确定美式英语使用指南中的规定主义程度

IF 1.5 4区 文学 Q2 COMMUNICATION
Jordan Smith
{"title":"确定美式英语使用指南中的规定主义程度","authors":"Jordan Smith","doi":"10.55177/tc377227","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: Prescriptivism–a concept concerned with “correctness in language use” (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2019, p. 8)–serves an important purpose when editors and other language professionals apply the findings from empirical linguistic studies to practical\n communication tasks (Oaks, 2021). Usage guides catalog usage rules, but they treat these rules with varying levels of prescriptivism. Therefore, advice varies across usage guides. This study empirically investigates levels of prescriptivism observed in usage guides. Method: Using\n a scale from 1 (minimally prescriptive) to 4 (maximally prescriptive), two raters coded the level of prescriptivism observed in entries for eight well-known usage problems (e.g., who/whom and lay/lie) from 11 current usage guides relating to American English. Based on the codes assigned\n to these entries, an overall prescriptivism index was calculated for each usage problem and usage guide. Results: A range in levels of prescriptivism was observed. Overall, the treatment of usage problems skewed high on the prescriptivism scale with six of the eight being treated\n as maximally prescriptive by at least two usage guides and six having mean indexes at or above the scale’s midpoint of 2.50. Similarly, seven of the 11 usage guides gave maximally prescriptive advice for at least one usage problem and eight had mean indexes at or above 2.50. While these\n findings indicate a bias toward prescriptive advice, a noteworthy amount of prescription-breaking advice was also observed. Conclusion: The findings demonstrate that usage guides vary considerably in their levels of prescriptivism; therefore, writers and editors must critically\n consider which advice to follow.","PeriodicalId":46338,"journal":{"name":"Technical Communication","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Determining Levels of Prescriptivism in American English Usage Guides\",\"authors\":\"Jordan Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.55177/tc377227\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: Prescriptivism–a concept concerned with “correctness in language use” (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2019, p. 8)–serves an important purpose when editors and other language professionals apply the findings from empirical linguistic studies to practical\\n communication tasks (Oaks, 2021). Usage guides catalog usage rules, but they treat these rules with varying levels of prescriptivism. Therefore, advice varies across usage guides. This study empirically investigates levels of prescriptivism observed in usage guides. Method: Using\\n a scale from 1 (minimally prescriptive) to 4 (maximally prescriptive), two raters coded the level of prescriptivism observed in entries for eight well-known usage problems (e.g., who/whom and lay/lie) from 11 current usage guides relating to American English. Based on the codes assigned\\n to these entries, an overall prescriptivism index was calculated for each usage problem and usage guide. Results: A range in levels of prescriptivism was observed. Overall, the treatment of usage problems skewed high on the prescriptivism scale with six of the eight being treated\\n as maximally prescriptive by at least two usage guides and six having mean indexes at or above the scale’s midpoint of 2.50. Similarly, seven of the 11 usage guides gave maximally prescriptive advice for at least one usage problem and eight had mean indexes at or above 2.50. While these\\n findings indicate a bias toward prescriptive advice, a noteworthy amount of prescription-breaking advice was also observed. Conclusion: The findings demonstrate that usage guides vary considerably in their levels of prescriptivism; therefore, writers and editors must critically\\n consider which advice to follow.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46338,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Technical Communication\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Technical Communication\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.55177/tc377227\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Technical Communication","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55177/tc377227","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:规范主义--一个与 "语言使用的正确性 "有关的概念(Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2019, p.8)--在编辑和其他语言专业人员将实证语言学研究成果应用于实际交际任务时具有重要作用(Oaks, 2021)。用法指南对用法规则进行了编目,但它们在处理这些规则时采用了不同程度的规范主义。因此,不同的使用指南给出的建议也不尽相同。本研究对使用指南中观察到的规范主义水平进行了实证调查。研究方法两名评定者使用从 1(最小规定性)到 4(最大规定性)的量表,对 11 本与美式英语有关的现行用法指南中 8 个众所周知的用法问题(如 who/whom 和 lay/lie)的条目中观察到的规定性水平进行编码。根据给这些词条分配的编码,计算出每个用法问题和用法指南的总体规范主义指数。结果:我们观察到了不同程度的规范主义。总体而言,对使用问题的处理在规定性量表上偏高,8 个使用问题中有 6 个被至少两个使用指南视为最大规定性问题,6 个的平均指数达到或超过量表的中点 2.50。同样,在 11 位使用指南中,有 7 位至少对一个使用问题提出了最大程度的规范性建议,有 8 位的平均指数达到或超过 2.50。虽然这些结果表明指南偏向于提供规范性建议,但也观察到了值得注意的大量突破性建议。结论研究结果表明,使用指南的规定性程度差别很大;因此,作者和编辑必须认真考虑应遵循哪些建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Determining Levels of Prescriptivism in American English Usage Guides
Purpose: Prescriptivism–a concept concerned with “correctness in language use” (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2019, p. 8)–serves an important purpose when editors and other language professionals apply the findings from empirical linguistic studies to practical communication tasks (Oaks, 2021). Usage guides catalog usage rules, but they treat these rules with varying levels of prescriptivism. Therefore, advice varies across usage guides. This study empirically investigates levels of prescriptivism observed in usage guides. Method: Using a scale from 1 (minimally prescriptive) to 4 (maximally prescriptive), two raters coded the level of prescriptivism observed in entries for eight well-known usage problems (e.g., who/whom and lay/lie) from 11 current usage guides relating to American English. Based on the codes assigned to these entries, an overall prescriptivism index was calculated for each usage problem and usage guide. Results: A range in levels of prescriptivism was observed. Overall, the treatment of usage problems skewed high on the prescriptivism scale with six of the eight being treated as maximally prescriptive by at least two usage guides and six having mean indexes at or above the scale’s midpoint of 2.50. Similarly, seven of the 11 usage guides gave maximally prescriptive advice for at least one usage problem and eight had mean indexes at or above 2.50. While these findings indicate a bias toward prescriptive advice, a noteworthy amount of prescription-breaking advice was also observed. Conclusion: The findings demonstrate that usage guides vary considerably in their levels of prescriptivism; therefore, writers and editors must critically consider which advice to follow.
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
Technical Communication
Technical Communication COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
20.00%
发文量
15
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信