Global ETD Search

1	Le Réel dans le texte : lecture et interprétation de la figure de Bartleby le scribe Liva, Alexandra 08 1900 (has links) La nouvelle « Bartleby The Scrivener. A Story of Wall-Street » pose des questions de lecture et d’interprétation littéraire. Grâce à des approches ayant le discours pour objet ou moyen de connaissance (rhétorique, étymologie, psychanalyse, pragmatique) de même qu’aux écrits de Herman Melville, il s’agit de cerner ce que représente Bartleby, qualifié d’« unaccountable » (inexplicable). Ce mot organise l’étude. Entier ou décomposé en morphèmes, dans une première partie, il met en évidence des univers de sens où Bartleby se montre marginal et court-circuite les systèmes : l’univers du langage (« unaccountable » : inénarrable), celui de la loi (« count » : chef d’accusation) et celui des chiffres (« account, count » : compte, compter). Une seconde partie rattache les pistes de lecture implicites ainsi dégagées aux thématiques de l’« inexplicable », explicites dans le texte, permettant une interprétation touchant l’univers des lettres, leur pérennité et leur circulation par le biais de la lecture et de l’interprétation. / The short story “Bartleby The Scrivener. A Story of Wall Street” raises questions about reading and literary interpretation. Using approaches where language is the object or means of knowledge (rhetoric, etymology, psychoanalysis, pragmatics) along with writings from Herman Melville, we aim to consider what is represented by Bartleby, who is often described as unaccountable. This very word structures the study. The first part of the thesis examines this word, taken as a whole or broken down into morphemes, as conveying universes of meaning in which Bartleby appears as marginal, short-circuiting diverse systems: the universe of language (unaccountable), the universe of the law (count) and the universe of the numbers (account, count). The second part links the implicit threads of meaning thus revealed to the theme of the strange and unexplainable (unaccountable), explicit in the text, allowing for interpretations bearing on the world of literary texts, their conveyance and circulation through reading and interpretation. Bartleby Lecture Interprétation Adresse du texte Négation Texte comme objet Circulation des signifiants "Unaccountable" Bartleby Reading Interpretation Text addressee Negation Text as object Circulation of the signifiers Unaccountable
2	Le Réel dans le texte : lecture et interprétation de la figure de Bartleby le scribe Liva, Alexandra 08 1900 (has links) La nouvelle « Bartleby The Scrivener. A Story of Wall-Street » pose des questions de lecture et d’interprétation littéraire. Grâce à des approches ayant le discours pour objet ou moyen de connaissance (rhétorique, étymologie, psychanalyse, pragmatique) de même qu’aux écrits de Herman Melville, il s’agit de cerner ce que représente Bartleby, qualifié d’« unaccountable » (inexplicable). Ce mot organise l’étude. Entier ou décomposé en morphèmes, dans une première partie, il met en évidence des univers de sens où Bartleby se montre marginal et court-circuite les systèmes : l’univers du langage (« unaccountable » : inénarrable), celui de la loi (« count » : chef d’accusation) et celui des chiffres (« account, count » : compte, compter). Une seconde partie rattache les pistes de lecture implicites ainsi dégagées aux thématiques de l’« inexplicable », explicites dans le texte, permettant une interprétation touchant l’univers des lettres, leur pérennité et leur circulation par le biais de la lecture et de l’interprétation. / The short story “Bartleby The Scrivener. A Story of Wall Street” raises questions about reading and literary interpretation. Using approaches where language is the object or means of knowledge (rhetoric, etymology, psychoanalysis, pragmatics) along with writings from Herman Melville, we aim to consider what is represented by Bartleby, who is often described as unaccountable. This very word structures the study. The first part of the thesis examines this word, taken as a whole or broken down into morphemes, as conveying universes of meaning in which Bartleby appears as marginal, short-circuiting diverse systems: the universe of language (unaccountable), the universe of the law (count) and the universe of the numbers (account, count). The second part links the implicit threads of meaning thus revealed to the theme of the strange and unexplainable (unaccountable), explicit in the text, allowing for interpretations bearing on the world of literary texts, their conveyance and circulation through reading and interpretation. Bartleby Lecture Interprétation Adresse du texte Négation Texte comme objet Circulation des signifiants "Unaccountable" Bartleby Reading Interpretation Text addressee Negation Text as object Circulation of the signifiers Unaccountable
3	Inconsistencies in the rights of review of the merits of Commonwealth administrative decisions Thackeray, Vincent Gregory Unknown Date (has links) Government intervention in the financial and social affairs of citizens has increased dramatically in the last fifty years. As a result, government administrative decisions continually affect the everyday lives of people. Many of these decisions are discretionary. Modern administrative law has grown to meet the need for governments, rather than the courts, to supervise the exercise of administrative power so that injustice resulting from misuse of power can be avoided. The merits review system is an integral part of this administrative law. The effectiveness of the merits review system is dependent upon how Parliament makes provision for merits review in the legislative process. The object of this thesis is to analyse and evaluate the effectiveness of the scope of the Commonwealth administrative law merits review system. An evaluation of the availability of rights of review of the merits of Commonwealth administrative decisions will determine the extent to which Commonwealth law provides for merits review of administrative decisions. This thesis makes such an evaluation by undertaking an empirical study of the merits review provisions in Commonwealth legislation. The empirical study analyses 1,070 Commonwealth statutes and establishes that there are 340 statutes that confer power to make a reviewable decision or decisions. However, only 30 percent of these statutes provide for merits review of all reviewable decisions, while 44 percent provide for merits review of some decisions and 26 percent do not provide for merits review of any decisions. Consequently, the empirical study identifies inconsistencies in the provision of merits review of Commonwealth administrative decisions. The Australian parliamentary executive system of government has permitted a breakdown in the legislative drafting process that has allowed these inconsistencies to develop. Moreover, the executive arm of the Commonwealth government has diminished its accountability to Parliament for some of the administrative decisions made by it. A person affected by an unreviewable administrative decision may be treated unjustly as a result. 350200 Business and Management Inconsistencies rights merits review Commonwealth Australia administrative decisions Kerr Executive unaccountable Parliament injustice empirical study statutes legislation. breakdown legislative drafting process Parliamentary Counsel Administrative Review Tribunal Council Attorney-General appeal
4	Inconsistencies in the rights of review of the merits of Commonwealth administrative decisions Thackeray, Vincent Gregory Unknown Date (has links) Government intervention in the financial and social affairs of citizens has increased dramatically in the last fifty years. As a result, government administrative decisions continually affect the everyday lives of people. Many of these decisions are discretionary. Modern administrative law has grown to meet the need for governments, rather than the courts, to supervise the exercise of administrative power so that injustice resulting from misuse of power can be avoided. The merits review system is an integral part of this administrative law. The effectiveness of the merits review system is dependent upon how Parliament makes provision for merits review in the legislative process. The object of this thesis is to analyse and evaluate the effectiveness of the scope of the Commonwealth administrative law merits review system. An evaluation of the availability of rights of review of the merits of Commonwealth administrative decisions will determine the extent to which Commonwealth law provides for merits review of administrative decisions. This thesis makes such an evaluation by undertaking an empirical study of the merits review provisions in Commonwealth legislation. The empirical study analyses 1,070 Commonwealth statutes and establishes that there are 340 statutes that confer power to make a reviewable decision or decisions. However, only 30 percent of these statutes provide for merits review of all reviewable decisions, while 44 percent provide for merits review of some decisions and 26 percent do not provide for merits review of any decisions. Consequently, the empirical study identifies inconsistencies in the provision of merits review of Commonwealth administrative decisions. The Australian parliamentary executive system of government has permitted a breakdown in the legislative drafting process that has allowed these inconsistencies to develop. Moreover, the executive arm of the Commonwealth government has diminished its accountability to Parliament for some of the administrative decisions made by it. A person affected by an unreviewable administrative decision may be treated unjustly as a result. 350200 Business and Management Inconsistencies rights merits review Commonwealth Australia administrative decisions Kerr Executive unaccountable Parliament injustice empirical study statutes legislation. breakdown legislative drafting process Parliamentary Counsel Administrative Review Tribunal Council Attorney-General appeal
5	Inconsistencies in the rights of review of the merits of Commonwealth administrative decisions Thackeray, Vincent Gregory Unknown Date (has links) Government intervention in the financial and social affairs of citizens has increased dramatically in the last fifty years. As a result, government administrative decisions continually affect the everyday lives of people. Many of these decisions are discretionary. Modern administrative law has grown to meet the need for governments, rather than the courts, to supervise the exercise of administrative power so that injustice resulting from misuse of power can be avoided. The merits review system is an integral part of this administrative law. The effectiveness of the merits review system is dependent upon how Parliament makes provision for merits review in the legislative process. The object of this thesis is to analyse and evaluate the effectiveness of the scope of the Commonwealth administrative law merits review system. An evaluation of the availability of rights of review of the merits of Commonwealth administrative decisions will determine the extent to which Commonwealth law provides for merits review of administrative decisions. This thesis makes such an evaluation by undertaking an empirical study of the merits review provisions in Commonwealth legislation. The empirical study analyses 1,070 Commonwealth statutes and establishes that there are 340 statutes that confer power to make a reviewable decision or decisions. However, only 30 percent of these statutes provide for merits review of all reviewable decisions, while 44 percent provide for merits review of some decisions and 26 percent do not provide for merits review of any decisions. Consequently, the empirical study identifies inconsistencies in the provision of merits review of Commonwealth administrative decisions. The Australian parliamentary executive system of government has permitted a breakdown in the legislative drafting process that has allowed these inconsistencies to develop. Moreover, the executive arm of the Commonwealth government has diminished its accountability to Parliament for some of the administrative decisions made by it. A person affected by an unreviewable administrative decision may be treated unjustly as a result. 350200 Business and Management Inconsistencies rights merits review Commonwealth Australia administrative decisions Kerr Executive unaccountable Parliament injustice empirical study statutes legislation. breakdown legislative drafting process Parliamentary Counsel Administrative Review Tribunal Council Attorney-General appeal
6	Inconsistencies in the rights of review of the merits of Commonwealth administrative decisions Thackeray, Vincent Gregory Unknown Date (has links) Government intervention in the financial and social affairs of citizens has increased dramatically in the last fifty years. As a result, government administrative decisions continually affect the everyday lives of people. Many of these decisions are discretionary. Modern administrative law has grown to meet the need for governments, rather than the courts, to supervise the exercise of administrative power so that injustice resulting from misuse of power can be avoided. The merits review system is an integral part of this administrative law. The effectiveness of the merits review system is dependent upon how Parliament makes provision for merits review in the legislative process. The object of this thesis is to analyse and evaluate the effectiveness of the scope of the Commonwealth administrative law merits review system. An evaluation of the availability of rights of review of the merits of Commonwealth administrative decisions will determine the extent to which Commonwealth law provides for merits review of administrative decisions. This thesis makes such an evaluation by undertaking an empirical study of the merits review provisions in Commonwealth legislation. The empirical study analyses 1,070 Commonwealth statutes and establishes that there are 340 statutes that confer power to make a reviewable decision or decisions. However, only 30 percent of these statutes provide for merits review of all reviewable decisions, while 44 percent provide for merits review of some decisions and 26 percent do not provide for merits review of any decisions. Consequently, the empirical study identifies inconsistencies in the provision of merits review of Commonwealth administrative decisions. The Australian parliamentary executive system of government has permitted a breakdown in the legislative drafting process that has allowed these inconsistencies to develop. Moreover, the executive arm of the Commonwealth government has diminished its accountability to Parliament for some of the administrative decisions made by it. A person affected by an unreviewable administrative decision may be treated unjustly as a result. 350200 Business and Management Inconsistencies rights merits review Commonwealth Australia administrative decisions Kerr Executive unaccountable Parliament injustice empirical study statutes legislation. breakdown legislative drafting process Parliamentary Counsel Administrative Review Tribunal Council Attorney-General appeal
7	Inconsistencies in the rights of review of the merits of Commonwealth administrative decisions Thackeray, Vincent Gregory Unknown Date (has links) Government intervention in the financial and social affairs of citizens has increased dramatically in the last fifty years. As a result, government administrative decisions continually affect the everyday lives of people. Many of these decisions are discretionary. Modern administrative law has grown to meet the need for governments, rather than the courts, to supervise the exercise of administrative power so that injustice resulting from misuse of power can be avoided. The merits review system is an integral part of this administrative law. The effectiveness of the merits review system is dependent upon how Parliament makes provision for merits review in the legislative process. The object of this thesis is to analyse and evaluate the effectiveness of the scope of the Commonwealth administrative law merits review system. An evaluation of the availability of rights of review of the merits of Commonwealth administrative decisions will determine the extent to which Commonwealth law provides for merits review of administrative decisions. This thesis makes such an evaluation by undertaking an empirical study of the merits review provisions in Commonwealth legislation. The empirical study analyses 1,070 Commonwealth statutes and establishes that there are 340 statutes that confer power to make a reviewable decision or decisions. However, only 30 percent of these statutes provide for merits review of all reviewable decisions, while 44 percent provide for merits review of some decisions and 26 percent do not provide for merits review of any decisions. Consequently, the empirical study identifies inconsistencies in the provision of merits review of Commonwealth administrative decisions. The Australian parliamentary executive system of government has permitted a breakdown in the legislative drafting process that has allowed these inconsistencies to develop. Moreover, the executive arm of the Commonwealth government has diminished its accountability to Parliament for some of the administrative decisions made by it. A person affected by an unreviewable administrative decision may be treated unjustly as a result. 350200 Business and Management Inconsistencies rights merits review Commonwealth Australia administrative decisions Kerr Executive unaccountable Parliament injustice empirical study statutes legislation. breakdown legislative drafting process Parliamentary Counsel Administrative Review Tribunal Council Attorney-General appeal
8	Inconsistencies in the rights of review of the merits of Commonwealth administrative decisions Thackeray, Vincent Gregory Unknown Date (has links) Government intervention in the financial and social affairs of citizens has increased dramatically in the last fifty years. As a result, government administrative decisions continually affect the everyday lives of people. Many of these decisions are discretionary. Modern administrative law has grown to meet the need for governments, rather than the courts, to supervise the exercise of administrative power so that injustice resulting from misuse of power can be avoided. The merits review system is an integral part of this administrative law. The effectiveness of the merits review system is dependent upon how Parliament makes provision for merits review in the legislative process. The object of this thesis is to analyse and evaluate the effectiveness of the scope of the Commonwealth administrative law merits review system. An evaluation of the availability of rights of review of the merits of Commonwealth administrative decisions will determine the extent to which Commonwealth law provides for merits review of administrative decisions. This thesis makes such an evaluation by undertaking an empirical study of the merits review provisions in Commonwealth legislation. The empirical study analyses 1,070 Commonwealth statutes and establishes that there are 340 statutes that confer power to make a reviewable decision or decisions. However, only 30 percent of these statutes provide for merits review of all reviewable decisions, while 44 percent provide for merits review of some decisions and 26 percent do not provide for merits review of any decisions. Consequently, the empirical study identifies inconsistencies in the provision of merits review of Commonwealth administrative decisions. The Australian parliamentary executive system of government has permitted a breakdown in the legislative drafting process that has allowed these inconsistencies to develop. Moreover, the executive arm of the Commonwealth government has diminished its accountability to Parliament for some of the administrative decisions made by it. A person affected by an unreviewable administrative decision may be treated unjustly as a result. 350200 Business and Management Inconsistencies rights merits review Commonwealth Australia administrative decisions Kerr Executive unaccountable Parliament injustice empirical study statutes legislation. breakdown legislative drafting process Parliamentary Counsel Administrative Review Tribunal Council Attorney-General appeal

Search results