Bøger af Imke Fischer

Bachelor Thesis from the year 2016 in the subject Didactics - English - Literature, Works, grade: 1,1, University of Göttingen, language: English, abstract: In the famous title quote from Richard III, William Shakespeare has his protagonist disregard the concept of conscience as a mere ,word¿, an invention of no further consequence to a brave person. Meanwhile Hamlet complains that ¿conscience does make cowards of us all¿ and thereby infers a strong significance of conscience to mankind. These popular, though seemingly contradictory statements raise the question just what exact understanding of said moral concept Shakespeare wanted to relay to his audience. What was conscience to him, his audience and his contemporary writers? Was conscience seen as ,but a word¿, a cowardly excuse for inaction or as an innate concept dwelling in every man? What were the underlying principles of his set of moral values?Both the author and his contemporaries had an interest towards both the specific moral phenomenon of conscience and the intricacies of the human persona and its inner moral values.In the two plays at hand, Richard III and Hamlet, conscience is displayed as an innate concept. In their beliefs towards this concept, heroes and villains do not contradict, but complement each other. All relevant scenes from the two plays taken together exhibit a comprehensive image of the discourse of conscience in the Elizabethan Age. It ranges from personified character and externality to an inner contemplation with God and man¿s own soul, from an exhilarating righteous feeling to purgatory-like torment on Earth. It shows a broad understanding of the term, much more extensive than our modern perception of it, which has narrowed down to the single meaning of discernment between good and evil. Nevertheless, conscience stands in a long tradition of philosophical debates and Shakespeare adds his own touch to it with Richard III. and Hamlet, leaving modern eyes with a better appreciation of concept of conscience.

Studienarbeit aus dem Jahr 2016 im Fachbereich Orientalistik / Sinologie - Chinesisch / China, Note: 2,3, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Sprache: Deutsch, Abstract: Beginnt man eine neue Sprache zu lernen, so liegt eine ganze neue Welt vor einem. Mit den neuen, unbekannten Worten begibt man sich auf eine Reise durch das Land der Sprache, entdeckt mit Schrift und Sprache gleichsam die Kultur ihrer Muttersprachler. Doch wie in jedem fremden Land geht man schnell verloren und verirrt sich, hat man keinen Wegweiser, keinen Plan um sich zu orientieren. Innerhalb der einzelnen Sprache fällt diese Rolle des Wegweisens der Grammatik zu. Da eine Form der Grammatik allen Sprachen zugrunde liegt, ist sie ebenso wie im täglichen Gespräch auch im Fremdsprachenunterricht nur schwer wegzudenken. Grammatik ist und war spätestens seit der Antike ein zentraler Bestandteil jeglichen Sprachenlernens, worin sie jedoch immer wieder verschiedene Funktionen einnahm. Mal war sie das Gerüst, an dem alles andere ausgerichtet war, mal wurde sie als bloße Stütze am Rande verwendet. Die Position der Grammatik hängt hierbei stark sowohl von der zur jeweiligen Zeit gängigen Theorie, als auch von der in Frage stehenden Sprache ab. Verschiedene Sprachen fordern verschiedene Ansätze, die wiederum von den Lernenden abhängen. In dieser Hausarbeit sollen einige dieser Grammatiktheorien vorgestellt und in Vergleich miteinander gebracht werden, um sie am Ende auf ihre Anwendbarkeit im Chinesischunterricht zu überprüfen. Das Ziel soll sein abzuleiten, welche Ansätze in der Praxis empfehlenswert wären und von welcher Theorie in Verwendung eher abzusehen ist.

Seminar paper from the year 2017 in the subject Didactics for the subject English - Literature, Works, grade: 1,0, University of Göttingen (Englisches Seminar), course: Shakespeare's Problem Plays, language: English, abstract: The story of Troilus, his love of Cressida and her betrayal of this love against the backdrop of the Trojan War is a European story, manifold told by many authors through the centuries. Troilus himself is a character from ancient times, first mentioned shortly in the Iliad, before Ovid picks up the theme in his Metamorphoses. The first version of the story as it is known today appears in the middle of the 12th century in Benoît de Sainte-Maure¿s "Roman de Troie". Giovanni Boccacciös rewriting of the story in his "Il Filostrato" around 1340 increased its fame and had ¿the father of English literature¿ Geoffrey Chaucer base his epic poem "Troilus and Criseyde" (1380s) thereon.Nowadays, we find ourselves thus confronted with a conglomerate of different aspects of the same story. The focus is sometimes set on the war themes, sometimes on the lovers, some authors target the love, some the betrayal. Contrary to other depictions, both in Chaucer and in Shakespeare Troilus himself is not a particular strong character. He displays a certain ¿hevinesse¿, a reluctance to move and act according to his dreams and wishes that makes him appear very passive compared to other main characters. Chaucer pioneered in this way of describing his hero and Shakespeare followed his lead, both in the individual portrayal and in the general structure of their works. While each representation in itself is unconventional, it also represents important themes of each authors¿ individual time and age.This paper sets out to analyze the origins of Troilus¿ display of passivity in love and war. Why are these two versions of Troilus so fundamentally different in their core when held against the example of earlier writers? And why do their heroes appear so weak and passive in their actions? Is this presentation a simple whim of Chaucer, repeated by Shakespeare, a plain weakness of character inane in their Troiluses or is there a method to his madness?