Is 明鏡国語辞典 being over-prescriptive in its usage note for 「〜を買う」？


I was looking through some definitions in 明鏡 and I noticed the following

批判:

> **【表現】近年「批判される」に代えて、「批判を買う」という言い方があるが、不適切。**

買う:

> ❸ 自分がもとになって相手に好ましくない思いを与え、それが自分に向けられる。  
>  「仲間の反発［顰蹙］を➖」  
>  「怒り［反感・不評・恨み］を➖」  
>
> **【表現】「〜を」には、「反発・顰蹙・怒り」など相手の思いを表す語がくる。「批判・非難・苦情」のような、自分に直接働きかけられるものについて「〜を買う」と言わない。**

I find this usage note to be a little over-prescriptive personally. 〜を買う seems
to easily generalize to “do something which causes 〜 [negative thing] in
response”, and I don’t really understand the point of the distinction between
whether that thing is the 相手’s “feeling” or not.

Would it be fair to say this usage note is not describing how 〜を買う is
understood and used today?




Their rationale as such is understandable. Behind the word 買う, there is a
metaphor that you obtain something originally belongs to the other. 批判・非難・苦情
that they mentioned are things which are only actualized in interaction
between people, and not what occurs inside the opponent's mind alone.

However, in the background of those "frequently misused" words is also a fact
that they are supported by and often inseparable with a certain emotion. What
is more, considering that words like 反発, 不評 or 同情 (which I think okay for
them) are normally used for both the inner feeling and the outer expression,
it is a bit too cognitively demanding to require a sharp line between these
two in reality.

So, I personally do not feel much stretch seeing 批判を買う, but some people might
feel unnaturalness for the reason above. 明鏡 indeed [has a reputation being on
the prescriptivist side in native speakers'
eyes](http://fngsw.hatenablog.com/entry/2017/02/17/195320#%E6%98%8E%E9%8F%A1%E5%9B%BD%E8%AA%9E%E8%BE%9E%E5%85%B8),
and that is not necessarily bad as a dictionary.

* * *

**Bonus** :  
In most times firmer words you want with the intended nuances of 批判／非難を買う are
～を呼ぶ／浴びる, and 苦情をもらう.

* * *

Querying over BCCWJ, you'll find one appearance of 批判を買う:

> 登校したときは係活動をさぼったりしないので、友達から **批判を買う** ようなことはない。（片野智治・明里康弘・植草伸之『不登校』）

as well as some counterexamples when you try to apply the rule rigorously,
such as:

> 結局のところ、ヤンが呼吸しているかぎり、彼らの **忌避を買わ** ずにいられなかったのである。（田中芳樹『銀河英雄伝説』6（飛翔篇））

忌避 implies the action of avoiding something (though it's not an "active"
action).

But the most problematic one IMO is 失笑を買う, that appears as often as 不評を買う (15
times) and among them are the works of relatively conservative authors.

> 時にはでつちあげの大誤報を載せて世の **失笑を買ひ** 、しかしながら競争の激しい業界にあつて廃刊にも追ひ込まれず（丸谷才一『女ざかり』）  
>  Note: the spelling is his style; not an old work
>
> 「マルクスやレーニンの顔が気に入らない」と言って満場の **失笑を買った** が（梅原猛『自然と人生』）

失笑 [prescriptively needs to be an expressed action (though confirmed by the
authority for an unrelated
reason)](https://www.bunka.go.jp/pr/publish/bunkachou_geppou/2013_03/series_10/series_10.html),
thus we cannot have it both ways.




I have never seen a similar discussion before, but this description seem to
hold true at least in many cases. I personally do **not** say 反論を買う, 反対意見を買う,
抵抗を買う, 文句を買う, クレームを買う, 苦情を買う or お叱りを買う. I feel 批判/非難を買う is slightly strange,
too, and I'd usually say 批判をもらう/いただく, 批判を受ける or 批判される instead. That said, I
can easily find real examples of 反論を買う and 批判を買う, and I won't say they are
wrong.

On the other hand, I think 反発 is like 抵抗 in that it is essentially something
directed to others. Although we don't say 彼から反感を受ける, we commonly say
彼から反発を受ける, 彼に反発する or 彼に反発される. Still, the dictionary considers 反発を買う to be
fine, which seems inconsistent to me.

So the bottom line is uninteresting; this explanation seem to work at least as
a rough guideline, but the level of acceptance varies from person to person or
from word to word.

