87 p. / Submitted by Santiago Fabio (fabio.ssantiago@hotmail.com) on 2012-12-18T19:42:21Z No. of bitstreams: 1 99.pdf: 775382 bytes, checksum: ba32b8b50001af01cc5aceb13ab7e72e (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2012-12-18T19:42:21Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 99.pdf: 775382 bytes, checksum: ba32b8b50001af01cc5aceb13ab7e72e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010 / Essa dissertação buscou compreender o recente fenômeno corporativo de fusões e aquisições entre as Instituições de Ensino Superior Privado no Brasil. Foram analisados dois casos em particular: a compra da Universidade Anhembi Morumbi, sediada em São Paulo, pelo grupo americano Laureate Inc. e a aquisição do Grupo Fanor, com Instituições nos estados da Bahia e Ceará, por outro grupo americano, a Devry Inc. A pesquisa desenvolvida apresenta os tipos, as motivações, as etapas e os fatores de sucesso desses processos. Como resultado da pesquisa, verificou-se que entre os anos de 2005 e o primeiro trimestre de 2009, ocorreram 78 destes processos, envolvendo cerca de 2 bilhões de reais. A compra do controle acionário da Universidade Anhembi Morumbi pelo grupo americano Laureate Inc. em 2005 é considerado o marco inicial no país para o processo de fusões e aquisições entre Instituições de Ensino Superior Privadas. Verificou-se que as Fusões e Aquisições no setor de Ensino Superior Privado no Brasil são eminentemente do tipo horizontal, e fatores como excesso de oferta (número de vagas), demanda reduzida (novos alunos), crescimento e diversificação, sinergia, e o aumento da capacidade de investimento, são as principais motivações encontradas durante a pesquisa, para a formação de grupos consolidadores. Nos dois casos estudados, os processos de Fusão e Aquisição da Universidade Anhembi Morumbi pela Laureate Inc. e da Fanor pela Devry Inc. passaram pelas três etapas básicas: due diligence, negociação e a integração. O aumento da capacidade de investimento que o novo sócio trás, com investimentos em infraestrutura e a capacitação do docente, a troca de conhecimento e experiência entre as universidades da rede, e o auxílio de consultores educacionais disponibilizados pelos grupos controladores são os principais fatores de sucesso dos processos de Fusões e Aquisições analisados. / Salvador

This dissertation challenges the standard view that fifteenth-century poets wrote irregular meters in artless imitation of Chaucer. On the contrary, I argue that Chaucer’s followers deliberately misread his meter in order to challenge his authority as a laureate. Rather than reproduce that meter, they reformed it, creating three distinct meters that vied for dominance in the first decades of the fifteenth century. In my analysis of 40,655 decasyllables written by poets other than Chaucer, I show that the fifteenth century was not the metrical wasteland so often depicted by editors and critics but an age of radical experimentation, nuance, and prosodic cunning. In Chapter One I present evidence against the two standard explanations for a fifteenth-century metrical collapse: cultural depression and linguistic instability. Chapter Two outlines an alternative framework to the statistical and linguistic methods that have come to dominate metrical studies. In their place I propose an interdisciplinary approach that combines the two techniques with cognitive science, using a reader-oriented, brain-based model of metrical competence to reframe irregular rhythms as problems that readers solve. Chapter Three applies this framework to Chaucer’s meter to show that the poets who inherited his long line exploited its soft structure in order to build competing meters; in that chapter I also argue that Chaucer did not write in iambic pentameter, as is generally assumed, but in a “footless” decasyllabic line modeled on the Italian endecasillibo. Chapter Four explores metrical reception; by probing scribal responses to Chaucer’s meter we can gain insight into how fifteenth-century readers heard it. Chapters Five through Seven investigate three specific acts of reception by poets: those of John Walton, Thomas Hoccleve, and John Lydgate. I conclude the dissertation by tracing the influence of Hoccleve and Lydgate on the later fifteenth-century poets George Ashby, Osbern Bokenham, and John Metham, and by identifying the eclipse of fifteenth-century meter with the Tudor poets Stephen Hawes and Alexander Barclay, who replaced a misreading of Chaucer’s meter with a misreading of Lydgate’s, inadvertently returning sixteenth-century poets to an alternating decasyllable reminiscent of Chaucer’s own meter. / text

In this project, I examine the impact of early literary criticism, early literary history, and the history of knowledge on the perception of the laureateship as it was formulated at specific moments in the eighteenth century. Instead of accepting the assessments of Pope and Johnson, I reconstruct the contemporary impact of laureate writings and the writing that fashioned the view of the laureates we have inherited. I use an array of primary documents (from letters and journal entries to poems and non-fiction prose) to analyze the way the laureateship as a literary identity was constructed in several key moments: the debate over hack literature in the pamphlet wars surrounding Elkanah Settle’s The Empress of Morocco (1673), the defense of Colley Cibber and his subsequent attempt to use his expertise of theater in An Apology for the Life of Colley Cibber (1740), the consolidation of hack literature and state-sponsored poetry with the crowning of Colley Cibber as the King of the Dunces in Pope’s The Dunciad in Four Books (1742), the fashioning of Thomas Gray and William Mason as laureate rejecters in Mason’s Memoirs of the Life and Writings of William Whitehead (1788), Southey’s progressive work to abolish laureate task writing in his laureate odes 1813-1821, and, finally, in Wordsworth’s refusal to produce any laureate task writing during his tenure, 1843-1850. In each case, I explain how the construction of this office was central to the consolidation of literary history and to forging authorial identity in the same period. This differs from the conventional treatment of the laureates because I expose the history of the versions of literary history that have to date structured how scholars understand the laureate, and by doing so, reveal how the laureateship was used to create, legitimate and disseminate the model of literary history we still use today.

No description available.