Cross-Fertilization?

1964 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 318-318
Author(s):  
Lewis A. Coser
Keyword(s):  
2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. i-vii
Author(s):  
Luisa Damiano ◽  
◽  
Yutetsu Kuruma ◽  
Pasquale Stano ◽  
◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dogan Tirtiroglu ◽  
Baaak Tanyeri ◽  
Ercan Tirtiroglu ◽  
Kenneth N. Daniels

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (9) ◽  
pp. 687-694 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sydney Corey ◽  
Lauren Kvederis ◽  
Chase Kingsbury ◽  
Brooke Bonsack ◽  
Paul R. Sanberg ◽  
...  

: Here, we summarized recent advances in laboratory and clinical research on gut microbiome. The goal is to highlight recent discoveries on the biology and behavioral manifestations of gut microbiomes under normal and pathologic conditions. With this new scientific knowledge, we wish to cultivate cross-fertilization of science across multi-disciplines in the hopes of exploiting the gut microbiome as a key component of human development and its dysbiosis may signal pathological alterations that can be therapeutically targeted for regenerative medicine. In the end, we identify innovative research avenues that will merit from collaborations across biomedical disciplines that may facilitate the development of gut microbiome-based biomarkers and therapeutics. Gut microbiome stands as a core research area that transcends pediatric and nursing care, cancer biology, neurodegenerative disorders, cardiac function and diseases, among many other basic science and clinical arenas.


Author(s):  
Antônio Augusto ◽  
Cançado Trindade

More recently, jurisprudential cross-fertilization has kept on being pursued in particular by international human rights tribunals and international criminal tribunals. This is reassuring, as, despite their distinct jurisdictions, their work is complementary, in their common mission of imparting justice, in distinct domains of international law. Jurisprudential cross-fertilization fosters cohesion and the unity of law. Particularly attention is currently devoted to the preservation of the legacy of the ad hoc international criminal tribunals.


Author(s):  
Ghil'ad Zuckermann

This seminal book introduces revivalistics, a new trans-disciplinary field of enquiry surrounding language reclamation, revitalization and reinvigoration. The book is divided into two main parts that represent Zuckermann’s fascinating and multifaceted journey into language revival, from the ‘Promised Land’ (Israel) to the ‘Lucky Country’ (Australia) and beyond: PART 1: LANGUAGE REVIVAL AND CROSS-FERTILIZATION The aim of this part is to suggest that due to the ubiquitous multiple causation, the reclamation of a no-longer spoken language is unlikely without cross-fertilization from the revivalists’ mother tongue(s). Thus, one should expect revival efforts to result in a language with a hybridic genetic and typological character. The book highlights salient morphological, phonological, phonetic, syntactic, semantic and lexical features, illustrating the difficulty in determining a single source for the grammar of ‘Israeli’, the language resulting from the Hebrew revival. The European impact in these features is apparent inter alia in structure, semantics or productivity. PART 2: LANGUAGE REVIVAL AND WELLBEING The book then applies practical lessons (rather than clichés) from the critical analysis of the Hebrew reclamation to other revival movements globally, and goes on to describe the why and how of language revival. The how includes practical, nitty-gritty methods for reclaiming ‘sleeping beauties’ such as the Barngarla Aboriginal language of Eyre Peninsula, South Australia, e.g. using what Zuckermann calls talknology (talk+technology). The why includes ethical, aesthetic, and utilitarian reasons such as improving wellbeing and mental health.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 186-207
Author(s):  
KNUT TRAISBACH

AbstractThis article sheds a critical light on judicial dialogue when its purpose and meaning are taken beyond cross-fertilization and comparative reasoning. It cautions against a conceptualization of judicial dialogue as a means to foster commonalities between courts and to legitimize judicial governance. The argument develops from an idealized notion of a ‘transnational judicial public sphere’. In this sphere, domestic, regional and international courts ideally form common opinions through dialogue and pursue common purposes. The danger of this understanding is to construct a new paradigm that not only overlooks important differences in the interest, influence and opinion of courts, but also overstates the socio-normative significance of exchanges between courts and of judicial governance in general. The critical potential of judicial dialogues lies less in the formation of commonalities or in the legitimization of judicial authority than in bringing alternatives and a plurality of opinions to the fore.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document