Search

De nombreuses classes visitent chaque année avec leur enseignant·e le site d’Augusta Raurica. Le présent article traite dans sa deuxième partie d’une activité en particulier réalisée lors de la visite d’un groupe composé de plusieurs classes : les élèves plus âgés ont aidé les plus jeunes à déchiffrer l’épitaphe du fondateur de la colonie romaine. Le scénario à la base de cette activité est présenté dans la première partie, tout comme les notions et concepts didactiques sur lesquels il se fonde.

L’Homo digitalis constitue-t-il une évolution par rapport à l’Homo sapiens ou en est-il une partie ? Voilà la question que pose cette contribution multilingue écrite à six mains. L’introduction revient sur le terme Homo digitalis et l’analyse à l’aide de la compétence plurilingue pluriculturelle, dont les trois parties suivantes démontrent l’importance à côté de celle de la littératie pour l’exploitation de documents authentiques. La première partie traite du recours aux documents visuels numérisés en classe de grec ancien ; la deuxième d’inscriptions latines et de leur exploitation en classe grâce à l’image numérisée ; la troisième de cinéma italien et de divers supports numérisés qui permettent de l’intégrer dans la formation des élèves. La conclusion propose une réponse à la question initiale.

This contribution attempts a response to the question why some Idylls of Theocritus are termed Boukolika and are tightly bound with the figure of the βουκόλος. Cowherds are not the only herdsmen that Theocritus displays and that he has sing; Especially goatherds, but also shepherds, appear alongside the cowherds in poems that, according to K.‑H. Stanzel, should be termed aipolika, as the goatherd as a category is more frequent. An analysis of frequency of intervention and of the names—two parameters appropriate for confirming or denying the importance accorded to each of these three categories of herdsmen at the cost of the two others—leads to the result that the importance of the category of cowherds is surely not the determining factor in the denomination of bucolics as a sub-genre. The conclusion offers two hypotheses to explain the filiation βουκόλος-Βουκολικά: one refers to Homeric reception, the other to poetological considerations.

The paper is in the wake of a paper dealing with the question of whether Lycophron’s Alexandra can be considered a parody of epic and tragic genres. Resuming the conclusions and broadening the questioning of lyric, it proposes a reflection on the link between Alexandra and Pindar, first in a few broad lines, then in a few pointed passages.

The paper investigates the literary genre of the Bion’s Ἀδώνιδος ἐπιτάφιος, the Epitaph for Adonis. A brief discussion of the text and of the two analyses devoted to its genre shows that the poet self-consciously blends traits of different genres in order to play with the reader’s expectations. If the poem clearly develops the reflection on literary genres begun by Hellenistic writers of the first generation, one may wonder whether it asks the question of the subject matter of literature, if literature may still have a subject matter of its own.

In 2004, at the time of the seminar on German Corpus Linguistics held at Neuchatel, no introduction to this subdiscipline of German Linguistics was available. As a result, the author decided to describe, in his orally presented contribution to that seminar, his experiences in reading a French and an English book entitled Les linguistiques de corpus resp. Corpus Linguistics. In spite of the similarity of the titles, the differences in content and style were so great that even the dangerous notion of (different) national intellectual styles even came to mind. The French book turned out to be, in fact, not an introduction but a critical description of the actual state of art, whereas the English publication intends really to motivate and to inform the beginner. In the meantime just in time for the publication of the texts of 2004, there was published in 2006, the (nearly) ideal introduction to German Corpus Linguistics. It is reviewed in a short supplement to the text of 2004, as evidence for the rapid development of Corpus Linguistics as method and part of the linguistic description of natural languages and their use.