Search

Copyright of Enthymema is the property of Enthymema, International Journal of Literary Criticism, Literary Theory & Philosophy of Literature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Summary: While in European grammatical traditions appositions were recognized as a grammatical – rather than a rhetorical – category only around the 16th century, in the Arabic tradition their grammatical status was recognized from the very beginning, that is, from around the 8th century. The early Arabic grammatical tradition even treated – implicitly but clearly enough – the opposition between close and loose apposition, which was not recognized in the European tradition until much later. An additional unique feature of the Arabic tradition, as far as the recognition of apposition in grammatical analysis is concerned, is taken up in this article: the Arabic tradition, or so it seems, was the first to deal with the problem of errors understood as mistakes due to a lack of attention or a lapse of memory on the speaker's part, i.e. what the 19-20th centuries have identified as lapses at large (lapsus linguae or memoriae). These errors were incorporated into the framework of the grammar, since corrections of such errors were considered as a type of apposition or permutation. Such an incorporation is absent from grammars of Indo-European languages, and little present in contemporay general linguistics. This article thus highlights the contribution that Arabic grammar can make to the question of the grammatization of appositions in general linguistics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An interview with American historian Frederick Cooper is presented, revisiting his thought on themes such as the state, imperialism, and citizenship. When asked about the peculiarity of the French imperialist venture, Cooper stressed the need to consider the issue of imperialism from a comparative point of view, so as to acknowledge the interconnectedness of global history. Themes discussed include colonial and non colonial empires, the history of the nation state, and of imperialism.

The author presents several reflections related to medieval estates and how they were organized and structured. He resumes the rural historiography of the High Middle Ages and discusses the estate model proposed by Belgian medievalist, Adriaan Verhulst. Also discussed are several thoughts concerning comparative history from his perspective as an expert in western medieval rural history and Japanese feudalism.

The article discusses debates on the teaching and methodology of history in the period between 1990 and 2011, with a focus on practices and methodology employed in teaching history in Quebec during this period. Topics discussed include an assessment of new methodologies of history and the development of historiography, based on the works of theorists Maurice Halbwachs and Pierre Nora; theories and writings advanced by Quebecois historians, including Christian Laville, Julien Prud'homme, and Sebastien Parent; and the writing of Quebec history within the frameworks discussed.

This article is an extension of my book on The Sociology of Elite Distinction. In this work, I sought to offer a discussion on the merits and limits of the major models of interpretation dealing with social distinction when confronted with empirical realities in a large number of environments. Here, I propose some reflections about the way historians have been using these sociological models. Although universalistic propositions were often developed, I argue that most grand theories were typical products of their time and also of the societies respectively taken into consideration. The question therefore arises as to what extent their (retrospective) use by historians seeking a conceptual apparatus is always pertinent. It is concluded that many theoretical models are valuable providing we do not see them as 'reading grids' that could be systematically applied but rather as analytical tools which are more or less operational according to the contexts studied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]