Why would this be ungrammatical?

Does this, in other words, mean that if it were possible for this grammar to exist, 6 would have to be listed as a separate function rather than just "NUMBERCARD"?

outside insiders (<-> inside insiders)

Together with

the return of someone to their own country

seem or become less important

Dutch colonization in Indonesia did not happen until the 19th century, and only a few traces of what was once the Dutch' territory can be found nowadays

the lowest or most unsuccessful point in a situation

doubts

So: the Dutch were mostly "successful" in Asia and the Antillean islands. Other attempts at colonization were largely unsuccessful

act of bringing peace to a place or ending war in a place

a complete overview with images associated with the Dutch East India Company and the West India Company, e.g. trade posts

the capital or chief city of a country or region

why not?

Memory is selective, and not everything can be remembered; old information has to make place for new information.

Culture is viewed here as an age-old sort of 'system' to help guide people through communication.

absence or lack of concurrence in time

To cause (society or a social system) to become less uniform or centralized; diversify or decentralize

a classification according to general type (so a collection (?))

humiliation, degradation

Van Rooij is of the opinion that the Dutch national identity should not be characterised by seriousness, but rather takes a 'light' form. When it becomes too serious, it is almost scary and off putting for the Dutch to act on it.

So: constructing this canon was seen to be highly problematic, because the history of the Netherlands shouldn't be a defining character of Dutch nationalism (?)

including people from many different countries

non-religious

cliched

Immigration heavily declined, and so did the previous stream of enlightenment theories. Church membership came to be at an all time high.

Upcoming of radicals who based their beliefs on reason rather than on religion, which raised a lot of criticism.

Partly as a result of immigration, the Netherlands knew much diversity on religious grounds. The Netherlands would have preferred to have one, uniform church, but failed to realize this. The amount of diversity did, in their favor, contribute to their reputation of high tolerance.

So: despite the fact there was a lot of (religious) tolerance, the Dutch never really elaborated on it

summary

Meaning that the state as a whole doesn't necessarily interfere with toleration among citizens (?)

Doesn't a value-neutral liberal state especially need toleration? Despite everyone being free to practice what they want, people will always have opinions on each other's behavior/way of life. Especially in a state where more or less everything is allowed, people also need a system of regulation among each other. In other words: if a state's values are neutral, does that mean the people's values also have to be neutral?

So: a value-neutral liberal state, in any case, does its best to give everyone room to practice their individual beliefs, and does not make any statements about a widely believed "right or wrong".

Here, toleration is described as something that is only "accepted" because there are good reasons to do so despite the agent's initial objections. Can toleration never be described as mere acceptation of something that was never "problematic" in this sense?

difficult to find, catch or achieve

attractiveness

outweigh in importance

large, powerful, indivisible, and slow to change

leadership or dominance, especially by one state or social group over others

to re-establish or rename in a new and especially stronger form or context

reestablish in a new and stronger form

leadership or dominance

So: Calvinism was widely accepted but did not gain much traction despite that, and Catholicism was widely popular but only allowed to be practiced in secret.

Where most nations saw diversion as a threat, the Dutch embraced it.

Aside from the fact that stadtholders didn't really know their place and often abused power, the Dutch society seemed to be rather effective in its ways.

so: the Dutch provinces were only classified as a whole for international reasons; beside that they were in control of themselves and not led by any national power.

a thing vital to an enterprise or organization

the highest class in certain societies

"Town life" became massively popular in the Netherlands. Not just for locals, but also for immigrants looking to settle in the country. (Question: why, of all places, did they choose Amsterdam? Was it already considered to be a large/popular city before the big increase in population, or was that a result?)

To sum up: this new, more modern economy was supported largely by business done overseas. The Dutch got products from other countries that their own couldn't produce, and a larger supply of products made for wider availability to even the "ordinary" customer.

mutually beneficial

like which?

latin for "year"

the state of not flowing or moving

so: modernization of Dutch society became apparent through the move from the countryside toward more urban areas (and the career switch that came with that move)

rhetoric

persuasively

Which means that it's possible that communication has already been covered in so many disciplines just because it's culturally relevant, and not necessarily because it is an inherent part of, say, the study of economics.

Communication theory is not something that has to be built up from nothing. A lot of theorizing with regard to communication has already been done within a number of disciplines, and these can be used to establish communication as a theory of its own.

If I understand correctly, this entails that people have their own ideas of what communication is and should be like, the discussion of which is referred to as metadiscourse.

Theoretical metadiscourse followed from practical metadiscourse; it refers to the discussion (the communication) about communication in professional fields; by experts.

Practical metadiscourse is communication about communication by "normal people" in everyday life.

what is this "transmission model" they keep speaking of?

because they all ultimately talk about the same thing: communication

meaning that there is practically nothing to say about it anymore and thus it is useless to study

start here

?

leiderschap dat van toepassing is op een veranderende organisatie, waarbij de aandacht voor het individu en de individuele talenten van medewerkers van cruciaal belang is

slechts

algemene richting of patroon van verandering of ontwikkeling

welke activiteit? het vormgeven van de omgeving?

de psychologie van arbeid en gezondheid

an inclination or natural tendency to behave in a particular way

a group of products that are homogeneous or generally considered as substitutes for each other

having an unemotional and stolidly calm disposition

ability to live elegantly

I'm kind of confused on what caused the Germans to suddenly "switch up" on the Dutch. Whereas they admired their advancements at first, they were suddenly critiquing a lack thereof.

where did that notion come from? was there evidence for it?

with an uncontrollable and recurring urge to drink alcohol

a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new or interesting

To sum up: information about the Netherlands that is new to a big part of the outside world (legal consumption of weed, euthanasia) reveals that the country might be heading for the downfall of its international reputation

To sum up: many came to realize the attractiveness and the power the Netherlands held, especially in the USA a lot of respect for the country and the people's courage arose.

To sum up: by outsiders, especially the English, the people of the Netherlands were historically seen as a threat. Not only were they great tradesmen, but their manners were rather rude and direct.

Dus: als reclames niet als doel hebben om mensen te entertainen (en dus invloed hebben op het hedonistisch welbevinden), dan hebben ze wel als doel om onze menselijkheid aan te tasten (en dus invloed te hebben op het eudaimonisch welbevinden)

Korte samenvatting

autonomie, competentie en verbondenheid

te maken met het streven naar een goede ziel

te maken met genot

Wat is in dit geval "de groep"? En stel dat je van jezelf weet dat je je bij onbekenden over het algemeen aan de "regels" houdt, wie bepaalt dan dat je binnen deze groep past (en dus niet uitgestoten zult worden)?

Verzoek, informeren, en sharing

Brief summary

Culture isn't static, and the process of figuring out exactly what it does is an ongoing one

The notion of small culture proposes that culture as a larger whole is constantly being influenced by smaller cultures like those of certain age groups, people in the same profession etc.

relating to signs and symbols

peculiar or individual

A national culture that says something about an entire population simply does not exist. There is no way to group all people of a country into a single category.

Cultural paradoxes come to exist because opposing values within a culture are not mutually exclusive. Two opposing values can exist simultaneously, though based on the context one might have more relevance than the other.

I'm confused on the difference between these two.

Both of these metaphors claim that the more valuable part of culture is hidden beneath those 'things' that can only be seen on the surface.

The reason he wishes he'd never heard the word is because there are so many types of cultures to be taken into account.