忏悔科学:《牛津英语词典》中的科学词典学和性学

IF 0.2 3区 文学 Q2 HISTORY
S. Turton
{"title":"忏悔科学:《牛津英语词典》中的科学词典学和性学","authors":"S. Turton","doi":"10.1080/17597536.2020.1755204","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The empirical advancements of scientific lexicography, on whose principles the Oxford English Dictionary was founded, paralleled the developments made in a range of other sciences in the nineteenth century. Rejecting the overt linguistic prescriptivism of many earlier lexicographers, the OED’s editors aimed to approach language as a natural system akin to any other; like their fellow scientists, they were concerned only with objective fact. Yet the representation of any human behaviour will necessarily be selective and subjective, and the conflicting evidence of real linguistic usage would complicate the lexicographers’ ideals of impassive collection and analysis. The better to cast this problem into relief, this paper juxtaposes scientific lexicography with another, more controversial nineteenth-century science: sexology. Sexologists’ pathologisation of ‘deviant’ sexual desires gave rise to an extensive new taxonomy, which the OED began documenting in the early decades of the twentieth century. Drawing on unpublished draft material from the dictionary’s archives, this paper examines the scientific ideologies of lexicography and sexology as they interacted in the OED, exploring what they reveal about the tension between scholarly principles and social practice.","PeriodicalId":41504,"journal":{"name":"Language & History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17597536.2020.1755204","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The confessional sciences: scientific lexicography and sexology in the Oxford English Dictionary\",\"authors\":\"S. Turton\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17597536.2020.1755204\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The empirical advancements of scientific lexicography, on whose principles the Oxford English Dictionary was founded, paralleled the developments made in a range of other sciences in the nineteenth century. Rejecting the overt linguistic prescriptivism of many earlier lexicographers, the OED’s editors aimed to approach language as a natural system akin to any other; like their fellow scientists, they were concerned only with objective fact. Yet the representation of any human behaviour will necessarily be selective and subjective, and the conflicting evidence of real linguistic usage would complicate the lexicographers’ ideals of impassive collection and analysis. The better to cast this problem into relief, this paper juxtaposes scientific lexicography with another, more controversial nineteenth-century science: sexology. Sexologists’ pathologisation of ‘deviant’ sexual desires gave rise to an extensive new taxonomy, which the OED began documenting in the early decades of the twentieth century. Drawing on unpublished draft material from the dictionary’s archives, this paper examines the scientific ideologies of lexicography and sexology as they interacted in the OED, exploring what they reveal about the tension between scholarly principles and social practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41504,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Language & History\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17597536.2020.1755204\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Language & History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17597536.2020.1755204\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language & History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17597536.2020.1755204","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

科学词典编纂的经验进步,其原则的牛津英语词典成立,平行的发展,在一系列其他科学在19世纪。《牛津英语词典》的编辑们摒弃了许多早期词典编纂者的明显的语言规定主义,旨在将语言视为一种类似于任何其他系统的自然系统;和其他科学家一样,他们只关心客观事实。然而,任何人类行为的表现都必然是选择性的和主观的,而真实语言使用的相互矛盾的证据会使词典编纂者的客观收集和分析的理想复杂化。为了更好地解决这个问题,本文将科学词典编纂与另一门更具争议性的19世纪科学——性学——并列。性学家对“不正常”性欲的病态化导致了一个广泛的新分类,《牛津英语词典》在20世纪初开始记录这个分类。根据牛津词典档案中未发表的草稿材料,本文考察了词典编纂学和性学在牛津词典中相互作用的科学意识形态,探索它们揭示了学术原则和社会实践之间的紧张关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The confessional sciences: scientific lexicography and sexology in the Oxford English Dictionary
ABSTRACT The empirical advancements of scientific lexicography, on whose principles the Oxford English Dictionary was founded, paralleled the developments made in a range of other sciences in the nineteenth century. Rejecting the overt linguistic prescriptivism of many earlier lexicographers, the OED’s editors aimed to approach language as a natural system akin to any other; like their fellow scientists, they were concerned only with objective fact. Yet the representation of any human behaviour will necessarily be selective and subjective, and the conflicting evidence of real linguistic usage would complicate the lexicographers’ ideals of impassive collection and analysis. The better to cast this problem into relief, this paper juxtaposes scientific lexicography with another, more controversial nineteenth-century science: sexology. Sexologists’ pathologisation of ‘deviant’ sexual desires gave rise to an extensive new taxonomy, which the OED began documenting in the early decades of the twentieth century. Drawing on unpublished draft material from the dictionary’s archives, this paper examines the scientific ideologies of lexicography and sexology as they interacted in the OED, exploring what they reveal about the tension between scholarly principles and social practice.
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
Language & History
Language & History Multiple-
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
20.00%
发文量
13
×
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