On the universality of “rights”: Absence and presence of “rights” in the Chinese language
This paper wishes to challenge the proposition that the word “rights” is a universal and innate concept in human societies. It provides an analysis of the absence and presence of the word “rights” in the Chinese language and culture in traditional and contemporary China. It presents a linguistic and...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Cao, Deborah [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erschienen: |
De Gruyter ; 2017 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Umfang: |
16 |
|---|
| Reproduktion: |
Walter de Gruyter Online Zeitschriften |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Intercultural pragmatics - Berlin : de Gruyter, 2004, 14(2017), 2 vom: 3. Juni, Seite 277-292 |
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:14 ; year:2017 ; number:2 ; day:3 ; month:06 ; pages:277-292 ; extent:16 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1515/ip-2017-0012 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
NLEJ248033646 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLEJ248033646 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20220820035412.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 220814s2017 xx |||||o 00| ||und c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1515/ip-2017-0012 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a articles2015-2020.pp |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLEJ248033646 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Cao, Deborah |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a On the universality of “rights”: Absence and presence of “rights” in the Chinese language |
| 264 | 1 | |b De Gruyter |c 2017 | |
| 300 | |a 16 | ||
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a This paper wishes to challenge the proposition that the word “rights” is a universal and innate concept in human societies. It provides an analysis of the absence and presence of the word “rights” in the Chinese language and culture in traditional and contemporary China. It presents a linguistic and cultural explanation for the fact that classical Chinese language and culture did not have an equivalent word or concept for the English word “rights.” After the word and concept of “rights” were introduced to China from the West in the second half of the nineteenth century, the new word quanli (rights) has since taken on Chinese shades of meaning, not entirely the same as its English counterpart. The paper proposes that the claim of the universal and innate nature of the word “rights” is not tenable. | ||
| 533 | |f Walter de Gruyter Online Zeitschriften | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a rights | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Chinese rights | |
| 650 | 4 | |a quanli | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Chinese legal language | |
| 650 | 4 | |a legal concepts | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Intercultural pragmatics |d Berlin : de Gruyter, 2004 |g 14(2017), 2 vom: 3. Juni, Seite 277-292 |w (DE-627)NLEJ248235869 |w (DE-600)2159617-7 |x 1613-365X |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:14 |g year:2017 |g number:2 |g day:3 |g month:06 |g pages:277-292 |g extent:16 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0012 |z Deutschlandweit zugänglich |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a ZDB-1-DGR | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NL_ARTICLE | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 14 |j 2017 |e 2 |b 3 |c 6 |h 277-292 |g 16 | ||
| author_variant |
d c dc |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:1613365X:2017----::nhuiesltorgtasnenpeecorgt |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2017 |
| publishDate |
2017 |
| allfields |
10.1515/ip-2017-0012 doi articles2015-2020.pp (DE-627)NLEJ248033646 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb Cao, Deborah verfasserin aut On the universality of “rights”: Absence and presence of “rights” in the Chinese language De Gruyter 2017 16 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This paper wishes to challenge the proposition that the word “rights” is a universal and innate concept in human societies. It provides an analysis of the absence and presence of the word “rights” in the Chinese language and culture in traditional and contemporary China. It presents a linguistic and cultural explanation for the fact that classical Chinese language and culture did not have an equivalent word or concept for the English word “rights.” After the word and concept of “rights” were introduced to China from the West in the second half of the nineteenth century, the new word quanli (rights) has since taken on Chinese shades of meaning, not entirely the same as its English counterpart. The paper proposes that the claim of the universal and innate nature of the word “rights” is not tenable. Walter de Gruyter Online Zeitschriften rights Chinese rights quanli Chinese legal language legal concepts Enthalten in Intercultural pragmatics Berlin : de Gruyter, 2004 14(2017), 2 vom: 3. Juni, Seite 277-292 (DE-627)NLEJ248235869 (DE-600)2159617-7 1613-365X nnns volume:14 year:2017 number:2 day:3 month:06 pages:277-292 extent:16 https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0012 Deutschlandweit zugänglich GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DGR GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 14 2017 2 3 6 277-292 16 |
| spelling |
10.1515/ip-2017-0012 doi articles2015-2020.pp (DE-627)NLEJ248033646 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb Cao, Deborah verfasserin aut On the universality of “rights”: Absence and presence of “rights” in the Chinese language De Gruyter 2017 16 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This paper wishes to challenge the proposition that the word “rights” is a universal and innate concept in human societies. It provides an analysis of the absence and presence of the word “rights” in the Chinese language and culture in traditional and contemporary China. It presents a linguistic and cultural explanation for the fact that classical Chinese language and culture did not have an equivalent word or concept for the English word “rights.” After the word and concept of “rights” were introduced to China from the West in the second half of the nineteenth century, the new word quanli (rights) has since taken on Chinese shades of meaning, not entirely the same as its English counterpart. The paper proposes that the claim of the universal and innate nature of the word “rights” is not tenable. Walter de Gruyter Online Zeitschriften rights Chinese rights quanli Chinese legal language legal concepts Enthalten in Intercultural pragmatics Berlin : de Gruyter, 2004 14(2017), 2 vom: 3. Juni, Seite 277-292 (DE-627)NLEJ248235869 (DE-600)2159617-7 1613-365X nnns volume:14 year:2017 number:2 day:3 month:06 pages:277-292 extent:16 https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0012 Deutschlandweit zugänglich GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DGR GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 14 2017 2 3 6 277-292 16 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1515/ip-2017-0012 doi articles2015-2020.pp (DE-627)NLEJ248033646 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb Cao, Deborah verfasserin aut On the universality of “rights”: Absence and presence of “rights” in the Chinese language De Gruyter 2017 16 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This paper wishes to challenge the proposition that the word “rights” is a universal and innate concept in human societies. It provides an analysis of the absence and presence of the word “rights” in the Chinese language and culture in traditional and contemporary China. It presents a linguistic and cultural explanation for the fact that classical Chinese language and culture did not have an equivalent word or concept for the English word “rights.” After the word and concept of “rights” were introduced to China from the West in the second half of the nineteenth century, the new word quanli (rights) has since taken on Chinese shades of meaning, not entirely the same as its English counterpart. The paper proposes that the claim of the universal and innate nature of the word “rights” is not tenable. Walter de Gruyter Online Zeitschriften rights Chinese rights quanli Chinese legal language legal concepts Enthalten in Intercultural pragmatics Berlin : de Gruyter, 2004 14(2017), 2 vom: 3. Juni, Seite 277-292 (DE-627)NLEJ248235869 (DE-600)2159617-7 1613-365X nnns volume:14 year:2017 number:2 day:3 month:06 pages:277-292 extent:16 https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0012 Deutschlandweit zugänglich GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DGR GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 14 2017 2 3 6 277-292 16 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1515/ip-2017-0012 doi articles2015-2020.pp (DE-627)NLEJ248033646 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb Cao, Deborah verfasserin aut On the universality of “rights”: Absence and presence of “rights” in the Chinese language De Gruyter 2017 16 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This paper wishes to challenge the proposition that the word “rights” is a universal and innate concept in human societies. It provides an analysis of the absence and presence of the word “rights” in the Chinese language and culture in traditional and contemporary China. It presents a linguistic and cultural explanation for the fact that classical Chinese language and culture did not have an equivalent word or concept for the English word “rights.” After the word and concept of “rights” were introduced to China from the West in the second half of the nineteenth century, the new word quanli (rights) has since taken on Chinese shades of meaning, not entirely the same as its English counterpart. The paper proposes that the claim of the universal and innate nature of the word “rights” is not tenable. Walter de Gruyter Online Zeitschriften rights Chinese rights quanli Chinese legal language legal concepts Enthalten in Intercultural pragmatics Berlin : de Gruyter, 2004 14(2017), 2 vom: 3. Juni, Seite 277-292 (DE-627)NLEJ248235869 (DE-600)2159617-7 1613-365X nnns volume:14 year:2017 number:2 day:3 month:06 pages:277-292 extent:16 https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0012 Deutschlandweit zugänglich GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DGR GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 14 2017 2 3 6 277-292 16 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1515/ip-2017-0012 doi articles2015-2020.pp (DE-627)NLEJ248033646 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb Cao, Deborah verfasserin aut On the universality of “rights”: Absence and presence of “rights” in the Chinese language De Gruyter 2017 16 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This paper wishes to challenge the proposition that the word “rights” is a universal and innate concept in human societies. It provides an analysis of the absence and presence of the word “rights” in the Chinese language and culture in traditional and contemporary China. It presents a linguistic and cultural explanation for the fact that classical Chinese language and culture did not have an equivalent word or concept for the English word “rights.” After the word and concept of “rights” were introduced to China from the West in the second half of the nineteenth century, the new word quanli (rights) has since taken on Chinese shades of meaning, not entirely the same as its English counterpart. The paper proposes that the claim of the universal and innate nature of the word “rights” is not tenable. Walter de Gruyter Online Zeitschriften rights Chinese rights quanli Chinese legal language legal concepts Enthalten in Intercultural pragmatics Berlin : de Gruyter, 2004 14(2017), 2 vom: 3. Juni, Seite 277-292 (DE-627)NLEJ248235869 (DE-600)2159617-7 1613-365X nnns volume:14 year:2017 number:2 day:3 month:06 pages:277-292 extent:16 https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0012 Deutschlandweit zugänglich GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DGR GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 14 2017 2 3 6 277-292 16 |
| source |
Enthalten in Intercultural pragmatics 14(2017), 2 vom: 3. Juni, Seite 277-292 volume:14 year:2017 number:2 day:3 month:06 pages:277-292 extent:16 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Intercultural pragmatics 14(2017), 2 vom: 3. Juni, Seite 277-292 volume:14 year:2017 number:2 day:3 month:06 pages:277-292 extent:16 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
rights Chinese rights quanli Chinese legal language legal concepts |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Intercultural pragmatics |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Cao, Deborah @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2017-06-03T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
NLEJ248235869 |
| id |
NLEJ248033646 |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">NLEJ248033646</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20220820035412.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">220814s2017 xx |||||o 00| ||und c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1515/ip-2017-0012</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">articles2015-2020.pp</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)NLEJ248033646</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Cao, Deborah</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">On the universality of “rights”: Absence and presence of “rights” in the Chinese language</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="b">De Gruyter</subfield><subfield code="c">2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">16</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">This paper wishes to challenge the proposition that the word “rights” is a universal and innate concept in human societies. It provides an analysis of the absence and presence of the word “rights” in the Chinese language and culture in traditional and contemporary China. It presents a linguistic and cultural explanation for the fact that classical Chinese language and culture did not have an equivalent word or concept for the English word “rights.” After the word and concept of “rights” were introduced to China from the West in the second half of the nineteenth century, the new word quanli (rights) has since taken on Chinese shades of meaning, not entirely the same as its English counterpart. The paper proposes that the claim of the universal and innate nature of the word “rights” is not tenable.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="533" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="f">Walter de Gruyter Online Zeitschriften</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">rights</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Chinese rights</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">quanli</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Chinese legal language</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">legal concepts</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Intercultural pragmatics</subfield><subfield code="d">Berlin : de Gruyter, 2004</subfield><subfield code="g">14(2017), 2 vom: 3. Juni, Seite 277-292</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)NLEJ248235869</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2159617-7</subfield><subfield code="x">1613-365X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:14</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2017</subfield><subfield code="g">number:2</subfield><subfield code="g">day:3</subfield><subfield code="g">month:06</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:277-292</subfield><subfield code="g">extent:16</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0012</subfield><subfield code="z">Deutschlandweit zugänglich</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ZDB-1-DGR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_NL_ARTICLE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">14</subfield><subfield code="j">2017</subfield><subfield code="e">2</subfield><subfield code="b">3</subfield><subfield code="c">6</subfield><subfield code="h">277-292</subfield><subfield code="g">16</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| series2 |
Walter de Gruyter Online Zeitschriften |
| author |
Cao, Deborah |
| spellingShingle |
Cao, Deborah misc rights misc Chinese rights misc quanli misc Chinese legal language misc legal concepts On the universality of “rights”: Absence and presence of “rights” in the Chinese language |
| authorStr |
Cao, Deborah |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)NLEJ248235869 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
NL |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
1613-365X |
| topic_title |
On the universality of “rights”: Absence and presence of “rights” in the Chinese language rights Chinese rights quanli Chinese legal language legal concepts |
| publisher |
De Gruyter |
| publisherStr |
De Gruyter |
| topic |
misc rights misc Chinese rights misc quanli misc Chinese legal language misc legal concepts |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc rights misc Chinese rights misc quanli misc Chinese legal language misc legal concepts |
| topic_browse |
misc rights misc Chinese rights misc quanli misc Chinese legal language misc legal concepts |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Intercultural pragmatics |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
NLEJ248235869 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Intercultural pragmatics |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)NLEJ248235869 (DE-600)2159617-7 |
| title |
On the universality of “rights”: Absence and presence of “rights” in the Chinese language |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)NLEJ248033646 |
| title_full |
On the universality of “rights”: Absence and presence of “rights” in the Chinese language |
| author_sort |
Cao, Deborah |
| journal |
Intercultural pragmatics |
| journalStr |
Intercultural pragmatics |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2017 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
277 |
| author_browse |
Cao, Deborah |
| container_volume |
14 |
| physical |
16 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Cao, Deborah |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1515/ip-2017-0012 |
| title_sort |
on the universality of “rights”: absence and presence of “rights” in the chinese language |
| title_auth |
On the universality of “rights”: Absence and presence of “rights” in the Chinese language |
| abstract |
This paper wishes to challenge the proposition that the word “rights” is a universal and innate concept in human societies. It provides an analysis of the absence and presence of the word “rights” in the Chinese language and culture in traditional and contemporary China. It presents a linguistic and cultural explanation for the fact that classical Chinese language and culture did not have an equivalent word or concept for the English word “rights.” After the word and concept of “rights” were introduced to China from the West in the second half of the nineteenth century, the new word quanli (rights) has since taken on Chinese shades of meaning, not entirely the same as its English counterpart. The paper proposes that the claim of the universal and innate nature of the word “rights” is not tenable. |
| abstractGer |
This paper wishes to challenge the proposition that the word “rights” is a universal and innate concept in human societies. It provides an analysis of the absence and presence of the word “rights” in the Chinese language and culture in traditional and contemporary China. It presents a linguistic and cultural explanation for the fact that classical Chinese language and culture did not have an equivalent word or concept for the English word “rights.” After the word and concept of “rights” were introduced to China from the West in the second half of the nineteenth century, the new word quanli (rights) has since taken on Chinese shades of meaning, not entirely the same as its English counterpart. The paper proposes that the claim of the universal and innate nature of the word “rights” is not tenable. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
This paper wishes to challenge the proposition that the word “rights” is a universal and innate concept in human societies. It provides an analysis of the absence and presence of the word “rights” in the Chinese language and culture in traditional and contemporary China. It presents a linguistic and cultural explanation for the fact that classical Chinese language and culture did not have an equivalent word or concept for the English word “rights.” After the word and concept of “rights” were introduced to China from the West in the second half of the nineteenth century, the new word quanli (rights) has since taken on Chinese shades of meaning, not entirely the same as its English counterpart. The paper proposes that the claim of the universal and innate nature of the word “rights” is not tenable. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DGR GBV_NL_ARTICLE |
| container_issue |
2 |
| title_short |
On the universality of “rights”: Absence and presence of “rights” in the Chinese language |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0012 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| ppnlink |
NLEJ248235869 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1515/ip-2017-0012 |
| up_date |
2024-07-05T22:23:52.675Z |
| _version_ |
1803779553547517952 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">NLEJ248033646</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20220820035412.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">220814s2017 xx |||||o 00| ||und c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1515/ip-2017-0012</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">articles2015-2020.pp</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)NLEJ248033646</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Cao, Deborah</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">On the universality of “rights”: Absence and presence of “rights” in the Chinese language</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="b">De Gruyter</subfield><subfield code="c">2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">16</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">This paper wishes to challenge the proposition that the word “rights” is a universal and innate concept in human societies. It provides an analysis of the absence and presence of the word “rights” in the Chinese language and culture in traditional and contemporary China. It presents a linguistic and cultural explanation for the fact that classical Chinese language and culture did not have an equivalent word or concept for the English word “rights.” After the word and concept of “rights” were introduced to China from the West in the second half of the nineteenth century, the new word quanli (rights) has since taken on Chinese shades of meaning, not entirely the same as its English counterpart. The paper proposes that the claim of the universal and innate nature of the word “rights” is not tenable.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="533" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="f">Walter de Gruyter Online Zeitschriften</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">rights</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Chinese rights</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">quanli</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Chinese legal language</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">legal concepts</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Intercultural pragmatics</subfield><subfield code="d">Berlin : de Gruyter, 2004</subfield><subfield code="g">14(2017), 2 vom: 3. Juni, Seite 277-292</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)NLEJ248235869</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2159617-7</subfield><subfield code="x">1613-365X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:14</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2017</subfield><subfield code="g">number:2</subfield><subfield code="g">day:3</subfield><subfield code="g">month:06</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:277-292</subfield><subfield code="g">extent:16</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0012</subfield><subfield code="z">Deutschlandweit zugänglich</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ZDB-1-DGR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_NL_ARTICLE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">14</subfield><subfield code="j">2017</subfield><subfield code="e">2</subfield><subfield code="b">3</subfield><subfield code="c">6</subfield><subfield code="h">277-292</subfield><subfield code="g">16</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.3980722 |