杰弗里·里奇,玛丽安·亨特,克里斯蒂安·梅尔和尼古拉斯·史密斯。当代英语的变化。语法研究

IF 0.2 3区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS ANGLIA-ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ENGLISCHE PHILOLOGIE Pub Date : 2012-01-01 DOI:10.1515/ang-2012-0027
U. Lenker
{"title":"杰弗里·里奇,玛丽安·亨特,克里斯蒂安·梅尔和尼古拉斯·史密斯。当代英语的变化。语法研究","authors":"U. Lenker","doi":"10.1515/ang-2012-0027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In recent decades, corpus linguistics has become one of the mainstream paradigms in the study of languages, in particular in the study of English. All of the authors of the book under review here have played a crucial part in this development, as compilers and also as early researchers of corpora of Present-Day English (Leech: LOB; Leech/Smith: Lancaster 1931 Corpus; BLOB-1931; Mair/Hundt: F-LOB and Frown). Claiming to have been “more intimately engaged with these corpora than any other research group” (xix), the authors highlight the “affection” they feel for corpora (xx). And indeed, the book is a token of their affection for corpus linguistics and for the corpora analyzed. The volume aims at giving an empirically-based account of how the English language has been changing recently, i.e. in the time-span from 1961 to 1991/2. This time-span is determined by the corpora used, namely the four corpora of the wellknown “Brown quartet” or “Brown family”, i.e. Brown (American English) and LOB (British English) for 1961 and Frown (American English) and F-LOB (British English) for 1991/2 (descriptions of the corpora are found in Chapter 2.2 and in Appendix II). The strength of this group of corpora lies in their comparability: they are of virtually the same size and the same selection of texts and genres (represented by 500 matching text samples of c. 2,000 words of written British or American English). All of these corpora have – individually or comparatively – been much used in recent years, but the authors nonetheless claim that the studies collected in this book present a new approach, namely a new kind of corpus-based historical research labelled “comparative corpus linguistics” or “short-term diachronic comparable corpus linguistics” (24; for a discussion of the methodology, see also Chapter 2, 24–50). The comparisons themselves are documented in many statistical tables and charts, exhaustively comparing frequencies across time, varieties and genres (fortunately, the authors decided to move many of the more complex tables and diagrams to Appendix III). Yet, even if the studies can generally be said to follow a more “rigorous methodology” than some comparable studies, presenting “comparative corpus linguistics” as a new approach here seems somewhat awkward, given that the 1991/2 corpora F-LOB and Frown were deliberately designed by the Freiburg team (among them Mair and Hundt) for allowing comparison with the earlier LOB and Brown corpora. As its subtitle specifies, the book focuses on changes in grammar (cf. the broader design of Mair 2006, which is also based on a systematic evaluation of virtually the same corpora, but also discusses changes in the lexicon etc.). After the two introductory chapters outlining the methodology and introducing the corpora, the main parts of the book – seven chapters – concentrate on changes in the verb phrase: the subjunctive (in particular the were-subjunctive and the revival of the “mandative subjunctive”; Chapter 3), modal auxiliaries and so-called “semi-modals” such as (have) got to/gotta, wanna or to be going to (Chapters 4 and 5), the progressive (Chapter 6), the passive (beand get-passive as well as medio-passive; Chapter 7), expanded predicates with “light verbs” plus deverbal noun such as have/take a look (Chapter 8), and non-finite constructions (infinitives, gerunds; Chapter 9). Chapter 10 focuses on the noun phrase, discussing a range of changes in noun-noun sequences (such as animal rights campaign), in genitives (s-genitive vs. of-genitive) and in relative clauses (particularly the choice of wh-relativizers, that or zero).","PeriodicalId":43572,"journal":{"name":"ANGLIA-ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ENGLISCHE PHILOLOGIE","volume":"63 1","pages":"152 - 155"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Geoffrey Leech, Marianne Hundt, Christian Mair & Nicholas Smith. Change in Contemporary English. A Grammatical Study\",\"authors\":\"U. Lenker\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/ang-2012-0027\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In recent decades, corpus linguistics has become one of the mainstream paradigms in the study of languages, in particular in the study of English. All of the authors of the book under review here have played a crucial part in this development, as compilers and also as early researchers of corpora of Present-Day English (Leech: LOB; Leech/Smith: Lancaster 1931 Corpus; BLOB-1931; Mair/Hundt: F-LOB and Frown). Claiming to have been “more intimately engaged with these corpora than any other research group” (xix), the authors highlight the “affection” they feel for corpora (xx). And indeed, the book is a token of their affection for corpus linguistics and for the corpora analyzed. The volume aims at giving an empirically-based account of how the English language has been changing recently, i.e. in the time-span from 1961 to 1991/2. This time-span is determined by the corpora used, namely the four corpora of the wellknown “Brown quartet” or “Brown family”, i.e. Brown (American English) and LOB (British English) for 1961 and Frown (American English) and F-LOB (British English) for 1991/2 (descriptions of the corpora are found in Chapter 2.2 and in Appendix II). The strength of this group of corpora lies in their comparability: they are of virtually the same size and the same selection of texts and genres (represented by 500 matching text samples of c. 2,000 words of written British or American English). All of these corpora have – individually or comparatively – been much used in recent years, but the authors nonetheless claim that the studies collected in this book present a new approach, namely a new kind of corpus-based historical research labelled “comparative corpus linguistics” or “short-term diachronic comparable corpus linguistics” (24; for a discussion of the methodology, see also Chapter 2, 24–50). The comparisons themselves are documented in many statistical tables and charts, exhaustively comparing frequencies across time, varieties and genres (fortunately, the authors decided to move many of the more complex tables and diagrams to Appendix III). Yet, even if the studies can generally be said to follow a more “rigorous methodology” than some comparable studies, presenting “comparative corpus linguistics” as a new approach here seems somewhat awkward, given that the 1991/2 corpora F-LOB and Frown were deliberately designed by the Freiburg team (among them Mair and Hundt) for allowing comparison with the earlier LOB and Brown corpora. As its subtitle specifies, the book focuses on changes in grammar (cf. the broader design of Mair 2006, which is also based on a systematic evaluation of virtually the same corpora, but also discusses changes in the lexicon etc.). After the two introductory chapters outlining the methodology and introducing the corpora, the main parts of the book – seven chapters – concentrate on changes in the verb phrase: the subjunctive (in particular the were-subjunctive and the revival of the “mandative subjunctive”; Chapter 3), modal auxiliaries and so-called “semi-modals” such as (have) got to/gotta, wanna or to be going to (Chapters 4 and 5), the progressive (Chapter 6), the passive (beand get-passive as well as medio-passive; Chapter 7), expanded predicates with “light verbs” plus deverbal noun such as have/take a look (Chapter 8), and non-finite constructions (infinitives, gerunds; Chapter 9). Chapter 10 focuses on the noun phrase, discussing a range of changes in noun-noun sequences (such as animal rights campaign), in genitives (s-genitive vs. of-genitive) and in relative clauses (particularly the choice of wh-relativizers, that or zero).\",\"PeriodicalId\":43572,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ANGLIA-ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ENGLISCHE PHILOLOGIE\",\"volume\":\"63 1\",\"pages\":\"152 - 155\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ANGLIA-ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ENGLISCHE PHILOLOGIE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/ang-2012-0027\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"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":"ANGLIA-ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ENGLISCHE PHILOLOGIE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ang-2012-0027","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

近几十年来,语料库语言学已成为语言研究特别是英语研究的主流范式之一。本书的所有作者都在这一发展过程中发挥了至关重要的作用,他们是现代英语语料库的编纂者和早期研究者(Leech: LOB;Leech/Smith: Lancaster 1931 Corpus;团- 1931;mail / hunt: F-LOB和Frown)。作者声称,他们“比其他任何研究小组都更密切地关注这些语料库”(19),并强调了他们对语料库的“喜爱”(20)。事实上,这本书是他们对语料库语言学和所分析的语料库的喜爱的象征。这本书的目的是提供一个基于经验的帐户,英语语言最近是如何变化的,即从1961年到1991年的时间跨度。这个时间跨度是由所使用的语料库决定的,即众所周知的“布朗四重奏”或“布朗家族”的四个语料库,即1961年的Brown(美式英语)和LOB(英式英语),1991/2年的Frown(美式英语)和F-LOB(英式英语)(语料库的描述见第2.2章和附录II)。这组语料库的优势在于它们的可比性:它们实际上具有相同的大小,相同的文本和体裁选择(由500个匹配的文本样本表示,大约2000个书面英语或美式英语单词)。近年来,所有这些语料库都被单独或相对地广泛使用,但作者仍然声称,本书收集的研究提出了一种新的方法,即一种新的基于语料库的历史研究,称为“比较语料库语言学”或“短期历时可比语料库语言学”(24;关于方法的讨论,也见第2章,24-50)。这些比较本身记录在许多统计表格和图表中,详尽地比较了不同时间、品种和类型的频率(幸运的是,作者决定将许多更复杂的表格和图表移到附录III中)。然而,即使这些研究通常可以说是遵循了比一些类似研究更“严格的方法”,在这里提出“比较语料库语言学”作为一种新方法似乎有些尴尬。考虑到1991/2语料库F-LOB和Frown是由Freiburg团队(其中包括maair和Hundt)故意设计的,以便与早期的LOB和Brown语料库进行比较。正如它的副标题所指出的,这本书的重点是语法的变化(参见Mair 2006的更广泛的设计,它也是基于对几乎相同的语料库的系统评估,但也讨论了词汇等的变化)。在概述方法和介绍语料库的两章导论之后,全书的主要部分——七章——集中讨论了动词短语的变化:虚拟语气(特别是were虚拟语气和“命令虚拟语气”的复兴;第三章),情态助动词和所谓的“半情态”,如(have) got to/gotta, wanna或to be going to(第四章和第五章),进行式(第六章),被动语态(beand get-被动语态以及中被动语态;第七章),由“轻动词”和指示名词(如have/take a look)组成的扩展谓语(第八章),以及非有限结构(不定式、动名词;第10章侧重于名词短语,讨论了名词-名词序列的一系列变化(如动物权利运动),名词格(s-属格vs. of-属格)和关系从句(特别是选择wh- relativifier, that或zero)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Geoffrey Leech, Marianne Hundt, Christian Mair & Nicholas Smith. Change in Contemporary English. A Grammatical Study
In recent decades, corpus linguistics has become one of the mainstream paradigms in the study of languages, in particular in the study of English. All of the authors of the book under review here have played a crucial part in this development, as compilers and also as early researchers of corpora of Present-Day English (Leech: LOB; Leech/Smith: Lancaster 1931 Corpus; BLOB-1931; Mair/Hundt: F-LOB and Frown). Claiming to have been “more intimately engaged with these corpora than any other research group” (xix), the authors highlight the “affection” they feel for corpora (xx). And indeed, the book is a token of their affection for corpus linguistics and for the corpora analyzed. The volume aims at giving an empirically-based account of how the English language has been changing recently, i.e. in the time-span from 1961 to 1991/2. This time-span is determined by the corpora used, namely the four corpora of the wellknown “Brown quartet” or “Brown family”, i.e. Brown (American English) and LOB (British English) for 1961 and Frown (American English) and F-LOB (British English) for 1991/2 (descriptions of the corpora are found in Chapter 2.2 and in Appendix II). The strength of this group of corpora lies in their comparability: they are of virtually the same size and the same selection of texts and genres (represented by 500 matching text samples of c. 2,000 words of written British or American English). All of these corpora have – individually or comparatively – been much used in recent years, but the authors nonetheless claim that the studies collected in this book present a new approach, namely a new kind of corpus-based historical research labelled “comparative corpus linguistics” or “short-term diachronic comparable corpus linguistics” (24; for a discussion of the methodology, see also Chapter 2, 24–50). The comparisons themselves are documented in many statistical tables and charts, exhaustively comparing frequencies across time, varieties and genres (fortunately, the authors decided to move many of the more complex tables and diagrams to Appendix III). Yet, even if the studies can generally be said to follow a more “rigorous methodology” than some comparable studies, presenting “comparative corpus linguistics” as a new approach here seems somewhat awkward, given that the 1991/2 corpora F-LOB and Frown were deliberately designed by the Freiburg team (among them Mair and Hundt) for allowing comparison with the earlier LOB and Brown corpora. As its subtitle specifies, the book focuses on changes in grammar (cf. the broader design of Mair 2006, which is also based on a systematic evaluation of virtually the same corpora, but also discusses changes in the lexicon etc.). After the two introductory chapters outlining the methodology and introducing the corpora, the main parts of the book – seven chapters – concentrate on changes in the verb phrase: the subjunctive (in particular the were-subjunctive and the revival of the “mandative subjunctive”; Chapter 3), modal auxiliaries and so-called “semi-modals” such as (have) got to/gotta, wanna or to be going to (Chapters 4 and 5), the progressive (Chapter 6), the passive (beand get-passive as well as medio-passive; Chapter 7), expanded predicates with “light verbs” plus deverbal noun such as have/take a look (Chapter 8), and non-finite constructions (infinitives, gerunds; Chapter 9). Chapter 10 focuses on the noun phrase, discussing a range of changes in noun-noun sequences (such as animal rights campaign), in genitives (s-genitive vs. of-genitive) and in relative clauses (particularly the choice of wh-relativizers, that or zero).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: The journal of English philology, Anglia, was founded in 1878 by Moritz Trautmann and Richard P. Wülker, and is thus the oldest journal of English studies. Anglia covers a large part of the expanding field of English philology. It publishes essays on the English language and linguistic history, on English literature of the Middle Ages and the Modern period, on American literature, the newer literature in the English language, and on general and comparative literary studies, also including cultural and literary theory aspects. Further, Anglia contains reviews from the areas mentioned..
期刊最新文献
The “Ecological Imperative” in Literary Studies Thomas D’Urfey’s Adaptation of Cervantes’s Quixote: The Comical History of Don Quixote The Maypole of Merry Vagabonds: Hawthorne’s “The Seven Vagabonds” and the Birth of Conservative Utopia The Cosmopolitan Stranger in Muriel Spark’s The Finishing School “Words, Words, Words”: Mourid Barghouti’s Appropriation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet in I Saw Ramallah
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1