编纂、规定和规定主义研究的方法论方法

IF 0.2 3区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Nuria Yáñez-Bouza
{"title":"编纂、规定和规定主义研究的方法论方法","authors":"Nuria Yáñez-Bouza","doi":"10.1080/00393274.2021.1934108","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The eighteenth century is widely taken as marking the beginning of a new era in the history of the English language, and one of the reasons for this relates to the process of standardisation. Understood as an ideology or ‘a set of abstract norms to which actual usage may conform to a greater or lesser extent’ (Milroy & Milroy 2012: 19), standardisation is core in the domain of normative linguistics, a field which has been concerned largely with codification and prescription, the last two stages of ‘the implementation of the standard’ as postulated by Milroy & Milroy (2012: 22–23). Codification is closely associated with the eighteenth century, and prescription naturally follows more intensely, though it is argued that it never comes to an end (Tieken 2008a: 10). Prescriptivism is yet a further stage in the pathway towards standardisation which develops ‘in full earnest’ in the nineteenth century (Tieken 2020a: 12), and not only are we entrenched in it but it is ‘resurgent’ as a ‘new prescriptivism’ (Beal 2009: 47). Where the rules that define standard and non-standard come from, what the nature of the prescriptions and proscriptions really is, and who codified the language, are all topics that have been addressed with a new focus since the early 1990s, both theoretically and methodologically. This article is concerned with the latter. It surveys the rich diversity of methodological approaches, old and new, to the study of codification, prescription, and prescriptivism in English. These methods are presented as seven thematic strands, and each strand will address the three main normative sources in this field of study: grammars, pronouncing dictionaries, and usage guides. It will be shown how new approaches have emerged over time, widening the scope of materials examined both in quantity and quality, and how the study of the normative tradition has greatly benefited from recent advances in corpus linguistics and the digital humanities, parallel to developments in other areas of linguistics.","PeriodicalId":43263,"journal":{"name":"STUDIA NEOPHILOLOGICA","volume":"94 1","pages":"334 - 364"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00393274.2021.1934108","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Methodological approaches to the study of codification, prescription, and prescriptivism\",\"authors\":\"Nuria Yáñez-Bouza\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00393274.2021.1934108\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The eighteenth century is widely taken as marking the beginning of a new era in the history of the English language, and one of the reasons for this relates to the process of standardisation. Understood as an ideology or ‘a set of abstract norms to which actual usage may conform to a greater or lesser extent’ (Milroy & Milroy 2012: 19), standardisation is core in the domain of normative linguistics, a field which has been concerned largely with codification and prescription, the last two stages of ‘the implementation of the standard’ as postulated by Milroy & Milroy (2012: 22–23). Codification is closely associated with the eighteenth century, and prescription naturally follows more intensely, though it is argued that it never comes to an end (Tieken 2008a: 10). Prescriptivism is yet a further stage in the pathway towards standardisation which develops ‘in full earnest’ in the nineteenth century (Tieken 2020a: 12), and not only are we entrenched in it but it is ‘resurgent’ as a ‘new prescriptivism’ (Beal 2009: 47). Where the rules that define standard and non-standard come from, what the nature of the prescriptions and proscriptions really is, and who codified the language, are all topics that have been addressed with a new focus since the early 1990s, both theoretically and methodologically. This article is concerned with the latter. It surveys the rich diversity of methodological approaches, old and new, to the study of codification, prescription, and prescriptivism in English. These methods are presented as seven thematic strands, and each strand will address the three main normative sources in this field of study: grammars, pronouncing dictionaries, and usage guides. It will be shown how new approaches have emerged over time, widening the scope of materials examined both in quantity and quality, and how the study of the normative tradition has greatly benefited from recent advances in corpus linguistics and the digital humanities, parallel to developments in other areas of linguistics.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43263,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"STUDIA NEOPHILOLOGICA\",\"volume\":\"94 1\",\"pages\":\"334 - 364\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00393274.2021.1934108\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"STUDIA NEOPHILOLOGICA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00393274.2021.1934108\",\"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":"STUDIA NEOPHILOLOGICA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00393274.2021.1934108","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

摘要十八世纪被广泛认为是英语历史上一个新时代的开始,其中一个原因与标准化进程有关。标准化被理解为一种意识形态或“一组抽象规范,实际使用可能或多或少符合这些规范”(Milroy&Milroy 2012:19),是规范语言学领域的核心,该领域主要关注编纂和规定,Milroy和Milroy(2012:22-23)假设的“标准实施”的最后两个阶段。法典编纂与十八世纪密切相关,处方自然会更加紧密地遵循,尽管有人认为它从未结束(Tieken 2008a:10)。规范主义是标准化道路上的又一个阶段,它在19世纪“全面发展”(Tieken 2020a:12),我们不仅根深蒂固,而且作为一种“新的规范主义”正在“复兴”(Beal 2009:47)。定义标准和非标准的规则来自哪里,处方和禁令的真正性质是什么,以及谁编纂了语言,这些都是自20世纪90年代初以来以新的焦点解决的问题,无论是理论上还是方法上。本文涉及后者。它考察了新旧方法论方法的丰富多样性,以研究英语中的编纂、规定和规定主义。这些方法分为七个主题部分,每一部分都将涉及该研究领域的三个主要规范来源:语法、发音词典和用法指南。它将展示新的方法是如何随着时间的推移而出现的,在数量和质量上扩大了所检查材料的范围,以及规范传统的研究是如何从语料库语言学和数字人文学科的最新进展中受益匪浅的,与语言学其他领域的发展平行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Methodological approaches to the study of codification, prescription, and prescriptivism
ABSTRACT The eighteenth century is widely taken as marking the beginning of a new era in the history of the English language, and one of the reasons for this relates to the process of standardisation. Understood as an ideology or ‘a set of abstract norms to which actual usage may conform to a greater or lesser extent’ (Milroy & Milroy 2012: 19), standardisation is core in the domain of normative linguistics, a field which has been concerned largely with codification and prescription, the last two stages of ‘the implementation of the standard’ as postulated by Milroy & Milroy (2012: 22–23). Codification is closely associated with the eighteenth century, and prescription naturally follows more intensely, though it is argued that it never comes to an end (Tieken 2008a: 10). Prescriptivism is yet a further stage in the pathway towards standardisation which develops ‘in full earnest’ in the nineteenth century (Tieken 2020a: 12), and not only are we entrenched in it but it is ‘resurgent’ as a ‘new prescriptivism’ (Beal 2009: 47). Where the rules that define standard and non-standard come from, what the nature of the prescriptions and proscriptions really is, and who codified the language, are all topics that have been addressed with a new focus since the early 1990s, both theoretically and methodologically. This article is concerned with the latter. It surveys the rich diversity of methodological approaches, old and new, to the study of codification, prescription, and prescriptivism in English. These methods are presented as seven thematic strands, and each strand will address the three main normative sources in this field of study: grammars, pronouncing dictionaries, and usage guides. It will be shown how new approaches have emerged over time, widening the scope of materials examined both in quantity and quality, and how the study of the normative tradition has greatly benefited from recent advances in corpus linguistics and the digital humanities, parallel to developments in other areas of linguistics.
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
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: Studia Neophilologica publishes articles on English, German and the Romance languages and literatures, and reviews of books in these fields. The contributions represent both historically oriented research and synchronic and structural studies, and the journal is not limited to any particular linguistic or literary period. Many articles concern methodological questions within the fields of general linguistics and literary theory. The majority of the contributions, however, investigate specific linguistic problems or deal with specific literary texts.
×
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