categorising constitutional types, most importantly perhaps to the presidential power dilemma. I, furthermore, employ these concepts on the post-communist constitutional systems and try to reveal patterns with regard to presidential power, geographical region and democratisation.