| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
141214
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article highlights the semantic and socio-political meaning of the ‘field’ as it is used in both academic research and policy practices: as a geographic and material space related to forms of intervention in International Relations (IR), and not as a disciplinary space. We argue that the notion of the ‘field’ carries colonial baggage in terms of denoting ‘backwardness’ and conflictual practices, as well as legitimising the need for intervention by peacebuilding, statebuilding, and development actors located outside the field. We also show how academic practices have tended to create a semiotic frame in which the inhabitants of the research and intervention space are kept at a distance from the researcher, and discursively stripped of their agency. Along similar lines, policy-practice has reinforced the notion of the field as being in need of intervention, making it subject to external control. This article suggests that the agency of the inhabitants of the field has to be re-cognised and de-colonised so that political legitimacy can be recovered from ‘intervention’.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
178948
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
147053
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article seeks to explore the origins and evolution of zachistka (‘cleansing’) and the particular role it played in the second Chechen war of 1999–2005. It argues that zachistka has become part of state, military and media representations of violence, building a psychological environment in favour of war. The article seeks to understand how the propaganda of the Russian Ministry of Defence might have contributed to the perpetuation of war crimes or incitement to atrocity crimes in the region.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
101024
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Although ezafe has been studied by many scholars for many years, it does not yet have a transparent grammatical status. Grammarians have regarded ezafe as a polysemous "word" carrying over ten different "meanings/functions." After a brief review of the previous treatments of ezafe, this paper will present a syntactic analysis, followed by a morphological description and a semantic analysis of this ubiquitous morpheme. It will also compare the distributional properties of other relevant bound morphemes with those of the ezafe. It will finally conclude that ezafe is a dummy clitic-like morpheme which is semantically void, while syntactically it functions as an "associative marker" which subordinates its [+N] host, on the left, to its following complements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
040786
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969.
|
| Description |
xvi, 472p.Hbk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 003563 | 658.4032/DEU 003563 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|