MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987446183 · doi:10.1353/lan.2003.0171

<b>The vocabulary of world English</b> . By Stephan Gramley. London: Arnold, 2002. Pp. xiv, 323. ISBN: 0340740728. $27.50.

2003· article· en· W1987446183 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics, Language Diversity, and Identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstitutionLexisVocabularyClassicsHistoryLiberal arts educationSociologyThe artsMedia studiesLinguisticsHigher educationPolitical scienceLawPhilosophySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it