Year: 2024
Type: article
Abstract: The fact that dictionaries fail to agree completely on a definition of uncanny is perhaps, in and of itself, an uncanny occurrence, at least in the sense of uncanny that we hope to use consistently throughout this paper. (Whether we do use this slipperiest of concepts consistently is a matter for the reader to decide.) The writers and compilers of dictionaries, of course, have a job to make their contributions stand out from other similar publications, and a nod towards originality is expected.[1] However, a failure to align semantically – which we might describe as a non-event, as something that did not happen – feels rich with hidden meaning, especially given that “the uncanny” attracts synonyms such as “weird”, “eerie” and (in particular) “unsettling”. [1] For a fascinating account of the professional disagreements between dictionary writers, please see “Authority and American Usage” by David Foster Wallace. “[P]robing the seamy underbelly of US lexicography reveals ideological strife and controversy and intrigue and nastiness and fervor…” (Wallace, 2014, p.885).
Source: Free Associations
Authors: Hopkins, Neil, Mathew, David, Ruthven-Stuart, Davo
Institution: University of Bedfordshire
Language: English
Subfield: Cultural Studies
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: hybrid
OpenAlex ID: W7006611366
FWCI:
Cites:
Cited by:
Related to: