Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

The uncanny workplace

Research Output: Contribution to journal Article Peer-review

Open access

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).

Publication Information

Output type

Research Output: Contribution to journal Article Peer-review

Original language

English

Pages from-to (Number of pages)

Pages 59-67

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

Free Associations (Volume 93)

Publication milestones

  • Accepted/In press - 30/11/2024
  • Published - 30/12/2024

Publication status

Published - 30/12/2024

ISSN

2047-0622

External Publication IDs

  • handle.net: 10547/626526

Access to documents

Publication metrics

Metrics

Download statistics
Download count
2