bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Connective Practices
Authors: Hendriks Carolyn M. , Ercan Selen A. , Boswell John 
Published: November 2020

Abstract
Chapter 6 draws together common insights from the three preceding empirical chapters to better understand the everyday practical work of democratic mending. The chapter introduces the concept of ‘connective practices’ to capture the individual and collective efforts of actors to mend their democratic systems, and discusses the different features of connective practices that make them especially effective for mending democratic disconnects. Drawing insights from the empirical cases presented throughout the book, the chapter identifies the relational, creative, adaptive, co-constituted, and iterative characteristics of connective practices, and considers their democratic implications.
Advancing a Connective Approach to Democratic Reform
Authors: Hendriks Carolyn M. , Ercan Selen A. , Boswell John 
Published: November 2020

Abstract
Chapter 8 presents the key take-home messages for advancing the work of democratic reform in disconnected times. The chapter makes the case for expanding democratic repair beyond institutional proposals and towards a more emergent and systemic approach aimed at building connections across democratic systems. The analysis encourages democratic reformers to learn from the creative connective practices of everyday actors who seek to mend disconnects and make democracy work in context. The final section of the chapter presents key principles of democratic mending, urging advocates and practitioners of democratic reform to think more creatively about how to ‘make do’ with the materials at their disposal.
Idealismex Nihilo
Authors: Lebens Samuel 
Published: November 2020

AbstractThis chapter makes a radical claim: theism entails a robust form of idealism. The chapter then goes on to use that claim to make sense of a central tradition of Jewish mysticism—tzimtzum, or divine contraction. The tradition in question is an idealistic solution to a problem concerning belief in creation; a problem that, this chapter ends with claiming, Gersonides may have been sensitive to.
“Discourse on Metaphysics”
Authors: Strickland Lloyd 
Published: November 2020

AbstractThe “Discourse on Metaphysics” is widely considered to be Leibniz’s most important philosophical work from his so-called “middle period”. Written early in 1686, when Leibniz was 39 years old, it consolidates a number of philosophical ideas that he had developed and sketched out in the years beforehand in a host of short private essays, fragments, and letters. This chapter guides the reader through the key themes of the “Discourse”, such as God’s choice of the best, the nature of substance, final causes, and the relationship between soul and body. The essay concludes with a consideration of what prompted Leibniz to write the “Discourse”; I suggest that the “Discourse” is likely to have been conceived as an attempt to reach supporters of Descartes and Malebranche, not only to challenge key tenets of their respective philosophies but also to present a viable alternative.
The Correspondence with Arnauld
Authors: Jorati Julia 
Published: November 2020

AbstractLeibniz’s correspondence with Antoine Arnauld took place in his so-called “middle period”: it began in February 1686 and ended in March 1690, when Leibniz wrote his final letter to Arnauld. The exchange was initiated by Leibniz, who sent Arnauld a short summary of his most recent philosophical composition, the “Discourse on Metaphysics”, and asked Arnauld for his opinion. The ensuing correspondence is an excellent source of information about Leibniz’s views in the middle period: it contains a thorough, clear, and surprisingly systematic presentation of many of his most important philosophical doctrines. This chapter focuses on what we can learn from these letters about Leibniz’s theory of complete concepts, his account of body and substance, his doctrines about causation, and finally his theory that minds have a special status in God’s plan.
Language or Dialect?
Authors: Van Rooy Raf 
Published: November 2020

Abstract
‘What is the difference between a language and a dialect?’ is one of the questions most frequently asked of linguists. A notorious and oft-repeated answer is ‘A language is a dialect with an army and navy’, wrongly attributed to Max Weinreich. Linguists have mostly used this witticism as a handy way to end the discussion and dismiss the distinction between language and dialect as a political question irrelevant to their discipline. This book does not attempt to answer this seemingly unsolvable puzzle either but aims to shed light on a simple fact usually overlooked by linguists and laypeople alike: the conceptual pair is not a timeless given but has a history, and a much shorter one than one might assume. It starts not in Greek antiquity, as the origin of the word dialect may suggest, but in the sixteenth century. Taking the Weinreich witticism as its starting point, this book guides the reader on the remarkable journey which the conceptual pair has made. It begins with the prehistory of the language/dialect distinction in antiquity and the Middle Ages. The core of the book surveys the emergence, establishment, and elaboration of the conceptual pair during the early modern period, from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, when linguistic diversity first became an object of intense study. Finally, the much-contested and ambiguous fate of the language / dialect distinction in modern linguistics is outlined, with special reference to the persistence of earlier ideas and the rise to prominence of the political interpretation crystallized in the Weinreich quip.
Introduction
Authors: Van Rooy Raf 
Published: November 2020

Abstract
‘A language is a dialect with an army and navy.’ This witticism, associated with Max Weinreich, constitutes the starting point of both the entire book and this first chapter. The distinction between language and dialect implicit in the witticism, the chapter argues, is not a self-evident and timeless given, as is widely assumed, but has had a complex history. In this history, the early modern period played a pivotal role, as linguistic diversity was problematized for the first time during this era. Earlier and later developments cannot, however, be overlooked. The chapter also outlines the focus on Western scholarship, with a slight West-Germanic tilt, as well as the main approach and structure of the book. Presented as a history of ideas, it falls into five parts, which coincide with the main episodes in the history of the conceptual pair. Finally, this chapter briefly surveys the contents of all subsequent chapters.
A dive into the prehistory of the conceptual pair
Authors: Van Rooy Raf 
Published: November 2020

Abstract
Chapter 2 starts at the ultimate origin of the English term dialect, ancient Greece, contending that it was never customary in Greek scholarship to contrast this term to a word referring to a superordinate concept of language. In order to substantiate this view, the chapter treats both passing references to the Greek dialects in a wide variety of texts and influential definitions of the Greek word diálektos (διάλεκτος). It also frames these definition attempts in their philological context, as the phenomenon of dialect was predominantly studied for its literary relevance. Finally, this chapter briefly discusses the Latin tradition up to about 1500, arguing that an obvious opposition of dialect to language cannot be discovered there either.
From dogs and hounds to languages and dialects
Authors: Van Rooy Raf 
Published: November 2020

Abstract
Chapter 4 illustrates the way in which the Swiss humanist Conrad Gessner, an important language scholar, bibliographer, and zoologist, conceived of the Latin term dialectus in opposition to lingua. Renaissance intellectuals were confronted with a major information explosion, also on the languages of the world, and Gessner was one of the first to try and classify human speech in all its diversity. He did so in his Mithridates of 1555, the first ever language catalogue, in which the term dialectus frequently appeared. The word served to bring more nuance into the relationships between speech forms and is, as it was not in ancient and medieval times, clearly taken to be a variety of a language. For this interpretation, Gessner was inspired not only by ancient sources but also by the works of his contemporaries. Unlike Roger Bacon, the Swiss humanist was not an isolated pioneer, but the exponent of an early sixteenth-century trend.
Lingua and dialectus
Authors: Van Rooy Raf 
Published: November 2020

Abstract
Chapter 5 traces the emergence of the language / dialect distinction through its main symptoms. Most tellingly, the early sixteenth century witnessed an increasing contrasting of the Latin terms dialectus and lingua, after Greek diálektos had been definitively borrowed into Neo-Latin. Another symptom was the creation of the concept of common language (lingua communis), which humanists often contrasted with dialectus. In addition, dialectus definitions were updated by means of determiners suggesting the hierarchical subordination of the term vis-à-vis lingua. In the 1540s, a new Latin phrase moreover appeared, ‘to differ only in dialect(s)’, which implied that related dialects differed from one another only superficially, whereas distinct languages exhibited substantial variation. Dialectus and lingua were, however, not contrasted in a very clear fashion from the start, since the former term especially was not yet delimited semantically. Instead, it was part of an intricate conceptual web, including also concepts like idiom and style.
A subjective touch
Authors: Van Rooy Raf 
Published: November 2020

Abstract
From the late sixteenth century onwards, dialect was conceptualized as an anomalous deviation from the analogical language under which it resorted. Chapter 9 suggests that this interpretation may have had its roots in Greek ideas. The analogy / anomaly conception was additionally grounded in early modern linguistic realities, since the advancing standardization led to a stronger contrast between the prescribed norm and everything deviating from it. Out of this normative interpretation, the highly subjective idea that language was superior to dialect developed almost naturally during the seventeenth century. Whereas theorizing on dialect had remained neutral in the sixteenth century because of the close link it had with the esteemed Ancient Greek dialects, it was detached from it during the seventeenth century. In addition, local elites gradually turned their back on their native dialects, embracing the upcoming standard languages. This social evolution likewise enhanced the severe degradation of the dialect concept.
The conceptual pair in transition
Authors: Van Rooy Raf 
Published: November 2020

Abstract
Chapter 12 presents the book’s third case study, the Swedish scholar Georg Stiernhielm, a transitional figure. Driven by language-historical interests, Stiernhielm defined the conceptual pair in terms of substantial versus accidental differences. This Aristotelian interpretation he made very explicit, tying it to specific linguistic domains such as the lexicon and pronunciation. He moreover invoked mutual intelligibility in his definitions. As he was concerned in the first place with language history, his usage of the terms lingua and dialectus was also steeped in the diachronic interpretation. In the margin, the analogy / anomaly opposition and geography likewise shaped his conception of the distinction. The case of Stiernhielm, who probably did not know much Greek, confirms the tendency towards emancipation discussed in Chapter 11. It is, finally, no coincidence that his interest in the conceptual pair surfaced around 1650, just after he had met two erudite philologists: Christian Ravis and Claude de Saumaise.
Lexicostatistics avant la lettre
Authors: Van Rooy Raf 
Published: November 2020

Abstract
Chapter 14 presents a case study from an angle different from that of philology, taking the historian Johann Christoph Gatterer’s ideas on linguistic diversity as its object. It not only serves as another telling example of the tendency towards systematization, but also, and especially, represents a climax in eighteenth-century attempts at rationalizing the language / dialect distinction. Proposing an embryonic lexicostatistic method, Gatterer tried to find an objective way to use linguistic data in writing an encompassing history of tribes and nations, in particular their prehistory. Starting from a basic vocabulary set, Gatterer attempted to quantify linguistic distance. In doing so, he divided the kinship continuum into four sections: unrelated languages, related languages, dialects, and closely related dialects. His innovative methodology, prefiguring modern lexicostatistic approaches, had only limited success, however. Gatterer failed to put it into practice, and the historian was criticized for his ahistorical method by the grammarian Johann Christoph Adelung.
From Jones to Gabelentz
Authors: Van Rooy Raf 
Published: November 2020

Abstract
Chapter 17 illustrates the nineteenth-century fate of the language / dialect distinction, during and after the establishment of linguistics as an autonomous field of study. Since at this stage the study of language roughly coincided with historical-comparative grammar, it is no surprise that the language-historical interpretation prevailed. In the 1870s, the spatial conception was foregrounded when dialect geography emerged. Other criteria lived on, too, especially mutual intelligibility and the Aristotelian interpretation. In the first half of the nineteenth century, only a few scholars bothered to discuss the conceptual pair at length, notable among them the now forgotten comparative linguist Albert Giese. In the 1860s, suspicion about the validity of the language / dialect contrast grew, perceptible in the work of August Schleicher and the neogrammarians, but not to such an extent that it was extensively questioned. Perhaps linguists were afraid that this debate would mean the premature end of their young discipline.
Schuchardt the iconoclast
Authors: Van Rooy Raf 
Published: November 2020

Abstract
By the end of the nineteenth century, many prominent linguists had realized the arbitrariness of the language / dialect distinction, and linguists were forcibly confronted with its problematic nature from within, as Chapter 18 argues. This last case study of the book outlines the ideas of Hugo Schuchardt, who dared to face the full consequences of critically reflecting on the conceptual pair. Considering the nature of linguistic diversity, Schuchardt noticed that there were no strict divisions such as Schleicher’s family tree model presupposed. Instead, he proposed a wave model, thus prefiguring Johannes Schmidt’s image. Language and dialect were merely fictional abstractions from actual linguistic facts and for this reason useless. Schuchardt was not alone in his suspicion. Some of his colleagues likewise acknowledged the abstract nature of the language / dialect distinction but preferred to keep on using it for practical reasons, whereas others, like Jules Gilliéron, dismissed its validity and concentrated on linguistic features instead.
From Saussure to 1954
Authors: Van Rooy Raf 
Published: November 2020

Abstract
Chapter 19 discusses the fate of the language / dialect distinction in structuralism. Ferdinand de Saussure’s conception of it was fairly traditional. In Saussure’s wake, mainstream structural linguists usually focused on homogeneous language systems, the langue, rather than the parole, with scant attention to the conceptual pair. In the 1950s, a dialectological turn occurred. The year 1954 in particular was a breaking point, when three structuralist papers devoted to the concept of dialect appeared. Uriel Weinreich suggested the concept of diasystem to capture variation within one language. André Martinet, in turn, tried to redefine dialect scientifically by excluding sociopolitical factors. Václav Polák, finally, argued that substantial morphosyntactic variation was required to speak of distinct languages. Phonological and lexical differences resulted in dialects only. Structuralist discussions of the language / dialect pair remained uncoordinated, however, and had relatively limited impact on subsequent debates, except for Weinreich’s diasystem concept.
Mutual intelligibility
Authors: Van Rooy Raf 
Published: November 2020

Abstract
Chapter 20 treats the success of the criterion of mutual intelligibility since the 1950s, when American linguists interested in Amerindian tongues started to actively test this feature. Pioneers were Carl Voegelin and Zellig Harris, who suggested four methods for answering language / dialect questions, including mutual intelligibility testing. Even though scholars immediately faced numerous problems, the method enjoyed considerable success and is the primary criterion used by language catalogues such as Ethnologue and Glottolog. The criterion was criticized by, among others, Frederick Agard, who proposed nine postulates for determining language / dialect status. Others followed Morris Swadesh’s lexicostatistic lead and tried to quantify the distances between speech forms. According to one of the most recent representatives of this strand, linguistic distance is bimodally distributed, and the language / dialect distinction is, by consequence, backed by the majority of the linguistic evidence. Rather artificially, a strict cut-off point is proposed in this recent contribution.
Between two extremes
Authors: Van Rooy Raf 
Published: November 2020

Abstract
Chapter 21 confronts two opposite perspectives on language and the language / dialect pair with roots in the 1950s and 1960s. On the one hand, it treats generative approaches to linguistic diversity. In general, generative linguists have assumed that dialect-level variation is produced by minor differences in rules, parameters, or constraints and their ordering or ranking, depending on the generative framework which they follow, whereas distinct languages are characterized by major divergences in the same. On the other hand, sociolinguists have focused on linguistic variables rather than systems. As they correlate linguistic phenomena to language-external attributes, their conceptions of the language / dialect distinction tend to be rather hybrid, being shaped by linguistic as well as sociopolitical parameters. This externalist approach has been fiercely criticized by Noam Chomsky. Other linguists have adopted more constructive attitudes, either by supplementing the language / dialect distinction or by supplanting it with an entirely new conception of language.
A gentle goodbye?
Authors: Van Rooy Raf 
Published: November 2020

Abstract
Chapter 22 illustrates that even though many linguists nowadays tend to avoid the term dialect, it has been a major resource for new terminology, especially through -lect derivations. The recent terms doculect and languoid are particularly interesting as they are derived from (dia)lect and language, respectively. Terminology linked to the language / dialect distinction is still widely used and has been incorporated into conceptual constellations tailored to specific national contexts. It is, moreover, striking how noncommittal recent definitions of dialect are, as if linguists want to keep a safe distance from this tarnished term. The chapter’s final section draws the balance of the modern love-hate relationship with the conceptual pair. Five main attitudes can be distinguished, ranging from tacit preservation through explicit redefinition and supplementation to a quest for alternatives and downright dismissal. The unorganized nature of the debate on the subject is remarkable, as is the persistence of centuries-old interpretations.
Language, dialect, and the general public—or how not to popularize knowledge
Authors: Van Rooy Raf 
Published: November 2020

Abstract
Chapter 23 explores the modern popularization of the language / dialect distinction, gathering steam in the last decades of the nineteenth century, when the standard language ideologies of nation-states spread to nearly all classes of society, primarily through mass education. This popularization involved a sharp divide between standard language and dialect, which became widely known among the general public. In the process, the conceptual pair was excessively politicized and even politically activated, as suggested by some notorious episodes in recent history, including the Oakland Ebonics controversy. The Internet has, moreover, provided laypeople with a forum to debate the language / dialect distinction and its applications, which tend to have a strong political colour. It remains to be seen whether and how linguists and others, both laypeople and academics, have exchanged ideas on the subject. It is tentatively suggested that there indeed has been a conceptual cross-fertilization, a phenomenon requiring further investigation.
Language and dialect between past and future
Authors: Van Rooy Raf 
Published: November 2020

Abstract
Chapter 24 surveys the book’s main arguments, which include especially the emergence of the modern language / dialect distinction during the early sixteenth century and the subsequent formulation of its main interpretations. Above all, however, this chapter emphasizes that the language / dialect distinction unmistakably has a history, for too long neglected, and that it is not a timeless and self-evident given. Having established its historicity, Chapter 24 fields the question of whether the conceptual pair has a future, to which an answer, both tentative and brief, is offered. On the one hand, it is suggested that a reconceptualization of the distinction can be a viable option. On the other hand, the fact that the conceptual pair has become common knowledge gives linguists not only the opportunity but also, and especially, the responsibility to take on a more prominent societal role in language / dialect disputes.
Introduction
Authors: Scott-Baumann Alison , Guest Mathew , Naguib Shuruq , Cheruvallil-Contractor Sariya , Phoenix Aisha 
Published: November 2020

Abstract
This book focuses on four main questions: · How do university staff and students view Islam and Muslims? · How do Muslim staff and students experience their faith identities in different ways on campus?· Where do they get their information from? · What role do different kinds of campus context play in shaping such perceptions? · What does this mean for our understanding of how universities function, particularly their capacity to foster critical thinking and cultural inclusivity? It is based on new research undertaken within a wide range of UK universities, including a national, sector-wide survey of over 2,000 students attending 132 universities and in-depth case studies of six very different campuses, including two Islamic colleges of higher education (the first study to include such institutions). The qualitative research has included conversations involving 253 staff and students across these six institutions, focus groups with Muslims and non-Muslims, analysis of teaching materials, observation of classes, and a variety of events pertinent to understanding how Islam is presented on campus.