Suchergebnisse

Rural development in Europe is a long‐standing issue that has been supported through EU policies in various ways. The effects of rural development have been uneven, and differences between well‐to‐do and marginal rural areas have been increasing both across and within countries. This process is reinforced by the current financial crisis. Recently, social innovation has been introduced as the new panacea for realising development and growth while, at the same time, warranting social inclusion and counteracting social inequality. A central question of this article is whether social innovation may help to effectively fight rural marginalisation, why that could be the case and what conditions then must be met. Three examples of rural social innovation are used to distil specific features of social innovation and compare them with other concepts and approaches to rural development. Rural social innovation is distinctive in its dependence on civic self‐reliance and self‐organisation due to austerity measures and state withdrawal, and its cross‐sectoral and translocal collaborations. This article concludes that it is time to go beyond earlier ideas of exogenous versus (neo‐)endogenous development and introduces the idea of nexogenous development with socio‐political reconnection as an engine of revitalisation.

"Leichte Sprache" as the equivalent concept to Easy-to-read and a form of accessible communi-cation has been established in the German-speaking countries since the early 2000s. It is ad-dressed to people with learning disabilities and other groups with difficulties in reading and understanding (simple and complex) written text. In 2009 the German government ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and thereby committed itself to provid-ing accessible information and communication. However, the concept's scientific exploration is still in its early stages. The existing lists of linguistic features and design rules were devel-oped mainly intuitively. A systematic empirical investigation of "Leichte Sprache" is still to be done. The current practice is often slanted towards (over-)simplification, reduction of infor-mation, of lexical and grammatical variety and of stylistic differentiation. "Leichte Sprache" is intended as a means of supporting and enabling participation in different areas of life for the target group. The article wants to investigate the chances and problems of this accessible form of communication as a prerequisite for and a means of political participa-tion from a linguistic point of view. By way of example three texts are linguistically analysed and compared: For the elections to the Bundestag in 2013 the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) released three manifestos, one regular version, one version modified into "Leichte Sprache" and one version modified into einfache Sprache, which is a similar concept allowing more complexity than "Leichte Sprache". The linguistic analysis mainly focuses on the different strategies regarding the presentation of content, regarding lexis, adequate realisation of text type and function as well as on semantic and pragmatic aspects (frames, speech acts). Subsequently, the article discusses which consequences result from the different linguistic presentations with a view to enabling democratic participation.

Am Anfang des Interviewprojekts stand ein noch relativ allgemeines Interesse an der Sprache und dem Sprechen in der DDR. Als Teil der Generation, die zwar noch in der DDR geboren wurde, sie aber kaum mehr bewusst erlebt hat, wollte ich von einem ehemaligen DDR-Bürger wissen, welche Erfahrungen er mit der Sprache und dem Sprechen vor 1989/90 gemacht hat. Ursprünglich zielte das Interview also nur auf eine Seite: den Sprachgebrauch und das Schweigen in der DDR. Unter welchen Bedingungen und mit welchen Folgen ist es möglich, in der DDR seine Meinung offen zu äußern? In welche Konflikte mit der Sprach- und Sprechregulierung in der DDR gerät einer, der sich selbst gar nicht als Staatsgegner, sondern als konstruktiver Kritiker und Verfechter dieser, wie er es im Interview nannte, "großartigen Idee" Sozialismus begreift? Wann wird geschwiegen und was bedeutet dieses Schweigen? Der Interviewte nahm jedoch im Verlauf der Gespräche immer wieder die Veränderungen in Sprech- und Schweigesituationen in den Blick, die er im Zuge des politischen Umbruchs 1989/1990 in seiner Sprachbiografie wahrnahm. So erschien eine Analyse mit einem verstärkten Fokus auf den Wandel des Sprachgebrauchs und der Bedeutungen des Schweigens vielversprechend.

Intro -- LeiSA - Einführung in das Projekt -- Zur Einführung: Kein Regelwerk -- I. Gute "Leichte Sprache" -- II. Lesen, Verstehen, Verständlichkeit -- III. Ergebnisse unserer empirischen Studien -- IV. Ausschnitte: Weiteres aus der empirischen Forschung -- V. Ausblicke: Was offen bleibt -- VI. Anhang

AbstractRural development in Europe is a long‐standing issue that has been supported through EU policies in various ways. The effects of rural development have been uneven, and differences between well‐to‐do and marginal rural areas have been increasing both across and within countries. This process is reinforced by the current financial crisis. Recently, social innovation has been introduced as the new panacea for realising development and growth while, at the same time, warranting social inclusion and counteracting social inequality. A central question of this article is whether social innovation may help to effectively fight rural marginalisation, why that could be the case and what conditions then must be met. Three examples of rural social innovation are used to distil specific features of social innovation and compare them with other concepts and approaches to rural development. Rural social innovation is distinctive in its dependence on civic self‐reliance and self‐organisation due to austerity measures and state withdrawal, and its cross‐sectoral and translocal collaborations. This article concludes that it is time to go beyond earlier ideas of exogenous versus (neo‐)endogenous development and introduces the idea of nexogenous development with socio‐political reconnection as an engine of revitalisation.

Dass es Wörter gibt, die in der öffentlichen Kommunikation als Fahnenwörter(i. S. v. Hermanns 1994) bestimmter politischer Gruppierungen oder eben auch bestimmter politischer Systeme fungieren, ist bekannt. Wenn diese Gruppierungen oder das Gesellschaftssystem verschwinden, verschwinden auch die Wörter aus dem öffentlichen Sprachgebrauch. Sie verschwinden allerdings nicht mit einem Mal aus dem Sprachgebrauch des Einzelnen. In diesem Artikel soll der Frage nachgegangen werden, wie eine ganz bestimmte Gruppe von Sprechern mit Fahnenwörtern des DDR-Sozialismus und mit dem (ehemals) geheimen Wortschatz der Staatssicherheit umgeht, wenn sie sich heute in der bundesdeutschen Öffentlichkeit äußert. Verwenden sie die "alten" Wörter unverändert, kommentieren sie sie? Werden semantische Kämpfe ausgetragen? Die Sprecher haben alle lange Zeit "im Inneren der Staatsmacht" gearbeitet: Es handelt sich um hochrangige hauptamtliche Mitarbeiter des Ministeriums für Staatssicherheit (MfS), von denen man annehmen kann, dass sie nachhaltig von den spezifischen Kommunikationsregeln in der DDR (und im Machtapparat) geprägt wurden.

All over Europe more and more farm families start new income generating activities on and off the farm to supplement the decreasing income from primary productions. Farmwomen play an important role in these strategies but are at the same time perceived as less professional entrepreneurs compared to men. This is due to women's cautious and small‐scaled approach to entrepreneurship, which is in its turn explained by women's lack of resources. This article follows another line of argument and departs from the question why women themselves choose to behave differently and prefer certain behaviour modes above others. The article is based on two research projects, which took place in the Netherlands during 1995–2001. The first research focused on how and why farmwomen started new economic activities on and off the farm. It shows that Dutch farmwomen share a specific approach to rural entrepreneurship and paid labour, which is characterised by fitting in and multi‐tasking. Women add the new activities to their regular tasks and fit them into the already existing working scheme because they want to make sure that neither family nor farm is troubled by their initiatives. The second project focused on the development of new on farm activities over the course of time and followed five female rural entrepreneurs from 1995 to 2001. It demonstrates that women may change their approach and expand their business when they experience that work and care may be successfully combined and that their new business is rewarding financially as well as emotionally. Understanding women's specific approach to entrepreneurship is important in order to more effectively support them. So far, rural development policies are of little help to women as they usually promote a type of entrepreneur and an approach to entrepreneurship most common among men.