<b>The vocabulary of world English</b> . By Stephan Gramley. London: Arnold, 2002. Pp. xiv, 323. ISBN: 0340740728. $27.50.
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: The vocabulary of world English by Stephan Gramley Alan S. Kaye The vocabulary of world English. By Stephan Gramley. London: Arnold, 2002. Pp. xiv, 323. ISBN: 0340740728. $27.50. This book is another splendid addition to the series The English language edited by David Britain and Rebecca Clift. It is a fascinating treatise on lexis which is intended to serve as a lexicology textbook. The many topics covered include English in the British Isles, the US, West Africa, and South Asia; English for special/specific purposes; and so-called internet English (IE). Students will appreciate the examples used to explain dialectal differences. Let us consider the British and American usage of ‘college’. For the author, Senior Lecturer in English at the University of Bielefeld, ‘a college is first and foremost a small, private, all-male, denominational liberal arts institution with a distinct regional basis’ (41). For Americans, the word ‘college’ is often synonymous with ‘university’, as in ‘I want to go to college when I finish my stint in the military’, or it may refer to a unit within a university, such as the College of Humanities and Social Sciences at the institution where I teach. Further, no American thinks of a college as an all-male institution. A particularly fine illustration of American usage is drawn from its antonomastic terminology: ‘your John Hancock’, ‘an Uncle Tom like him’, ‘he’s a Benedict Arnold’ (36). Interestingly enough, many of these terms are known and used outside the US and may be considered borrowings. A bit awkward and certainly confusing for me, the term ‘American English’ (298) is used to cover Canadian English as well (i.e. North American); however, the author also makes specific reference to Canadian English (300). One of the work’s strengths is the delightful discussion of English vocabulary from around the world. Let us consider some Pakistani English numerals that are not well-known internationally (57): lakh is 100,000; arab is 1 billion; kharab is 10,000 crore (crore = ten million < Hindi krōr), and so on. Familiarity with West African English would include next tomorrow ‘day after tomorrow’ (a calque from Yoruba [136]) and with Indian English, black money ‘illegal gains’ or change-room ‘dressing room’ (137). Singapore English is shown to have, not surprisingly, many borrowings from Malay and varieties of Chinese and Indian languages (138). Mention of IE is scattered throughout the volume. Many of the eighteen abbreviations cited for IE are becoming more and more common although some of these can be traced back to pre-internet days (277), for example, AFAIK ‘as far as I know’, GIGO ‘garbage in, garbage out’ (going back to the early days of software). One term, TTFN (‘ta-ta for now’) originated in a BBC radio program during World War II called ITMA (‘It’s That Man Again’), featuring comedian Tommy Handley. Perhaps better examples of IE acronyms include H and K ‘hug and kiss’ and LOL ‘laughing out loud’. Finally, the author mentions data from what he terms ‘Southern Hemisphere English’. One example from Australian English, Abo (clipping of Aborigine), is said to be ‘often derogatory’ (258). From my experience, the word ‘often’ may be excised. As far as I know, like the term boong which also designates an indigenous Australian, it is always derogatory. According to the Cambridge international dictionary of English (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995, p. 3), ‘the word is generally considered offensive’. I think the word ‘generally’ may be omitted. This is a delightful book and word nerds will particularly enjoy perusing it. Alan S. Kaye California State University, Fullerton Copyright © 2003 Linguistic Society of America
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle