MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W345455769

Alphabet to Email-How Written English Evolves and Where It's Heading

2001· article· en· W345455769 sur OpenAlex

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.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueVisible Language · 2001
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueDigital Communication and Language
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPunctuationVernacularLinguisticsGrammarWritten languageSociologyHistoryComputer sciencePhilosophy
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Alphabet to Email - How written english evolved and where it's heading. NAOMI S. BARON London: Routledge, 2000, 316 pages, $18.95 ISBN 0-415-18655-4 Running through this book are questions regarding the cultural, monetary, scholastic and vernacular uses of the English language as it has continued to evolve over centuries. The author is a linguist with substantial interest in and knowledge of history and technology. She writes in an accessible manner appropriate to this hybrid book which is a cross between a trade and scholarly book (endnotes and a substantial bibliography). The primary question this book addresses is what (if anything) we gain from the former separation between the differences between formal, written English and the more informal, colloquial spoken English. Her position is that the advent of email has blurred the edges of these two forms of usage. Since World War II, written English (at least in America) has increasingly come to reflect everyday speech. While writing on-line with computers has hastened this trend, computers didn't initiate it. As writing growingly mirrors informal speech, contemporary spoken and written English are losing their identity as distinct forms of language. (24) The answer to the primary question - should the difference between speaking and writing be appreciated and maintained - has pedagogical implications. This is a time of turmoil and doubt in the teaching of English. Of what value is teaching the history of English? Should a prescriptive grammar be taught? Is punctuation based on speech patterns (breathing) or should it be a means to reveal the structural characteristics of the sentence? Is the focus on group composition detrimental to the development of individual competence and style? Does online composition and language processing mirror or change more traditional forms of writing and reading? Should one set of English conventions serve as a worldwide norm? From the perspective of history, the reader is given insightful connections between historic change and its relation to various combinations of human interpretation and b>avior and technological development. Historical information about copyright and ownership and its relationship to censorship speak to our current confusions in this regard. The notion of authorship and originality as it developed in the past speaks to our current use of appropriation and even the theoretical arguments about the interrelatedness of all text. What was and currently is an authoritative text? Even dictionaries have changed from arbiters of usage to that of descriptive record of use. Attempted reforms of spelling and handwriting accompany elocution and the differing attitudes among British and American speakers regarding what is correct and marks class. As English is evolving into a world language, the preservation or extinction of local ideosyncracies (British-American- Canadian-AustralianESL) provide either fodder for arguments regarding standardization or elaboration. Conditions fascilitating the rise of literacy offer contrast as some decry its demise. From the perspective of technology, the reader is offered not only technical development and deployment, but the effect technology has on social and private b>aviors. The radio, typewriter, telegraph, telephone and computer all figure prominently in this discussion. An example of the kind of information one might find follows, referencing the possibility of installing a house telegraph: A similar vision did, in fact, materialize two decades later. In 1877, the Social Telegraph Association the ancestor of computer listservs -was created in Brideport, Connecticut. The Association installed instruments in subscribers' homes that could be connected, through a central switchboard, to one another so that subscribers could 'speak' to one another through Morse Code once they had been taught how. (219) The telegraph did alter language use as a kind of cablese, a short, highly abbreviated message cut transmission costs for the sender. …

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,852
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,755

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,261
Écart entre enseignants0,249 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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