Ulrike Schneider – författare

From an abundance of intensifiers to frequent repetition and parallelisms, Donald Trump’s idiolect is highly distinctive from that of other politicians and previous Presidents of the United States. Combining quantitative and qualitative analyses, this book identifies the characteristic features of Trump’s language and argues that his speech style, often sensationalized by the media, differs from the usual political rhetoric on more levels than is immediately apparent. Chapters examine Trump’s tweets, inaugural address, political speeches, interviews, and presidential debates, revealing populist language traits that establish his idiolect as a direct reflection of changing social and political norms. The authors scrutinize Trump’s conspicuous use of nicknames, the definite article, and conceptual metaphors as strategies of othering and antagonising his opponents. They further shed light on Trump’s fake news agenda and his mutation of the conventional political apology which are strategically implemented for a political purpose. Drawing on methods from corpus linguistics, conversation analysis, and critical discourse analysis, this book provides a multifaceted investigation of Trump’s language use and addresses essential questions about Trump as a political phenomenon.

From an abundance of intensifiers to frequent repetition and parallelisms, Donald Trump''s idiolect is highly distinctive from that of other politicians and previous Presidents of the United States. Combining quantitative and qualitative analyses, this book identifies the characteristic features of Trump''s language and argues that his speech style, often sensationalized by the media, differs from the usual political rhetoric on more levels than is immediately apparent. Chapters examine Trump''s tweets, inaugural address, political speeches, interviews, and presidential debates, revealing populist language traits that establish his idiolect as a direct reflection of changing social and political norms. The authors scrutinize Trump''s conspicuous use of nicknames, the definite article, and conceptual metaphors as strategies of othering and antagonising his opponents. They further shed light on Trump''s fake news agenda and his mutation of the conventional political apology which are strategically implemented for a political purpose. Drawing on methods from corpus linguistics, conversation analysis, and critical discourse analysis, this book provides a multifaceted investigation of Trump''s language use and addresses essential questions about Trump as a political phenomenon.

From an abundance of intensifiers to frequent repetition and parallelisms, Donald Trump''s idiolect is highly distinctive from that of other politicians and previous Presidents of the United States. Combining quantitative and qualitative analyses, this book identifies the characteristic features of Trump''s language and argues that his speech style, often sensationalized by the media, differs from the usual political rhetoric on more levels than is immediately apparent. Chapters examine Trump''s tweets, inaugural address, political speeches, interviews, and presidential debates, revealing populist language traits that establish his idiolect as a direct reflection of changing social and political norms. The authors scrutinize Trump''s conspicuous use of nicknames, the definite article, and conceptual metaphors as strategies of othering and antagonising his opponents. They further shed light on Trump''s fake news agenda and his mutation of the conventional political apology which are strategically implemented for a political purpose. Drawing on methods from corpus linguistics, conversation analysis, and critical discourse analysis, this book provides a multifaceted investigation of Trump''s language use and addresses essential questions about Trump as a political phenomenon.

From an abundance of intensifiers to frequent repetition and parallelisms, Donald Trump’s idiolect is highly distinctive from that of other politicians and previous Presidents of the United States. Combining quantitative and qualitative analyses, this book identifies the characteristic features of Trump’s language and argues that his speech style, often sensationalized by the media, differs from the usual political rhetoric on more levels than is immediately apparent. Chapters examine Trump’s tweets, inaugural address, political speeches, interviews, and presidential debates, revealing populist language traits that establish his idiolect as a direct reflection of changing social and political norms. The authors scrutinize Trump’s conspicuous use of nicknames, the definite article, and conceptual metaphors as strategies of othering and antagonising his opponents. They further shed light on Trump’s fake news agenda and his mutation of the conventional political apology which are strategically implemented for a political purpose. Drawing on methods from corpus linguistics, conversation analysis, and critical discourse analysis, this book provides a multifaceted investigation of Trump’s language use and addresses essential questions about Trump as a political phenomenon.

Die Veröffentlichungsbedingungen für deutschsprachige Autoren jüdischer Herkunft waren nach 1945 im ost- und westdeutschen Literaturbetrieb von ökonomischen, vor allem aber von gesellschaftspolitischen und erinnerungsgeschichtlichen Parametern geprägt. Das Wirken innerhalb der Literaturbetriebe als Autoren blieb für viele an die essentiellen Erfahrungen während der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus gebunden. Am Beispiel der beiden Schriftsteller Jean Améry und Fred Wander wird den erinnerungsgeschichtlichen Diskursen und ihren Auswirkungen auf die Veröffentlichungs- und Rezeptionsbedingungen von literarischen Texten nachgegangen. Beide Autoren verpflichteten sich durch ihre poetologischen Verfahren einer eigenen, auf der jüdischen Erinnerung beruhenden Gedächtnisarbeit, die zugleich eine Differenz der Erinnerung gegenüber führenden Vertretern von Erinnerungsgemeinschaften beider deutscher Staaten enthielt. Ihre Entwicklung eines eigenen Erinnerungs- und Literaturbegriffes, ihre Partizipation an öffentlichen Debatten und ihre Standortbestimmung als deutschsprachige Autoren jüdischer Herkunft verdeutlicht die Bedeutung, die ihnen sowie anderen Autoren jüdischer Herkunft bei der Herausbildung einer differenzierten und kritischen deutsch-deutschen Nachkriegsliteratur zukam.

Die Literaturszene im Berlin der 1970er und 1980er Jahre lässt sich auf beiden Seiten der Mauer durch umfangreiche Internationalisierungsprozesse beschreiben: Schrittweise, mit einem Höhepunkt gegen Ende der 1980er Jahre, bildeten sich Infrastrukturen heraus, die insbesondere West-Berlin als Aufenthalts- und Begegnungsort für internationale Autor:innen attraktiv machten, während sich auch auf DDR-Seite eine internationalisierte literarische Szene entwickelte. Die 15 literaturwissenschaftlichen Beiträge des vorliegenden Bandes untersuchen exemplarisch anhand von Institutionen, Programmen oder kulturpolitischen Verträgen die Beschaffenheit bilateraler Beziehungen auf literarischem Gebiet in beiden Teilen der Stadt und beleuchten die Rolle unterschiedlicher Akteure. Ein besonderer Fokus liegt dabei auf den internationalen Schriftsteller:innen, die als Gäste oder Einwohner:innen in der geteilten Stadt zugegen waren und deren Berlin-Erfahrungen in der internationalen Wahrnehmung ihrer Werke eine besondere Stellung einnehmen. Ziel ist es, die inneren Dynamiken und Verflechtungen jener internationalen Literaturbeziehungen zu ermitteln, die das heutige literarische Leben in Berlin in Form einer heterogenen Community erst ermöglicht haben.

Essay from the year 2008 in the subject Law - European and International Law, Intellectual Properties, grade: 1,7, University of Hamburg, language: English, abstract: The member states have transferred sovereignty to the European level, but only on certain fields that exclude the public health. Article 152 with the title "e;public health"e; describes the - only complementary - Community actions in the field of public health, regarding that the Member States still have the competencies in this field. The competence of the Community in the field of public health that is derived from Article 152 is a merely indirect one. Article 152 (1) states that the Community shall ensure a high level of human health protection, but Article 152 (4c) excludes any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States.

Seminar paper from the year 2009 in the subject Politics - Topic: European Union, grade: 1,7, University of Hamburg, language: English, abstract: On June 12, 2.8 million Irish voters got the chance to move the European Union one step further by voting in favour of the Treaty of Lisbon. Ireland was the only European country that allowed its citizens to express their opinion on the Treaty by means of a referendum. Suspense was created by the fact that a non-ratification of only one country was enough to stop the whole treaty. Just a little more than half of the Irish people went to the polls so that eventually 860,000 no votes were enough to obtain a majority. Less than a million people were able stop a treaty which was supposed to make the EU and its institutions, regulations and law finally suitable for 27 member states and 492 million Europeans in a constantly changing world, facing new problems like terrorism and climate change. All member states of the EU had agreed on the Treaty of Lisbon and ratified it as they thought the EU urgently needed a modernisation of the European Institutions. The Treaty of Nice, which forms the present basis of the European Union and goes back to the fifties, and the Treaties of Rome cannot meet this challenge anymore. Ireland is regarded as one of the winners of the European Union. For years, it experienced sustained economic growth, full employment and a rising GDP . Then what could be the reason the majority of the Irish people voted against the Treaty of Lisbon or did not even go to the polls, instead of voting in favour of a treaty that would have improved the strength of the EU to which Ireland owes so much?More and more, the European Union struggles with the increasing problem that it has to defend its acceptance to European citizens. People turn away from the Community because they have got the feeling that they are ill-informed and their interests are less represented on the European then on the national level. There are huge divergences in the ideas about the EU, the politicians and the citizens have which has lead to disenchantment with politics. This paper claims that the Irish people did not reject the Treaty of Lisbon itself but were simply not able to assess the advantages and disadvantages of the Treaty of Lisbon because of missing independent information.

Jüdische Filmgeschichte, davon geht dieser Band aus, steht quer zu Erzählungen des Nationalkinos. Sie lässt sich deshalb am besten von den Rändern der Filmgeschichte her schreiben. Im Rahmen des Forschungsnetzwerks "Deutsch-jüdische Filmgeschichte der BRD" ist deshalb eine besondere Form kollaborativen Schreibens erkundet worden: Zu elementaren Stichworten werden kurze Texte unterschiedlicher Autor*innen versammelt, die ihren Fokus jeweils auf einzelne Anekdoten, Details und Irregularitäten legen, die zwar besonders auffällig oder beziehungsreich sind, die aber im wissenschaftlich und methodisch reflektierten Schreiben dennoch oft nur den Status von Fußnoten erlangen.Dabei sind es durchaus methodische Überlegungen, die es geboten erscheinen lassen, eine deutsch-jüdische Filmgeschichte nach 1945 auf einer solchen Basis zu entwickeln: Die Jüdischkeit zahlreicher Filmschaffender in der Bundesrepublik kommt nämlich in der kanonischen Filmhistoriografie in der Regel nur durch vereinzelte Biografismen oder implizit verbleibende Zuschreibungen zur Geltung oder wird als lebensgeschichtliches Datum erwähnt. In jedem Fall gewinnt sie kein eigenes filmgeschichtliches Profil, sondern bleibt bruchstückhaft.Die Kompilation solcher historiografischer Bruchstücke kann es jedoch ermöglichen, so die These, durch Serialität die darin enthaltenen Muster erkennbar zu machen und zugleich ein Mosaik unterschiedlicher Erfahrungen zu gewinnen. Darüber hinaus ermöglicht das kollaborative Schreiben, eine Vielzahl von Autor*innen, die mit ganz unterschiedlichen Perspektiven und mit spezifischen Expertisen zu einer Vielzahl von Archivbeständen, Nachlässen und Filmen arbeiten, zusammenzubringen und zueinander in Beziehung zu setzen.Diese Serie wurde in der Zeitschrift Medaon bereits erprobt und erscheint nun in erweiterter Form auch als Buch.Mit Beiträgen von Tobias Ebbrecht-Hartmann, Imme Klages, Simone Nowicki, Johannes Praetorius-Rhein, Raphael Rauch, Naomi Rolef, Claudia Sandberg, Ulrike Schneider, Lisa Schoß, Julia Schumacher, Tirza Seene und Lea Wohl von Haselberg.