How much does English need a good scrubbing by verbal hygienists? RACHEL BRUNT inquires into ‘enquiries’ and our constant need to ‘fix’ language

The debate about language as being ‘good’ or ‘bad’ permeates many areas of modern life. While highbrow linguists battle furiously over the Oxford comma, a teenage school pupil is rebuked by her teacher for stating that she ‘literally died’ because she saw a member of McFly in her local shop over the weekend.

It is traditional to describe two sides to the debate as ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ language usage. One side is the tradition of ‘prescriptivism’. Hitchings (2011) labelled a prescriptivist (those who practice prescriptivism) as an individual who “dictates how people should speak and write” (p. 23). A linguistic ‘descriptivist’, on the other hand, may claim to be non-judgemental about language use, and be more focused on describing how a language works – rather than criticising its users. While these warring factions may appear to be concrete, every person who speaks any language will have formed opinions (whether positive or negative) on the use of particular words or placing of punctuation. This means that it is impossible to be entirely on only one side of the argument.

Deborah Cameron (1995) coined the term ‘verbal hygiene’, in reference to prescriptive practices which were not just intended to complain about language use, but were “born of an urge to improve or ‘clean up’ language” (p. 1). The belief that language needs improvement is not a new phenomenon. For hundreds of years there have been attempts to ‘fix’ English by famous prescriptivists such as the 18^thC writer Jonathan Swift, striving to “promote an elite standard variety, to retard linguistic change or to purge a language of ‘foreign’ elements” (Cameron, 1995, p. 9).

Prescriptivist attacks on language use occur on many linguistic levels, with much of the criticism focused on semantic word choice, positioning of punctuation and uses of slang or foreign terms. One common attack on language use in this country is centred around the influx of Americanisms (terms originating in the US) being adopted into our everyday speech. Anderson (2017) depicted his horror at the British English language being “colonised” by American English, and believed American neologisms to be “ungainly”. This discourse of prescriptive criticism can be tied (intentionally or unintentionally) to xenophobic views, something which has contributed to prescriptivists gaining the nickname ‘grammar Nazis’.

Lukač (2018, p. 5) examined the idea of “grassroots prescriptive efforts”, which she described as criticisms of language by members of the public carried out using tools such as social media sites to complain about ‘incorrect’ language usage. This strand of prescriptivism, which Lukač (2018, p. 5) regards as wildly different to that which is enabled (and encouraged) by institutions such as the education system, has brought ideas of linguistic prestige into the mainstream media. This wide exposure has facilitated a new generation of people yearning for a return of the so-called ‘golden age’ of language in this country. This fictional ‘golden age’ of language use, where it was supposed that every citizen correctly adhered to the grammatical stylings of Standard English, a dialect associated with the ‘Queen’s English’, is a myth that has encouraged the popularity of guides such as Eats, Shoots and Leaves by Lynne Truss. Such guides set out strict “ways to improve one’s English” (Lamb, 2010, p. 28). It could be argued by descriptivists that these guides threaten the existence of regional variations of English.

However, it is too easy to brand complaints about our language being tainted by ‘misuse’ as entirely negative and hyperbolic. Some would argue that prescriptive attitudes are important in order to preserve our safety in the modern world, as errors in communication can cause damage ranging from minor irritation to a deadly conflict between continents. Heffer (2014) highlighted the inconvenience caused by confusing malapropisms such as “enquiry” and “inquiry”, while Shariatmadari (2019) discussed how a poor choice of words led to a mistaken translation between the US president Nixon and Japanese PM Satō in the 1960s, causing already strained tensions over trade agreements to escalate.

While I believe that it is important to adhere to some language standard in a formal setting, in order to ensure effective (and safe) communication, I also think that it is essential to consider the negative effects of policing language use in our everyday lives – from the persecution of users of regional terms, to the xenophobic ideology which spreads through criticism of foreign terms. It is important to find a balance between quashing irritating behaviours, and erasing true expression. I cannot see that the debate around policing language will ever truly resolve – unless every user of language suddenly becomes accepting of other cultures and opinions.

RACHEL BRUNT, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK

References

Anderson, H. (2017, September 6). How Americanisms are killing the English language. BBC Culture.

Cameron, D. (1995). Verbal hygiene. London and New York: Routledge.

Heffer, S. (2014, May 5). Stalin’s crimes were BARBARIC, wearing brown shoes is simply BARBAROUS. Ever find yourself fuming at the sloppy use of English on TV or in public? Daily Mail.

Hitchings, H. (2011). The language wars: A history of proper English. London: John Murray.

Lamb, B. C. (2010). The Queen’s English: And How to Use It. London: Michael O’Mara Books Limited.

Lukač, M. (2018). Grassroots prescriptivism: An analysis of individual speakers’ efforts at maintaining the standard language ideology. English Today, 34(4), 5-12.

Shariatmadari, D. (2019, June 17). Language wars: the 19 greatest linguistic spats of all time. The Guardian.

If you decimate a scone, is there 90% left? And how do you pronounce ‘scone’? MICHAEL WILLIAMS challenges some preconceptions about linguistic correctness

Our society is obsessed with opposites. For example, our daily lives were normal, and now they are not (an understatement perhaps, but I digress). People are either happy or they are sad. Even if the word is different (i.e. ‘ecstatic’ or ‘angry’), we manage to fit those feelings into one of those two categories. Nowhere is this most apparent than in the justice system, where the accused are deemed to be innocent or guilty. There is no “a bit guilty” or “mostly innocent”; you are found to be one or the other.

This inevitably leads to problems. To compartmentalise such complex issues as emotions, crime, and normality so severely as to describe them in one of two ways is impractical and verges on dangerous, especially once prejudices and opinions come into play, as is so often observed within the justice system.

At about this point in the blog post, you’re probably thinking, “Michael, as much as I enjoy reading about your view on the world, what has any of this got to do with language?”

I’m glad you asked. Also, no, I’m not going to explain my psychic abilities.

Language, and especially spoken language, is often condensed in the same way as other facets of culture; it is (apparently) either used correctly or incorrectly. The anonymous author of the BadLinguistics blog (2010) states that “we are judged on our language”, but suggests that “a favourable judgment does not depend on how closely you follow […] prescriptions on grammar”. However, there are a significant amount of people, usually labelled by linguists as ‘prescriptivists’, who will go on the offensive if language is supposedly used ‘incorrectly’. Cameron (1995, p. 9) describes those who share this view as “verbal hygienists”, reinforcing the perspective that the issues revolve around the spoken word, and suggesting that language is unclean if incorrectly used. Heffer (2011) labels the sections of his book Strictly English as “The Rules”, “Bad English” and “Good English”, presenting his view that there is a set of rules that must be followed, and that use of language is either acceptable or not. He continues, arguing that while dictionaries may state the use of a particular word or phrase is common, “[t]hat does not mean it is correct” (p. 47), in spite of the role dictionaries typically play in ‘correct’ language use.

I suppose the question that comes from all of this is, “Does any of it matter?”, and the answer for the vast majority of English speakers is, “No. In fact, I didn’t even know this was a thing.” Should we take notice though? Should we enforce the supposed rules of English? Will there one day be an answer to the question, “Is it pronounced ‘scone’ (like ‘one’) or ‘scone’ (like ‘bone’)?” What about the numerous regional names for a bread roll; will we have to sacrifice those for the sake of linguistic unity, and if so, which do we choose?

There lies the crux of this whole debate: if we were to create a set rules, what would the rules be, and who would decide? Would it be agreed that the word ‘decimate’, for example, could be used only in instances where 10% of something had been destroyed? Would extra commas be enforced in lists? Who would be the arbiter of these rules – Heffer and/or Cameron? The Queen’s English Society and their Excellent English Prize, awarded most recently to Boris Johnson? Even if we were to create a definitive set of rules, would it make everyone happy? Would people follow it? Would it stop the creation and introduction of new words? Would nonsense texts like The Jabberwocky and The Hunting of the Snark be banned?

Prescriptivism is nothing more than an ideal. It is impossible to accommodate for everyone’s idiolects (a person’s unique use of language), and it would undoubtedly cause more problems than it would solve; you only have to look at half of this blog post to see only some of the questions it raises. So be free, speak in whatever manner you wish, and as long as we understand each other, we’ll be fine.

MICHAEL WILLIAMS, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK

References

Cameron, D. (1995). Verbal Hygiene. Abingdon: Routledge.

Heffer, S. (2011). Strictly English: The Correct Way To Write… And Why It Matters. London: Penguin Random House.

Simon Heffer and a cartload of rubbish. (2010, September 15). Bad Linguistics.

Is it literally the end of the world to use ‘literally’ figuratively? LEWIS TURNER explores the dilemma of shifting word senses and whether the original meaning is the ‘true’ meaning.

I’m sure we’ve all heard someone exclaim something along of the lines of “I literally could not keep my eyes open during that lecture”. However, we all know that they physically could and, in reality, they were just a bit bored. This utterance would make some people figuratively want to explode. This is an issue of semantics as the problem lies in a misunderstanding of word meaning. Any dictionary would tell you that the adverb ‘literally’ refers to ‘a truthful representation of an event’. However, as previously exemplified, it is now commonly used for emphasis or exaggeration. The perceived misuse of ‘literally’ has become one of semantics’ largest controversies; just see Jamie Redknapp’s ‘Foot In Mouth Award’ win for his very ‘nonliteral’ use of the word (Plain English, 2010) – e.g. “These balls now – they literally explode off your feet.” At the heart of this issue is the debate between prescriptivism and descriptivism.

Prescriptivists try to uphold rules that preserve and impose a ‘correct’ form of a language whereas descriptivists attempt to describe how people actually use language and are welcoming of change and adaptation (Curzan, 2014, p. 14). Hitchings (2011) summarises this as “one says what ought to happen, and the other says what does happen” (p. 23). People’s fears over their own language usage has helped prescriptivism become a potentially large market for authors. So much so that books that purport to teach ‘proper English’, such as Gywnne’s Grammar (2013) and Heffer’s Strictly English (2010), can often be found amongst the bestseller lists. Semantics is usually a key issue in prescriptivism because, as Heffer argues, inaccurate usage of a word “can leave […interlocutors] understanding something quite different” from what we intended (2010 p. 136). He describes these types of mistakes as “vulgarities” (p. 183). This links to a belief held by many prescriptivists: that there was a ‘golden age’ for the English language where everyone used English ‘correctly’. An example that Heffer says shows the drop in modern standards is the misuse of the word ‘dilemma’. He argues that as it originates from the Greek term for ‘two propositions”, it therefore cannot be used to refer to a choice between three-or-more possibilities (p. 143).

On the other hand, a descriptivist would argue that such an assertion is completely pedantic as very few people actually know the etymology (the linguistic origin) of words. I think it’s pretty likely that none of us would bat an eyelid if someone told us that they were facing a ‘dilemma’ over what to buy their friend for Christmas, or where they wanted to go on holiday, or anything else with more than two possible solutions. As Trudgill (1998) argues, comprehension is hardly ever affected by semantic change as people are either able to use contextual clues to work out what is meant or never knew the original meaning in the first place (p. 5). Instead of tracing back to original roots, most people’s understanding of lexical items comes from how they hear other speakers use them in real life. This is supported by the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) who notes that due to popular usage, dilemmas can now refer to choices with “several” options (OED online, 2019) and who in 2011, added the ‘improper’ emphatic meaning of ‘literally’ to their dictionary (Gill, 2013). Regarding the so-called ‘golden age’, descriptivists would point out that more people than ever are able to read and write and the evidence used to support the golden age belief is usually anecdotal with no qualitative evidence (Milroy, 1998. p. 61).

Personally, I’m not sure if I could call myself purely a descriptivist or prescriptivist. I think words do need rules that dictate some agreed meaning or effective communication would be impossible. However, I certainly think that meanings are not set in stone and should be allowed to adapt with the times, otherwise I would have to argue that ‘nice’ could still only refer to its original meaning of ‘foolish’ (Trudgill, 1998, p. 2).

So, when Jamie Redknapp describes a footballer as being “literally a greyhound” this Super Sunday should we just ignore it because we all understand he is using it for emphasis? Or does this make him look too ‘nice’ (in the original sense)? All I know is that it’s an issue about which I’m literally going to sit on the fence!

LEWIS TURNER, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK

References

Curzan, A. (2014). Fixing English: Prescriptivism and language history. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Gill, M. (2013, August 13). Have we literally broken the English language? The Guardian. 

Gwynne, N. M. (2013). Gwynne’s grammar. London, UK: Ebury Press.

Heffer, S. (2010). Strictly English: The correct way to write… And why it matters. London, UK: Random House Books.

Hitchings, H. (2011). The language wars: A history of proper English. London, UK: John Murray.

Milroy. J. (1998). Myth 8: Children can’t speak or write properly any more. In L. Bauer & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Language myths (pp. 58-65). London, United Kingdom: Penguin.

OED Online. (2019). Oxford University Press. Retrieved April 25, 2019, from http://www.oed.com

Plain English Campaign. (2010) Foot in mouth award.

Trudgill, P. (1998). Myth 1: The meanings of words should not be allowed to vary or change. In L. Bauer & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Language myths (pp. 1-8). London, United Kingdom: Penguin.

You say ‘panino’, I say ‘panini’. Shall we call the whole thing off? MAISIE CRAN explains whether she is 😊 or 😢 about language rules

Picture this. You are on a date with a prescriptivist and they call you ‘nice’ and ‘pretty’. Initially, you may feel flattered but upon further inspection, you will work out that by ‘pretty’ they mean ‘cunning’ (OED Online, 2019) and by ‘nice’ they mean ‘stupid’ (OED Online, 2019). This is because prescriptivists like to preserve language, often tracing back the original etymology of a word and using its archaic definition.

A couple of years ago, the politician Jacob Rees-Mogg found himself in an argument with news presenter Jon Snow over Brexit, with Snow referring to Brexit as a “shambles”. Rees-Mogg responded “I think you are classically overstating what has in fact happened […] you call it a shambles, you say that it’s a butcher’s slaughterhouse […] that’s what a shambles means” (Hunt, 2017). Rees-Mogg was referring to the usage first recorded in 1548; “[t]he place where animals are killed for meat; a slaughter-house” (OED Online, 2019). However, in modern usage shambles has multiple definitions, most commonly used as a synonym for “mess” (OED Online, 2019).

However, prescriptivist attitudes are not limited to word definitions, as many prescriptivists like to dictate their own set of rules on many linguistic levels. In some cases, it even extends to accents and dialects. Prescriptivists believe that language is static and unchanging and needs to “set out rules for what is regarded as correct” (McArthur, 1996, p.263). This idea that language must be preserved at a certain stage is unrealistic and prescriptivists become hypocritical as their own language usage could be regarded as ‘incorrect’ by their own rules. Many prescriptivists, such as Simon Heffer, have no academic background in linguistics and are often corrected using their own rules. The linguist David Crystal (2010) reviewed Heffer’s Strictly English, stating that “[t]he problem with people who want to impose their linguistic tastes on others is that they never do so consistently”. So, if prescriptivists themselves struggle to stick to the ‘rules’, why should everyone else?

To a prescriptivist, Received Pronunciation is considered the ideal, an accent strictly used by the BBC when first broadcasting. Now, however, there is diversity when it comes to televised accents and dialects with continuity announcers on Channel 4 including Caribbean and Scottish accents, even including an announcer with a speech impediment (Channel 4, 2016). Despite efforts to normalise such accents, strong regional accents are often still regarded as incorrect by prescriptivists, and often prescriptivists will criticise what they consider to be ‘lazy’ use of language when in fact, it is a regional way of speaking.

Furthermore, nowadays, we communicate through more than just words. With their introduction in the late 1990s, emojis have become a regular occurrence in most lives since around 2011 (Tauch and Kanjo, 2016). Oxford dictionaries even announced the ‘Face with Tears of Joy’ as their word of the year back in 2015 (BBC Newsbeat, 2015). Similarly, more recently it was announced that drivers in Queensland, Australia, will be able to include emojis in their personalised number plates (Alton, 2019). This introduction of a viusal image as a form of language has changed how we communicate and further angers prescriptivists who detest the idea of images forming part of language. Overall, prescriptivism is an elitist means of oppression, effectively belittling those who use language in what they consider to be an ‘incorrect’ way.

However, a language without some rules would not be a successful one. Languages must have basic rules in order to be understandable, but to prescribe rules constantly would take away the natural changing nature of language. For many, their use of language coincides with their social identity. In order to learn English, those learning it begin by following rules, so in a way, prescriptivism can be useful. On the other hand, prescriptivism can extend from simple policing of language to a deeper issue of class and social status as those with RP accents, and considered ‘correct’ language use, are ‘more successful’ (Brandreth, 2018).

So, if you do end up staying out on that date with a prescriptivist, it would be best to avoid ordering cappuccinos and a panini. ‘Panini’ is the plural form in its origin language Italian, and ‘panino’ is the singular. Similarly, ordering one cappuccino for yourself would be ‘correct’ but saying ‘I’d like two cappuccinos’, according to prescriptivist values, becomes a ‘cappuccini’ as it would in Italian (Bad Linguistics, 2010). However, “if you did walk into a deli in England and ordered a panino and two cappuccini, you would be judged, rightly, as completely ridiculous” (Bad Linguistics, 2010).

MAISIE CRAN, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK

References

Alton, L. (2019, March 25) Emoji license plates show technology has simplified our language. But is that really a bad thing? The Next Web.

Bad Linguistics (2010, September 15). Simon Heffer and a cartload of rubbish.

BBC Breakfast (2018, October 12). Gyles Brandreth’s pet hates. BBC.

Blackstock, E. (2019, February 25). Emoji license plates are a thing now because everything is awful. Jalopnik.

Channel 4, (2016, December 21). Disabled guest announcers take control of Channel 4’s continuity mics. Channel 4.

Crystal, D. (2010, October 14). Strictly English: the correct way to write . . . and why it matters. The New Statesman.

Hunt, D. (2017, June 13). ‘Hold your horses!’ Jon Snow gets a classic Rees-Mogg tongue-lashing during heated TV row. Daily Express.

‘Literally’. OED Online. (2019). Oxford University Press.

McArthur, T. (1996). Descriptivism and prescriptivism. In T. McArthur. The Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language. (2006). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

‘Nice’. OED Online. (2019). Oxford University Press.

Oxford Dictionaries (2015, November 17). Word of the year is the tears of joy emoji. BBC.

‘Pretty’. OED Online. (2019). Oxford University Press.

‘Shamble’. OED Online. (2019). Oxford University Press.

Sangster, C. (2014, September 23). Received Pronunciation and BBC English. BBC.

Tauch, C. and Kanjo, E. (2016). The roles of emojis in mobile phone notifications. UbiComp’16. Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, pp 1560-1565.

Should we judge language use or simply accept variety? ISOBEL MYCHAJLUK explores language rules and change

Are you the kind of person who dislikes being corrected on their language use or do you mainly correct others? Would you be irritated if someone were to use ‘you’re’ and ‘your’ incorrectly? If so, you would be considered a prescriptivist.

Nordquist (2018a) defines ‘prescriptivism’ as the belief or attitude that there is one language that is superior and should be constantly promoted, such as standard English. In other words, they promote the language that is deemed to be “correct”, in their opinion. Prescriptivists are also referred to as ‘grammar Nazis’ and the ‘language police’, and according to Hopper (2017) are commonly found in teaching jobs to “fill young minds with arbitrary grammatical anxiety”. As you can tell, prescriptivists tend to have negative connotations attached to them from the titles they are given. But is it really that important if an apostrophe was misplaced or any other punctuation in that matter?

For Heffer (2011, p. 31) the reason why punctuation and grammar matters is because it helps to avoid ambiguity and using them correctly will help readers understand the relation between sentences. For example, the rule for apostrophes is that they should be used to either indicate a missing letter in contractions (e.g. ‘can’t’) or before an ‘s’ at the end of nouns to indicate possession, but it should not be used when representing plurals (Heffer, 2011, p. 38).

However, Brown (2014) argues that the rules of grammar are outdated and therefore are off-putting to the younger generation when learning. I agree with Brown, because as a child I did not see the importance of grammar and even at 21 years of age I still do not fully understand the grammar rules. I used to dread the day we learnt about grammar in lessons. This may have been down to my grammar classes not being interesting and captivating enough!

Brown (2014) also states that one of the barriers to understanding grammar is the so-called ‘language war’ between prescriptivism and descriptivism. The debate between these two language sides may cause confusion on what is considered as correct grammar or any other form of language use. So what do the opponents of prescriptivism believe?

Descriptivists follow a “non-judgemental approach to language” as they tend to focus on how language is used and varies in both written and spoken discourse, including language change (Nordquist, 2018b). So, they avoid trying to control language but rather observe its changes and provide any explanations, by analysing those changes. Therefore, this approach allows linguists to analyse and identify all the changes, from grammar to pronunciation that are occurring in modern society, whereas deviation from standard English is “considered to be wrong, lazy, corrupt or ignorant” according to prescriptivism (Ritchie, 2013).

In this war of language, the relationship between Standard English and Non-Standard English are viewed differently. Clearly, the prescriptivists favour the standard forms of language, which means using standard grammar and sentence structure. Heffer (2010) even describes the debate pointless as “English grammar shouldn’t be a matter for debate. It has a coherent and logical structure and we should stick to it”. Thus, it demonstrates the strong feelings the prescriptivists have towards the standard form being the only variety that is necessary. It could be suggested that descriptivism favours non-standard forms of language, and a recognition that language has no fixed rules and is constantly changing. For instance new words are being created (Allen, 2014). The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) has recently added around 650 new words, including the dog breed ‘puggle’ (Dent, 2019). A dictionary is often seen as a common example of a prescriptivist text as they provide guidance on the conventional spellings and meanings of words. However, the fact they are continually being updated with new words and changes in meanings, show the continually shifting nature of language. Should prescriptivists just accept that language will be constantly evolving?

Personally, the stance that I take in this war of language is neutral. I consider myself both a prescriptivist and descriptivist. I judge people’s language but not to the extent where I would be considered a ‘grammar Nazi’. However, in some certain contexts such as academic writing, Standard English should still be utilized, as there is agreement that correct grammar and punctuation contributes to a reader making sense of a piece of writing.

Which side will you take in this continual battle of language use?

ISOBEL MYCHAJLUK, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK

References

Allen, S. (2014, September 26). 4 Fascinating Ways in which the English Language is  Changing. Oxford Royale Academy. 

Brown, J. (2014). Why grammar isn’t cool – and why that may be about to change. The Guardian.

Dent, J. (2019, March 19). New words in the OED: March 2019. OED Online.

Heffer, S. (2010). Simon Heffer: The Corrections. Daily Telegraph.

Heffer, S. (2011). Strictly English: The correct way to write … and why it matters. London, United Kingdom: Windmill.

Hopper, T. (2017, January 12). Like correcting people? Then take up Latin. Why grammar Nazis aren’t just annoying – they’re often wrong.

Nordquist, R. (2018a). Prescriptivism. ThoughtCo.

Nordquist, R. (2018b). Descriptivism in Language. ThoughtCo.

Ritchie, H. (2013). It’s time to challenge the notion that there is only one way to speak      English. The Guardian.

Apostrolypse now? HOLLY GREGG discusses whether a misplaced punctuation mark or new words and meanings really is the end of the world

Is a misplaced apostrophe really the end of the world? Well for many people ‘mistakes’ in punctuation and grammar can be irritating, infuriating and quite possibly catastrophic. This is no secret. I’m sure that at some point someone has corrected your speech or writing, or maybe you have even been the one to correct others. Mistakes in language can be harshly critiqued, from the confusion between ‘your’ and ‘you’re’ to more complex errors such as the distinction between ‘less’ and ‘fewer’, the latter being used to refer to items that can be individually counted. With guides to the correct English grammar such as Gywnne’s Grammar (2013) reaching the top of the mainstream book charts, and Eats, Shoots, and Leaves (2009) selling over 13 million copies worldwide, it is clear to see that this issue really does rub people up the wrong way.

The linguistic term for this practise is ‘prescriptivism’. A prescriptivist is described by Bauer, Holmes & Warren (2006, p. 254) as a person who “[b]elieves that there is an external measure of what is good in English, a standard to which appeal can be made”. Prescriptivists condemn the use of language that does not comply with the standard form, regarding it as ‘incorrect’, ‘poor’ or simply just ridiculous. However, there is an issue that rises from this belief. How do we define a clear form of Standard English to which reference can be made, when English is a global language that is evolving and adapting to a world that is constantly changing? New words and word uses are introduced into dictionaries every year. The current March 2018 update of the Oxford English Dictionary saw the addition of 700 new words/phrases, senses and sub-entries such as ‘hippotherapy’, ‘microplastic’ and changing uses of ‘even’ (OED online, 2018). Evidently, as a language evolves, words change in meaning. Therefore, a standard form becomes increasingly difficult to define.

However, there are some people who believe that this is a change for the worse. Many grammarians such as Gwynne (2013, p.xviii), suggest that we have a duty to protect the language that has been gifted to us from our ancestors, ensuring it is not vandalized without resistance. It is on this premise that books have been published, with the intentions of fixing language use. An example of this is Simon Heffer’s Simply English: An A-Z of Avoidable Errors (2014). Heffer aims to set the standard by documenting examples of the ‘correct’ forms of language use in terms of spelling, grammar and punctuation. An example from the book is the correct use of the noun ‘amount’. Heffer (2014, p. 39) states that “there is an amount of one commodity. When there is a multiplicity, there is a number”. Use of the phrase ‘a large amount of people’ is described by Heffer as a solecism, due to the fact that people refers to more than one commodity. In comparison with ‘a large amount of water’ for example, which refers to a singular commodity and is therefore technically correct. However, it could be argued that if the meaning of the utterance is understood, does it really matter?

The opposing position within the debate is descriptivism. A descriptivist is described by Hitchings (2011, p. 23) as someone who “avoids passing judgements and provides explanation and analysis”. Linguists are encouraged to adopt this view, which involves describing and observing language, rather than harshly critiquing it. This perspective allows linguists to investigate the different ways language is currently being used, and some challenging arguments have been put forward against prescriptivism. Horobin (2013) questions why we are trying so hard to uphold linguistic standards that are arbitrary and constantly changing. Some prescriptive rules are still upheld today from over 200 years ago, and many have no rational explanation as to why one form is preferable over another. As time and language moves on should we let go of outdated criticisms too? It is also suggested that the practise of prescriptivism can intimidate people. Harsh comments and judgements about our language use that many of us have experienced could be unproductive to the flow of language. This can knock confidence in some people’s ability to communicate and let language flow (Ashton, 2016).

Personally, I stand with Cameron (1996, p. ix), who takes a perspective from “a position that is to some extent critical of both camps”. The process of maintaining a standard form has been important in the development of spoken and particularly written English, as it allows us to communicate efficiently and clearly. To some extent these standards need to be maintained for this to continue. However, language has and will continue to grow, and I do believe that we should embrace the creative potential with which we have been privileged.

HOLLY GREGG, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK

References

Ashton, R. (2016, May 26). Grammar pedants: you’re helping less than you think. Emphasis. 

Bauer, L., Holmes, J., & Warren, P. (2006). Language matters. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cameron, D. (1995). Verbal hygiene. Abingdon: Routledge.

Gwynne, N. M. (2013). Gwynne’s grammar: The ultimate introduction to grammar and the writing of good English. London: Ebury.

Heffer, S. (2014). Simply English: An A-Z of avoidable errors. London: Windmill Books.

Hitchings, H. (2011). The language wars: A history of proper English. London: John Murray.

Horobin, S. (2013). Does spelling matter? Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Truss, L. (2009). Eats, shoots & leaves: The zero tolerance approach to punctuation. London: Fourth Estate.

The great British ‘scone-off’! GEMMA EVANS gets ensconced in the ‘descriptivism’ v ‘prescriptivism’ debate

Picture the scene. You are out enjoying some afternoon tea with your relatives. You hear fellow guests ordering scones. Would it frustrate you if you heard one guest pronounce ‘scone’ as in ‘cone’? Or, would it irritate you if you heard a guest pronounce scone as in ‘gone’? The debate of how to pronounce ‘scone’ is one that is quite popular and can often cause heated discussions. The major difference between the two pronunciations is that of the vowel represented by the letter ‘o’ – either a long vowel (/əʊ/) or short (/ɒ/). (Another debate in the scone world is jam or clotted cream first. However, that is a debate for another time).

Baked goods aside, a wider debate in the world of linguistics is ‘prescriptivism’ vs ‘descriptivism’. One linguist who discusses the difference between these two terms is Curzan (2014) who asserts that “[p]rescriptive commentators and scholars react to language change, typically with a desire to ‘fix’ the language” and “[d]escriptive linguists study language change as a natural and inevitable part of any living language” (p. 1). I agree that language change is “natural and inevitable” as although we may dislike different pronunciations and spellings of words, language is always going to change.

Deborah Cameron (1995) coined the concept of ‘verbal hygiene’ to describe the “urge to improve or ‘clean up’ language” (p. 1). However, she states that “‘verbal hygiene’ is not intended as a synonym for ‘prescriptivism’” and  argues that “[t]he term ‘prescriptivism’ has a particular value attached to it, a negative connotation” (1995, p. 3).

When considering prescriptivism, orthography (which refers to spelling) is one area of controversy. According to Horobin (2013), “[i]n the eighteenth century the focus was on enshrining English spelling” (p. 144). I think many people might support a prescriptive view of spelling because it is something that is concrete. Dictionaries provide us with physical proof of words. We use this proof as a foundation for how to spell a word. Due to the influence of modern technology, we have new variations on the spelling of certain words. As Horobin (2013) states “[t]he major factor affecting English spelling today, which may have implications for the future of our spelling system, is the influence of electronic modes of communication”. For example, text messaging has introduced numbers that replace words, such as ‘2moro’ and ‘gr8’ (p. 212). Personally, I would choose not to use these variations within my text messages. Does this make me a prescriptivist? I am very much on the side of descriptivism and fully support language changing. Naturally, I think there will be occasions where you may disagree with the way someone pronounces something or the way someone spells a word.

Horobin (2013) discusses John Humphrys’ view on this argument. He states that “John Humphrys accused the texting generation of wrecking the English language, describing them as ‘vandals who are doing to our language what Genghis Khan did to his neighbours eight hundred years ago’” (p.213). Furthermore, Horobin explains that “Humphrys was responding to the Oxford English Dictionary’s decision to remove the hyphen in some 16,000 words for the publication of the sixth edition” (p. 213). This could be considered as evidence for the OED being descriptive. In removing the hyphen, the OED is responding to language change. For example, the words ‘bumblebee’ and ‘ice cream’ have had their hyphens removed (sounds like a medical procedure!). Originally, they were hyphenated (’bumble-bee’, ‘ice-cream’). As Battistella (2007) states, “[d]escriptive grammar is the basis for dictionaries, which record changes in vocabulary and usage” (p.5).

The ‘prescriptivism vs descriptivism’ debate is likely to rumble on. Scone as in ‘gone’ or scone as in ‘cone’? It does not matter. As long as there are lashings of jam and cream then all is good!

GEMMA EVANS, English language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK

References

Battistella, E. L. (2005). Bad Language. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Cameron, D. (1995). Verbal hygiene. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Curzan, A. (2014). Fixing English: Prescriptivism and language history. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Horobin, S. (2013). Does spelling matter?. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

 

 

You say CONtroversy, I say conTROversy. JANA STAMMBERGER explores pronunciation prescriptions and descriptions

We can learn fixed rules in the field of science, which, if applied in the way we are taught, necessarily lead us to the correct result. Can the same circumstances be said about language?

Here, we are already at the core of a major debate.  The dominant view in the field of linguistics says that language is not an absolute set of rules. The conventions of language use are man-made rather than laid down by the laws of nature, and therefore keep changing –  and always have done (Curzan, 2014, p. 1). This view is also the “basis for dictionaries, which record changes in vocabulary and usage” (Battistella, 2007, p. 5). The declared aim of the Oxford English Dictionary is “to provide a brief, scientific account of the history and usage of all the words of the English language, wherever and whenever they were spoken”, and is therefore a record of the English language rather than an instruction on how to use it (OED online, 2018). Judgements about ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ and ‘good’ as opposed to ‘bad’ language are usually frowned upon by descriptivists.

In contrast, in his book Strictly English, Simon Heffer claims that the question if English can be good “is not rhetorical” (Heffer, 2010, p. xv). Prescriptivists like him make attempts to pin down one point in time where the language was allegedly “pure”, that is, correct. This they regard as the ‘standard’ that they make efforts to maintain or to get back to. However, this is not merely their own opinion. Heffer claims that “whether the linguistics experts like it or not, there remains an idea of “standard English” as it is spoken in Britain […], set by an educated class” (Heffer, 2010, p. xv).

Who belongs to this educated class? Bernard Lamb may be one of those people. Educated he is – given his large range of achievements, including BSc, PhD, DSc, FSB, CBiol and FRSM. This alone, of course, does not imply that he is a potential prescriptivist. Nor does his age (he is now in his late 70s) – although a prescriptive tendency often increases proportionally to age. This might be accounted for by the – in some respects quite rapid – change of language use, which is seen as a process of decay or “fall in standards”, to use Lamb’s very own words. But for more than 10 years he has been President of the Queen’s English Society which was “formed in 1972 by a small group of people who loved the English language and were concerned at the widespread deterioration in standards” (Queen’s English Society). The Society is leading campaigns to spread the teaching and use of what they call ‘proper English’.

There are different levels on which people criticise language. While the Queen’s English Society explicitly focuses on “written and spoken English”, both have to be looked at separately (Queen’s English Society, 2018, Standards). The English spelling system, for instance, has been fairly fixed for a couple of centuries, since during the 18th century efforts were made to “enshrin[e] English spelling to prevent further corruption” (Horobin, 2013, p. 144). The focus was on orthography as “this is the aspect of the language that is most easily regulated” (Horobin, 2013, p. 144). Pronunciation is a different matter, as it is much harder to standardise, which does not mean, of course, that the attempt has not been made. Would you pronounce the term ‘controversy’ with emphasis on the first or on the second syllable?  According to the OED, ” early editions of D. Jones Eng. Pronouncing Dict. give only first-syllable stress; later editions of Jones give second-syllable stress as a variant from at least ed. 8 (1947). J. C. Wells Longman Pronunc. Dict. (1990) noted that while among RP speakers the first-syllable stress probably still predominated, a majority of British speakers now favoured second-syllable stress” (OED Online, 2018). Obviously, both options have co-existed for at least decades, and the dominant or preferred use has changed over time.

So who determines how we should pronounce words? We do, said the BBC shortly after their foundation in the 1920s. Arthur Lloyd James, then member of the BBC Advisory Committee of Spoken English, condemned “the slurring of sounds, the missing of sounds, the untidy articulation of sounds” (Mugglestone, 2008, p. 212). The BBC was promoting an RP accent as the standard pronunciation, which is why it is still commonly referred to as BBC English. Yet, there has been a shift within the BBC, away from prescriptivism. Daniel Jones, also member of the Advisory Committee, wrote in the preface to the 1956 edition of the English Pronouncing Dictionary that  “no attempt was made to decide how people ought to pronounce”, and RP meant “merely widely understood pronunciation” and he did “not hold it up as a standard which everyone [was] recommended to adopt” (Wotschke, 2008, p. 97). These days the BBC are much more liberal when it comes to varieties of English. On the radio and on television, regional dialects are no exception among presenters.

This has led to sharp criticism and complaints by readers and institutions about “falling standards” and a “drop in quality” (Creighton, 2014). Whether they actively support it or not, a strong idea of a standard set to be kept by authorities remains to be present in people’s minds.

JANA STAMMBERGER, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK

References

Battistella, E.L. (2005). Bad language. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford UP.

Creighton, S. (2014, October 30). BBC stars who can’t say ‘aitch’: Corporation accused of falling standards after viewers highlight way number of presenters say the letter ‘H’. Daily Mail.

Curzan, A. (2014). Fixing English: Prescriptivism and language history.  Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Heffer, S. (2010). Strictly English. The correct way to write and why it matters. London, United Kingdom: Windmill Books.

Horobin, S. (2013). Does spelling matter?. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Jones, D. (1967). The Pronunciation of English (4th ed.). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge UP.

Mugglestone, L. (2008). Spoken English and the BBC: In the Beginning.  Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 33(2), 197-215.

OED online. (2018).  The OED and innovation. 

Queen’s English Society. (2018). Standards. Policy Document.

Queen’s English Society. (2018). Campaign. 

Wotschke, I. (2008). How educated English speak English. Lewiston NY, United States: The Edwin Mellen Press.

Standard English. Superior? Or just another fish in the SEa? JAMES RODGER tries to get the measure of this complex concept.

The belief that Standard English (SE) is superior to other varieties is controversial to say the least. On a whole, this can be linked to a wider debate, regarding whether ‘good’ and ‘bad’ English exists in general. Alongside concepts like ‘prescriptivism’, SE supports the existence of ‘good’ English – the consensus here being that the presence of a standard form shows there is a better way to use English. Without delving too far into wider debate, I am primarily interested in SE alone.  Specifically, I question whether or not it can be justified as a superior variety. Before diving head first into discussion, we must note that the term ‘SE’ is extremely subjective.

Twenty years ago John Honey caused controversy with his book Language is Power: The Story of Standard English and its enemies, where he asserted that SE is superior to other varieties. His book is an interesting read, as throughout he constantly criticises the idea of linguistic equality which states that “all languages and all dialects of any language are equally as good” (1997, p.5). To his credit, Honey backs this criticism up, drawing upon several supporting issues. Firstly, Honey mentions our education system, claiming that SE is the variety spoken by teachers, as well as the variety present in textbooks (1997, p. 40). Here, he suggests that SE must hold some form of superiority if it is the variety chosen for future generations to learn from.

Furthermore, Honey lauds the versatility of SE. By versatility, he explicitly refers to how SE can be used in the most formal and informal of occasions (1997, p.40). A perfect example comes from Andersson and Trudgill (1990, p.6) who refer to the term ‘informal SE’, exemplifying this through “he’s bust his collar bone”. Collectively, Honey implies that non-standard forms cannot be used in formal situations. Without being too contentious, I do see where he’s coming from.  Admittedly, it is difficult to imagine a Member of Parliament, for example, standing and speaking with a broad scouse dialect, throwing ‘las’ around casually!

As insightful as Honey’s views are, opposing arguments are equally as thought provoking. Bringing the concept of ‘linguistic equality’ into play, many linguists see SE as simply another variety. Initially, these linguists question the supposed superiority of SE which often occurs through misinterpretation of its label. For instance, Perera (1994, p.81) claims that many misinterpret the meaning of the word ‘standard’. As she points out, the dictionary definition of ‘standard’ is “a level of excellence or quality” (1994, p.81). In her eyes, people wrongly assume that SE complies to this definition and encompasses a form of superiority that other non-standard varieties do not have. On a whole, she is quick to disregard the superiority of SE. Somehow, I’m not as convinced. Surely, we can’t just succumb to the idea of linguistic equality because a few people may have gotten muddled up in their definitions? I think we need to dig deeper.

To do so, we must consider measures of superiority. Milroy and Milroy claim that as the superiority of one language to another is not amenable to rigorous proof, we cannot prove that one language is better than another (1999, p.13). For how can linguists, like Honey, claim the superiority of SE, when they cannot provide any physical proof or measures?

Fortifying their support for linguistic equality, Milroy and Milroy also claim that all languages and varieties have gaps in their system (1999, p.12). For example, SE has no grammatical resource for differentiating between singular and plural in the second person pronoun ‘you’. Comparatively, the non-standard variety Northern Irish English, does (1999, p.13). Indeed, this may not seem too problematic. Even still, the fact that SE can be classed as inferior to a non-standard variety almost dents senses of legitimacy we derive from Honey’s views. For how can we see something inferior, as superior?

My opinion? I do agree with the notion of linguistic equality to an extent. Predominantly, I fail to see how we can deem one variety as superior to the rest, when we have no empirical evidence to back this up. On the other hand, I also recognise the opposing point of view, particularly regarding the presence of SE in our educational system. Overall, however, I do not feel as though we have enough evidence to decisively classify SE as superior. Therefore, I am intrigued enough to pose the following question: What would need to happen for us all to openly accept SE as a superior variety?

JAMES RODGER, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK

References

Anderrson, LG and Trudgill, P. (1990). Bad Language. London: Penguin.

Honey, J. (1997). Language is Power, The Story of Standard English and its Enemies. Faber and Faber. London, United Kingdom .

Milroy, J., & Milroy, L. (1999). Authority in language: Investigating standard English. London, United Kingdom: Routledge & Keegan Paul.

Perera, K. (1994). Standard English: The debate. In S. Brindley (Ed.) (1994), Teaching English (pp. 79-88). Hove, United Kingdom: Psychology Press.

 

To prescribe or describe? That is the question. LAUREN HAUTON considers the obsession with whether ‘good’ or ‘bad’ English really exists

The prescriptivism versus descriptivism language debate has spanned the centuries. One definition of prescriptivism is “an approach, especially to grammar, that sets out rules for what is regarded as correct in language” (McArthur, 1996, p.263). Prescriptivists are those who criticise what they feel is the ‘incorrect’ use of language and set out rules on what they deem ‘correct’. Descriptivists adopt the view that language naturally varies, especially in terms of differing dialects and they “want to tell you how people actually do speak and write” (Huddleston and Pullum, 2002, p. 5) rather than criticise the non-standard use of English in, for instance, regional dialects. So is one viewpoint stronger than the other?

Worries about language variation and change can be traced as far back to 1490 when the pioneering printer, William Caxton complained that the English language was too variable. This is known as the beginning of the ‘complaint tradition’ (Milroy and Milroy, 1999: 27). Caxton selected the south-east midland area of Britain and adopted their specific dialect as the ‘standard’ based on political and academic prominence as well as linguistic factors (Milroy and Milroy, 1999: 27). Subsequently this caused numerous other grammarians and linguists to criticise the language and attempt to “fix the language that they deemed as being broken or in need of improvement” (Tieken-Boon Van Ostade, 2008: 21) as well as attempting to diminish any variability in the English language.

The complaint tradition has continued into the present day. It seems that there are two types of language critic within prescriptivism. According to Bex and Watts (1999: 19) “[t]here is the general public, […] who keep writing to the newspapers denouncing trivial mistakes in usage. On the other hand, there is a group of people who are said to have more enlightened attitudes based on scholarly research”. It seems that there are a vast amount of people within the general public who hold and project strong views on non-standard English, which they see as ‘bad’ English and the misuse of what they deem is ‘good’ English. They are sometimes labelled ‘grammar Nazis’ and are described in one on-line dictionary as “[s]omeone who insists on correcting or criticizing others for errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax, especially to a pedantic or self-righteous degree” (The Free Dictionary, 2015). There are also many scholars who hold this same view. Neville Gwynne, for instance,  is responsible for the best-selling Gwynne’s Grammar: The Ultimate Introduction to Grammar and the Writing of Good English (2013). He holds very strong beliefs on the use of what he deems ‘correct grammar’ and states that “happiness depends at least partly on good grammar” (Gwynne, 2013: 6).

The descriptivist view on language is somewhat different to this. Trudgill is a descriptivist who criticises prescriptivism by stating that it “is based on a false premise, and it is a waste of time: it does not work, and all it succeeds in doing is making speakers and writers insecure and inarticulate” (2016, p. 25). Descriptivism in many ways believes that variation in language is inevitable and “when most speakers use a form that our grammar says is incorrect, there is at least a prima facie case that it is the grammar that is wrong, not the speakers” (Huddleston and Pullum, 2002: 7). Descriptivists also criticise prescriptivists for believing that “only formal style is grammatically correct” (Huddleston and Pullum, 2002: 8). Descriptivists hold the view that grammaticality does not depend on high formality and non-standard varieties of language are still in many cases grammatical. However, descriptivism m be described as too laid back in some cases as there are many instances where linguistic rules are needed for clarity understanding.

So who is correct? That is the question. As a student of English Language I am taught to write in standard English and so in this case I suppose I am following many prescriptivist rules. However, I also side with the descriptivist, especially in terms of spoken English. Many non-standard regional varieties use forms that are not standard and sometimes may not be grammatically correct, which could be seen to some as ‘bad’ English. This leads us to question, if they are understandable does this really matter? In my opinion, a mix of both prescriptivism and descriptivism is probably best as this accounts for the vast amount of ways we use language on a day to day basis. The notion of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ English is merely personal opinion.

LAUREN HAUTON, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK

References

Bex, T., & Watt, R. J. (1999). Standard English: The widening debate. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.  

Gwynne, N. (2013). Gwynne’s grammar: The ultimate introduction to grammar and the writing of good English. London, United Kingdom: Ebury Press .

Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

McArthur, T. (1996). Descriptivism and prescriptivism. In T. Mcarthur. The Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language. (2006). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Milroy, J., & Milroy, L. (1999). Authority in language: Investigating standard English. London, United

The Free Dictionary. (2015). Grammar Nazis. 

Trudgill, P. (2016). Dialect matters: Respecting vernacular language. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 

Tieken-Boon Van Ostade, I. (2008). Grammars, Grammarians and Grammar Writing in Eighteenth-Century England. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co.