{"title":"正字法差异是否妨碍了标准化?","authors":"N. Zair","doi":"10.1111/1467-968x.12301","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this response to Adams' article I begin by talking a bit, in a fairly atheoretical way, about definitions of standardisation. This is because Adams' argument that Latin was not, in the first century BC, a standard language, rests to a large degree on his own view of standardisation: one which approaches it very much from the perspective of the modern nation‐state with a highly centralised school system. I then focus on his main argument against the idea that the Latin of the first century BC was a standardised Latin: the range of spelling found in high register/official inscriptions. He is very much right to point this out, and in‐depth investigation provides many insights in understanding these texts and the social context in which they were produced—but I do not think it is as strong an argument against standardisation as Adams does. Lastly, I discuss the concept of ‘modern' vs ‘old‐fashioned' spelling, which, although briefly addressed by Adams, remains largely implicit: I think this can be usefully made more explicit, and turns out to be more complicated than Adams acknowledges.","PeriodicalId":44794,"journal":{"name":"TRANSACTIONS OF THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does Orthographic Variation Preclude Standardisation?\",\"authors\":\"N. Zair\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1467-968x.12301\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this response to Adams' article I begin by talking a bit, in a fairly atheoretical way, about definitions of standardisation. This is because Adams' argument that Latin was not, in the first century BC, a standard language, rests to a large degree on his own view of standardisation: one which approaches it very much from the perspective of the modern nation‐state with a highly centralised school system. I then focus on his main argument against the idea that the Latin of the first century BC was a standardised Latin: the range of spelling found in high register/official inscriptions. He is very much right to point this out, and in‐depth investigation provides many insights in understanding these texts and the social context in which they were produced—but I do not think it is as strong an argument against standardisation as Adams does. Lastly, I discuss the concept of ‘modern' vs ‘old‐fashioned' spelling, which, although briefly addressed by Adams, remains largely implicit: I think this can be usefully made more explicit, and turns out to be more complicated than Adams acknowledges.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44794,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"TRANSACTIONS OF THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"TRANSACTIONS OF THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968x.12301\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"TRANSACTIONS OF THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968x.12301","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Does Orthographic Variation Preclude Standardisation?
In this response to Adams' article I begin by talking a bit, in a fairly atheoretical way, about definitions of standardisation. This is because Adams' argument that Latin was not, in the first century BC, a standard language, rests to a large degree on his own view of standardisation: one which approaches it very much from the perspective of the modern nation‐state with a highly centralised school system. I then focus on his main argument against the idea that the Latin of the first century BC was a standardised Latin: the range of spelling found in high register/official inscriptions. He is very much right to point this out, and in‐depth investigation provides many insights in understanding these texts and the social context in which they were produced—but I do not think it is as strong an argument against standardisation as Adams does. Lastly, I discuss the concept of ‘modern' vs ‘old‐fashioned' spelling, which, although briefly addressed by Adams, remains largely implicit: I think this can be usefully made more explicit, and turns out to be more complicated than Adams acknowledges.
期刊介绍:
Transactions of the Philological Society continues the earlier Proceedings (1852-53), and is the oldest scholarly periodical devoted to the general study of language and languages that has an unbroken tradition. Transactions reflects a wide range of linguistic interest and contains articles on a diversity of topics: among those published in recent years have been papers on phonology, Romance linguistics, generative grammar, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, Indo-European philology and the history of English.