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.