@article{Ette2010,
  author    = {Ette, Ottmar},
  title     = {Literature as knowledge for living, literary studies as science for living},
  issn      = {0030-8129},
  year      = {2010},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Ette2010,
  author    = {Ette, Ottmar},
  title     = {The fascination of Humboldt : Humboldtian science as a model for the future},
  year      = {2010},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Ette2010,
  author    = {Ette, Ottmar},
  title     = {Everything is interrelated, even the errors in the system : Alexander von Humboldt and globalization},
  year      = {2010},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Hassler2010,
  author    = {Haßler, Gerda},
  title     = {Epistemic modality and evidentiality and their determination on a deictic basis : the case of Romance languages},
  isbn      = {978-3-11-022396-5},
  year      = {2010},
  abstract  = {In recent years the category of evidentiality has come into use also for the description of Romance languages. This has been contingent on a change in its interpretation from a typological category to a semantic-pragmatic category, which allows an application to languages lacking specialised morphemes for the expression of evidentiality. In the following we will first describe the theoretical framework in which we use the category of evidentiality for the description of Romance languages. A key question to be elucidated here will be the determination of evidentiality as a deictic phenomenon. This will also be the basis for discussing the distinction between evidentiality and epistemic modality.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Hassler2010,
  author    = {Haßler, Gerda},
  title     = {Epistemic modality and evidentiality and their determination on a deictic basis},
  isbn      = {978-3-11-023433-6},
  year      = {2010},
  abstract  = {It has often been pointed out that there is some overlap between epistemic modality and evidentiality (Chafe \& Nichols 1986, Cornillie 2007, De Haan 1999, Dendale \& Tasmowski 2001, Plungian 2001, Squartini 2004). In this paper I would like to offer several reflections about the necessity of drawing a boundary between modality and evidentiality. Starting from the typological category of evidentiality - extended here for use in pragmatic studies - I will then explore demarcation problems in Romance languages, which lack grammaticalized forms for expressing evidentiality. The underlying premise of this paper is that evidentiality as marker of the origin of the speaker's knowledge stands in relation to the speaker's pragmatic stance. Because the perspective of the speaker is thus incorporated into the utterance, it seems appropriate to analyse the applicability of the deictic category. Finally, under the aspect of deixis, I shall attempt a demarcation between evidentiality and modality.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{Kilian2010,
  author    = {Kilian, Sven Thorsten},
  title     = {Margerrison, C., Ces forces obscures de l'{\^a}me, Women, race and the origins in the writings of Albert Camus; Amsterdam, Rodolpi, 2008},
  year      = {2010},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{Kilian2010,
  author    = {Kilian, Sven Thorsten},
  title     = {Margerrison, C., Ces forces obscures de l{\"i}{\^a}me, Women, race and the origins in the writings of Albert Camus; Rodopi, Amsterdam ; New York, 2008},
  issn      = {0035-8126},
  year      = {2010},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{PuigSamperRebok2010,
  author    = {Puig-Samper, Miguel {\´A}ngel and Rebok, Sandra},
  title     = {Charles Darwin and Alexander von Humboldt},
  series = {Alexander von Humboldt im Netz ; international review for Humboldtian studies},
  volume    = {XI},
  journal   = {Alexander von Humboldt im Netz ; international review for Humboldtian studies},
  number    = {21},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  issn      = {2568-3543},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-51765},
  pages     = {55 -- 64},
  year      = {2010},
  abstract  = {Die besondere Beziehung zwischen Humboldt und Darwin, zwei der bedeutendsten Pers{\"o}nlichkeiten in der Welt der Naturwissenschaften und der Biologie des 19. Jahrhunderts, wird detailliert auf den verschiedenen Ebenen ihres Kontaktes analysiert, sowohl was das real stattgefundene pers{\"o}nliche Treffen betrifft, als auch hinsichtlich ihrer Korrespondenz und der Koinzidenz von Ideen. Dieser wechselseitige Blick zeigt uns wie sich die beiden Gelehrten gegenseitig wahrnahmen, ob sie wirklich versuchten, mit dem Paradigma ihrer bedeutenden Vorg{\"a}nger zu brechen, oder ob sie lediglich schrittweise das bereits erlangte Wissen erweiterten, bis es durch die Erstellung einer genialen Idee zu einem Bruch des bisherigen Wissens kommt. Bekannt ist die wiederholte Referenz von Darwin auf die Werke Humboldts, insbesondere auf die Tageb{\"u}cher des deutschen Naturwissenschaftler und seine Art der Beschreibung der amerikanischen Natur in ihrer ganzen Reichhaltigkeit. Weniger bekannt hingegen sind andere Verweise in seiner Autobiografie, sowie die wissenschaftliche Verwendung des Humboldtschen Werkes oder die Zitate in seiner Korrespondenz, die in diesem Beitrag aufgezeigt werden. Dar{\"u}ber hinaus wird die Verwendung der fr{\"u}hen Schriften von Darwin durch Humboldt in einigen seiner Publikationen, vor allem im Kosmos, erw{\"a}hnt.},
  language  = {en}
}