MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3012668254 · doi:10.1353/rmr.2019.0016

This Language, A River: A History of English by K. Aaron Smith and Susan M. Kim (review)

2019· article· en· W3012668254 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter Fields

Bibliographic record

VenueRocky Mountain review/The Rocky Mountain review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics, Language Diversity, and Identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnglish languageClassicsHistoryArt historySociologyLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: This Language, A River: A History of English by K. Aaron Smith and Susan M. Kim Peter Fields K. Aaron Smith and Susan M. Kim. This Language, A River: A History of English. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview, 2018. 350 p. The acknowledgements in This Language, A River remind us of the significance of this book. Susan Kim thanks previous collaborators, implying that this collaboration with Aaron Smith, her colleague at Illinois State, is of a special caliber—perhaps something more challenging than either Smith or Kim had previously attempted. Smith and Kim do have a chapter together on colonialism and linguistics in MLA's forthcoming Teaching the History of the English Language, but Smith seems to be the driver as evidenced by two articles, one in 2009 on "be fixing to" and another in 2011 on post-1600 standardization, followed in 2015 by a chapter on "Ain't-Periphrases" for Ain'thology: The History and Life of a Taboo Word, titles referenced in This Language, A River in the chapter on dialect and Creole English. However, Smith makes it clear how much this book depended on the support of so many. Everyone in their English program seems to have thrown in to help the authors, as if all concerned realized how ambitious this book was and sensed intuitively how important it might turn out to be. They would be right. If Smith and Kim had not written this book and Broadview not published it, the stones would cry out. What we need today at the undergraduate college level is a book that can span a classroom of both sophomore and upper level students (including non-majors and duallisted graduate students), whose preparedness runs the gamut, including faulty or nonexistent knowledge of grammar. However, the book's grammar overview must be more than just brush-up and catch-up. This overview must provide a meaningful scaffold of concepts and terms that would help elucidate historical shifts in pronunciation and morphology among Indo-European and Germanic languages, Old, Middle, and Modern English, and dialects of English spoken around the world. This book must also instill the International Phonetic Alphabet. Such would be its conceit: that it could stand on the shoulders of Baugh and Cable and a host of other scholars, distill the most important elements of the history of English, and present them in a way that was feasible without being condescending—such is the achievement of This Language, A River. [End Page 232] Smith and Kim do not spend enormous time on each topic. They offer their best explanation of an idea and then return and pick up the thread as often as necessary to deliver the whole model or arc of development. The book builds through overlapping topics, connecting ideas of subordination, for instance, to Old English syntax, which falls short of real subordination the way we thought about it earlier in the book, but excels at parataxis, hypotaxis, and the appositive style. By the time the reader arrives at the shift between Old and Middle English, we have a working knowledge of principles and origins that allows us to appreciate and understand what is happening to the language. The phrasing of Smith and Kim is clear, purposeful, and thrives on a kind of recurring metaphor: the slow dismantling of a case-oriented English as a kind of dying. The process of decay is by analogy as nouns and adjectives seem to watch each other and imitate the loss of inflected endings as if under peer pressure. Weak nouns fall in line with strong nouns, and parts of speech follow each other's example except for the possessive: "the pressure was high for the dative plural to move in line with the nominative and accusative plurals; in other words, the dative collapsed in the plural (as it had in the singular) with the rest of the noun forms—except the genitive, which has its own story to tell" (190). Concerning pronouns, the diction is equally climatic: "One change that does occur, however, is the collapse or conflation of the accusative and dative cases into a single case that we call simply the objective case" (195). What some will...

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.005

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRocky Mountain review/The Rocky Mountain reviewSame topicLinguistics, Language Diversity, and IdentityFrench-language works237,207