寻找否定证据:追踪美国和英国历史报纸文本中集体语言回避的经验足迹

Donald MacQueen
{"title":"寻找否定证据:追踪美国和英国历史报纸文本中集体语言回避的经验足迹","authors":"Donald MacQueen","doi":"10.1515/ICAME-2016-0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Linguistic avoidance - the conscious or unconscious non-use of a problematic language expression and/or the substitution of another - is difficult to demonstrate empirically in historical terms, as it constitutes a negative action that leaves no positive trace. However, all hope is not lost for the empiricist: the very conspicuousness of the problematic expression’s absence can in fact be measured across a time period. A perhaps unique case in point in English is the avoidance of number-word expressions such as five millions of individuals and, alternatively, five million individuals precisely at the point in history when it became unclear which of the two expressions was the correct one, i.e. when usage was shifting. At this point, newspapers in the US and the UK, following patterns that were similar but not contemporaneous, began to favor numerical expressions like 5,000,000 individuals. The timing of the shift corresponded to the time gap between US and UK newspapers in their respective gradual rejection of the now obsolescent (Obs) five millions of individuals in favor of the present-day English (PdE) construction five million individuals. Then, in both countries, newspapers largely discontinued the use of numerical expressions like 5,000,000 individuals when it had become clear that the PdE construction had prevailed. In other words, the numerical expression was conspicuously substituted to avoid choosing between the Obs and PdE versions of the numberword expression, and this avoidance left a clear empirical trace.","PeriodicalId":73271,"journal":{"name":"ICAME journal : computers in English linguistics","volume":"553 1","pages":"63 - 75"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Finding proof negative: Tracing the empirical footprint of collective linguistic avoidance in historical American and British newspaper texts\",\"authors\":\"Donald MacQueen\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/ICAME-2016-0005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Linguistic avoidance - the conscious or unconscious non-use of a problematic language expression and/or the substitution of another - is difficult to demonstrate empirically in historical terms, as it constitutes a negative action that leaves no positive trace. However, all hope is not lost for the empiricist: the very conspicuousness of the problematic expression’s absence can in fact be measured across a time period. A perhaps unique case in point in English is the avoidance of number-word expressions such as five millions of individuals and, alternatively, five million individuals precisely at the point in history when it became unclear which of the two expressions was the correct one, i.e. when usage was shifting. At this point, newspapers in the US and the UK, following patterns that were similar but not contemporaneous, began to favor numerical expressions like 5,000,000 individuals. The timing of the shift corresponded to the time gap between US and UK newspapers in their respective gradual rejection of the now obsolescent (Obs) five millions of individuals in favor of the present-day English (PdE) construction five million individuals. Then, in both countries, newspapers largely discontinued the use of numerical expressions like 5,000,000 individuals when it had become clear that the PdE construction had prevailed. In other words, the numerical expression was conspicuously substituted to avoid choosing between the Obs and PdE versions of the numberword expression, and this avoidance left a clear empirical trace.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73271,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ICAME journal : computers in English linguistics\",\"volume\":\"553 1\",\"pages\":\"63 - 75\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ICAME journal : computers in English linguistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/ICAME-2016-0005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ICAME journal : computers in English linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ICAME-2016-0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

语言回避——有意识或无意识地不使用有问题的语言表达和/或替代另一种语言表达——很难用历史经验来证明,因为它构成了一种消极的行为,没有留下积极的痕迹。然而,对于经验主义者来说,并不是所有的希望都失去了:事实上,问题表达的缺失是可以通过一段时间来衡量的。英语中一个独特的例子可能是避免使用数字词表达,如500万个人,或者,500万个人,正是在历史上不清楚这两个表达中哪一个是正确的时候,也就是说,当用法发生变化时。在这一点上,美国和英国的报纸,遵循类似的模式,但不是同时代的,开始喜欢数字表达,如5,000,000个人。这种转变的时间与美国和英国报纸之间的时间差距相对应,他们各自逐渐放弃了现在过时的(Obs) 500万人,转而支持现代英语(PdE) 500万人的结构。后来,在这两个国家,当PdE结构明显占了上风时,报纸基本上停止使用5,000,000个人这样的数字表达。换句话说,为了避免在数字表达式的Obs和PdE版本之间进行选择,数字表达式被明显替换,这种避免留下了明显的经验痕迹。
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
Finding proof negative: Tracing the empirical footprint of collective linguistic avoidance in historical American and British newspaper texts
Abstract Linguistic avoidance - the conscious or unconscious non-use of a problematic language expression and/or the substitution of another - is difficult to demonstrate empirically in historical terms, as it constitutes a negative action that leaves no positive trace. However, all hope is not lost for the empiricist: the very conspicuousness of the problematic expression’s absence can in fact be measured across a time period. A perhaps unique case in point in English is the avoidance of number-word expressions such as five millions of individuals and, alternatively, five million individuals precisely at the point in history when it became unclear which of the two expressions was the correct one, i.e. when usage was shifting. At this point, newspapers in the US and the UK, following patterns that were similar but not contemporaneous, began to favor numerical expressions like 5,000,000 individuals. The timing of the shift corresponded to the time gap between US and UK newspapers in their respective gradual rejection of the now obsolescent (Obs) five millions of individuals in favor of the present-day English (PdE) construction five million individuals. Then, in both countries, newspapers largely discontinued the use of numerical expressions like 5,000,000 individuals when it had become clear that the PdE construction had prevailed. In other words, the numerical expression was conspicuously substituted to avoid choosing between the Obs and PdE versions of the numberword expression, and this avoidance left a clear empirical trace.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
32 weeks
期刊最新文献
Ole Schützler and Julia Schlüter (eds.). Data and methods in corpus linguistics. Comparative approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022. 357 pp. ISBN 978-1-10849964-4 Compiling a corpus of South Asian online Englishes: A report, some reflections and a pilot study A comparative corpus-based investigation of results sections of research articles in Applied Linguistics and Physics Tony McEnery and Vaclav Brezina. Fundamental principles of corpus linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022. 313 pp. ISBN 978-1-1071-1062-5 Gender and evaluation in contemporary American English: A corpus study based on pronominal and nominal expressions with male and female reference
×
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