No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

This report presents a critique of the ideology that language is naturally "perfect" on some level of analysis, or, alternately, that it can be made to be perfect through processes of decontextualization or through the construction of a new language. I identify this ideology of linguistic idealization as one of the defining characteristics of formalist, Chomskyan linguistics. This report describes three features of this ideology and their impact on formalist linguistics: science envy, the elegance fallacy, and the teleological fallacy. In order to understand the idealizing trend in its social and intellectual context, I present historical background on the various versions of this ideology that theorists have adopted during certain periods in Western scholarship about language. This report ultimately argues that the dynamic paradigm, which currently holds a minority status in American linguistics, as well as the simple but profound recognition that language has evolved along with its users, can provide an instructive contrast to the idealizing trend in mainstream linguistics. An acceptance of the ways in which language is subject to dynamic functional pressures, rather than or in addition to static, asocial rules, can expand the field beyond its currently narrow and limited purview to accommodate more of what we know about the reality of language structure and use. The report will end with the claim that even if we accept as unavoidable some measure of idealization within linguistic research, we should do so only with good reason, not simply because it is standard practice. In addition, researchers should make such a decision with an awareness of the historical underpinnings and ideological consequences of idealizing the object of their inquiry. / text

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

La laïcité est considérée comme un pilier du modèle républicain français et est, aujourd’hui, utilisée en tant que modèle d’intégration concernant les immigrés et les minorités culturelles et religieuses en France. Les travaux en psychologie sociale étudiant l’impact de l’adhésion au principe de laïcité sur les relations intergroupes révèlent que ce principe prédit négativement la tolérance envers la diversité culturelle. Cependant, de nombreux sociologues, politologues et historiens s’accordent à dire que la laïcité, telle qu’elle est conçue aujourd’hui, ne correspond pas à ce qu’elle était initialement, au moment de la création de la Loi de Séparation des Eglises et de l’Etat, en 1905. Il semblerait donc qu’il existe, non pas une laïcité, mais plusieurs conceptions de celle-ci. L’objectif de cette thèse se décline en trois axes de recherche : le premier est de construire une échelle permettant de prendre en compte les différentes croyances de la laïcité ; le deuxième est d’étudier, dans quelle mesure, l’adhésion aux différentes croyances sous-jacentes à la laïcité est liée à plus ou moins de tolérance envers la diversité culturelle ; le troisième est d’étudier comment l’adhésion aux différentes dimensions sous-jacentes à la laïcité prédit plus ou moins de tolérance envers la diversité religieuse. Globalement, les résultats indiquent qu’il existe différentes conceptions de la laïcité, permettant soit de promouvoir la tolérance envers la diversité culturelle et religieuse, soit, au contraire, d’atténuer la tolérance envers la diversité culturelle et religieuse. Les apports de ce travail, tant au niveau de la recherche, qu’au niveau sociétal sont discutés lors de la conclusion générale / Laïcité is considered a pillar of the French Republican model and is used, today, as a model of integration concerning immigrants and cultural and religious minorities in France. Research in socialpsychology studying the impact of support for the principle of laïcité on intergroup relations reveal that this principle negatively predicts the tolerance of cultural diversity. However, many sociologists, political analysts and historians agree to say that laïcité, as it is understood today, does not correspond to its initial definition, at the time of the creation of the law of Separation of Churches and the State, in 1905. Thus, it would seem that several, not only one, conceptions of laïcité exit. The objective of this thesis is to highlight the different conceptions of laïcité, and to study, to what extent, these reduce, or, on contrary, promote the tolerance of cultural and religious diversity. This objective is delineated in three lines of research: the first is to construct a measure of beliefs concerning laïcité taking into account the different interpretations of laïcité expressed in the public debate; the second is to study, to what extent, adhesion to the dimensions of laïcité is related to more or less tolerance of cultural diversity; the third is to study, to what extent, adhesion to the dimensions of laïcité reduces, or, on the contrary, promotes tolerance of religious diversity. In conclusion, this thesis shows that different conceptions of laïcité exist. These either promote tolerance of cultural and religious diversity, or on the contrary, reduce tolerance of cultural and religious diversity. The contributions of this work, both at the level of academic research, and at the societal level are discussed in the general conclusion

This thesis is about gender relations and identities among farming families in a community in the Aveyron region in southern France. More particularly, it is about the ways in which women and men in farming families locate themselves in terms of culturally constructed ideas of femininity and masculinity, and ideas of tradition and modernity. This study is carried out from a feminist perspective and draws on feminist and social and cultural geographies as well as other social science disciplines in order to explore the production and reproduction of patriarchal ideologies by which women are maintained in unequal positions to men in farming families, the farming community, and bureaucratic structures.