T-glottalling2 is one of the most prominent innovations in Present-Day UK varieties of English. A vast body of sociolinguistic research has investigated the ubiquitous change from [t] to [ʔ] for /t/ in word-medial and word-final position in numerous, often urban, locations in the UK since the 1970s3 (e.g. Altendorf and Watt 2008 for London; Baranowski and Turton 2015 for Manchester; Drummond 2011 for Polish L2 speakers of English in Manchester; Fabricius 2000, 2002 for RP; Flynn 2012 for Nottingham; most articles in Foulkes and Docherty's volume on Urban Voices 1999, e.g. Derby, London, Sheffield; Jansen 2018 for Carlisle; Kerswill and Williams 2000 for Milton Keynes, Hull and Reading; Llamas 2007 for Middlesbrough; Macaulay 1977 for Glasgow; Marshall 2001 for north-east Scots; Mees 1987 for Cardiff; Milroy et al. 1994 for Newcastle; Reid 1978 for Edinburgh; Schleef 2013 for Edinburgh and London; Smith and Holmes-Elliott 2018 for Buckie; Straw and Patrick 2007 for Ipswich; StuartSmith 1999 for Glasgow; Thorne 2003 for Birmingham; Trudgill 1988 for Norwich.)4 Milroy et al. (1994) describe the use of glottal stops as an urban feature. Since most sociolinguistic investigations of this variable have concentrated on urban areas in the UK, the information on T-glottalling in more peripheral and remote areas is still patchy. Notable exceptions are Marshall (2001), who explores T-glottalling in north-east Scots, Milroy (1982), who investigates this feature in Galloway, and Smith and HolmesElliott (2018), who study T-glottalling in Buckie, a burgh town on the Moray Firth coast of Scotland. Smith and Holmes-Elliott (2018, 324) propose that "some key questions [...] surrounding the origins and subsequent development of the variable" remain and they call for more studies on this variant to gain further information about "the trajectory of this iconic variable through time and space" (Smith and HolmesElliott 2018, 352). Filling geographical gaps in the study of T-glottalling is one point that needs to be addressed, but investigating this change in progress in diverse communities should also be taken into account in order to achieve a fuller understanding of T-glottalling as a phenomenon of Present-Day English.
t- glotting是当今英国英语变体中最显著的创新之一。大量的社会语言学研究调查了自20世纪70年代以来，在英国许多地区(通常是城市)，单词中间和词尾位置上/t/的[t]变为[j]的普遍变化(例如Altendorf和Watt 2008年对伦敦的研究;巴拉诺斯基和图顿2015年加盟曼联;Drummond 2011年在曼彻斯特的波兰语L2英语使用者;fabicius 2000, 2002用于RP;弗林2012年诺丁汉;福克斯和多彻蒂1999年城市之声文集中的大部分文章，如德比、伦敦、谢菲尔德;Jansen 2018为Carlisle;克斯维尔和威廉姆斯2000年代表米尔顿凯恩斯、赫尔和雷丁;2007年代表米德尔斯堡;麦考利1977年格拉斯哥奖;马歇尔2001为苏格兰东北部;1987年加盟卡迪夫;Milroy et al. 1994 for Newcastle;里德1978年代表爱丁堡;Schleef 2013爱丁堡和伦敦;史密斯和福尔摩斯-艾略特2018年为巴基;斯特劳和帕特里克2007年伊普斯维奇;斯图尔特史密斯1999年格拉斯哥;索恩2003年代表伯明翰;Milroy等人(1994)将使用声门顿音描述为一种城市特征。由于对这一变量的大多数社会语言学调查都集中在英国的城市地区，所以在更外围和偏远地区，关于t型声门的信息仍然是不完整的。值得注意的例外是Marshall(2001)，他研究了苏格兰东北部的t -声门发音，Milroy(1982)研究了加洛韦的这一特征，Smith和HolmesElliott(2018)研究了苏格兰马里湾海岸的小镇Buckie的t -声门发音。Smith和Holmes-Elliott(2018, 324)提出“一些关键问题……围绕变量的起源和随后的发展”仍然存在，他们呼吁对这一变体进行更多的研究，以获得关于“这一标志性变量在时间和空间中的轨迹”的进一步信息(Smith and HolmesElliott 2018, 352)。填补t-声门发音研究中的地理空白是需要解决的一个问题，但为了更全面地理解t-声门发音作为现代英语的一种现象，也应该考虑在不同社区中调查这种变化的进展。
{"title":"A Ubiquitous Sound Change in the Periphery","authors":"Sandra Jansen, Cumbrian English, Moray Firth","doi":"10.33675/ANGL/2021/1/6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33675/ANGL/2021/1/6","url":null,"abstract":"T-glottalling2 is one of the most prominent innovations in Present-Day UK varieties of English. A vast body of sociolinguistic research has investigated the ubiquitous change from [t] to [ʔ] for /t/ in word-medial and word-final position in numerous, often urban, locations in the UK since the 1970s3 (e.g. Altendorf and Watt 2008 for London; Baranowski and Turton 2015 for Manchester; Drummond 2011 for Polish L2 speakers of English in Manchester; Fabricius 2000, 2002 for RP; Flynn 2012 for Nottingham; most articles in Foulkes and Docherty's volume on Urban Voices 1999, e.g. Derby, London, Sheffield; Jansen 2018 for Carlisle; Kerswill and Williams 2000 for Milton Keynes, Hull and Reading; Llamas 2007 for Middlesbrough; Macaulay 1977 for Glasgow; Marshall 2001 for north-east Scots; Mees 1987 for Cardiff; Milroy et al. 1994 for Newcastle; Reid 1978 for Edinburgh; Schleef 2013 for Edinburgh and London; Smith and Holmes-Elliott 2018 for Buckie; Straw and Patrick 2007 for Ipswich; StuartSmith 1999 for Glasgow; Thorne 2003 for Birmingham; Trudgill 1988 for Norwich.)4 Milroy et al. (1994) describe the use of glottal stops as an urban feature. Since most sociolinguistic investigations of this variable have concentrated on urban areas in the UK, the information on T-glottalling in more peripheral and remote areas is still patchy. Notable exceptions are Marshall (2001), who explores T-glottalling in north-east Scots, Milroy (1982), who investigates this feature in Galloway, and Smith and HolmesElliott (2018), who study T-glottalling in Buckie, a burgh town on the Moray Firth coast of Scotland. Smith and Holmes-Elliott (2018, 324) propose that \"some key questions [...] surrounding the origins and subsequent development of the variable\" remain and they call for more studies on this variant to gain further information about \"the trajectory of this iconic variable through time and space\" (Smith and HolmesElliott 2018, 352). Filling geographical gaps in the study of T-glottalling is one point that needs to be addressed, but investigating this change in progress in diverse communities should also be taken into account in order to achieve a fuller understanding of T-glottalling as a phenomenon of Present-Day English.","PeriodicalId":42547,"journal":{"name":"ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ANGLISTIK UND AMERIKANISTIK","volume":"43 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74961042","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Uneasy Forms of Interdisciplinarity","authors":"C. Koegler","doi":"10.33675/angl/2021/3/6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33675/angl/2021/3/6","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42547,"journal":{"name":"ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ANGLISTIK UND AMERIKANISTIK","volume":"64 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74480883","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
'Law-and-Literature' emerged initially as a subdiscipline of legal education at USAmerican law schools during the 1970s and has since become an established part of the legal curriculum in the United States; it has also sparked the development of 'law and literature' as a flourishing interdisciplinary enterprise.1 The field developed partly in opposition to the prevalence of 'law and economics' as an educational paradigm in (USAmerican) legal education. Courses in the field were aimed at law students in an attempt to replenish their 'dry' legal studies with the spark of 'real life' and emotion which, proponents of Law-and-Literature argued, was an essential quality of literature lacking in legal education. Literature (usually of the highbrow, capital-letter variety) and the interpretive ambiguity of literary language was credited with the inherent ability to transcend the rigid categories deemed characteristic of the law. Literary texts mostly functioned as an 'ethical complement' to legal writing or, in Julie Stone Peters's words, as an "ethical corrective to the scientific and technocratic visions of law" (2005, 444). Literature, in a nutshell, was meant to 'repair' a perceived lack in legal education and legal practice. In this article, I will briefly explore the history of Law-and-Literature as well as competing and more recent incarnations of the field, argue for the interdisciplinary necessity of scholarly self-awareness, discuss a project which took interdisciplinarity seriously by bringing together early modern literature and contemporary law – the Shakespeare Moot Court Project (2002-2007) – and, in a last step, shed some light on the possible interconnections of law and literature with the (generic) laws of literature in my own take on the field. In doing so, I want to take seriously the potential pitfalls of interdisciplinary work. In her analysis of the methodological baggage that comes with the interdisciplinarity of law and literature, Doris Pichler has stressed that, "when carrying out research within this field, one has to position oneself very clearly" (2015, 26) within a specific academic or cultural tradition, a law system, a theoretical approach and a specific position with reference to 'law' and 'literature.' A brief caveat, therefore, on my own disciplinary point of view: my specific angle is that of an early modernist working on a book-length study of The Laws of Excess: Law, Literature, and the Laws of Genre in Early Modern Drama. I do not have a legal education nor am I a specialist in English legal history. My predicament is consequently that of most people engaged in interdisciplinary work – while I am (hopefully) an expert in the one field (early modern drama), I am all but a layperson in the other (early modern law and the English legal system more generally).
“法律与文学”最初是20世纪70年代美国法学院法律教育的一个分支学科，后来成为美国法律课程的一部分;它也激发了“法律与文学”作为一个蓬勃发展的跨学科企业的发展该领域的发展部分是为了反对“法律和经济学”作为(美国)法律教育的教育范式的盛行。法律与文学的支持者认为，法学领域的课程旨在用“现实生活”和情感的火花来补充他们“枯燥”的法律研究，这是法律教育中缺乏的文学的基本品质。文学(通常是高雅的大写文学)和文学语言的解释歧义被认为具有超越被认为是法律特征的严格类别的内在能力。文学文本主要作为法律写作的“伦理补充”，或者用朱莉·斯通·彼得斯(Julie Stone Peters)的话来说，作为“对科学和技术官僚的法律愿景的伦理纠正”(2005,444)。简而言之，文学是为了“修复”法律教育和法律实践的缺失。在这篇文章中，我将简要探讨法律与文学的历史，以及该领域的竞争和最近的体现，论证学术自我意识的跨学科必要性，讨论一个通过将早期现代文学和当代法律结合起来严肃对待跨学科的项目——莎士比亚模拟法庭项目(2002-2007)——最后一步，在我自己对这个领域的理解中，用文学的(一般)规律来阐明法律和文学之间可能的相互联系。在这样做的过程中，我想认真对待跨学科工作的潜在缺陷。在分析法律与文学的跨学科性所带来的方法论包袱时，多丽丝·皮切勒(Doris Pichler)强调，“在这一领域开展研究时，人们必须非常清楚地定位自己”(2015,26)，在特定的学术或文化传统、法律体系、理论方法以及与“法律”和“文学”相关的特定立场中。因此，就我自己的学科观点而言，我的一个简短的警告是:我的具体角度是一个早期现代主义者，正在研究一本书的《过度法则:早期现代戏剧中的法律、文学和类型法则》。我没有接受过法律教育，也不是英国法律史方面的专家。因此，我的困境与大多数从事跨学科工作的人一样——虽然我(希望)是一个领域(早期现代戏剧)的专家，但在另一个领域(早期现代法律和更普遍的英国法律体系)，我几乎是一个外行。
{"title":"From Law-and-Literature to Law and the Humanities, Law and Culture… and Beyond?","authors":"S. Gruss","doi":"10.33675/angl/2021/3/5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33675/angl/2021/3/5","url":null,"abstract":"'Law-and-Literature' emerged initially as a subdiscipline of legal education at USAmerican law schools during the 1970s and has since become an established part of the legal curriculum in the United States; it has also sparked the development of 'law and literature' as a flourishing interdisciplinary enterprise.1 The field developed partly in opposition to the prevalence of 'law and economics' as an educational paradigm in (USAmerican) legal education. Courses in the field were aimed at law students in an attempt to replenish their 'dry' legal studies with the spark of 'real life' and emotion which, proponents of Law-and-Literature argued, was an essential quality of literature lacking in legal education. Literature (usually of the highbrow, capital-letter variety) and the interpretive ambiguity of literary language was credited with the inherent ability to transcend the rigid categories deemed characteristic of the law. Literary texts mostly functioned as an 'ethical complement' to legal writing or, in Julie Stone Peters's words, as an \"ethical corrective to the scientific and technocratic visions of law\" (2005, 444). Literature, in a nutshell, was meant to 'repair' a perceived lack in legal education and legal practice. In this article, I will briefly explore the history of Law-and-Literature as well as competing and more recent incarnations of the field, argue for the interdisciplinary necessity of scholarly self-awareness, discuss a project which took interdisciplinarity seriously by bringing together early modern literature and contemporary law – the Shakespeare Moot Court Project (2002-2007) – and, in a last step, shed some light on the possible interconnections of law and literature with the (generic) laws of literature in my own take on the field. In doing so, I want to take seriously the potential pitfalls of interdisciplinary work. In her analysis of the methodological baggage that comes with the interdisciplinarity of law and literature, Doris Pichler has stressed that, \"when carrying out research within this field, one has to position oneself very clearly\" (2015, 26) within a specific academic or cultural tradition, a law system, a theoretical approach and a specific position with reference to 'law' and 'literature.' A brief caveat, therefore, on my own disciplinary point of view: my specific angle is that of an early modernist working on a book-length study of The Laws of Excess: Law, Literature, and the Laws of Genre in Early Modern Drama. I do not have a legal education nor am I a specialist in English legal history. My predicament is consequently that of most people engaged in interdisciplinary work – while I am (hopefully) an expert in the one field (early modern drama), I am all but a layperson in the other (early modern law and the English legal system more generally).","PeriodicalId":42547,"journal":{"name":"ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ANGLISTIK UND AMERIKANISTIK","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75504385","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
into a range of news reading styles in radio and television which continue to evolve, along with general change taking place in society. The RP accent that accompanied the model has been subject to the same social influences, to the point where it now exists only in media archives.
{"title":"Early Audio Recordings and the Development of Irish English","authors":"M. Schulte","doi":"10.33675/ANGL/2021/1/5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33675/ANGL/2021/1/5","url":null,"abstract":"into a range of news reading styles in radio and television which continue to evolve, along with general change taking place in society. The RP accent that accompanied the model has been subject to the same social influences, to the point where it now exists only in media archives.","PeriodicalId":42547,"journal":{"name":"ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ANGLISTIK UND AMERIKANISTIK","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89373514","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In Memoriam, P. Koch, F. H. Bäuml, C. Lange, B. Weber, U. Schaefer
needs procedures for constructing systems of a higher level out of the discrete and homogeneous systems that are derived from description and that represent each a unique formal organization of the substance of expression and content. Let us dub these constructions "diasystems" [...]. (1954, 389-390) appropriateness relations, however modelled, nothing on the being expressed in a certain rule-format), analysis of contexts as well as of linguistic forms. For the dimension of social distance to be universal in languages, as in social life, connected with a series of related meanings, such as informality-formality, intimacy-respect, equality-authority, private-public.
{"title":"Communicative Distance","authors":"In Memoriam, P. Koch, F. H. Bäuml, C. Lange, B. Weber, U. Schaefer","doi":"10.33675/angl/2021/2/5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33675/angl/2021/2/5","url":null,"abstract":"needs procedures for constructing systems of a higher level out of the discrete and homogeneous systems that are derived from description and that represent each a unique formal organization of the substance of expression and content. Let us dub these constructions \"diasystems\" [...]. (1954, 389-390) appropriateness relations, however modelled, nothing on the being expressed in a certain rule-format), analysis of contexts as well as of linguistic forms. For the dimension of social distance to be universal in languages, as in social life, connected with a series of related meanings, such as informality-formality, intimacy-respect, equality-authority, private-public.","PeriodicalId":42547,"journal":{"name":"ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ANGLISTIK UND AMERIKANISTIK","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89943680","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
My contribution will address aspects of 'Literature and Science Studies' as interdisciplinary practice, and its focus will be on practical aspects. I shall present considerations that have made it possible to articulate research perspectives of interdisciplinary relevance, as a basis for building collaborative projects that not only involve researchers from several disciplinary backgrounds, but also integrate practitioners from non-academic areas of discursive practice. I will at times refer to theoretical positions and methodological reflections that are useful for illustrating ways of conceptualising and operationalising interdisciplinary research perspectives, but without implying that other theoretical positions or methodological choices are not workable or legitimate. And I will conclude by offering a selective engagement with Rita Felski's Uses of Literature (2008) in order to exemplify ways in which interdisciplinary practices can lead not only to critical reflections, but also to innovative accounts of conceptions and practices that are key to our own discipline of literary scholarship. Indeed, it is part of my argument that one major incentive for devising productive instances of interdisciplinarity might lie in their disciplinary benefit – interdisciplinarity as a way of obtaining greater clarity both on the cultural status and functions of the materials that we study, and of the disciplinary practices that we implement. What I will present, then, is in no way a finished and static recipe book, but rather reflections on what has worked in particular instances and situations and could serve as points of departure that would need to be developed further and adapted to new instances and situations. It is a question of identifying the contributions that literary scholarship can uniquely make in contexts where the research objectives go beyond the disciplinary priorities which are generally defined in literary studies, and at the same time gaining new research angles that speak to these disciplinary positions. How can we develop research perspectives where a detailed and differentiated literary analysis becomes 'relevant,' as we highlight how literary narratives offer complex critical engagements with issues that are virulent in other public or academic discourses, and with the ways in which these issues are represented and addressed in those settings? And how, in turn, can such engagements feed back into our own critical and scholarly practice, refining and sharpening its focus as well as broadening and deepening its analytical scope? My remarks are informed by my experience as a member of the research group Fiction Meets Science (FMS; see www.fictionmeetsscience.org), which has been funded by the Volkswagen Foundation since 2013, in a funding format designed, among other things, to promote interdisciplinary collaboration as a way of highlighting the potentials of the
{"title":"Better Stories about Science?","authors":"A. Kirchhofer","doi":"10.33675/angl/2021/3/10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33675/angl/2021/3/10","url":null,"abstract":"My contribution will address aspects of 'Literature and Science Studies' as interdisciplinary practice, and its focus will be on practical aspects. I shall present considerations that have made it possible to articulate research perspectives of interdisciplinary relevance, as a basis for building collaborative projects that not only involve researchers from several disciplinary backgrounds, but also integrate practitioners from non-academic areas of discursive practice. I will at times refer to theoretical positions and methodological reflections that are useful for illustrating ways of conceptualising and operationalising interdisciplinary research perspectives, but without implying that other theoretical positions or methodological choices are not workable or legitimate. And I will conclude by offering a selective engagement with Rita Felski's Uses of Literature (2008) in order to exemplify ways in which interdisciplinary practices can lead not only to critical reflections, but also to innovative accounts of conceptions and practices that are key to our own discipline of literary scholarship. Indeed, it is part of my argument that one major incentive for devising productive instances of interdisciplinarity might lie in their disciplinary benefit – interdisciplinarity as a way of obtaining greater clarity both on the cultural status and functions of the materials that we study, and of the disciplinary practices that we implement. What I will present, then, is in no way a finished and static recipe book, but rather reflections on what has worked in particular instances and situations and could serve as points of departure that would need to be developed further and adapted to new instances and situations. It is a question of identifying the contributions that literary scholarship can uniquely make in contexts where the research objectives go beyond the disciplinary priorities which are generally defined in literary studies, and at the same time gaining new research angles that speak to these disciplinary positions. How can we develop research perspectives where a detailed and differentiated literary analysis becomes 'relevant,' as we highlight how literary narratives offer complex critical engagements with issues that are virulent in other public or academic discourses, and with the ways in which these issues are represented and addressed in those settings? And how, in turn, can such engagements feed back into our own critical and scholarly practice, refining and sharpening its focus as well as broadening and deepening its analytical scope? My remarks are informed by my experience as a member of the research group Fiction Meets Science (FMS; see www.fictionmeetsscience.org), which has been funded by the Volkswagen Foundation since 2013, in a funding format designed, among other things, to promote interdisciplinary collaboration as a way of highlighting the potentials of the","PeriodicalId":42547,"journal":{"name":"ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ANGLISTIK UND AMERIKANISTIK","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81761471","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：