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 firstname.lastname@example.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.
In 1969 R.T.É.'s 7 Days dealt with the issue of illegal moneylending, claiming that Dublin was ‘a city of fear’ where 500 unlicensed moneylenders used violence as a tool to collect debts. The Fianna Fáil government rejected the suggestion that loan sharking was widespread and that Gardaí responses to it were ineffectual; a tribunal of inquiry was established to investigate 7 Days. Previous analyses situated these events within the context of government concerns over the influence of television journalism. This article takes a different approach, analysing moneylending ― rather than 7 Days ― within the context of the rediscovery of poverty during the 1960s. It examines how social and economic changes, including the growth of consumer credit and the re-housing of large numbers of Dubliners, combined to make illegal moneylending more visible. Historical accounts of Ireland in the 1960s have had a top down focus on economic policy and growth. Here, the focus is shifted to personal rather state finances to offer a more nuanced portrayal of a decade often understood as a boom one. Moreover, analysing the nature and conclusions of the tribunal lays bare the contemporary resistance to those attempting to reframe the problem of poverty.
When infants are at risk of being born at a very premature gestation (22–25 weeks), parents face important life-support decisions because of the high mortality for such infants. Concurrently, providers are challenged with providing parents a supportive environment within which to make these decisions. Practice guidelines for medical care of these infants and the principles of perinatal palliative care for families can be resources for providers, but there is limited research to bridge these medical and humanistic approaches to infant and family care. The purpose of this article is to describe how parents at risk of delivering their infant prior to 26 weeks gestation interpreted the quality of their interpersonal interactions with healthcare providers.
Directed content analysis was employed to perform secondary analysis of data from 54 parents (40 mothers and 14 fathers) from the previously coded theme “Quality of Interactions.” These categorized data described parents' encounters, expectations, and experiences of interactions that occurred prenatally with care providers. For this analysis, Swanson's theory of caring was selected to guide analysis and to delineate parents' descriptions of caring and uncaring interactions.
Parents' expectations for caring included: (a) respecting parents and believing in their capacity to make the best decisions for their family (maintaining belief); (b) understanding parents' experiences and their continued need to protect their infant (knowing); (c) physically and emotionally engaging with the parents (being with); (d) providing unbiased information describing all possibilities (enabling); and (e) helping parents navigate the system and creating a therapeutic environment for them in which to make decisions (doing for).
Significance of Results:
Understanding parents' prenatal caring expectations through Swanson's theory gives deeper insights, aligning their expectations with the palliative care movement.
The extent to which risk for French as a second language (L2) reading and language learning impairment are distinct and can be predicted using first language (L1) predictors was examined in English-speaking students in total French immersion programs. A total of 86 children were tested in fall of kindergarten, spring kindergarten, and spring Grade 1 using an extensive battery of L1 predictor tests (in kindergarten) and L2 outcome tests (in Grade 1). Analyses of the kindergarten predictor scores revealed distinct underlying components, one related to reading and one to oral language. Further analyses revealed that phonological awareness, phonological access, and letter-sound knowledge in L1 were significant predictors of risk for reading difficulties in L2 while performance on L1 sentence repetition, phonological awareness, and tense marking tests in kindergarten were the best predictors of risk for L1 and L2 oral language difficulties. Both fall- and spring-kindergarten predictors predicted Grade 1 outcomes to a significant extent, with the spring-kindergarten predictors being more accurate. These results provide support for distinctive risk profiles for L2 oral language and reading difficulty and, furthermore, argue that assessment of L1 abilities can be used to make reasonably accurate predictions of later reading and/or oral language learning difficulties in L2 students.
The belief that school readiness is important is supported by longitudinal research indicating that children's skills in various domains at the time of school entry are often predictive of their school adjustment, achievement, and other significant outcomes years later. Among the component skills that comprise school readiness are cognitive, behavioral, and social-emotional competencies. Teacher-child closeness is associated with young children's reading skills, whereas dependency and conflict in the teacher-child relationship are associated with school avoidance and poor achievement. Evidence-based early childhood interventions to promote school readiness are often not adopted in real-world settings because of perceptions that they are ineffective or too costly. School readiness interventions vary somewhat with regard to their particular goals and strategies. Developmental and educational experts continue to seek ways to refine and enhance school readiness interventions so that they provide the maximum benefits to children in poverty and other risk groups.
A survey of muscid flies from Churchill, Manitoba, Canada, in 2007 yielded 155 species. Some components of species richness and composition of this contemporary assemblage were compared with those of a historical (pre-1965) assemblage, and the contribution of the three collecting methods used in the 2007 survey protocol was evaluated. Estimates of species richness indicated that Malaise traps yielded more species than did pan traps or sweep netting, and that species composition did not differ significantly between Malaise trap and pan trap catches. These results suggest that Malaise traps and sweep netting are adequate methods to survey northern Muscidae. We report little difference in estimated species richness and composition between time periods for material collected by sweep netting. When all material from the 2007 survey was pooled, 87% of the pre-1965 species were collected again in 2007. Most nonoverlapping species between time periods were rare in samples and (or) collected by different methods, suggesting a failure to detect as the most likely explanation for their absence in one assemblage. Nevertheless, the proportion of aquatic and semiaquatic species of Spilogona Schnabl was more than twice as high in the list of species not recovered in 2007 than in the pre-1965 assemblage.
Professor Isaac Goldhirsch, the Raquel and Manuel Klachky Chair of Rheological Flows at the School of Mechanical Engineering of Tel-Aviv University, Israel, died unexpectedly on April 29 at age 60 while on sabbatical leave at the University of Erlangen–Nuremberg, Germany.
— Hölderlin, “In lieblicher Bläue” (In lovely blueness)
THE JUBILEE OF A RENOWNED CULTURAL FIGURE may be likened to the long-expected appearance of a comet in the night sky. Much as the comet's approach transforms astronomy, however briefly, from a boffinish pursuit into a popular pastime, so the commemoration of an author ordinarily discussed by none but academics has the potential to bring him to the attention of a much broader reading public. As each celestial body shoots into view, it excites a flush of interest conditioned by the knowledge that decades may elapse before it again blazes across the firmament. Luther, Bach, and Nietzsche years follow one another in regular succession, observed with a solemnity that stands in inverse proportion to the arbitrariness of the occasion. Conferences are held, biographies published, and works reissued in accordance with the divinely prescribed calendar; appreciations and reevaluations appear by the dozen. Every so often a new comet emerges from the cosmic flotsam, or an old comet, hitherto unnoticed, veers closer to the earth in the course of its journey through the solar system.
Today comets give rise to different associations in the spectator than in the age of Hölderlin, who was not alone in regarding their elliptical trajectory — at once predetermined, aberrant, and dazzling to behold — as a figure of revolution.
Toward the end of the Second World War, the works of the great German poet Friedrich Hölderlin were heavily exploited by Nazi propaganda as a source of spiritual strength for the war-weary German people. Once the fires had burned out, scholars attempted to absolve Hölderlin of any responsibility for his wartime (mis)appropriation. Only a few saw that his work would have to be reread in the light of the iniquities that had been said and done in his name. This book examines how Hölderlin was taken up by three such thinkers, among the most influential and controversial of their time: Martin Heidegger, Theodor W. Adorno, and Bertolt Brecht. It extrapolates from their writings on the poet three irreconcilable paradigms of reception - conversation, polemic, and citation - that are of significance for the broader project of working through the tarnished German cultural legacy after 1945. In each case, Hölderlin is examined as the occasion for salvaging that legacy after, from, and in view of the catastrophe. This first full-length study of Hölderlin's postwar reception will be of interest to students and scholars working in the fields of German literature, European philosophy, the politics of cultural memory, and critical theory. Robert Savage is ARC Postdoctoral Fellow in the Center for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
WHAT CAN A GERMAN UNDERSTAND about Hölderlin?” The Hölderlin experts to whom this question was addressed had no doubt been expecting a more diplomatic overture from the man who posed it, Pierre Bertaux, when they invited him to appear as guest speaker at their 1968 conference. That he should begin his speech by casting doubt on their own interpretative credentials amounted to a slap in the face. In itself, the fact that they were being lectured by a foreigner on this, the most German of poets, was unusual enough. It was a moot point and, since the early twentieth century, a well-worn topos of reception, whether the work of Friedrich Hölderlin (1770–1843) even tolerated translation, whether it did not rather flout the criterion of universal communicability and intelligibility upon which any act of translation depends. Conventional wisdom suggested that no matter how diligently a non-German were to delve into the poetry's language, intertextual borrowings, historical background, or symbolism, its essential meaning would always elude him. By inverting the standard reproach, Bertaux sought to transform what had hitherto been regarded as an insurmountable barrier to understanding — the brute fact of exclusion from a tribe that still defined membership according to the ius sanguinis — into its prerequisite. Yet even he insisted upon the privilege of nationality, maintaining that his own insights accrued to him solely by virtue of his impeccable revolutionary pedigree. Where such arguments were put into play, the counter-accusation of Gallic arrogance was not far off.
Irr gieng er nun; denn allzu gut sind Genien; himmlisch Gespräch ist sein nun.
[He has gone astray; for all too good are Genii; heavenly talk is his now.]
— Hölderlin, “Ganymed”
MARTIN HEIDEGGER'S RECEPTION of Hölderlin's poetry is characterized as much by its remarkable constancy and longevity as by its metamorphoses, discontinuities, and occasional U-turns. The leitmotif in the conversation is easy enough to identify: the conviction he announced in 1934, at the beginning of his first lecture course on Hölderlin, that the poet's “still space-time-less work has already overcome our petty historical affairs and founded the inception of another history, that history that commences with the struggle for the decision about the arrival or flight of the god,” will never waver.1 It animates the two other lecture courses devoted to Hölderlin that he gave during the Third Reich; it stands behind the speeches and essays collected in Erläuterungen zu Hölderlins Dichtung (Elucidations to Hölderlin's Poetry, 1944); it resurfaces, its eschatological tone intact, if somewhat less grandiloquently inflected, in the postwar pieces on technology, poetry, and dwelling; and it is reaffirmed in the Spiegel interview of 1966. In that conversation, posthumously published under the title “Nur noch ein Gott kann uns retten” (Only a God Can Save Us), Heidegger insists that his thinking “stands in an absolutely necessary relation to the poetry of Hölderlin.” The two statements find their common ground in the solemn words Heidegger had uttered over thirty years before.