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