To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Edited by
Martin Nedbal, University of Kansas,Kelly St. Pierre, Wichita State University and Institute for Theoretical Studies, Prague,,Hana Vlhová-Wörner, University of Basel and Masaryk Institute, Prague
This chapter explores the role of central aspects of cognition in historical linguistics. After describing and discussing the cognitive commitment and its theoretical background, this chapter highlights the relation to cognitive archaeology as well as historical psychology and explores the methodological prerequisites for cognitive approaches to the history of English, particularly the quantitative turn in cognitive linguistics. Case studies from different periods of English illustrate how cognitive factors can shed light on synchronic historical language stages and diachronic developments, and how these in turn can help us to further explore the cognitive commitment. Finally, we argue for a feedback loop, where modern cognitive linguistic theories feed into and guide historical enquiries, but are also checked and modified, if necessary, on the basis of historical findings.
This chapter lays out the ways in which Hans Christian Ørsted (1777–1851) influenced the development of the concept of thought experiment. Ernst Mach (1838–1916) is currently more often credited with laying the foundations of contemporary views, and he is sometimes thought to have been little (if at all) influenced by Ørsted. Against these standard accounts, I will show that Ørsted’s and Mach’s descriptions have key features in common. Both thinkers hold that thought experiments: (1) are a method of variation, (2) require the experimenter’s free activity, and (3) are useful in educational contexts for guiding students to arrive at certain conclusions on their own (i.e., to genuinely appropriate new concepts). The process of variation is guided by the search for invariants, some of which do not directly appear in experience. Since it is important that teachers and students be able to bring the same ideal objects to mind, thought experiments play a key role for both Ørsted and Mach in math education. While Ørsted’s emphasis on the role of thought experiments in math has been proposed as a reason why his descriptions are not relevant for contemporary use of thought experiments, I will show how their role in mathematical thinking – stemming from Kant’s descriptions of the method of construction in geometry – are part of a wider account of thought experiments that encompasses their role in the sciences and also philosophy.
Edited by
Martin Nedbal, University of Kansas,Kelly St. Pierre, Wichita State University and Institute for Theoretical Studies, Prague,,Hana Vlhová-Wörner, University of Basel and Masaryk Institute, Prague
Drawing on postcolonial and decolonial theory developed since the 1990s for the study of socialist and post-socialist East Central Europe, this chapter approaches opera as a crucial cultural site for (re)negotiating the relationship with “the West,” Soviet hegemony, and the Global South after 1948. It focuses on the ambivalence in representations of the racialized Other in Czech opera, which highlights the specific, lateral relationship between what was formally known as the Second and Third worlds. The chapter offers a close reading of the opera JezeroUkereve (“Lake Ukerewe”) by Otmar Mácha, premiered in 1966. Featuring Black and mixed-race characters, the opera generally expresses empathy for and solidarity with the colonized populations, informed by the Czechs’ experience with German oppression, yet it unavoidably reproduces the colonial ideology of a civilizational mission. The opera is interpreted in relation to Czechoslovakia’s official Africa policy and the aesthetic debates about Czech New Music.
Memory, shared realities, and political possibility through the remnant traces of an art installation. The unstable documentation of several related 1990s collective arts installations, all intentionally ephemeral within the abandoned spaces of condemned buildings on the eve of their destruction, opens up questions of plural achievement, the singularity of truth, and the possible contradictions among versions of evidence. These interconnecting collective arts projects were all intended to break free of the commodified gallery space, while calling attention to the vulnerability of both culture and city to rampant financial speculation. Despite the author’s and the archive’s confusion, different versions of the Khaneh Kolangi (the “To-Be-Demolished House”) together provided a key intervention in Iranian postrevolutionary arts culture and practice. They also offer a ghostly metaphor for the ongoing potential power of collective action, individual and shared memory, and political inspiration. Luce Irigaray’s conceptualizations of a plural self and its potentials offers insight into posibilities for differently understanding power, politics, and history.
The length of time that cemeteries were used provides important insights into the persistence of social identities and how communities situate themselves in the landscape. In Bronze Age Europe, the duration of use of cemeteries is an important line of evidence to assess the role of mortuary practices in a time of social change across the continent. This study presents new dates and a Bayesian model of cremation at a Middle Bronze Age (2000–1500 BCE) cemetery in Transylvania (Romania). The cemetery at Limba-Oarda de Jos-Șesul Orzii is the largest known cemetery associated with the Wietenberg culture in Transylvania during the Middle Bronze Age. Unlike Early Bronze Age cemeteries and other Middle Bronze Age cemeteries elsewhere in the Carpathian Basin where burial activity often continued for over 500 years, the duration of use of Limba-Oarda de Jos-Șesul Orzii was much briefer. The cemetery formed within 160 years; we argue closer to 50–100 years. This use life is similar to the nearby Wietenberg cremation cemetery at Sebeș and stands in contrast to mortuary practices in previous time periods and other contemporaneous regions. The short duration of burial activity, and subsequent abandonment of the site, has ramifications for understanding Middle Bronze Age settlement patterns, mortuary rituals, and the dynamics around emerging inequality in Transylvania and beyond.
Edited by
Martin Nedbal, University of Kansas,Kelly St. Pierre, Wichita State University and Institute for Theoretical Studies, Prague,,Hana Vlhová-Wörner, University of Basel and Masaryk Institute, Prague
To understand the integration of Palmyra in the wider system of the Roman Empire and Mediterranean societies, this study will follow the paths of individuals between their place of origin and different Mediterranean locations. Palmyrenes in the Mediterranean were traders, soldiers or craftsmen, and their itineraries have to be integrated in a more complex picture. The personal names and the use of Palmyrene Aramaic generally testify to individuals of Palmyrene origin. If the routes are beyond our evidence, it is often possible to understand the relationships of those individuals with the populations around them and their local integration.
This chapter takes a perspective on Shakespeare’s language that is more in tune with linguistics than literary criticism. Hence, it covers areas of language typically and traditionally discussed within linguistics, including phonology, grammar, lexis and semantics, but also includes pragmatics and, briefly, Conversation Analysis. It begins with a consideration of the label ‘Shakespeare’s language’ and what exactly that might encompass; the role of Shakespeare’s language in the study of the history of English; and popular myths that have arisen around Shakespeare’s language. It concludes with a reflection on methods of study, especially digital methods. It strives not only to acknowledge key research, but also to give the flavour of some of the findings of that research.
This chapter focuses on phraseological units in the development of English. In the past years, an increasing number of studies have dealt with this topic, partly within different theoretical frameworks, such as lexicalisation, grammaticalisation or constructionalisation. On the basis of a selection of case studies mostly with a focus on corpus linguistics, this chapter aims to highlight selected findings on phraseological units in the history of English, emphasising questions such as the relationship between phraseological and non-phraseological language development, structural variation vs fixedness, and the role of style. The discussion of the case studies proceeds from one of the smallest units (phrasal verb) in ascending structural complexity to the largest, sentence-length unit (proverb), and finally to units with variable slots. The chapter finishes with considerations of the phraseological force in language development and the place of phraseologicalisation in theories of language change.
The concept of leadership has not received much attention in Assyriology as it was overshadowed by the concept of kingship and its omnipresence in ancient Mesopotamia. As the available sources mostly are written from the perspective of the leader – in the case of ancient Mesopotamia this is the king or the city ruler – also Assyriologists mostly took this standpoint and wrote ‘history from above’. Much scholarly effort was invested in the study of various aspects of kingship. Because of the scarceness of sources discussing the experience of the ruler’s leadership and the abundance of royal inscriptions, we usually do not take the perspective – to use a widespread political metaphor – of the sheep, but only that of the shepherd. Nevertheless, there are some texts that critic the leadership of kings. These texts are mostly of literary nature but they allow us at least a partial ‘view from below’, as they describe the problems of people living under a powerful king.
Edited by
Martin Nedbal, University of Kansas,Kelly St. Pierre, Wichita State University and Institute for Theoretical Studies, Prague,,Hana Vlhová-Wörner, University of Basel and Masaryk Institute, Prague
Chapter 1 elaborates on how the assemblage of multilateral, bilateral, transnational, and private nongovernmental actors – the clean energy regime complex – interacts with domestic politics in emerging economies and developing countries (EMDEs) to foster energy transitions. The ripple effects of international norms regarding energy transitions are visible in domestic institutional change in Indonesia and the Philippines, but both cases demonstrate variable outcomes in terms of the relative impacts of the clean energy regime complex in removing barriers to geothermal development. The chapter underlines the importance of studying the interaction between the international and domestic politics in EMDEs to understand how best to catalyze energy transitions to meet global climate mitigation goals. The chapter summarizes the case study selection, research design and methods, and theoretical arguments on regime complex effectiveness mechanisms – including utility modifier, social learning, and capacity building, and their impact in overcoming domestic political lock-in. The chapter also provides a brief overview of the book.